6 ms·

> Workers living paycheck to paycheck (61% of the population According to US BLS and Federal Reserve studies, only about 15% of the population necessarily live

> Workers living paycheck to paycheck (61% of the population According to US BLS and Federal Reserve studies, only about 15% of the population necessarily lives paycheck-to-paycheck. The median US household has a ~$12,000 surplus per year after all ordinary expenses. Note that "ordinary expenses" includes car payments on a BMW, the latest iPhone, and other by-no-means-necessary expenditures, and also includes all healthcare costs. If 61% of the US population is living paycheck-to-paycheck, it isn't because they need to. Americans have very high income surpluses compared to the rest of the developed world. 15% of the population necessarily living paycheck-to-paycheck is still a lot of people, but it implies 85% are not.

ilamont 3y ago
> If 61% of the US population is living paycheck-to-paycheck, it isn't because they need to. Consumers can share blame for not living below their means, needless wealth signaling, and financial illiteracy. But predatory entities are part of the problem, too - car dealers obscuring true costs of borrowing ("how much do you want to pay per month?"), credit card issuers jacking up rates to 37%, and real estate "investors" jacking up rents after buying mom & pop mobile homes and senior rental units knowing that tenants have nowhere else to go. Here's one example from Montana: “I can’t tell you how many calls I got from folks that were older, like older than 55 or 60, that had lived in their same house for decades, had the same owner for decades who never raised the rent,” Huey said. “Then all of a sudden they lost their housing.” Huey and other providers across the state have heard countless stories of homeowners turning their rental property into Air-BnBs or evicting their long-term tenants in order to house their own children in increasingly affluent communities. https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/montana-seniors-newly-homeless-long-term-care/article_0edbdcd4-330a-11ee-ae9e-d369414779d0.html https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/montana-seni...
- clbrmbr 3y ago
  Re: predatory landlords: if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Seems like the previous landlord was naïve, or at least operating on an outdated worldview where local reputation mattered. (Hard to show up at the local Chamber or Elks or church when you are getting old folks kicked out of their homes). How to solve… I’d like to find a model to apply in my HOA to slow or reverse the corporate takeover of my community…
  - renonce 3y ago
    They are blameworthy for not getting public and sharing profits with regular people, rigging regular people by inflation
  - inkcapmushroom 3y ago
    >Seems like the previous landlord was naïve, or at least operating on an outdated worldview where local reputation mattered Or maybe was an individual with a conscience who didn't want the old couple that had been in their property for 30 years living on the street. I guess you could call that naivety though.
    - clbrmbr 3y ago
      “Conscience”, there’s a word I haven’t heard in a while. If an act is “unconscionable” well then it’s legally indefensible. But the broader idea of “having a conscience” seems to have receded, to the point I don’t really know what it means.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        This doesn't strike me as true at all. Honestly, it sounds like an excuse for a personal unwillingness to develop your own moral center. Even if you were right - which I don't think you are! - that other people "having a conscience" has receded, who cares what they're doing?, you're not them, make your own, better choices.
    - clbrmbr 3y ago
      Btw I love inky caps. Just had a marvelous flush of shaggy manes in the yard here, fed by wood chip paths.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    Just because the law allows it doesn't mean you should do it.
  - jchw 3y ago
    > if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? This mindset needs to die. Yes. If you do something ostensibly immoral, it's still bad even if it's legal. It's still bad even if other people were going to do it if you didn't, anyway. It's still bad even if there's negative incentives that ultimately led to it. It's just still bad in general. If you have a reasonable decision and you choose to do a bad thing, you still chose to do it. It doesn't matter either, if a single person made this decision, or if a corporate board made this decision, or if a bunch of people in an angry mob collectively decided something. What you can do is explain why it happened, but that doesn't mean that there is absolutely zero social responsibility to have. All that something being legal means is that it's legal. Something being legal doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Something being illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. We've conflated what we've come to expect from corporations to the standards we must hold them to. The standard that a corporation should live up to is indeed much higher and significantly more nuanced than "technically not breaking the law." I'm not suggesting that I believe in no regulation. Regulation is clearly valuable in many cases, but I believe that it is clearly not inherently good (duh, bad regulation is everywhere) nor is it inherently the only solution to any class of problems. Believing that companies should not simply maximally exploit what is technically legal while still regulating them when they do abuse the system is possible and I'm pretty sure if we don't start thinking that way, we're even more screwed than we think we are. Even if some corporations amass unthinkable amounts of influence and power and fundamentally escape the pressures of social responsibility through this, I still think that it's necessary to fight the learned-helplessness mindset. If absolutely nothing else, I think everyone is at least responsible for ensuring the bar doesn't drop so low as to allow this kind of thought process to remain "normal". It should always be thought of as abnormal, and as the threat to liberty and democracy that it clearly can be.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > Consumers can share blame for not living below their means, needless wealth signaling, and financial illiteracy That's a claim that marketing does not work and we know that's not true. It regularly defeats "personal responsibility" or no one would pay the marketers.
