4 ms·

It bothers me when people use the phrase living paycheck to paycheck to describe both someone who literally doesn’t make enough money to cover the essential bil

It bothers me when people use the phrase living paycheck to paycheck to describe both someone who literally doesn’t make enough money to cover the essential bills of living as well as someone making $200k+. These people are not in the same boat whatsoever. The doctor, or any professional making that much, simply needs to turn in the lease on the luxury car, or downsize their house, or cancel their vacation to materially change their financial circumstance. A person truly living paycheck to paycheck has to choose between eating or paying rent and there’s no luxury car to sell or turn in to free up cash flow to make that decision easier. They are very much resource constrained. This isn’t to say I don’t believe there are professionals in this boat. I just believe we need a different term for it as it’s not fair to lump these two very separate groups into the same definition. Perhaps describing them as living beyond their means.

Retric 7y ago
That’s your own assumption and has nothing to do with the phrase. A doctor who loses their license is generally financially fucked. What’s being described is a massive dependence on continued employment, and someone with 200k of student debts and zero net assets easily qualifies.
- bronco21016 7y ago
  It just seems really odd to me to use a phrase in a way that combines people who are very literally resource constrained with few options of climbing out of that hole with people who have the resources available to climb out and above their situation. Both are dependent on their paycheck but one has the ability to break away from that over time with wise choices vs the other likely never being able to break that cycle. Almost all of the world is living paycheck to paycheck by your definition. The majority of US households would be ‘financially fucked’ if their wage income was taken away for a significant period of time.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    what's wrong with using "paycheck to paycheck" this way? we already have the word "poor". "paycheck to paycheck" means something like no liquid savings and no positive cash flow. there are certainly a lot of people living this way (especially in less wealthy countries), but it's not "almost everyone".
rolltiide 7y ago
These are bad assumptions and it shouldn't bother you that much. There are lots of people making $200k+ living paycheck to paycheck. If the most basic discussion about cost of living is going to blow your mind then just exit this discussion. If you wanted month-to-month rent in my building in San Francisco (as opposed to a more typical yearly lease), it is $11,000 per month, with yearly leases being about half that. People that only make "$200k+" via wage work aren't living here, just like I planned and the networking opportunities are pretty amazing.
- archagon 7y ago
  I work and live in the Bay Area. It is a cruel joke to say that any FANG engineer (or other $200k+ earner) working here is living "paycheck to paycheck". Even in your reply, you provide a solution (just one of many) to this hypothetical renter's problem: switch to a yearly lease and save $66,000 a year. People who are actually living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of making these kinds of financial decisions. Meanwhile, I know a number of Bay Area grad students who still get by on a salary of $30,000, and even they wouldn't say that they're living "paycheck to paycheck" for the most part.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    You can do whatever you want, there are options at those wealth/compensations ranges There are also people living up and above their means and want to stay there
opportune 7y ago
They are in the same boat in that they face potential financial ruin if they don’t get their next paycheck for whatever reason. There is already a separate terms to describe people who live paycheck to paycheck to cover essential living expenses, it is called poverty.
- brailsafe 7y ago
  I think one is trying to get out of ruin in general, whereas the other potentially risks financial ruin
  - Retric 7y ago
    You can be poor and have financial security. Pensions that fail to keep up with inflation would often strand the elderly with minimal income. But, assuming they had heath insurance they where generally in an very stable situation.
    - brailsafe 7y ago
      Right that's what I meant. No debt, but no money, doesn't strike me as financial ruin. Though a sudden extreme expense could put you there. In either case, the term financially vulnerable could apply.
joncrane 7y ago
Oh you'd be surprised how many people at the $250k income level have been cruising along barely net worth neutral in spending and took out some kind of personal loan or used their credit card for that $10k "new roof" blip or impulsively traded in a car that was a few k upside down, and they started to get further and further underwater. At some point the credit runs out and the next $10k blip means they are literally homeless within a few months. I think the difference is that people like that have a MUCH better safety net in the form of family and friends who can easily provide $5-10k handouts to get a family out of a jam. (Then of course you have the people that are already abusing THAT source of funds. Even though they are making $250k). You would be AMAZED at how close to the edge people live at every income level. It's like a part of human nature to do it, regardless of whether one is a millionaire or a pauper.

Retric 7y ago

That’s your own assumption and has nothing to do with the phrase. A doctor who loses their license is generally financially fucked. What’s being described is a massive dependence on continued employment, and someone with 200k of student debts and zero net assets easily qualifies.

bronco21016 7y ago
It just seems really odd to me to use a phrase in a way that combines people who are very literally resource constrained with few options of climbing out of that hole with people who have the resources available to climb out and above their situation. Both are dependent on their paycheck but one has the ability to break away from that over time with wise choices vs the other likely never being able to break that cycle. Almost all of the world is living paycheck to paycheck by your definition. The majority of US households would be ‘financially fucked’ if their wage income was taken away for a significant period of time.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  what's wrong with using "paycheck to paycheck" this way? we already have the word "poor". "paycheck to paycheck" means something like no liquid savings and no positive cash flow. there are certainly a lot of people living this way (especially in less wealthy countries), but it's not "almost everyone".

rolltiide 7y ago

These are bad assumptions and it shouldn't bother you that much. There are lots of people making $200k+ living paycheck to paycheck. If the most basic discussion about cost of living is going to blow your mind then just exit this discussion. If you wanted month-to-month rent in my building in San Francisco (as opposed to a more typical yearly lease), it is $11,000 per month, with yearly leases being about half that. People that only make "$200k+" via wage work aren't living here, just like I planned and the networking opportunities are pretty amazing.

archagon 7y ago
I work and live in the Bay Area. It is a cruel joke to say that any FANG engineer (or other $200k+ earner) working here is living "paycheck to paycheck". Even in your reply, you provide a solution (just one of many) to this hypothetical renter's problem: switch to a yearly lease and save $66,000 a year. People who are actually living paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxury of making these kinds of financial decisions. Meanwhile, I know a number of Bay Area grad students who still get by on a salary of $30,000, and even they wouldn't say that they're living "paycheck to paycheck" for the most part.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  You can do whatever you want, there are options at those wealth/compensations ranges There are also people living up and above their means and want to stay there

opportune 7y ago

They are in the same boat in that they face potential financial ruin if they don’t get their next paycheck for whatever reason. There is already a separate terms to describe people who live paycheck to paycheck to cover essential living expenses, it is called poverty.

brailsafe 7y ago
I think one is trying to get out of ruin in general, whereas the other potentially risks financial ruin
- Retric 7y ago
  You can be poor and have financial security. Pensions that fail to keep up with inflation would often strand the elderly with minimal income. But, assuming they had heath insurance they where generally in an very stable situation.
  - brailsafe 7y ago
    Right that's what I meant. No debt, but no money, doesn't strike me as financial ruin. Though a sudden extreme expense could put you there. In either case, the term financially vulnerable could apply.

joncrane 7y ago

Oh you'd be surprised how many people at the $250k income level have been cruising along barely net worth neutral in spending and took out some kind of personal loan or used their credit card for that $10k "new roof" blip or impulsively traded in a car that was a few k upside down, and they started to get further and further underwater. At some point the credit runs out and the next $10k blip means they are literally homeless within a few months. I think the difference is that people like that have a MUCH better safety net in the form of family and friends who can easily provide $5-10k handouts to get a family out of a jam. (Then of course you have the people that are already abusing THAT source of funds. Even though they are making $250k). You would be AMAZED at how close to the edge people live at every income level. It's like a part of human nature to do it, regardless of whether one is a millionaire or a pauper.