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

Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 390 posts

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#311

Post by amf12 »

zaroth wrote: post #306
myself248 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at percentile X would substantially improve their financial security if they spent as much as percentile X-10 This is spot-on. It's worked for me -- I didn't have a solid handle on my finances when I moved out of my parents' place, so I lowballed and found a place I knew I could afford even with a pretty pessimistic view of financial discipline. Nine years later I'm living in the same place, and I've gotten a raise…

I read this sanctimonious nonsense in every thread on spending and saving. The only point you missed was saying that you only spend $5 a day on food. Tell me this dear sir or madam... 1) How many kids do you have? 2) How much did you spend on healthcare in the last 5 years? Financial shocks exceeding savings coupled with a system which requires drawing on high APY credit in order to absorb those shocks I think is a m…

> Financial shocks exceeding savings

The point that person is making is, if a person who makes more than the minimum wage is to reduce spending to 90% of the current spending they would be better able to absorb these unforeseen financial shocks.

> How many kids do you have?

This is another thing I notice (outside and in the article too). A lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck have 3 or more kids. Naturally more kids increase costs. Now I am by no means saying people shouldn't have more kids, but that number should depend on their financial situation too.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#312

Post by refurb »

claydavisss wrote: post #217
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not a "twisted form of capitalism". The problem is us . In the 1950s, a family could live on one blue-collar salary. You could probably live on a single blue-collar salary today, too - but you'd live like people did in the 1950s. You would eat out very rarely. You wouldn't have college debt because you wouldn't have a college degree. You'd only have one car. You'd have only one TV for the whole house.…

the 1950s in the US were a unique blip in all of modern history. at no other time before or since did a working class population have it so good.

Having most of the Western world destroyed except for your own country certainly helped.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#313

Post by amf12 »

extra88 wrote: post #158
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…

I vaguely agree with that sentiment but I don't understand why you chose to bring it up in connection to a government employee not getting paid because of the government shutdown.

Yeah bad example. A better example would have been this:

> Sol Smith, chair of liberal arts at a Southern California college, said he landed his job after earning three degrees. But with four daughters and mounting health care costs, he said, saving just isn’t possible.

Why do people have 3+ kids without thinking about their financial situation?

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#314

Post by the8472 »

lordnacho wrote: post #191
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…

Anyone can lose their job, do you want everyone to not have a kid if they don't have the 300k or whatever it costs already in the bank? Even then, you could get ill, or someone could sue you. Boom, money gone, kid still on the way.

> or someone could sue you. Boom, money gone, kid still on the way.

There ought to be a way that lets one put that money into a non-forfeitable account in the name of the future child if one is on the way.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#315

Post by enlyth »

jseliger wrote: post #151
jondubois wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because all the surplus goes into rents. If your job depends on you living in a big city, then you need to pay a fortune to get a tiny fraction of the quality of life that your parents had and that you had as a child growing up. A lot of corporate jobs these days force people to live like rats in big cities.

A lot of corporate jobs these days force people to live like rats in big cities. This is a problem with zoning: https://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B... , not with "corporate jobs." If we fix zoning, costs will go down. Los Angeles is instructive. In 1960, it was zoned for 10 million people: https://la.curbed.com/2015/4/8/9972362/everything-wrong-with... . Today, it is zoned for 4.3 million. Ha…

I'm curious, do you know if this would this be the same case for London?

I recently started working in central London and need to move closer soon; when I check the rent prices every time they just make me want to cry even though I've got a decent tech salary.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#316

Post by dragonwriter »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #230
dragonwriter wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the number of disruptive students that prevent any learning is vastly less. The evidence doesn't really support that, though; students in a “bad” district don't have worse performance than students with similar background in a “better” district (whether because of distraction or any other reason), “better” districts just have more students with backgrounds which are correlated with educational success, of which the…

The OECD report (this one: http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternation... ) would like you to believe that student background does not determine student performance. They do find a correlation, but it varies substantially between countries, suggesting that other factors are at play. According to that report the important factors are student and teacher discipline and school atmosphere, and on can eas…

> They do find a correlation, but it varies substantially between countries, suggesting that other factors are at play.

Sure, but we’re talking about what explains variation between school districts in the same state in the US, not variation among OECD countries. I'm not saying that education policy and practice can't have a difference and doesn't globally, I'm saying there is virtually no evidence that the difference within districts that people in the US might be choosing between is driven by much of anything beyond background.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#318

Post by diminoten »

war1025 wrote: post #289
diminoten wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just sounds penny wise, pound foolish. Starbucks isn't breaking the bank, something larger is. And your credit card policy hurts your family, to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.

Starbucks might not be breaking the bank, but it and the 10 other "not breaking the bank" habits all added together very well could be. Also in order to same "thousands" every year, you either need to be spending a significant amount of money, or be carrying a significant amount of debt. Neither are strictly necessary. Avoiding it is a good plan for a lot of people.

The logic you just gave is the classic penny wise logic, but the reality is you can have as much Starbucks as you want if you stop buying more house or car or education than you actually need.

Fucking up big decisions is how Starbucks matters, and one of those fuck ups is to refuse to learn how to use a credit card.

People like to pretend constant denial of small pleasure is what makes a difference because martyrdom feels righteous, but the reality is it's a huge waste of energy, dollar-per-effort wise. It's not the smart way to live a thrifty life.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#319

Post by colechristensen »

leoedin wrote: post #27
perfmode wrote: post #6

Don’t discount the weight of emotional trauma and the self-sabotaging habits it has the potential to engender. Most people are slaves to their limbic systems. Most people don’t have self-education or resources to seek the help they need to fix these underlying problems. Society does them no favors. Media and advertising are designed to promote consumption. And not even healthy consumption. The idea that we are black…

I think the very fact that people in wildly different circumstances are living paycheck to paycheck is a huge flag that this isn't as simple a problem as "they don't get paid enough". Income and expenses are intricately linked by psychology. It's almost irrelevant what your paycheck is, if you're prone to this problem then somehow expenses will always rise to meet it. If expenses weren't actually determined by payche…

I assume it's just rent seeking, services which are allowed by governments to increase regardless of utility because that's what people will pay.

People will pay more for the basic needs until they can't any more. Mostly with housing.

I don't know how to fix it, but I guess it would be enormous taxes on land owned but used by somebody else and selling land to someone else. Basically making real estate and finance only viable as charitable institutions (or something at least significantly in that direction). More or less impossible, but that's life.

Post reply on HN