Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common • Hacker News Board

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#171

Post by fromthestart » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

metabagel wrote: post #137

fromthestart wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You don't think that you are lucky to have been born into an upper middle class family, without any serious psychological issues? You know nothing of my psychology or my personal struggles. It is infuriating to hear people tell me how easy I had it simply because now my parents are well off. Kindly take your classist prejudice elsewhere. My parents were lower middle class until about the time I went off to college.…

"You know nothing of my psychology or my personal struggles." For someone lacking in empathy, you played the victim card really quickly here.

This has nothing to do with victimhood. This is about judging individuals based on percieved group advantages. It is as much of a fallacy as judging an individual according to race or gender.

I'm not even implying personal struggle, only that one cannot judge the validity of an opinion based on percieved advantages from on one nebulous trait without considering individual disadvantages.

>For someone lacking in empathy

You mistake objectivity for coldness. Further, you apparently cannot differentiate between unfortunate events and poor decision making.

Please stop continuing the personal attacks that the other poster initiated.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#172

Post by zozbot123 » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:02 PM UTC

in_cahoots wrote: post #142

sys_64738 wrote: post #128

Show us your incoming wage and outgoings then we can discuss whether you are living paycheck to paycheck. Living paycheck to paycheck means your needs are not being met rather than your wants. Cable (free OTA), eating out at all (pack sandwiches), heat (wear more clothing), etc, are all things which need to be cut if you think your outgoings are greater than income.

In many parts of the country, cutting heat is impossible. Disregarding the fact that it’s nearly impossible to find enough clothing to stay warm long-term when the temperature drops below 20 degrees Fahrenheit or so, pipes will start to burst when the indoor temperature falls below freezing as well.

Look, if you're in that sort of climate, just build a rig and start mining coin, and you'll get paid for heating your place! Can't beat that.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#173

Post by wtracy » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:02 PM UTC

max76 wrote: post #166

wtracy wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people who spend thousands of dollars on Candy Crush. There will always be something more. Also, I have to point out, if you had made that list a hundred years ago, electricity wouldn't have been on it. Luxuries have a way of becoming necessities.

If there wasn't a need to buy rent, food, transportation, electrity, and communication I wonder if Candy Crush would have micro transactions.

I would say yes, because the developers would find something equally inane to spend money on.

Perhaps a more relevant example: Look at the bottled water industry. Even if all our creature comforts are provided for free, someone will pay for a "premium" version.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#174

Post by Kalium » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:07 PM UTC

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #123

vailprogrammer wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it. How would the bank make its money? The standard exploitative practices of other banks, just with smaller fees ($5 overdraft fee instead of $37?, or lower interest rate spreads?) or just charge $50 a year, and do away with those fees? Would that lead to too many people taking advantage of it?

To be honest, I don't know what the business model would be, but it seems like it should be in the banks long-term best interest to create rich, prosperous people with invest-able funds. They are literally in a position to create their own wealthy customer base. What would it actually do for a big bank, if it were the exception rather than the rule, that their low/middle-class account holders had enough savings to co…

> To be honest, I don't know what the business model would be, but it seems like it should be in the banks long-term best interest to create rich, prosperous people with invest-able funds. They are literally in a position to create their own wealthy customer base.

You're right! It's absolutely in the best interest of a bank to help create a prosperous, happy, long-term customer with investable funds.

Of course, this seems like it would only apply to banks that manage investments effectively - which is the bigger ones. And they'd have to do so at least as well as specialist investment management funds, otherwise anyone who this bank helps become wealthy will invest with someone else. And they'd have to be able to successfully help people become wealthy at scale, instead of making it marginally easy for people to keep their heads above water.

Also, it might be worth considering that many people are at least somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of a robot managing all their finances for them. I use a bunch of automation to do a lot of the stuff you've mentioned, but it's all stuff I set up myself for the control that gives me.

Being as good at low-cost effective investing as Vanguard while convincing people to be happy with robots managing all their money and making people wealthy over time seems like it could be a tall order.

> Are market forces so screwy, that all this would actually be bad for the banks bottom line, in the long run?

Depends. How much are you willing to pay, each and every month, for this set of features? So far you seem to want it for free, with the idea that it could become profitable for this bank's investment arm three or four decades down the road. That's a rather long timescale to gamble on and a fairly substantial set of costs against a known successful business model.

