40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
1–10 of 309 posts
Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
#2I 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 and politicians recognize statistics like this as an opportunity for reflection and change.
Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
#3This 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 claim that those things are not necessary and should not be provided by the state or using state funds. This line of thinking is extremely common in conservative circles, where they claim that societal prosperity would come from hurting the poor as much as possible in order to extract the greatest amount of wealth from them.
But when you look at statistics like these, it is clear that there is no more wealth to be extracted from the lower classes - they are all just merely trying to survive. Provide UBI or something like it, along with all other things necessary for a strong social net, and watch the rich get even richer while the poor grow into a stronger middle class.
It is especially confusing that this outcome seems to be hated by the rich, despite it certainly lifting their wealth. It makes me wonder if much of conservative policy is just as much about hating the poor as it is helping the rich - because conservative policies that hurt the poor are increasingly obviously hurting the rich. I just don't understand why it isn't taken for granted that we need a stable society to make more money over time. That seems clear to me.
Many of those in poverty today are there because of the systematic oppression of the poor across America for the last many hundreds of years. Blaming them for it isn't going to help - they aren't even being provided basic education, as that is also being cut in many places in the USA (so how do you expect them to become financially aware, anyway, if they are not taught that growing up in school? Parents raising children in poverty are in no place to teach their own kids financial management skills).
To lift people out of poverty we must change our attitudes towards class and capitalism and be more compassionate to create a more stable society.
Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
#4Wealthy investors are happy to tell founders that a smaller percentage of a bigger pie is a better deal, but then seem not so happy to make their percentage smaller in order to increase the size of the pie for society at large.
Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
#5Well on our way to to he oft depicted dystopia of sci-fi movies.
I figured Trump would go down in history as a modern money baron president, the likes of Coolidge, Harding and Hoover.
Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
#6This 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’m not entirely sure why you’ve been downvoted, because this also seems intuitively obvious to me.
A long-term stable society, with a controlled income and wealth gap, seems to be in the general long-term best interests of everybody, rich and poor alike.
Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
#7This 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 am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another.
Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
#8America is over. The class divide has surpassed any reasonable threshold and in time it will only further crystalize. This country needs an Elon Musk to replace every part of the government, which is itself a jobs program at this point. We do not live in "America" anymore.
Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
#9This 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…
upvoted. HN seems to have a silent conservative majority in posts like this =/
Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
#10This 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 am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another.
But the playing field is already incredibly uneven; surely one of the goals of state-backed systems is to help make it more even?
It’s reasonable to debate the precise methods through which that is achieved, but I’m not as sure that many people would object to the underlying goal.