39% of Americans can’t cover a $400 emergency expense

[Wyrt]

It becomes a systemic problem when it affects them.

Doesn't it already affect a large number of Republican voters? Particularly in the Rust Belt.

[Spectral]

The inflation adjusted household income for the bottom 60% of American households has been flat for 50 years, while housing costs, utility costs, college tuition, and healthcare have massively outpaced inflation during that time. Asking 60% of Americans to make due with less is not going to work, and 60% of Americans actually curtailing significant amounts of their spending would cause far more problems for than it would solve.

Real household income is already adjusted for living expenses, so I'm not really clear what you're driving at here. This is kind of all over the map, so it's hard to address. The majority of that bottom 60% aren't paying college tuition, utility inflation seems only mildly above total inflation (at least for electricity), and housing inflation is also only ~2.35%.

The notion that a nation with a positive savings rate would have more problems than one with a negative rate is some serious voodoo economics. Surely you can see that's not a sustainable plan?

[Cracked]

Yeah, no;

What a load of bullshit. No one is required to live in Irvine, no one is forced (for better or worse) to have a 6 year old while starting their first real job, and no one stays in the same salary category for long.

[Elegiac]

What a load of bullshit. No one is required to live in Irvine

Yes, they are.

Fun Fact: Wealthy economic centers still require service workers and it is not reasonable to expect people to commute for several hours each way to their place of employment.

no one is forced (for better or worse) to have a 6 year old while starting their first real job

Maybe she's a war widow. Maybe she's divorced. Maybe she's a rape victim. Maybe she suffered health issues related to her pregnancy and got fired.

There are a myriad of reasons that don't translate to outright victim blaming.

and no one stays in the same salary category for long.

What are they supposed to do in the meantime, then.

Neither you nor this jackass Dimon seem to have an answer. It might be because there isn't a way to live off these wages.

[Cracked]

Yes, they are.

Fun Fact: Wealthy economic centers still require service workers and it is not reasonable to expect people to commute for several hours each way to their place of employment.



Maybe she's a war widow. Maybe she's divorced. Maybe she's a rape victim. Maybe she suffered health issues related to her pregnancy and got fired.

There are a myriad of reasons that don't translate to outright victim blaming.



What are they supposed to do in the meantime, then.

Neither you nor this jackass Dimon seem to have an answer. It might be because there isn't a way to live off these wages.

Yeah, if you want to be a service worker in Irvine, be fucking prepared to struggle without someone to support you. Want to be a service worker and earn a livable wage? Move to a place where life is cheap and wages higher. It doesn't take a genius.


If she was a war widow, she would have pension. If she was divorced, she would have alimony. If she was raped, nobody forced her to carry out the pregnancy. No, most likely she got knocked up at 16 because she was a dumb teenager without proper parenting.

You are not supposed to have a meantime. She made it harder for herself, but that's on her, not the fault of JP Morgan CEO.

[Edge-]

No one is required to live in Irvine,

You could replace "Irvine" with any town in Appalachia and your post would still be wrong. Often times, folks don't have the financial means to move, as moving is expensive and if you move somewhere cheaper and don't have a job lined up you're even worse off than you were at the start.

no one is forced (for better or worse) to have a 6 year old while starting their first real job

Unplanned pregnancies happen. Remember once upon a time when a single breadwinner with a highschool degree could provide for a family? Those were good times, it's a shame that this is no longer reasonable.

and no one stays in the same salary category for long.

Actually, sometimes you do. Not everyone wants to, or can, job hop for incremental promotions. Sometimes you're stuck with limited options and have to stay in the same job with limited upward mobility for a while.

Yeah, if you want to be a service worker in Irvine, be fucking prepared to struggle without someone to support you..

That's kind of the fucking point, dude. Service workers shouldn't be forced to live hours away from their jobs just to be able to afford to live.

[Elegiac]

Yeah, if you want to be a service worker in Irvine, be fucking prepared to struggle without someone to support you. Want to be a service worker and earn a livable wage? Move to a place where life is cheap and wages higher. It doesn't take a genius.

