7 ms·

I'm sorry but this comment comes from a very privileged position. Let's talk reality here: a large portion of the US can't afford a 400$ expense without going i

I'm sorry but this comment comes from a very privileged position. Let's talk reality here: a large portion of the US can't afford a 400$ expense without going into debt (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...). The vast number of people live paycheck to paycheck; to be so surprised that the number of people living on less than 50% of their income is vanishingly small betrays a lack of knowledge of a vast majority of people.

ebg13 7y ago
I agree that being able to save so much is a very privileged position. It also, though, represents a proportion of total dollars that is greater than the proportion of its constituent people. The headline number given isn't X people; it's X dollars.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  That just makes it worse. Since your share of retirement savings is proportionally higher on the other side of the equation.
  - ebg13 7y ago
    Makes what worse? Nobody is arguing here that gross inequality is good. The question here is whether "70% of current income" is a reasonable metric for individual retirement.
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      No, it’s not for every individual. It’s on average. My point was that for people like you where 70% is overly high and you’re already saving a lot, you’re skewing the other side of the equation as well. The big picture question is whether people have enough money saved. High savers such as yourself make the picture look better than it is, even if they are high earners, making the situation seem worse than it is.
sokoloff 7y ago
I think you’re agreeing with me that the GP post represents an uncommon case.
foogazi 7y ago
> Let's talk reality here: a large portion of the US can't afford a 400$ expense without going into debt (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...) That is not true From TFA they would have to sell something(assets), and probably adjust their spending in the next paycheck The myth that abled bodied human beings in 2019 America are unable to come up with $400 is ridiculous
- gnosis89 7y ago
  Selling assets is actually worse than going into debt. I know plenty of people who would not be able to afford paying their bills without going into debt if they had an unexpected 400 dollar charge. The delusion that wealth inequality and massive economic impoverishment is a myth in America is insane. Get out of your bubble. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-repor...
  - foogazi 7y ago
    Assets are a resource you hold instead of holding cash It’s things you bought that you can sell to access those $400 not selling those assets and going into debt is a choice
    - gnosis89 7y ago
      False. Assets are a resource with economic value that are expected to provide a benefit. If that benefit is worth more than the current cash value, you actually lose more by selling it. You're free to make stupid choices though, like wrongly defining what assets are.

ebg13 7y ago

I agree that being able to save so much is a very privileged position. It also, though, represents a proportion of total dollars that is greater than the proportion of its constituent people. The headline number given isn't X people; it's X dollars.

jtbayly 7y ago
That just makes it worse. Since your share of retirement savings is proportionally higher on the other side of the equation.
- ebg13 7y ago
  Makes what worse? Nobody is arguing here that gross inequality is good. The question here is whether "70% of current income" is a reasonable metric for individual retirement.
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    No, it’s not for every individual. It’s on average. My point was that for people like you where 70% is overly high and you’re already saving a lot, you’re skewing the other side of the equation as well. The big picture question is whether people have enough money saved. High savers such as yourself make the picture look better than it is, even if they are high earners, making the situation seem worse than it is.

sokoloff 7y ago

I think you’re agreeing with me that the GP post represents an uncommon case.

foogazi 7y ago

> Let's talk reality here: a large portion of the US can't afford a 400$ expense without going into debt (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...) That is not true From TFA they would have to sell something(assets), and probably adjust their spending in the next paycheck The myth that abled bodied human beings in 2019 America are unable to come up with $400 is ridiculous

gnosis89 7y ago
Selling assets is actually worse than going into debt. I know plenty of people who would not be able to afford paying their bills without going into debt if they had an unexpected 400 dollar charge. The delusion that wealth inequality and massive economic impoverishment is a myth in America is insane. Get out of your bubble. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-repor...
- foogazi 7y ago
  Assets are a resource you hold instead of holding cash It’s things you bought that you can sell to access those $400 not selling those assets and going into debt is a choice
  - gnosis89 7y ago
    False. Assets are a resource with economic value that are expected to provide a benefit. If that benefit is worth more than the current cash value, you actually lose more by selling it. You're free to make stupid choices though, like wrongly defining what assets are.