Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 309 posts

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#141

Post by TheCoelacanth »

integration wrote: post #48

40% of America’s lowest-income families’ consumption goes to luxuries. The bigger problem is American’s terrible spending habits not lack of real income. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g...

Where luxuries and necessities are defined as

> For its part, the Deutsche Bank report explicitly defined luxuries as goods or services consumed in greater proportions as a person’s income increases and necessities as those goods or services that make up a smaller proportion of spending as a person’s income increases.

In other words, the whole study is complete nonsense because those definitions are ridiculous and completely detached from any sensible definition of those words.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#142

Post by rexaliquid »

integration wrote: post #113
georgrwasington wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Poor people live in food deserts and buy 5000 calorie dinners for $2 at Dollar General. It's hardly discretionary to try to feed yourself real food. Now let's tie in the cost of healthcare associated with eating cheap junk food and you've got a problem. This is like an argument with someone who denies global warming.

Unless someone is starving, spending more on food as income rises is discretionary. A proper food budget is stable, it should not change as someone earns more money. As someone who ate well on minimum wage, you’re not going to convince me low-income families can’t afford food in America if they’re properly budgeting.

If you don't mind me asking, how long ago was your experience with minimum wage? Also, did you have access to a store where you could purchase fresh fruits and vegetables?

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#143

Post by dragonwriter »

integration wrote: post #113
georgrwasington wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Poor people live in food deserts and buy 5000 calorie dinners for $2 at Dollar General. It's hardly discretionary to try to feed yourself real food. Now let's tie in the cost of healthcare associated with eating cheap junk food and you've got a problem. This is like an argument with someone who denies global warming.

Unless someone is starving, spending more on food as income rises is discretionary. A proper food budget is stable, it should not change as someone earns more money. As someone who ate well on minimum wage, you’re not going to convince me low-income families can’t afford food in America if they’re properly budgeting.

> Unless someone is starving, spending more on food as income rises is discretionary

It's also not discretionary if at lower income levels they receive a greater share of direct food aid that isn't counted in their spending because they never exchange money or a money-denominated voucher for it.

> As someone who ate well on minimum wage, you’re not going to convince me low-income families can’t afford food in America if they’re properly budgeting.

Many of the poor:

(1) Aren't able to find work (and may not be able to work; permanent disability is a thing, and positively correlated with poverty),

(2) May not work find full time work when they work, and

(3) May be supporting non-working (and unable for age or other reasons to work) dependents on their part-time, intermittent, minimum wage income.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#144

Post by jadedhacker »

alasdair_ wrote: post #137
jadedhacker wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The piece you're missing is that none of this is a mistake, the entire economy is designed to do this. Apathy and hoping it'll get better will if anything make it worse (not that I'm implying that's your position). The only thing that will make it better is demanding that things change. This means mass unionization, strikes, worker owned businesses, protests, leftist politicians like Sanders and Corbyn, and a whole p…

>the entire economy is designed to do this Unless you are a firm believer in the power of the Illuminati, we have as close to the opposite of a planned (and thus designed) economy as one can get in the present day. Just because a behavior or other feature in a complex system is emergent doesn't mean the system was initially designed that way.

I am a firm believer in corporate consolidation, so yes, those smoke filled rooms do exist. However, you can consider this a systemic critique of capitalism which systemically concentrates wealth. The intention doesn't matter if the system is set up to create a particular result.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#146

Post by sugarpile »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #34

I had a coach that when I'd ask about how to get out of tricky situations he'd often respond with something along the lines of "Bro, you f'd up a long time ago"... I don't think 40% is some magic number to begin hysteria. Neither is $400. Selling something to cover your expenses might be a blessing in disguise if the thing you sell is a liability in the first place (ex: a car you cant really afford). My observation o…

Was he a BJJ coach?

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#147

Post by jadedhacker »

pishpash wrote: post #139
jadedhacker wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The piece you're missing is that none of this is a mistake, the entire economy is designed to do this. Apathy and hoping it'll get better will if anything make it worse (not that I'm implying that's your position). The only thing that will make it better is demanding that things change. This means mass unionization, strikes, worker owned businesses, protests, leftist politicians like Sanders and Corbyn, and a whole p…

All you're going to do with that is to piss off the upper middle class, not the people who actually got fat on the backs of the poor and who are so far ahead of the situation that you're never getting that money back. It's gone. The only equalizer left is massive inflation, which may happen for other reasons.

Don't despair comrade, the revolution is coming (we must hope). Trump and Sanders both showed that the citizenry are restless and are ready to demand (some kind of) change.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#148

Post by pishpash »

twblalock wrote: post #64
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot possibly comprehend how could anyone consider this situation and go "yeah, this is surely stable in the long run".

In the historical long run, few people have ever had financial security until the 20th century. People have much more financial security now than in, for example, the 19th century when there was no welfare safety net or bank deposit insurance. Yes, it sucks to have trouble coming up with $400 for an emergency. But it's not a serious threat to the ongoing stability of society.

Only because of social programs. If those are gutted all bets are off.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#149

Post by s73v3r_ »

cabaalis wrote: post #7
cryptoz wrote: post #3

This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class / rich and wealth people and businesses could extract more wealth out of the middle and lower classes than they do now, if the lower classes were more stable and secure. In the US especially, but nearly everywhere, there are hoards of people trying to lower or eliminate social services, basic science research, etc, with the dog-whistle clai…

I am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another.

"Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another."

I posit that this is not true in the least; they just get upset at the idea of a policy that isn't targeted at giving them the upper hand. Otherwise, they're perfectly fine with policies that favor one group (them) over another.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#150

Post by mid »

johnm1019 wrote: post #2

I think we as a nation should consider this an issue of national security. This type of financial instability in such a large percentage of the population could lead to making short-sighted or bad decisions in tough times, increased violence, increased rates of incarceration (both of those increasing the cost of government for all), among many other things. The reasons for it are multi-faceted I'm sure. I hope voters…

Spin. From the actual survey data at https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/files/SH..., page 6:

Overall, which one of the following best describes how well you are managing financially these days?

    14  (0.1%): Refused
   893  (7.2%): Finding it difficult to get by
 2,395 (19.2%): Just getting by
 4,930 (39.6%): Doing okay
 4,215 (33.9%): Living comfortably
Post reply on HN