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

371–380 of 390 posts

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#371

Post by achillesheels »

wonderwonder wrote: post #42

Its much harder (not impossible) to attain wealth if you don't come from at least an upper middle class background. Having a safety blanket (family) that can support you if you fail allows you to take greater risks in the pursuit of greater income, including starting a business. If you fail, worst case you end up in your childhood bedroom as opposed to on the the street. If your parents are able to pay for your colle…

I fully agree, and this is coming from someone from the right-wing who believed in the myth of “equal opportunity”. Opportunities are unequal, however, I would claim that’s natural. A working class repairman in his mind may dream of wealth as owning a home with a boat; he may capitalize on the opportunity for bringing to market a unique tool to his trade which an otherwise white collar society would never conceive of, with these material goals as motivation. And his labor conditioning may give him an edge in bringing the product to market because he “executes” every day with his work.

After all, most businesses are started in middle age by those who likely have built up the resources (including financial acumen) and network to capitalize. It’s fallacious to continue to pigeon-hole affluence as only coming from trading on information asymmetries from higher education.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#372

Post by diminoten »

war1025 wrote: post #368
diminoten wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your numbers are completely wrong, and you are engaging dishonestly, which is in violation of the HN guidelines. Please stop responding to me, you're ruining this discussion.

Sorry I hurt your ego. Those numbers are completely reasonable, and anyone who took half a second to go over them would agree. Further, at this point the post is old enough that no one besides us is likely to read it. No discussion is being ruined. I have been engaging in good faith. I have to conclude that you haven't been. You can reply again to have the last word if that will make you feel better.

You have not been engaging in good faith, and your continued replies are further evidence of your lack of respect for me or the conversation I'm trying to have with others.

My ego is irrelevant, you are objectively wrong and also not using HN as it is intended.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#373

Post by zanny »

refurb wrote: post #309
zanny wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on your definition of "decent money". If we wanted a legitimate middle class, the textbook definition of one, the per-capita incomes in such a class would need to average around 100k for the whole US. Then you would make enough to invest enough to be making an appreciable amount of your money from investments and thus be "middle" class. The average income is still a bit more than a third that, so the ave…

Do tell, what is the textbook definition of middle class? I always assumed it was th middle of the income distribution.

The preamble of the wikipedia article on middle class espouses why its such a loaded term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class

I'm using the academic definition, where if the upper class earns their wealth through investments and the lower class through labor, the middle is a mix of the two.

Humorously even the wikipedia article mentions how the middle class in the US is framed as a political tool of manipulation...

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#374

Post by xtrimsky1234 »

I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mentioning Dave Ramsey. His podcasts, his youtube videos.

If you are living paycheck to paycheck, he is a great resource. It's very easy to fall into the consumerism trap in the US. Plenty of people have iPhone, iPads, Macbooks, seem to travel a lot, student debt, car loans, go to concerts go eat out daily, etc... If you make 100k, or 200k or 300k, you feel you are "rich", you don't need a budget, you don't need to keep track of every dollar, you don't need a plan, a 2% car loan interest is fine, the S&P500 gives you a return of 10% anyways... But Dave Ramsey stirs people in the right direction. At first you will probably curse him because he goes head on against simple math. But his teachings are great, they push you into making actual progress and not postponing efforts. I think someone making 60k and following what he teachers can easily become a millionaire.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#375

Post by Spooky23 »

diminoten wrote: post #318
war1025 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Companies like Starbucks drive revenue by disconnecting the act of making the purchase from money. The $6 latte seems ok when you’re autoreloading a gift card and earning points on the card and the customer reward program. That’s why those programs exist. That’s why Apple sells iTunes/AppStore gift cards for $0.80 on the dollar every few weeks.

You’re always going to be happier in life if you do and buy things that you want or need to do. Buying some item you don’t need on the supermarket endcap or satisfying your desire for immediate gratification is dumb.