- conductr 3y ago
  Expecting your rent to stay constant for decades sounds predatory too.
  - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    If the mortgage price doesn't go up, I'd not expect large increases in rent even if the cost of fixing it goes up. Most fixes are minor things.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      You're competing with other renters for the unit though. If someone offers the landlord more you think they should say no?
      - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
        Yes, I do - I do not think landlords should have a no-fault eviction. I don't think they should be able to refuse to renew your lease in a lot of situations. Once you are living there, you should have rights to stay so long as you pay and so on. This keeps people stable. If the unit is free, I don't think there should be bidding. The price listed is the price it goes for. It is on the landlord to make sure they are asking a fair price that is enough. If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
        > If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing. Well we agree on that. The problem with taking away people's property rights is that it fucks incentives to actually fix the problem by creating new things. The solution here is building new housing, that won't happen if you take away landlords rights. Your policy means that it's impossible to move to in demand areas unless you're willing to buy.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    If the government is willing to back a long term fixed rate mortgage, it’s hard for me to understand why those with that mortgage shouldn’t be highly restricted in the rent they can charge.
- m_0x 3y ago
  > car dealers obscuring true costs of borrowing ("how much do you want to pay per month?") That I would blame the consumer. Think about it. I'd bet consumers looking for a car start at "What car do I like?" or "What do I need in my next car?" I'd bet pretty much no one starts by asking themselves "How much can I afford?" And if they ask that question is always on a month-to-month basis, because that matters. The now and today. Once they know what they want, they try to get it no matter the cost. If it's more than their budget, they go for paying more in the long run but less month-to-month. Hell I'd even say that if a salesman tells them that their so-wanted car is out of their limtis, the consumer will get mad and go all-karen on them.
nemothekid 3y ago
>"includes car payments on a BMW, the latest iPhone, and other by-no-means-necessary expenditures "The latest iPhone" is the new "Avocado toast and starbucks". Inflation wise, the iPhone 3GS is only marginally more expensive than the iPhone 15, while delivering far more value. I struggle to understand how ~$75/mo for someone making 100k/year is a deliberating expense for the purpose of wealth signaling especially when that purchase likely delivers far more than $75/mo of actual economic value. Conversely, those 100k/year earners are likely concentrated in some of the highest CoL areas in the country and simply wouldn't be 100k/yr earners in lower CoL areas. Rent and housing has continue to explode but the idea that these 100k/yr earners are hedonists is starting to feel like a thought terminating cliche to me. The price of an iPhone has been pretty much constant for 15 years when adjusted for inflation, but 1bdr Rent (adjusted for inflation) in San Francisco is up 60% in that same time period. Lets say a 100k earner in 2009 did the responsible 30% of income on rent, and spent 2,500/mo. A 100k/yr earner in 2023 would be spending 4,000/mo on a comparable apartment. They might need a roommate, or almost HALF of their income would go to rent. If Earner 1 was saving 10% of their income every month, that would be completely eaten by rent in earner (2) scenario, making them paycheck-to-paycheck. No "iPhones or BMWs" required; and I haven't yet touched the other non-luxury cost of living increases.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  His point wasn't that iphones are the breaking point for american's personal finance situation. It's that the BLS and Fed study estimates weren't thrifty subsistance level living standards. They included luxuries like new iphones and premium vehicles.
- RhysU 3y ago
  > The price of an iPhone has been pretty much constant for 15 years when adjusted for inflation... Yes, the luxury item has remained a constant cost luxury item.
charlie0 3y ago
Anecdotally, this has been my experience as well. The few people who have money troubles put themselves there through frequent outings, buying expensive items. If they got a 20% raise tomorrow, they would just increase their spending and squander most of it away. I don't doubt there are people out there struggling because of medical conditions or just plain bad luck, but that's not the most common case I've seen.

