6 ms·

If it works as advertised I don't think people would blink an eye at paying 5 figures for it.

by jackdh 5y ago

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Sure they would, considering a very large number of people (most people, if you believe those surveys that say most Americans would borrow money to pay for an unexpected $400 expense) don't even have 5 figures.
- diordiderot 5y ago
  This is hackernews, huge class bubble
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Who also happen to be the champions of the working class and saviors of the poor and oppressed.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Yet people buy 5 figure cars all of the time for much dumber reasons than crippling depression. > most people, if you believe those surveys that say most Americans would borrow money to pay for an unexpected $400 expense This is idiotic. I would technically “borrow money” as well because I would likely put it on my credit card since that is by far the most convenient way to pay for things (and gives you the most protection as a consumer). I would just pay it off at the end of the month though.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    No, what's idiotic is calling putting something on a card and paying it back at the end of the month "borrowing money." Your perspective is very classist.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jach 5y ago
      Tell that to the idiotic surveys where you got your data from. Here's one: https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/financial-security-january-2020/ https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/financial-security-... Scroll to the bar chart. To pay for an unexpected $1k expense, 41% would pay from savings, 13% would reduce their spending on other things. I think we can agree that 41+13=54 which is "most" would thus pay without any form of borrowing. What's left that's not unknown: 16% would pay with a credit card, 14% would borrow from friends/family, and 7% would get a loan. The article adds all three sources up to hit 37% and create a headline: "Nearly 4 in 10 Americans would borrow".
causi 5y ago
33% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. 45% of Americans have no money in a savings account. 69% of Americans have less than a thousand dollars in savings.
- boredpudding 5y ago
  And most of the world isn't in America. And most of the Western world has healthcare where this would be covered for all citizens.
  - causi 5y ago
    Which has absolutely no relation to the claim that people would have no problem paying five figures for it. Additionally, public availability is often poor. For example the UK has a large and thriving market of private TMS clinics, with multiple competing providers.
    - BoxOfRain 5y ago
      The UK has a booming private healthcare market in general because the NHS is leakier than the Titanic when it comes to comprehensive healthcare.
  - bigwavedave 5y ago
    > If it works as advertised I don't think people would blink an eye at paying 5 figures for it. >> [snip]And most of the Western world has healthcare where this would be covered for all citizens. Well, let's be honest with ourselves here- if it's covered for all citizens, they probably wouldn't bat an eye at it whether it costs five figures or one.
- Jach 5y ago
  These numbers are based on flawed methodology. BLS data has the median US household having $1000/mo in discretionary spending. Of those that save it rather than spend it, they're unlikely to do so in a classic savings account, but add it to their checking account or an investment portfolio. Many people, including very rich people, don't even have a savings account yet they'd be counted in your 45% as "having no money in a savings account" or "having less than a thousand dollars in savings" (which derives from how much is in a savings account).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

If it works as advertised I don't think people would blink an eye at paying 5 figures for it.

by jackdh 5y ago

If it works as advertised I don't think people would blink an eye at paying 5 figures for it.

Sure they would, considering a very large number of people (most people, if you believe those surveys that say most Americans would borrow money to pay for an unexpected $400 expense) don't even have 5 figures.

diordiderot 5y ago
This is hackernews, huge class bubble
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Who also happen to be the champions of the working class and saviors of the poor and oppressed.
kortilla 5y ago
Yet people buy 5 figure cars all of the time for much dumber reasons than crippling depression. > most people, if you believe those surveys that say most Americans would borrow money to pay for an unexpected $400 expense This is idiotic. I would technically “borrow money” as well because I would likely put it on my credit card since that is by far the most convenient way to pay for things (and gives you the most protection as a consumer). I would just pay it off at the end of the month though.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  No, what's idiotic is calling putting something on a card and paying it back at the end of the month "borrowing money." Your perspective is very classist.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jach 5y ago
    Tell that to the idiotic surveys where you got your data from. Here's one: https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/financial-security-january-2020/ https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/financial-security-... Scroll to the bar chart. To pay for an unexpected $1k expense, 41% would pay from savings, 13% would reduce their spending on other things. I think we can agree that 41+13=54 which is "most" would thus pay without any form of borrowing. What's left that's not unknown: 16% would pay with a credit card, 14% would borrow from friends/family, and 7% would get a loan. The article adds all three sources up to hit 37% and create a headline: "Nearly 4 in 10 Americans would borrow".

causi 5y ago

33% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. 45% of Americans have no money in a savings account. 69% of Americans have less than a thousand dollars in savings.

boredpudding 5y ago
And most of the world isn't in America. And most of the Western world has healthcare where this would be covered for all citizens.
- causi 5y ago
  Which has absolutely no relation to the claim that people would have no problem paying five figures for it. Additionally, public availability is often poor. For example the UK has a large and thriving market of private TMS clinics, with multiple competing providers.
  - BoxOfRain 5y ago
    The UK has a booming private healthcare market in general because the NHS is leakier than the Titanic when it comes to comprehensive healthcare.
- bigwavedave 5y ago
  > If it works as advertised I don't think people would blink an eye at paying 5 figures for it. >> [snip]And most of the Western world has healthcare where this would be covered for all citizens. Well, let's be honest with ourselves here- if it's covered for all citizens, they probably wouldn't bat an eye at it whether it costs five figures or one.
Jach 5y ago
These numbers are based on flawed methodology. BLS data has the median US household having $1000/mo in discretionary spending. Of those that save it rather than spend it, they're unlikely to do so in a classic savings account, but add it to their checking account or an investment portfolio. Many people, including very rich people, don't even have a savings account yet they'd be counted in your 45% as "having no money in a savings account" or "having less than a thousand dollars in savings" (which derives from how much is in a savings account).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]