6 ms·

I saw the same stat, and felt like their definition was too restrictive (basically you had to spend 100% of your income on your bills). Usually a small amount o

I saw the same stat, and felt like their definition was too restrictive (basically you had to spend 100% of your income on your bills). Usually a small amount of extra income gets spent and those people are also living paycheck to paycheck for all intents and purposes.

varjag 2y ago
Well that's what paycheck to paycheck means: you barely have the ends meet for essentials. Not that you're zero after topping 401(k) and your yoga classes.
- truckerbill 2y ago
  <2 months rent p.m. and no savings basically, is a generous definition
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  Well, you threw 401k in there for some reason. But living paycheck to paycheck to most people definitely does include spending one’s money on non-bill things like lotto tickets, consumer goods, restaurants, and things beyond their means.
  - varjag 2y ago
    Thing is it's absolutely possible to scale up your spending to any income level. And this is indeed what happens with many people, this is how you get these NYT pieces on households struggling on $500k. If you go by this the whole expression is kinda meaningless.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Maybe not any income level. Well, you can buy Twitter I suppose. But, yes, you can fly Netjets or whatever, buy supercars, have a bunch of personal staff, and eat out at Michelin-starred restaurants on a regular basis. And burn through certainly multiple $100Ks or even 6 figures annually pretty quickly.
      - FredPret 2y ago
        There was once a billionaire in Brazil who blew it all. Instead of Netjets you can own your own jet(s). Instead of restaurants you can buy them or have the chef come to your house. At the extreme end, you can start a space program. The sky’s the limit!
        ghaff 2y ago
        Yeah. I sometimes feel like I'm being a bit extravagant but it's pretty small-scale in the scheme of things. No interest in multiple homes, yachts, jets, etc. Don't even eat out all that much except when I'm relatively modestly traveling.
        EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
        Eating from the hand of the same chef all my life? No, thanks.
        regularfry 2y ago
        Having known (tangentially) someone with a live-in chef, I can confirm that they do not supply literally all the meals.
      - varjag 2y ago
        For all his failings I can't recall Musk ever claiming he lives paycheck to paycheck.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      There is a guy on YouTube that runs a channel called "I will teach you to be rich". Part of his content is like a call-in radio show, where people share their trainwreck expenses. It is unbelievable how people spend their money. And these are people frequently earning over 200K USD per year. If you watch more than a few episodes they all sound the same, and it is very hard to have any sympathy for their wasteful spending habits. When confronted by the host about various line items in their shared budget, the guests (invariably!) have unlimited excuses why this or that cannot be cut. Most people that I know that are earning more than 50% above median income are incredibly wasteful spenders. Most of them are in for a huge shock in their 50s when thinking about retirement.
      - matwood 2y ago
        Almost all of us are wasteful spenders in our own ways. The point of that guys show is to teach people to only spend money in ways that really matter to them. But, my matters might (likely) be your wasteful.
  - detourdog 2y ago
    We definitely live in a time when one can create their own inflation. Khaki's in the USA can range from sub $50 to $900+. One can decide what is the correct price for our pants.
    - hx8 2y ago
      It's called lifestyle creep. Housing and transportation are the two most impactful items, which can scale from $20k/yr to $20m/yr smoothly.
      - detourdog 2y ago
        I think lifestyle creep is too general of a description. The difference between $900 pants and $50 pants is more than lifestyle creep. I see it as indicative of a stratified society. Previous times had wealthy paying more for clothes but it showed in workmanship or materials. In the words of Lucille Blutb: How much could a banana cost, $10? I see Lifestyle creep as an individual gradually spending more for meals and cloths
        ghaff 2y ago
        Not that I really go to Vegas much any longer (thank the stars!) but when I did for conferences regularly, I'd go into some of the shopping malls and would be (not really literally but close) "I couldn't afford a single thing in this store!"
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Because when you look at the people in those surveys who “live paycheck to paycheck,” there’s an awful lot of them who say “after we pay for the mortgage and the car loans and groceries and max out our 401ks and contribute to the vacation fund, there’s nothing left.”
  - octopusRex 2y ago
    It definitely does not mean lotto tickets and restaurants. People living paycheck to paycheck do not go to restaurants. If you are going to restaurants it means you have funds AFTER bare expenses. Paycheck to paycheck means just enough to survive.
