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

111–120 of 309 posts

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

#111

Post by aarongray »

onecooldev24 wrote: post #99
aarongray wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but all of them being commodities (what I said) is not the same as inflation only being accurate when someone purchases every commodity available in the marketplace (what you said).

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.

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

#112

Post by monocasa »

zeth___ wrote: post #74
ralusek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly about being black and in a ghetto prevents you from gathering $400? I have worked multiple minimum wage jobs before without even being on any social welfare. If you are on social welfare, receiving food stamps, affordable housing, etc, you absolutely have the capability to provide yourself with an emergency buffer, even on minimum wage.

Racism mostly.

Not sure why you're getting down voted. An otherwise identical resume with the first name changed from Tyrone to Brad receives 3x callbacks for interviews.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

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

#113

Post by integration »

georgrwasington wrote: post #95
integration wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a better definition of luxuries. If someone is spending more on food, clothing, electronics as their income rise those things are clearly discretionary.

No it's not. Poor people live in food deserts and buy 5000 calorie dinners for $2 at Dollar General. It's hardly discretionary to try to feed yourself real food. Now let's tie in the cost of healthcare associated with eating cheap junk food and you've got a problem. This is like an argument with someone who denies global warming.

Unless someone is starving, spending more on food as income rises is discretionary. A proper food budget is stable, it should not change as someone earns more money.

As someone who ate well on minimum wage, you’re not going to convince me low-income families can’t afford food in America if they’re properly budgeting.

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

#114

Post by lukeschlather »

aarongray wrote: post #30
Meegul wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if that's tracked to inflation. A $400 medical expense from 2013 is likely closer to $500 today, which might account for the difference from 50% to 40%.

Sorry, but the recent inflation rate has been about 0-2% per year. A $400 medical expense in 2013 is about $430 today.

Medical expenses are going up much faster than inflation. At least 4% annually I think. Maybe as much as 6-8% on average since 2013? I see varying figures, but definitely not 0-2%.

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

#115

Post by gerdesj »

qsymmachus wrote: post #73
integration wrote: post #48

40% of America’s lowest-income families’ consumption goes to luxuries. The bigger problem is American’s terrible spending habits not lack of real income. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g...

You make it sound like poorer Americans are blowing their paychecks on designer handbags, but the article makes it clear that that's not what's happening. "Luxury goods" as economists define them are not what you'd expect. To quote the article: > It’s worth noting that by the specialized nomenclature of the dismal science, even eating at McDonald’s is a luxury — that is, we do it more as our incomes rise — while smok…

while smoking and lottery-ticket buying are categorized as necessities.

I gave up smoking a couple of months ago after 30 odd years - I now feel rather stupid, given how clever I really am. I have never been a gambler but the parallels are very clear to me and I have a couple of friends who are gamblers and display the same stupidity. I keep my gob shut.

I do not agree with the definition of necessity implied above. Gambling and drug taking (smoking int al) are not basic requirements for life. Eating is. Eating at McDs is simply buying calories and possibly a few other basic life sustaining requirements and consuming the same. McDs may not provide you with all the nutritional requirements for a healthy life but you will get a lot of calories in. Until embarrassingly recently, the sole stated purpose of eating was calories. Brits are still not known as Limeys for nothing.

Fags and bandits can go and *////~~~~ bbbbzzzzt OFF!!!!

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

#116

Post by kaybe »

cuckcuckspruce wrote: post #100
ralusek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being trapped in a debt spiral due to past financial desperation is just a way of iterating forward in the loop of bad decision making. What I am saying is that to enter financial desperation in the United States is not actually possible if you utilize the available social safety net and make proper decisions.

Untrue. Get majorly sick or in a major accident and lose your insurance because your job finds a reason to restructure your department. Trust me, you will enter financial desperation very quickly while you wait for the social safety net to catch up, and by that time you're thousands of dollars in debt, likely already out of your house, and totally screwed.

All of you couldn't do a better job to make me very very glad of the taxes and other money I pay to the state and public health insurance here in Germany. As long as we can protect this system this will never happen to me or my neighbours.

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

#117

Post by selimthegrim »

Retric wrote: post #97
ralusek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being trapped in a debt spiral due to past financial desperation is just a way of iterating forward in the loop of bad decision making. What I am saying is that to enter financial desperation in the United States is not actually possible if you utilize the available social safety net and make proper decisions.

The number of allowed bad decisions drops dramatically as you slide down the wealth scale. Saying you need to be correct 99.999% of the time is simply not a viable strategy. Especially when people are actively trying to get you to make bad decisions like enrolling in a for profit collage. The vast US homeless population suggests we don't really have a safety net, so much as a safety rope you need to hold on tight and…

And once you've enrolled in that for-profit college, surprise! You can choose to keep your student status to keep your loans in deferment but now you're not eligible for food stamps while an enrolled student unless you work a minimum of 20 hours a week/earn ~$680 a month.

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

#118

Post by onecooldev24 »

aarongray wrote: post #94
onecooldev24 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Average price data for select utility, automotive fuel, and food items are also available." All of these are commodities. And every single product derived is based on commodity. Most commodities can be traded on commodity markets.

Yes, but all of them being commodities (what I said) is not the same as inflation only being accurate when someone purchases every commodity available in the marketplace (what you said).

doesnt this look like the chart of CPI https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/DBC

https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-pri...

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

#119

Post by s73v3r_ »

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…

"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)."

In that specific case, no. In the US today, a car is damn near mandatory. Otherwise you'll be spending hours commuting on a bus, and that's if you're lucky enough to be somewhere with decent bus service. And that's assuming you have the type of job schedule where you can have that kind of time.

Many times, not being able to keep your car, even if it's expensive in maintenance costs, means you could lose your job.

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

#120

Post by dragonwriter »

scarface74 wrote: post #110
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.

Why do I have the feeling that most posters on HN who consider themselves the "middle class", actually fall well above of the middle quintile of household income and most are in the 5th quintile. The true Middle Class probably don't make any distinction between anyone who is in the top 20% (household income over $116,000) or especially the top 10% ($161,000). https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator-2…

> Why do I have the feeling that most posters on HN who consider themselves the "middle class", actually fall well above of the middle quintile of household income and most are in the 5th quintile.

Because middle class in a capitalist society is an economic relationship between the captialist and working class (characterized by mixed dependence on capital and labor, most archetypically the independent operator who supports themselves by applying their own labor to their own capital rather than primarily by renting labor to apply to capital or selling labor to capitalists), and its members are usually well above middle income (though, on average, far below that of the capitalist class.)

The middle income quintile is largely members of the proletariat, not the petit bourgeoisie.

Post reply on HN