Neat idea.

Too bad all the jobs are in places like Irvine and not in Bumfuck, Missouri.

If she was a war widow, she would have pension. If she was divorced, she would have alimony.

Which more than likely would be eaten up by the things that, as Miss Porter said, were not included in this calculation.

These wages, again, are unlivable.

If she was raped, nobody forced her to carry out the pregnancy.

Abortions cost money. Also; Republicans would gladly force her to.

No, most likely she got knocked up at 16 because she was a dumb teenager without proper parenting.

You are not supposed to have a meantime.

Yeah, well. She does.

You're avoiding the question.

She made it harder for herself, but that's on her, not the fault of JP Morgan CEO.

Nice platform. Try campaigning on that and see how far it gets you.

[Blade Wolf]

Wage growth is also doing better. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth

- - - Updated - - -



Yep. Which is why I said I agreed with the article disputing her claims.

https://truthout.org/articles/with-n...for-oligarchs/

Wage growth has been stagnant for years unless you are counting CEOs.

[Bodakane]

Yeah, if you want to be a service worker in Irvine, be fucking prepared to struggle without someone to support you. Want to be a service worker and earn a livable wage? Move to a place where life is cheap and wages higher. It doesn't take a genius.


If she was a war widow, she would have pension. If she was divorced, she would have alimony. If she was raped, nobody forced her to carry out the pregnancy. No, most likely she got knocked up at 16 because she was a dumb teenager without proper parenting.

You are not supposed to have a meantime. She made it harder for herself, but that's on her, not the fault of JP Morgan CEO.

Good thing moving is free amirite?

[Elegiac]

That's kind of the fucking point, dude. Service workers shouldn't be forced to live hours away from their jobs just to be able to afford to live.

Or we should start requiring employers to compensate employees for their commute related expenses.

I bet you the housing crisis would resolve itself real quick if businesses started having to pay people for time spent driving.

[Shadowferal]

Living paycheck to paycheck is pretty common

[Cracked]

Remember once upon a time when a single breadwinner with a highschool degree could provide for a family? Those were good times, it's a shame that this is no longer reasonable.

I'm not going to debate the other points, because I've done this to hell and back and it never goes anywhere. Socialists won't budge on the omg tax the rich, help everyone else narrative. But here's a few points to this:

1) Highschool diploma attainment in the 60s was around 60% (and 50% in the 50), depending on the state. College degree attainment today is at 46%. Like it or not, college education is quickly becoming what highschool once was. If you go for bachelors (at 36% now), chances are that with time, you could support a family as a sole breadwinner.

2) If you go into the right trade, you can still be able to provide for a family with just a highschool diploma.

3) Women entered the workforce at an astounding rate since the time you speak of. Of course the value of labor went down when the supply increased so vehemently. The reason it was quite possible to be a sole breadwinner is that it was simply expected and if a man wasn't able to provide for his family at a job, he would likely be forced to go elsewhere. The norm is not the same today, as we forced the society to accept that women should work too.

The point is that we simply face different challenges than people did 60 years ago, so comparing the situations is not really possible. Say whatever you like, but being poor today, you are miles better off than being poor in the 60s.

- - - Updated - - -

Good thing moving is free amirite?

Nothing is free, but if you stand to gain more than you stand to lose, the net effect is positive. Is it easy to move for a job elsewhere? No, but if you;re unwilling to do it, don't blame others.

[Bodakane]

I'm not going to debate the other points, because I've done this to hell and back and it never goes anywhere. Socialists won't budge on the omg tax the rich, help everyone else narrative. But here's a few points to this:

1) Highschool diploma attainment in the 60s was around 60% (and 50% in the 50), depending on the state. College degree attainment today is at 46%. Like it or not, college education is quickly becoming what highschool once was. If you go for bachelors (at 36% now), chances are that with time, you could support a family as a sole breadwinner.

2) If you go into the right trade, you can still be able to provide for a family with just a highschool diploma.

