4 ms·

> About 2/3 (!) of Americans live paycheck to paycheck [1], 56% of Americans have less than 1000$ in liquid savings for emergencies [2]. Considering how high A

> About 2/3 (!) of Americans live paycheck to paycheck [1], 56% of Americans have less than 1000$ in liquid savings for emergencies [2]. Considering how high American incomes tend to be compared to the rest of the world, this seems like a culture of spendthrift irresponsibility.

mschuster91 4y ago
American incomes - particularly in tech - sound so high for the rest of the world, but Americans have to account for healthcare expenses, pension contributions, "emergency funds" when you are out sick for longer time than the pittances most companies offer as "PTO", the insane housing costs, car payment and taxes on them. Meanwhile, the rest of the developed Western world has the government provide healthcare, pension systems, actual sick time that also accounts for longer periods, public transport so you can get away without a car...
- philwelch 4y ago
  Right, which means on top of lower incomes, people in "the rest of the developed Western world" also pay higher taxes. And yet they still somehow have higher savings rates. It's a cultural issue.
mbrodersen 4y ago
The wealth distributions are different. For example, minimum pay is higher in other western nations. The richest people are richer in the US but the poor people are poorer. So depending on how you cherry pick incomes/wealth you can show whatever you want. I personally care more about how a nation treats its poor than how wealthy the most wealthy people are. But YMMV of course.
- philwelch 4y ago
  If you measure by median household income, the US is towards the top. So when you see a statistic that says more than 50% of US households live paycheck to paycheck, that’s a choice, because the median US household doesn’t have to live paycheck to paycheck.
  - mbrodersen 4y ago
    Yep its the same in other rich western countries. People spend more than they earn and have very little financial literacy. If they put 10% aside every month and invested wisely their long term financial situation would be dramatically better. But it requires longer term thinking. Not a common trait.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      > If they put 10% aside every month and invested wisely their long term financial situation would be dramatically better. To use a 200 year old quote: "They should eat cakes instead". Someone with absolutely no money to spare absolutely cannot set aside 10% of their income - and even if they manage to do so, it's all one healthcare or other emergency away from being wiped out.
      - mbrodersen 4y ago
        That’s obvious of course. If you have no money then you can’t invest for the future. However the majority of people living in rich western countries most definitely can put 10% or even 20% aside every month by lowering the living standards accordingly.
      - philwelch 4y ago
        Someone making the median household income in the US can absolutely afford to set aside 10% of their income.

mschuster91 4y ago

American incomes - particularly in tech - sound so high for the rest of the world, but Americans have to account for healthcare expenses, pension contributions, "emergency funds" when you are out sick for longer time than the pittances most companies offer as "PTO", the insane housing costs, car payment and taxes on them. Meanwhile, the rest of the developed Western world has the government provide healthcare, pension systems, actual sick time that also accounts for longer periods, public transport so you can get away without a car...

philwelch 4y ago
Right, which means on top of lower incomes, people in "the rest of the developed Western world" also pay higher taxes. And yet they still somehow have higher savings rates. It's a cultural issue.

mbrodersen 4y ago

The wealth distributions are different. For example, minimum pay is higher in other western nations. The richest people are richer in the US but the poor people are poorer. So depending on how you cherry pick incomes/wealth you can show whatever you want. I personally care more about how a nation treats its poor than how wealthy the most wealthy people are. But YMMV of course.

philwelch 4y ago
If you measure by median household income, the US is towards the top. So when you see a statistic that says more than 50% of US households live paycheck to paycheck, that’s a choice, because the median US household doesn’t have to live paycheck to paycheck.
- mbrodersen 4y ago
  Yep its the same in other rich western countries. People spend more than they earn and have very little financial literacy. If they put 10% aside every month and invested wisely their long term financial situation would be dramatically better. But it requires longer term thinking. Not a common trait.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > If they put 10% aside every month and invested wisely their long term financial situation would be dramatically better. To use a 200 year old quote: "They should eat cakes instead". Someone with absolutely no money to spare absolutely cannot set aside 10% of their income - and even if they manage to do so, it's all one healthcare or other emergency away from being wiped out.
    - mbrodersen 4y ago
      That’s obvious of course. If you have no money then you can’t invest for the future. However the majority of people living in rich western countries most definitely can put 10% or even 20% aside every month by lowering the living standards accordingly.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      Someone making the median household income in the US can absolutely afford to set aside 10% of their income.