@xyzelement, I agree that $3K is amazing to have if you'd otherwise have 0. From personal experience, i'll note that money probably moves you from point ~7 to p

@xyzelement, I agree that $3K is amazing to have if you'd otherwise have 0. From personal experience, i'll note that money probably moves you from point ~7 to point ~9 on the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, assuming the hierarchy was 0 to 100. You're right on an absolute level that you're better off -- perhaps at point 9 you can get a chronically painful tooth fixed (and opposed to point 7 where you couldn't). There are several problems with this discussion though, none to do with your point (which again I agree with, at a micro level.) The $3000 does very little. You cannot invest it. Heck, having $3000 in your bank account would even invalidate you for Medicaid -- at which point you have no healthcare and you're poor literally the instant you're sick. Its been a while since I was very poor, but here is a random article I found: https://www.agingcare.com/articles/asset-limits-to-qualify-for-medicaid-141681.htm https://www.agingcare.com/articles/asset-limits-to-qualify-f... This one suggests that a single person cannot have over $2000 in assets -- and lost benefit qualification if they do. These are usually bright-line tests, you cant reason your way out of them. And once you lose your benefits its really hard getting them back, and you'll be broke from medical bills before you do. The exact limit changes from state to state and year to year and also depends on your depdenents. But you lose benefits really quickly. Ideas suggesting that another $3000 a year will "break people out of poverty" or somehow allow people to traverse socioeconomic barriers is usually fodder fed to us by hyper-libertarians who like to pretend everyone can become a billionaire. It is nothing but false hope as an opiate causing us to ignore real change. We can indeed have positive change, but not by saving our way to it. While I agree with the need for financial literacy and while i agree with @xyzelement on a micro level -- the real solutions are getting individuals educated and onto growth jobs where they have an incentive to work hard. Also, means testing needs to become more realistic to 2021 -- how realistic is it to disallow a $3000 emergency fund? On a side note, so many things I had growing up are not even available to my children in the same location (NYC) (though thankfully we arent poor anymore.) For example, I thank almost all my socioeconomic success to G&T programs, exam-tested schools, and the upward cycle this puts you into. Currently, G&T programs are largely patronage programs (in NYC) for the connected and exam-driven high schools are being replaced with "leadership based applications" for a 12yo which is a euphemism for "how connected are you and how rich are you?"