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

Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

#111

Post by marcosdumay »

yladiz wrote: post #52
zamfi wrote: post #43

This measure strikes me as less informative than a measure of how much of Americans' spending is discretionary (i.e., not on "essentials" like rent, food, utilities, internet, transportation, clothing, etc.). One tricky piece, of course, is that "food", "transportation", "clothing" can include both discretionary and non-discretionary spending. (As in, you need to eat, but you don't need to get takeout every day.) Giv…

Paycheck to paycheck generally means that there is little money left for “discretionary” spending, and even assuming there is a large percentage of people who spend when they shouldn’t, 61% is staggering and can’t be explained by that reductive argument alone. Assuming it is correct, to be that high indicates more systemic issues in the system.

Paycheck to paycheck means that there is no savings. How much does it hurt to cut spending is a completely different variable, not measured at all.

It's normal that a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck even when they are well-off. Yes, the increase is probably all caused by worsening of the standard of life, yet it does not measure into what kind of bad it has descended.

(By the way, number of people living paycheck to paycheck is a very weird number. Confidence about the future increases it too.)

Re: Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

#112

Post by TMWNN »

giantg2 wrote: post #25
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But shouldn't a job paying 6 figures have decent insurance? Parent said he/she isn't from the US where this would be the norm. Here in the EU (Austria), in most cases you get no extra private insurance even with a high salary, just your public one, which in some cases may not be enough, especially if you optimize for quality doctors/therapists with short waiting times, which are all private, so you end up having to…

That's fair. I guess the interesting part is that many of the people in the US want public healthcare and generally think that the international examples cover everything.

>I guess the interesting part is that many of the people in the US want public healthcare and generally think that the international examples cover everything.

In the US, the left assumes (and usually operates as per) that all healthcare plans outside the US are "100% free", single-payer like the UK NHS or Canadian Medicare, as opposed to the actual norm being something closer to that of France, Germany, Austria, or the Netherlands.

France = 30% copay is the norm

German/Switzerland/Netherlands = Everyone chooses from one of dozens of competing insurance plans. Basically Obamacare, except there are no loopholes like the ones that allow 9% of Americans to not get insurance

Austria = Like US, but you don't get to choose the plan (no equivalent to US annual shopping period)

Australia = Both private and public insurance. Those on public are strongly encouraged to move to private

Re: Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

#113

Post by giantg2 »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #68
legitster wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good reminder that people in the US have such a myopic view of our own issues. https://twitter.com/BadEconTakes/status/1228143455399858176 A better way to understand our problems is that our medicaid and medicare programs are the most generous in the world - so much so that extending it universally is so friggin expensive.

>so much so that extending it universally is so friggin expensive I laughed out loud at the idea of the US thinking universal healthcare would be expensive considering all the trillions spent without blinking to pay for two pointless wars, the 1.7 trillions to be spent on a stealth plane that can't fly in the rain, and the trillions printed in the last couple of years and dumped on the stock market.

To be fair, all three are expensive, and the returns/merits of each could be argued to varying degrees. If we adjusted the tax structure and spending to arrest or reverse the ever increasing debt, then it could be feasible. Personally, I'd like to see them start responsibly addressing the fiscal situation caused by their past decisions before adding in new programs.

Re: Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

#114

Post by legitster »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #68
legitster wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good reminder that people in the US have such a myopic view of our own issues. https://twitter.com/BadEconTakes/status/1228143455399858176 A better way to understand our problems is that our medicaid and medicare programs are the most generous in the world - so much so that extending it universally is so friggin expensive.

>so much so that extending it universally is so friggin expensive I laughed out loud at the idea of the US thinking universal healthcare would be expensive considering all the trillions spent without blinking to pay for two pointless wars, the 1.7 trillions to be spent on a stealth plane that can't fly in the rain, and the trillions printed in the last couple of years and dumped on the stock market.

Medicare for All would cost the combined equivalent of the entire wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... every 6 months.

This talking point really undersells the order of magnitude difference in cost.

Re: Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

#115

Post by TMWNN »

giantg2 wrote: post #103
jjoonathan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they think that covering something is better than covering nothing.

I think that depends on exactly who you talk to. Quite a few people I've discussed this with believe it would be a complete replacement, even for employer based insurance. There a certainly some areas of interest to be address, like how to protect from bankruptcy even when someone has insurance, or what edge cases many of these uninsured people fit into that aren't covered by employers, the exchange, CHIP, Medicaid,…

>There a certainly some areas of interest to be address, like how to protect from bankruptcy even when someone has insurance

Only 4% of US bankruptcies are because of medical bills (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/0...>). A tipoff that [insert large percentage here] of bankruptcies aren't actually because of medical costs is that only 6% of bankruptcies by those without health insurance are because of that cause. The biggest cause of bankruptcies is lack of income, which health insurance doesn't affect regardless of country.

