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

211–220 of 309 posts

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

#211

Post by dionidium »

skookumchuck wrote: post #208
dionidium wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A version of this comment appears every time this is discussed. This isn’t what we’re talking about. These aren’t liquidity problems. People really just don’t have the money.

It's literally what the article is talking about. I included the quote. I suggest they are misinterpreting their data, and are measuring the wrong things. It's like that daft statistic a few years back that 40% of corporations don't pay any income tax. This raised all sorts of righteous hysteria. Never mind that 40% of corporations lost money that year, and income taxes are not due when you lose money.

Maybe the best thing I can do here is concede that "can you find $400 for an emergency" is an imprecise question that this article doesn't (and can't) answer.

I think I know what it's saying (probably because I have a lot of experience with the type of people I'm imagining) and you guys think you know it's saying something else (because of your own experiences having money that's inaccessible), but, ultimately, the question is too imprecise for either of our claims.

So, yes, I strongly suspect I'm right -- "selling something" is pretty plainly not referring to financial instruments -- but it's true that it's more intuition than fact.

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

#212

Post by stevenwoo »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #62
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 have yet to see a UBI proposal that provided non-trivial amounts of money and yet was not simply financially impossible. For example, there are over 300M (300,000,000) people in the US. To provide $1000 per year would require $300B. But that's less than $100/month. If you're homeless, that might be enough that you don't starve. But it's not enough that you can go to a doctor and eat. It's sure not enough that you c…

Alaska benefits from the petroleum fund but they have what could be termed a UBI since every citizen is eligible after a few months. Studies have found the support from even the small sum is enough to help people counterintuitively try to find more work. (Possibly due to people being too poor to even transport themselves to areas with work without the UBI help.) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/finland-has-been-giving-68...

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

#213

Post by FooHentai »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #170
vkou wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens when those 25% retire or can no longer work? They eat cat food on their meager social security payments.

I’m skeptical that this happens much. It reeks of urban legend. Now, I’m sure some seniors do this, but I suspect it’s due mental issues rather than fiscal concerns. Is cat food even cheaper than really cheap canned food?

>I’m skeptical that this happens much.

http://www.wboc.com/story/23662934/some-seniors-in-kent-coun...

"Mr. Speaker, it was reported to me that there are seniors in my district who eat dog food when their food stamps run out,” she said. “I was appalled and went to see for myself, and I was dumbfounded."

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/congresswoman-some-my-c...

>I’m sure some seniors do this, but I suspect it’s due mental issues

"A woman in her 80's was eating dog food until a neighbor took her to a food pantry."

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/16/nyregion/fear-of-hunger-s...

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

#214

Post by devonkim »

headmelted wrote: post #56
ralusek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But personal responsibility is actually an important concept. It is completely unacceptable to not have $400 on reserve for an emergency as a functioning adult. That is a situation that can only be achieved by poor decision making and a lack of personal responsibility. Any strategy that is employed to remedy this has to contend with the fact that the individuals who need to have this situation remedied for themselves…

Spoken as someone well north of the poverty line. The reason for some people not having the money around is undoubtedly poor decision making, but for a great many others they simply have no gainful employment, no prospects of obtaining gainful employment and are often trapped in debt spirals due to past financial desperation. I'm real happy for you that you're so far removed from their situation that none of this occ…

The problem with being poor is that it is extremely taxing on both your time, your ability to make rational decisions, and even IQ. Being poor is, in effect, a disability that keeps one from being able to make it out of that situation itself. Depression and many other mental conditions are treated similarly in American society where we oftentimes point to people that are successful with depression and ignore the sheer massive weight that depression by and large keeps most of its sufferers from achieving success.

The whole individual agency and moral superiority complex of American culture is more and more sickening to me as I grow older and see how most people simply with a rational set of actions and existing opportunities better off not pursuing what used to be the better options due to structural problems. Endless optimism only works so far for attitudes that help with success until you’re truly at a rock bottom point and nobody wants to be near someone that’s failed so much out of social niceties alone.

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

#215

Post by jadedhacker »

scarface74 wrote: post #210
ryanx435 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marx's labels are so outdated it doesn't make sense to use them in our modern economy.

I agree. When a couple of developers can start a software company with nothing but a credit card and an AWS account the concept of "capital" has changed a lot.

I have a feeling this idea is deceptive. Renting equipment has existed time immemorial.

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

#216

Post by Florin_Andrei »

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.

I'm pretty sure most people would not be okay with going back to the 19th century living conditions, to say nothing of the medieval era or before that.

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

#218

Post by gizmo686 »

dionidium wrote: post #199
skookumchuck wrote: post #195

> Those who don't have the cash on hand say they'd have to cover it by borrowing or selling something. Be careful about concluding that these people are poor. I'm not poor, and I have no cash. Everything is invested. Piling up cash in a savings account just means it'll get eaten away by inflation. This is hardly uncommon. If you've got a house with a large payment, you aren't poor, even though you may not have any ca…

A version of this comment appears every time this is discussed. This isn’t what we’re talking about. These aren’t liquidity problems. People really just don’t have the money.

That may very well be true. But the point still stands that "can you find $400 for an emergency" does not measure what you think it measures.

Having said that, it is still problematic that %40 of the population answers no to this; and I suspect that in most cases it is actually the case that they simply do not have the wealth. In fact, I think the phrasing in this article is far less problematic than the "in savings" phrasing one often sees.

Further, I would go so far as to say that people, who have wealth but cannot cover an unexpected $400 expanse are genuinely victims of poor financial planning. If you are in that position, open a line of credit. Most credit cards will give you at least 1 month of 0% interest; and if you have equity in your house you should be able to use that to secure another low interest line of credit if you need to. Sure, you don't want to rely on either of these for day to day expenses, but they are a fine solution to solve the liquidity problem of emergencies.

EDIT: I suppose my solution may fall under the catagory of "borrowing" which the article says is how the quoted %40 would cover such an expense. I read that line as talking about borrowing from friends/family.

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

#219

Post by gerdesj »

gerdesj wrote: post #82
Chyzwar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is incredibly rich country. Every second teenager is carrying iPhone worth more than yearly income in a large portion of the world. It is all thanks to capitalism. Problem is that most US population is not educated/smart and easy to manipulate into crazy consumption. UBI will not fix it, it will make it worse. Even putting more money into education is not really a clear solution. You need to understand that mi…

Every second teenager is carrying iPhone - are you sure? [Citation needed] Problem is that most US population is not educated/smart and easy to manipulate into crazy consumption - conspicuous consumption: a fault that can be levied far wider than just the US. The US has a well documented and understood education system and their unis are respected across the world. You need to understand that middle class is gone. -…

Cool beans. I now have all the information I need. Thank you kids.

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

#220

Post by gerdesj »

gerdesj wrote: post #115
qsymmachus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like poorer Americans are blowing their paychecks on designer handbags, but the article makes it clear that that's not what's happening. "Luxury goods" as economists define them are not what you'd expect. To quote the article: > It’s worth noting that by the specialized nomenclature of the dismal science, even eating at McDonald’s is a luxury — that is, we do it more as our incomes rise — while smok…

while smoking and lottery-ticket buying are categorized as necessities. I gave up smoking a couple of months ago after 30 odd years - I now feel rather stupid, given how clever I really am. I have never been a gambler but the parallels are very clear to me and I have a couple of friends who are gamblers and display the same stupidity. I keep my gob shut. I do not agree with the definition of necessity implied above.…

sigh fags are cigarettes and bandits are coin operated gambling thingies.
Post reply on HN