6 ms·

Agreed. Wage growth has been non-existant for a long time. Every administration is basically like "hey we're doing great - look at these unemployment numbers" a

Agreed. Wage growth has been non-existant for a long time. Every administration is basically like "hey we're doing great - look at these unemployment numbers" and then you talk to people and they're saying the opposite. Savings is atrocious too. Some of that is people being bad with money but a lot is that the lack of wage growth and rising expenses on things like healthcare, education and home ownership makes it hard for them to save. 60% of Americans can't afford a $500 unplanned expense [1]. That alone forces many to take crappy job(s) to just stay afloat. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings...

hnlurker 8y ago
Maybe they should stop playing the lottery? Average adult American spends over $300 per year on lottery tickets[0]. I'm all out of sympathy for smokers that get lung cancer, and other self-induced disasters. [0] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/07/heres-what-americans-are-spending-on-lottery-ticke.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/07/heres-what-americ...
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  Saving that $300 a year at a highly unlikely 10% interest ends up being $36k after 25 years. It's not solving any problems. To even save up that $500 minimum would take 2 years. We can't just blame it on a single straw-man.
  - hnlurker 8y ago
    I was just responding to the often cited claim that average Americans would be devastated by an unexpected $500 expense. They're spending $300+ on lottery tickets, and yet can't cover a $500 expense. It seems a rather simple solution to me.. don't throw away your money on lottery tickets.
    - lovich 8y ago
      500>300 so it's not really gonna help without a multi year plan. That would be an ideal move if humans were emotionless automatons but that point people need some amount of entertainment or hope to keep on going day after day. If you took away everyone's vices _and_ subjected them to the reality of life as an average American you'd have riots on your hands
mgkimsal 8y ago
this comes up a lot, and I can never find the actual questions that get asked on these surveys. do they mean an actual savings account at a bank? the kind that pay 0.02% interest? few people I know, even with high net worth and liquidity, have much of anything in a 'savings account'. But... "Only 41% of adults reported having enough in their savings account". Do they just mean 'savings'? Or liquid cash? I can never find the actual text of the questions asked, and any clarifications on this point, although I see pop media references to these sorts of surveys regularly
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  They go on to mention that they'd have to put it on credit card, or ask friends, so while the article says savings account I don't think they are that literal. But you're right, it's a flaw in the language.
- wgerard 8y ago
  > few people I know, even with high net worth and liquidity, have much of anything in a 'savings account' Really? It's fairly common advice to store an emergency fund in something akin to a savings account (or at least something with FDIC backing). Either way, it seems bizarre for a high net worth individual not to have at least $500 in something extremely liquid like a checking/savings account. Either way, it's fair to assume it means liquid cash, since the question is basically "could you afford an unexpected $500 expense?". If you want to take that study to task, I think the far more interesting statistic is the 20% who would put it on their credit card: While those could be people who are just going into debt to afford the bill, it could also be people who just pay their card off in full every month and want whatever rewards they might be entitled to from using the credit card.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    > Really? It's fairly common advice to store an emergency fund in something akin to a savings account (or at least something with FDIC backing) That’s where I have my emergency fund (earning nearly zero interest of course). If OP knows of some other type of account with enough liquidity to use as an emergency fund AND generates significant interest, you have my full attention!
ChrisLomont 8y ago
>Wage growth has been non-existant for a long time Wages grew at the fast rate on record in 2015. [1] Nearby years are similar. Here's FRED real median household income [2]. Real wages have been growing for several years. [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/13/the-middle-class-and-the-poor-just-had-the-best-year-since-the-end-of-the-great-recession/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2a8b5e3bf19e https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/13/the-m...
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Look at the MAX chart on your link [2]. We’re barely above where we were in 1998. Hell, look here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... Real wages have been stagnant since the mid 60s. The short term picture is most likely a blip.
  - ChrisLomont 8y ago
    >Real wages have been stagnant since the mid 60s. Most people working today were not working in the 1960s. They have seen their wages grow. Also as working demographics skew younger as boomers retire, the median worker is earlier in their career, so they earn less, making it look like wages are lower, yet for each person wages have increased. The higher paid cohort is retiring. All this is covered in Census reports.
    - pmiller2 8y ago
      Not true. Wages have been flat over the entire period from 1964 onwards. Individuals may experience wage growth through job changes and raises, but that doesn’t change the fact that overall real wages are stagnant. You can’t cherry pick the last 3 years of a 50-year trend and say it’s all good.
      - ChrisLomont 8y ago
pitaj 8y ago
Most people could absorb a sub-$1000 emergency expense with a credit card, not a savings account.

