>> that large of a percentage of the population means that society has a problem. That does not just impact the individuals that don't follow good financial pra

>> that large of a percentage of the population means that society has a problem. That does not just impact the individuals that don't follow good financial practices when they could Just because it's 47% does not mean that the majority of those 47% are not entirely responsible for their own situation. The things people are mentioning (children's college/university, weddings, houses, cars) are completely dependent on the individual's own decisions. That people actually go into debt or spend their entire life savings on a bloody wedding of all things is certainly not indicative of a problem with society. Nobody is forced to spend beyond their means to strive to place themselves above middle class. Spending is not justified because you fit the "middle class" demographic and should thus be entitled to "middle class things". There is no endemic here, only individuals making poor choices. There's no huge secret to stashing away some money. It's really not difficult. I can sympathize for someone making less than $50k/year who genuinely struggles with basics. The $50k/year earner who buys a new iPhone every year? Not so much. Someone making $150k/year who is unable to withdraw $2000 from their chequing account? Not a single ounce of sympathy for them. Unless one is in a truly sticky spot like having to pay ungodly amounts of money to manage a severe illness, there is no excuse other than an introspective look at one's priorities. Society cannot be used as a scapegoat here. The system is not flawed. The way people try to position themselves at a higher level within the system than they can afford? There's the issue.