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

261–270 of 309 posts

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

#261

Post by dragonwriter »

ryanx435 wrote: post #231
jadedhacker wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What part of that is renting

The part where a credit card is involved. It's not directly renting equipment, it's renting money to buy the equipment in anticipation of earning new money to replace the rented money, but it's isomorphic to renting equipment, which is rather the central point to the idea of capital as marketable goods rather than entailed property (or, commonly, an appurtenance to entailed land) which distinguishes capitalism from feudalism.

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

#262

Post by dorgo »

mayniac wrote: post #249
sjg007 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should but you know personal responsibility and all that jazz. The wealthy only care when the pitchforks come out. The biggest achievement of the wealthy has been to convince the middle class to eat itself.

>The wealthy only care when the pitchforks come out. I can't find the link right now, but there was a TedX talk by a multi-millionaire arguing that he wants to be taxed more. And it's a growing trend, a lot of very wealthy people are starting to plead for higher taxes. The reasoning being if wealth inequality continues to widen, eventually it won't be a case of shaking the rich to empty their pockets a bit, it will b…

Why do rich people want to pay more taxes? Why not directly invest in improving the situation of the poor? This way they remain in control of how money is spent. Tax money will just be spent for more wars.

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

#263

Post by zbeat »

somerando wrote: post #130
georgrwasington wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Musk comment was more about how much of NASA had turned into a jobs program than anything. Take a very simple example, the BMV. We've had good internet now for a couple decades and you still can't do basic transactions without going to the BMV in the middle of the day. Almost all other government agencies have been entirely immune to technological change as well. They are, jobs programs.

What is the BMV?

BMV = Bureau of Motor Vehicles (if you’re from Indiana, Maine, or Ohio). Most of us know it as the DMV.

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

#264

Post by kamaal »

sjg007 wrote: post #19
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…

We should but you know personal responsibility and all that jazz. The wealthy only care when the pitchforks come out. The biggest achievement of the wealthy has been to convince the middle class to eat itself.

>>The wealthy only care when the pitchforks come out.

Generally by that time the wealthy are long out of the country. In fact in most revolutions where people imagine they will take from the rich, people are generally in for a shock when they realize the rich are long gone. And now the door for a peaceful taxation is also gone.

>>The biggest achievement of the wealthy has been to convince the middle class to eat itself.

The wealthy have to convince nothing. Middle class is full of people who want instant gratification, and are bad at savings and investments.

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

#265

Post by onecooldev24 »

aarongray wrote: post #111
onecooldev24 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats exactly how asset managers construct a portfolio thats suppose to track inflation.

Inflation of a portfolio of iPhones is completely different than inflation that an average American pays due to cost of living changes in the economy. You're cherrypicking a hypothetical scenario that doesn't apply at all to the example at hand, which is the average person's ability to pay for emergencies that arise related to living expenses.

All I am saying is that $400 in 2013 is not worth $430 today, Its wort a LOT MORE! Stop arguing like a idiot.

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

#266

Post by kamaal »

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…

No body can be taught common sense. The remainder is just arithmetic, like addition and subtraction.

You have two apples, you eat one. How many apples remain?

The part about delayed gratification is pure psychology. And its just personal training.

I'm not from the US, I am Indian, these problems are universal. Most people can't handle freedom, that is all there is to it.

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

#267

Post by your-nanny »

yermom wrote: post #47
xena wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about people whose life situations constantly rip money out of them and their pay is just fundamentally insufficient to cover their expenses?

nah, they should just work harder

Forgot your sarc tags

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

#268

Post by scarface74 »

toofy wrote: post #237
scarface74 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think the "populists" who want to "tax the rich" are going to stop At the 1%? It's not the 1% they despise - as evidence by the election - it's "the liberal west coast elites". The other 80% with households making less than $116K year would just as likely start taxing everyone who makes more than that. Have you noticed that most tax deductions that are designed to help the middle class phase out in the $12…

> You really think the "populists" who want to "tax the rich" are going to stop At the 1%? Yep. Most people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between a middle class 2 bedroom house and someone who owns 15 vacation homes, a private jet, and private islands. The real question is whether or not middle class people will punch down and behave as if no one can distinguish between a multi billionaire and and a normal…

Someone living in a trailer park in thier mid 40s will see my 5 bedroom house in the burbs - something any developer with 8+ years experience can afford in my market - just as out of reach as what the millionaire can afford. They will just as willingly vote for a politician to raise my taxes as they would the billionaire.

How many people making the median household income of $60K a year will object to a politician saying tax everyone extra making a household income of $116K- the top 20% of household income?

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

#269

Post by scarface74 »

mayniac wrote: post #248
nightski wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm currently below that threshold. But I could choose to expand my business, maybe hire a few people and create some jobs and productive economic output. But if you are going to tax me heavily for that then no, I'll probably just stick to what I am doing and not bother.

I'm not entirely convinced by your line of thinking. Firstly is your sole motivation for your business financial? Because if so you may as well sell it, buy property and let it out, you'll earn a comfortable living and if you use a letting agent you can get them to deal with the renters and do almost zero work, bar having to file taxes once a year (and hey you can get an accountant to do that for you). Even ignoring…

Point I'm getting at is that very few people start a business solely for financial reasons, there's usually some level of passion involved.

You really think that the average small business person working from themselves are doing it out of "passion" rather than that's their best alternative? Many small business owners work as much as possible to avoid having to pay someone else, hardly ever take vacations, and if given the choice, I'm sure would rather work in a nice comfortable white collar job if they could make the same amount of money.

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

#270

Post by your-nanny »

ridgeguy wrote: post #226
dionidium wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, nobody wants to hear this, but basic food is damn near free. I get it, I get it -- it's just a silly thing Sean Hannity says. It also happens to be true. Nobody has to eat cat food to save money. Have you priced beans and rice lately? It barely costs anything .

Beans and rice ≠ protein, and yes, carbs are giveaways. But that's not all good. Anecdote here, but I knew two competent, capable seniors (each on Social Security) who in fact ate canned pet food because it was a source of meat that they otherwise couldn't afford. I doubt I knew the only two people in America who do that.

Beans have a ton of protein (@15g/cup) plus a lot of fiber.
Post reply on HN