ilamont 3y ago

> If 61% of the US population is living paycheck-to-paycheck, it isn't because they need to. Consumers can share blame for not living below their means, needless wealth signaling, and financial illiteracy. But predatory entities are part of the problem, too - car dealers obscuring true costs of borrowing ("how much do you want to pay per month?"), credit card issuers jacking up rates to 37%, and real estate "investors" jacking up rents after buying mom & pop mobile homes and senior rental units knowing that tenants have nowhere else to go. Here's one example from Montana: “I can’t tell you how many calls I got from folks that were older, like older than 55 or 60, that had lived in their same house for decades, had the same owner for decades who never raised the rent,” Huey said. “Then all of a sudden they lost their housing.” Huey and other providers across the state have heard countless stories of homeowners turning their rental property into Air-BnBs or evicting their long-term tenants in order to house their own children in increasingly affluent communities. https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/montana-seniors-newly-homeless-long-term-care/article_0edbdcd4-330a-11ee-ae9e-d369414779d0.html https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/montana-seni...

clbrmbr 3y ago
Re: predatory landlords: if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Seems like the previous landlord was naïve, or at least operating on an outdated worldview where local reputation mattered. (Hard to show up at the local Chamber or Elks or church when you are getting old folks kicked out of their homes). How to solve… I’d like to find a model to apply in my HOA to slow or reverse the corporate takeover of my community…
- renonce 3y ago
  They are blameworthy for not getting public and sharing profits with regular people, rigging regular people by inflation
- inkcapmushroom 3y ago
  >Seems like the previous landlord was naïve, or at least operating on an outdated worldview where local reputation mattered Or maybe was an individual with a conscience who didn't want the old couple that had been in their property for 30 years living on the street. I guess you could call that naivety though.
  - clbrmbr 3y ago
    “Conscience”, there’s a word I haven’t heard in a while. If an act is “unconscionable” well then it’s legally indefensible. But the broader idea of “having a conscience” seems to have receded, to the point I don’t really know what it means.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      This doesn't strike me as true at all. Honestly, it sounds like an excuse for a personal unwillingness to develop your own moral center. Even if you were right - which I don't think you are! - that other people "having a conscience" has receded, who cares what they're doing?, you're not them, make your own, better choices.
  - clbrmbr 3y ago
    Btw I love inky caps. Just had a marvelous flush of shaggy manes in the yard here, fed by wood chip paths.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Just because the law allows it doesn't mean you should do it.
- jchw 3y ago
  > if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? This mindset needs to die. Yes. If you do something ostensibly immoral, it's still bad even if it's legal. It's still bad even if other people were going to do it if you didn't, anyway. It's still bad even if there's negative incentives that ultimately led to it. It's just still bad in general. If you have a reasonable decision and you choose to do a bad thing, you still chose to do it. It doesn't matter either, if a single person made this decision, or if a corporate board made this decision, or if a bunch of people in an angry mob collectively decided something. What you can do is explain why it happened, but that doesn't mean that there is absolutely zero social responsibility to have. All that something being legal means is that it's legal. Something being legal doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Something being illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. We've conflated what we've come to expect from corporations to the standards we must hold them to. The standard that a corporation should live up to is indeed much higher and significantly more nuanced than "technically not breaking the law." I'm not suggesting that I believe in no regulation. Regulation is clearly valuable in many cases, but I believe that it is clearly not inherently good (duh, bad regulation is everywhere) nor is it inherently the only solution to any class of problems. Believing that companies should not simply maximally exploit what is technically legal while still regulating them when they do abuse the system is possible and I'm pretty sure if we don't start thinking that way, we're even more screwed than we think we are. Even if some corporations amass unthinkable amounts of influence and power and fundamentally escape the pressures of social responsibility through this, I still think that it's necessary to fight the learned-helplessness mindset. If absolutely nothing else, I think everyone is at least responsible for ensuring the bar doesn't drop so low as to allow this kind of thought process to remain "normal". It should always be thought of as abnormal, and as the threat to liberty and democracy that it clearly can be.
drewcoo 3y ago
> Consumers can share blame for not living below their means, needless wealth signaling, and financial illiteracy That's a claim that marketing does not work and we know that's not true. It regularly defeats "personal responsibility" or no one would pay the marketers.
conductr 3y ago
Expecting your rent to stay constant for decades sounds predatory too.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  If the mortgage price doesn't go up, I'd not expect large increases in rent even if the cost of fixing it goes up. Most fixes are minor things.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    You're competing with other renters for the unit though. If someone offers the landlord more you think they should say no?
    - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
      Yes, I do - I do not think landlords should have a no-fault eviction. I don't think they should be able to refuse to renew your lease in a lot of situations. Once you are living there, you should have rights to stay so long as you pay and so on. This keeps people stable. If the unit is free, I don't think there should be bidding. The price listed is the price it goes for. It is on the landlord to make sure they are asking a fair price that is enough. If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        > If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing. Well we agree on that. The problem with taking away people's property rights is that it fucks incentives to actually fix the problem by creating new things. The solution here is building new housing, that won't happen if you take away landlords rights. Your policy means that it's impossible to move to in demand areas unless you're willing to buy.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  If the government is willing to back a long term fixed rate mortgage, it’s hard for me to understand why those with that mortgage shouldn’t be highly restricted in the rent they can charge.
m_0x 3y ago
> car dealers obscuring true costs of borrowing ("how much do you want to pay per month?") That I would blame the consumer. Think about it. I'd bet consumers looking for a car start at "What car do I like?" or "What do I need in my next car?" I'd bet pretty much no one starts by asking themselves "How much can I afford?" And if they ask that question is always on a month-to-month basis, because that matters. The now and today. Once they know what they want, they try to get it no matter the cost. If it's more than their budget, they go for paying more in the long run but less month-to-month. Hell I'd even say that if a salesman tells them that their so-wanted car is out of their limtis, the consumer will get mad and go all-karen on them.

