3 ms·

This is harsh but true. If you're at risk of losing your job, and you need all that income just to survive - without saving anything - then you're already not i

This is harsh but true. If you're at risk of losing your job, and you need all that income just to survive - without saving anything - then you're already not in a sustainable situation and should fix it while it's easy, not after you lose your job and become desperate enough to take on foolish debt in the stress of the moment. Similarly, if you depend on your job to pay the mortgage, then be prepared to lose your house when you lose your job. It's not the end of the world, you can still get a pile of cash out of it.

learc83 11y ago
>If you're at risk of losing your job, and you need all that income just to survive - without saving anything - then you're already not in a sustainable situation and should fix it while it's easy If you're making $100k a year, living in a nice 4 bedroom house, driving late model cars, and not saving, that is a relatively easy fix. If you're making $10 an hour working retail, there just isn't enough money to pay for cost of living and any kind of substantial savings. People in this situation (who make up a huge chunk of America), are one expensive car repair away from disaster and debt collectors.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  Yes. If you're living hand-to-mouth, then you're already having a problem. Things have already gone wrong. It's too late to put the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and only worry about people when they fall off - which everybody in that situation is bound to do given enough time.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    There is no guarantee people in this situation must fail. They might get a raise, or a promotion, or a surprise inheritance, or win the lottery, or who knows. Now, obviously you don't want to get into this situation in the first place, if you can help it. But if a person is, then they are not simply doomed as you're saying. We should not excuse exploitation of people living paycheck-to-paycheck simply on the basis that they're bound to get fucked over eventually so it doesn't matter when or how it happens.

learc83 11y ago

>If you're at risk of losing your job, and you need all that income just to survive - without saving anything - then you're already not in a sustainable situation and should fix it while it's easy If you're making $100k a year, living in a nice 4 bedroom house, driving late model cars, and not saving, that is a relatively easy fix. If you're making $10 an hour working retail, there just isn't enough money to pay for cost of living and any kind of substantial savings. People in this situation (who make up a huge chunk of America), are one expensive car repair away from disaster and debt collectors.

Asbostos 11y ago
Yes. If you're living hand-to-mouth, then you're already having a problem. Things have already gone wrong. It's too late to put the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and only worry about people when they fall off - which everybody in that situation is bound to do given enough time.
- mikeash 11y ago
  There is no guarantee people in this situation must fail. They might get a raise, or a promotion, or a surprise inheritance, or win the lottery, or who knows. Now, obviously you don't want to get into this situation in the first place, if you can help it. But if a person is, then they are not simply doomed as you're saying. We should not excuse exploitation of people living paycheck-to-paycheck simply on the basis that they're bound to get fucked over eventually so it doesn't matter when or how it happens.