hnlurker 8y ago

Maybe they should stop playing the lottery? Average adult American spends over $300 per year on lottery tickets[0]. I'm all out of sympathy for smokers that get lung cancer, and other self-induced disasters. [0] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/07/heres-what-americans-are-spending-on-lottery-ticke.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/07/heres-what-americ...

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
Saving that $300 a year at a highly unlikely 10% interest ends up being $36k after 25 years. It's not solving any problems. To even save up that $500 minimum would take 2 years. We can't just blame it on a single straw-man.
- hnlurker 8y ago
  I was just responding to the often cited claim that average Americans would be devastated by an unexpected $500 expense. They're spending $300+ on lottery tickets, and yet can't cover a $500 expense. It seems a rather simple solution to me.. don't throw away your money on lottery tickets.
  - lovich 8y ago
    500>300 so it's not really gonna help without a multi year plan. That would be an ideal move if humans were emotionless automatons but that point people need some amount of entertainment or hope to keep on going day after day. If you took away everyone's vices _and_ subjected them to the reality of life as an average American you'd have riots on your hands

mgkimsal 8y ago

this comes up a lot, and I can never find the actual questions that get asked on these surveys. do they mean an actual savings account at a bank? the kind that pay 0.02% interest? few people I know, even with high net worth and liquidity, have much of anything in a 'savings account'. But... "Only 41% of adults reported having enough in their savings account". Do they just mean 'savings'? Or liquid cash? I can never find the actual text of the questions asked, and any clarifications on this point, although I see pop media references to these sorts of surveys regularly

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
They go on to mention that they'd have to put it on credit card, or ask friends, so while the article says savings account I don't think they are that literal. But you're right, it's a flaw in the language.
wgerard 8y ago
> few people I know, even with high net worth and liquidity, have much of anything in a 'savings account' Really? It's fairly common advice to store an emergency fund in something akin to a savings account (or at least something with FDIC backing). Either way, it seems bizarre for a high net worth individual not to have at least $500 in something extremely liquid like a checking/savings account. Either way, it's fair to assume it means liquid cash, since the question is basically "could you afford an unexpected $500 expense?". If you want to take that study to task, I think the far more interesting statistic is the 20% who would put it on their credit card: While those could be people who are just going into debt to afford the bill, it could also be people who just pay their card off in full every month and want whatever rewards they might be entitled to from using the credit card.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  > Really? It's fairly common advice to store an emergency fund in something akin to a savings account (or at least something with FDIC backing) That’s where I have my emergency fund (earning nearly zero interest of course). If OP knows of some other type of account with enough liquidity to use as an emergency fund AND generates significant interest, you have my full attention!

ChrisLomont 8y ago

>Wage growth has been non-existant for a long time Wages grew at the fast rate on record in 2015. [1] Nearby years are similar. Here's FRED real median household income [2]. Real wages have been growing for several years. [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/13/the-middle-class-and-the-poor-just-had-the-best-year-since-the-end-of-the-great-recession/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2a8b5e3bf19e https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/13/the-m...

pmiller2 8y ago
Look at the MAX chart on your link [2]. We’re barely above where we were in 1998. Hell, look here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... Real wages have been stagnant since the mid 60s. The short term picture is most likely a blip.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  >Real wages have been stagnant since the mid 60s. Most people working today were not working in the 1960s. They have seen their wages grow. Also as working demographics skew younger as boomers retire, the median worker is earlier in their career, so they earn less, making it look like wages are lower, yet for each person wages have increased. The higher paid cohort is retiring. All this is covered in Census reports.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    Not true. Wages have been flat over the entire period from 1964 onwards. Individuals may experience wage growth through job changes and raises, but that doesn’t change the fact that overall real wages are stagnant. You can’t cherry pick the last 3 years of a 50-year trend and say it’s all good.
    - ChrisLomont 8y ago

pitaj 8y ago

Most people could absorb a sub-$1000 emergency expense with a credit card, not a savings account.