I get your point about getting your 2% reward points, etc. If you are doing well, it makes sense to do that... but it’s bad financial advice if you’re living paycheck to paycheck.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#376

Post by taurath »

dan-robertson wrote: post #264
taurath wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you need to spend at most 40% of your income on food, shelter, etc before you can save anything because you need to spend the 60% on what, occasional emergencies? What do people do when they don’t have that 60% spare? Or is the key that you write “ actually save money” and by that you mean saving some significant amount of money? How much do you think that is?

Keep in mind that that 40% is at a level where you still have to take the bus everywhere, live with roommates in a bad part of town, and not eat healthy. The middle class always spends and can save, being poor means you can’t.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#377

Post by astura »

dawnerd wrote: post #285
milesvp wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upkeep’s a killer. I kept having people tell me to buy in my 20’s, and I couldn’t fathom their logic. I could rent a 4 bedroom house for less than a mortgaged, let alone alone a mortgage plus upkeep. I kept doig the math, and I’d have to tie up a huge chunk of capital, and hope the house appreciated faster than upkeep costs, and that I didn’t piss away all gains again in realtor fees when I next needed to move. But r…

I know it’s a terrible answer but buy a newly constructed house. That’s all I’ve bought and the maintenance on them is close to nothing. Plus the house will be a lot more energy efficient and save even more money. Just stay away from an hoa or condo.

The premium on new construction is around 20% vs existing structures, so you arent saving any money, just paying up front (and financing it to boot).

Plus many people want to live in an already established neighborhood.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#378

Post by dawnerd »

astura wrote: post #377
dawnerd wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it’s a terrible answer but buy a newly constructed house. That’s all I’ve bought and the maintenance on them is close to nothing. Plus the house will be a lot more energy efficient and save even more money. Just stay away from an hoa or condo.

The premium on new construction is around 20% vs existing structures, so you arent saving any money, just paying up front (and financing it to boot). Plus many people want to live in an already established neighborhood.

I’m not so sure about that. My brand new house in the Portland metro was cheaper than comparable older houses. I do get screwed a bit on taxes but they’re still lower than they were at my house in California for the same price. Overall I’m saving money. Going on three years and the only expense I’ve had in upkeep is air filters.

Also both new homes I’ve bought were in existing neighborhoods. Not all new homes are in new developments. I’m fact, I would avoid those like the plague. HOA hell + possible mello roos if in California.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#379

Post by mAEStro-paNDa »

thelasthuman wrote: post #245
mAEStro-paNDa wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely important point. Everyone deals with these kinds of intrapersonal conflicts and issues on a different breadth and scale, one way or another. It's this coupled with economic distress or anxiety, in addition to a massive income and wealth inequality, that produces the kind of conditions and struggle that people and families go through, like those described in this short article. Sure, there are var…

While I appreciate where you are coming from, I disagree. No one should live in poverty, job or not. But it does show how far we are from getting there when people can't even agree that people with jobs shouldn't be living in poverty.

To clarify, I do agree with this as well. My word choice was just to keep within the context of the thread here, although it might have been a good idea to explicitly state this also.

Re: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common

#380

Post by astura »

dawnerd wrote: post #378
astura wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premium on new construction is around 20% vs existing structures, so you arent saving any money, just paying up front (and financing it to boot). Plus many people want to live in an already established neighborhood.

I’m not so sure about that. My brand new house in the Portland metro was cheaper than comparable older houses. I do get screwed a bit on taxes but they’re still lower than they were at my house in California for the same price. Overall I’m saving money. Going on three years and the only expense I’ve had in upkeep is air filters. Also both new homes I’ve bought were in existing neighborhoods. Not all new homes are in…

You can be as "not sure" as you want, data doesn't lie

https://www.trulia.com/research/new-home-smell/

Portland happens to be among the metros with the smallest new house premium at 14%. Thats still $28,000 premium on a 200,0000 house.

Sure "not all new homes" are in new developments, but the vast majority of them are. Most neighborhoods simply don't have empty lots to build on, they don't exist, any new homes are teardowns.

Post reply on HN