Again, you're completely right! It's so painfully obviously in the interests of banks to encourage their customers to be happy, wealthy, long-term customers that it's very odd that they don't seem interested in investing in it. Are they just all collectively oblivious? Or could there maybe be something else worth considering?

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#175

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:08 PM UTC

mac01021 wrote: post #124

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #28

As someone who didn't learn the very basics of personal finance at the optimal point in life, I feel like it should be part of our standardized education. I'd like to think that would make things at least marginally better. Another thing I'd love to see, would be for banks to fundamentally reorient themselves to be their customer's advocates/financial guardians, instead of being yet another party encouraging people t…

So, when you log into the Bank of America website, you want to be greeted every time with things like the following? "Dude, maybe you should sell this car that you're paying $450 per month for and get a $7000 used car." "Did you know that between starbucks and happy hour you spend an average of $120 per week, and that amounts to 10% of your take-home pay?" "You currently spend $2500 per month on rent. If you downsize…

[deleted]

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#176

Post by sputr » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

Most comments in this thread are about learning to budget/control finances.

I would just like to point out what I call "The IT bubble". We all make money here. Most of us make good money. Our social circles are filled with people making money.

Most people do not have this privilege. Below a certain threshold there is no such thing as budgeting/finances. It's just survival. You're not gonna budget because you can't save enough to do anything real with it, so you use it to make your life just a little easier. In my country (Slovenia, aka. EU member country) over 70% of people make less than the "average pay" and most of those make minimal pay.

At least here the problem isn't financial illiteracy. The problem is that they (a) make way too little to live off and (b) worker protections have eroded past any sane point.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#177

Post by dang » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

vailprogrammer wrote: post #78

fromthestart wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why not? Self control isn't some moral, righteousness, trait. Exhibit B. Personal responsibility is increasingly fading from the collective American vocabulary, and articles like these, which normalize nonsensical, narcicisstic decisions, like throwing away a decade pursuing 3 low demand liberal arts degrees, make the media complicit. Self control absolutely is a moral, righteous trait, particularly because those wi…

You don't think that you are lucky to have been born into an upper middle class family, without any serious psychological issues? Someone born with mental problems is automatically an immoral, bad person? > Somehow other cultures tend to place virtue in the development of discipline, a personal responsibility which can mitigate all kinds of external erosions of self control. But what about all of the social safety ne…

Please don't do tedious flamewars on HN.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#178

Post by dang » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

fromthestart wrote: post #83

vailprogrammer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think that you are lucky to have been born into an upper middle class family, without any serious psychological issues? Someone born with mental problems is automatically an immoral, bad person? > Somehow other cultures tend to place virtue in the development of discipline, a personal responsibility which can mitigate all kinds of external erosions of self control. But what about all of the social safety ne…

>You don't think that you are lucky to have been born into an upper middle class family, without any serious psychological issues? You know nothing of my psychology or my personal struggles. It is infuriating to hear people tell me how easy I had it simply because now my parents are well off. Kindly take your classist prejudice elsewhere. My parents were lower middle class until about the time I went off to college.…

Please don't do tedious flamewars on HN.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#179

Post by taurath » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

sputr wrote: post #176

Most comments in this thread are about learning to budget/control finances. I would just like to point out what I call "The IT bubble". We all make money here. Most of us make good money. Our social circles are filled with people making money. Most people do not have this privilege. Below a certain threshold there is no such thing as budgeting/finances. It's just survival. You're not gonna budget because you can't sa…

If it takes 80% of your income to live at a base level of hierarchy of needs, you need roughly doubled income to be able to actually save money, and have it not be wasted away on this or that random emergency, which is going to be more frequent.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#180

Post by buro9 » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

throwaway10711 wrote: post #153

> “My husband is a Park Ranger in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and he had to sign his furlough papers,” one woman tweeted. ”We have a 4 yr. old and a 4-month-old, and we don’t know when his next check will come. Mortgage is due, Christmas 2 days away.” Unpopular opinion. It's _really_ hard for me to feel bad for families that have or are expecting kids without consulting their financials first. I believe…

> Unpopular opinion

Because children aren't just for the wealthy