nemothekid 3y ago

>"includes car payments on a BMW, the latest iPhone, and other by-no-means-necessary expenditures "The latest iPhone" is the new "Avocado toast and starbucks". Inflation wise, the iPhone 3GS is only marginally more expensive than the iPhone 15, while delivering far more value. I struggle to understand how ~$75/mo for someone making 100k/year is a deliberating expense for the purpose of wealth signaling especially when that purchase likely delivers far more than $75/mo of actual economic value. Conversely, those 100k/year earners are likely concentrated in some of the highest CoL areas in the country and simply wouldn't be 100k/yr earners in lower CoL areas. Rent and housing has continue to explode but the idea that these 100k/yr earners are hedonists is starting to feel like a thought terminating cliche to me. The price of an iPhone has been pretty much constant for 15 years when adjusted for inflation, but 1bdr Rent (adjusted for inflation) in San Francisco is up 60% in that same time period. Lets say a 100k earner in 2009 did the responsible 30% of income on rent, and spent 2,500/mo. A 100k/yr earner in 2023 would be spending 4,000/mo on a comparable apartment. They might need a roommate, or almost HALF of their income would go to rent. If Earner 1 was saving 10% of their income every month, that would be completely eaten by rent in earner (2) scenario, making them paycheck-to-paycheck. No "iPhones or BMWs" required; and I haven't yet touched the other non-luxury cost of living increases.

missedthecue 3y ago
His point wasn't that iphones are the breaking point for american's personal finance situation. It's that the BLS and Fed study estimates weren't thrifty subsistance level living standards. They included luxuries like new iphones and premium vehicles.
RhysU 3y ago
> The price of an iPhone has been pretty much constant for 15 years when adjusted for inflation... Yes, the luxury item has remained a constant cost luxury item.

charlie0 3y ago

Anecdotally, this has been my experience as well. The few people who have money troubles put themselves there through frequent outings, buying expensive items. If they got a 20% raise tomorrow, they would just increase their spending and squander most of it away. I don't doubt there are people out there struggling because of medical conditions or just plain bad luck, but that's not the most common case I've seen.