Re: Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

#117

Post by giantg2 »

legitster wrote: post #114
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so much so that extending it universally is so friggin expensive I laughed out loud at the idea of the US thinking universal healthcare would be expensive considering all the trillions spent without blinking to pay for two pointless wars, the 1.7 trillions to be spent on a stealth plane that can't fly in the rain, and the trillions printed in the last couple of years and dumped on the stock market.

Medicare for All would cost the combined equivalent of the entire wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... every 6 months . This talking point really undersells the order of magnitude difference in cost.

The part that tends to be left out (maybe unaddressed or I'm uninformed) is, is there a single payer component to it like actual Medicare? In general, you spend several decades of your life working and paying in to collect for maybe a couple decades. And the more you make or pay in, the more coverage you have.

So would we just end up with a government plan that we still need to pay premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc on? And where are the systemic savings (providers still need to have billing agents to deal with this and private insurance, government overhead peobably isn't that much better than business overhead)? Do the people who can't afford it go on Medicaid to cover the balance like they do if they can't afford current Medicaid? Or are the suggestions really just misnamed and are totally different?

Re: Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

#118

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

legitster wrote: post #114
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so much so that extending it universally is so friggin expensive I laughed out loud at the idea of the US thinking universal healthcare would be expensive considering all the trillions spent without blinking to pay for two pointless wars, the 1.7 trillions to be spent on a stealth plane that can't fly in the rain, and the trillions printed in the last couple of years and dumped on the stock market.

Medicare for All would cost the combined equivalent of the entire wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... every 6 months . This talking point really undersells the order of magnitude difference in cost.

To be fair, the rampant insane cost of healthcare in the US is due to lack of any regulations on costs and spending, meaning big pharma, doctors and hospitals, etc. will shake down as much as they can get way with from the insurance companies and patients, in borderline fraudulent ways, without any accountability. Plus the expenses of becoming a doctor in the US and the high cost of management and bureaucracy in the US system.

Also, hospitals in the US don't need to be decked out like an oil-sheik's mansion with expensive frivolities. In Europe, they're really spartan on luxuries as they're just places where you go to get treated, not art galleries.

My point is, a lot of the massive costs in US healthcare is just down speculation and waste, both of which could be reduced of desired without sacrificing quality.

Re: Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

#119

Post by Mezzie »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #23
barbazoo wrote: post #5

> Even among those earning six figures, 42% said they were living paycheck to paycheck, the survey of more than 3,000 adults found. I know there are areas with extremely HCOL, inflation, housing crisis... However, sometimes I do wonder though what some people's budgets are like that they are literally unable to save any money (paycheck to paycheck) making >$100k. Do we know what part lack of financial literacy or sim…

I'm the only one from my immediate family that 'escaped' the poverty so about half of my gross income goes for healthcare and living expenses for my parents and sometimes siblings depending. I won't be taking questions or entertaining discussions about the appropriateness of this arrangement. But it's not that rare and it's why I don't meaningfully save.

I'm a person with MS who is the sole breadwinner for myself and my sister, who has bipolar that prevents her from holding down a job. I also come from poverty. Two people with chronic, lifelong health conditions and a lack of safety nets do mean our savings are much less robust than I would prefer.

What we are doing is good and part of a human desire to care for our social group.

Re: Despite rising wages, 61% of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck

#120

Post by legitster »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #118
legitster wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medicare for All would cost the combined equivalent of the entire wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... every 6 months . This talking point really undersells the order of magnitude difference in cost.

To be fair, the rampant insane cost of healthcare in the US is due to lack of any regulations on costs and spending, meaning big pharma, doctors and hospitals, etc. will shake down as much as they can get way with from the insurance companies and patients, in borderline fraudulent ways, without any accountability. Plus the expenses of becoming a doctor in the US and the high cost of management and bureaucracy in the…

Sure, but it's a different conversation about how wasteful American medical expenditures are.

I've been on state Medicaid in the US. I've also been on a single payer in Europe. People really have no point of comparison on how much more luxurious Medicaid is. You are still visiting the oil-sheik mansion, but with no out of pocket and no limitations on how much or often.

Hospital will still shake you down for all your money, but the government has no problem footing the bill.

Post reply on HN