3) Women entered the workforce at an astounding rate since the time you speak of. Of course the value of labor went down when the supply increased so vehemently. The reason it was quite possible to be a sole breadwinner is that it was simply expected and if a man wasn't able to provide for his family at a job, he would likely be forced to go elsewhere. The norm is not the same today, as we forced the society to accept that women should work too.

The point is that we simply face different challenges than people did 60 years ago, so comparing the situations is not really possible. Say whatever you like, but being poor today, you are miles better off than being poor in the 60s.

- - - Updated - - -



Nothing is free, but if you stand to gain more than you stand to lose, the net effect is positive. Is it easy to move for a job elsewhere? No, but if you;re unwilling to do it, don't blame others.

Jesus fucking christ, do you hear yourself?

We are talking about people who don;t have enough ,money to make ends meet, but you think if they just hope really hard and click their heels together they will magically queef the $1000s of dollars it takes to move, into existence.

[Edge-]

Say whatever you like, but being poor today, you are miles better off than being poor in the 60s.

I was making a more general lament with that bit, but I'll address this specifically.

This is a terrible, no-good, bad, valueless argument.

You can pretty much say that about any time compared to previous times and it's true. The trend of history is one of progress, not regression (though it happens, sup dark ages), so at almost any point in history you can look back mere decades and see improvements in the quality of life compared to the past.

But I wonder if some of those living in poverty in, say, Appalachia (I'm going to keep referencing this place) would agree with this sentiment or if they'd say that being poor fucking sucks no matter what period of time we're talking about. And as you said with the challenges facing American's today with regards to jobs/education being different, so are the challenges people in poverty face different than they were 60 years ago.

[Cracked]

Jesus fucking christ, do you hear yourself?

We are talking about people who don;t have enough ,money to make ends meet, but you think if they just hope really hard and click their heels together they will magically queef the $1000s of dollars it takes to move, into existence.

Yeah, I'll admit that I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of a single mother - she clearly has different values, otherwise she wouldn't have ended up in that situation. But if you claim that it takes $1000s to move, you just aren't very economical.

[Edge-]

she clearly has different values, otherwise she wouldn't have ended up in that situation.

Victim blaming is the highest form of argumentation.

Or, it's gross and awful and says quite a bit about you.

[Cracked]

Victim blaming is the highest form of argumentation.

Or, it's gross and awful and says quite a bit about you.

How is it victim blaming? Are people victim to their own choices? Am I a victim of my own stupidity, becuase I jumped off the stair and broke my leg? You can be a victim if and only if you have no agency in what's happened to you.

[Edge-]

Are people victim to their own choices? Am I a victim of my own stupidity, becuase I jumped off the stair and broke my leg? You can be a victim if and only if you have no agency in what's happened to you.

When some of those choices are out of their control, yes. People can't always control their economic situations.

[Spectral]

Jesus fucking christ, do you hear yourself?

We are talking about people who don;t have enough ,money to make ends meet, but you think if they just hope really hard and click their heels together they will magically queef the $1000s of dollars it takes to move, into existence.

I've moved a couple times in the last decade and it didn't take anything like thousands of dollars. What exactly are you spending that on?

- - - Updated - - -

When some of those choices are out of their control, yes. People can't always control their economic situations.

With rare exceptions, people really can control whether they have kids or not. It really shouldn't be that controversial to say that people should choose to not have children they can't afford.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Great article and good points all around. I think the lack of saving has a lot to do with attitude, why save it now, when I might not make it tomorrow. I used have a problem thinking like that, and it's reasonable to do so. However I think the problem has to do with economic inequity.

Personally once i changed my mind set, it wasn't too hard to see immediate results. The truth was though, I just over spent, I never had a much as i really needed, but I did have enough to make it through and build. It's only then once you move, you realize how much easier it can be.

The biggest problem is many can't get there, student debt, medical bills, unexpected expenses even caring for an older parent or loved one. I now see that change your attitude, and the more money you find you have, the easier it gets to save.

Honestly that is a big difference between being stuck in insanity and bad habits, and moving forward and learning a smarter way to do things.