- highcountess 2y ago
  [dead]
- ReptileMan 2y ago
  Paycheck to paycheck means just that - your income is balancing exactly your expenses. This doesn't mean that you are not living in modest luxury. Having enough money to cover essentials is just definition of - at the edge of poverty. Paycheck to paycheck is about (anti) fragility. They overlap strongly in the bottom part of the income ladder and diverge as you go up. You may be financially vulnerable even if pulling a lot of income. This doesn't mean that you can't get easier out of a hole if you fall with higher income, but paycheck to paycheck evaluate the chance of falling into it.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  if this is what you think, I highly recommend you watch some episodes of Financial Audit on YouTube. Lots of people out there living paycheck to paycheck because they spend all their money on DoorDash and interest on bad debt, even with good income.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  I bet paycheck to paycheck like most things has a range of meanings circling around the same essential thing, which is that if you do not get paid next month you cannot afford to live the same next month as you did this one. You might be able to make ends meet by cutting the 401K and yoga classes, but if that's what you need to cut to eat the next month, what do you cut to eat the month after that? This guy was obviously not living anywhere near paycheck to paycheck.
  - shubb 2y ago
    Mandatory spending isn't stable either. In my 20s I had low income, but at the end of the month I'd have a bit of money left over. Then the next month my car I needed to get to work would break down or I'd need to get a new shirt to look nice enough for the dress code rules or something. So over time I went slowly into debt. By this definition I was not living paycheque to paycheque, but my situation was definitely not good, compared up someone who made better money but spent it each month on nonessential.
    - MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
      I think this nails the problem with using that phrase as a rallying cry. There is a difference between people whose problem is that their income is too low to be secure and people who could easily live a secure and comfortable lifestyle if they just managed their budget better.
      - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        >people who could easily live a secure and comfortable lifestyle if they just managed their budget better. and inside that group - people who made one bad decision, and people who have neuro-divergent issues that make managing the budget more of chore than it is for someone without the issue.
- ericd 2y ago
  The problem with that is there are also a large number of people who make a large amount of money and still save very little. So we should maybe put more work into figuring out what is the fault of economic structure, and what is the fault of poor decision making. Perhaps define some metric that’s a measure of what percentage of people would be unlikely to be able to do anything other than live paycheck to paycheck to paycheck in their current setup and where they live.
- bawolff 2y ago
  If losing your job means you won't be able to make rent this month, i'd consider that paycheque to paycheque. Like that is literally what the phrase is saying. Whether that is because you simply dont have much money, or you spent it all on something frivilous is immaterial.
  - alsetmusic 2y ago
    Yes, absolutely. I took a job where the company (a major one) effed up HR in some way where I and another person, who got hired at the same time, didn't get paid for around six weeks. He got evicted from his apartment. I had the means to keep mine. His life was ruined. Mine kept on. I believe his situation is / was far more common than mine.
    - detourdog 2y ago
      My first job in NYC paid very little. I did something to my foot that required surgery and about 6 weeks on crutches. I ended up spending most of my paycheck at that time to getting car service from Brooklyn to Manhattan for work. During that time I was just spending whatever was needed to maintain the status quo. Only years later did I realize the privilege I was experiencing. During that time I remember colleagues remarking in disbelief that I was taking car service to work. My thinking was the only alternative was the subway and no way thought I was experiencing privilege. I was just trying to keep my job.
      - oblio 2y ago
        You were being taxied to and from work for what seems like a big distance ? Yeah, for sure most people can't afford that :-)
        detourdog 2y ago
        That was my point. One is struggling with life and it may not have to do with money/resources. The struggle removes the sense of privilege from the fore front of one’s thoughts. I was spending $40 a day while earning $70 a day. Later on I realized that for some people that would have ended their NYC experience.
- jghn 2y ago
  > you barely have the ends meet for essentials This exact debate showed up on another thread here the other day. While I agree with you, I was surprised to learn that many people view it to mean that tdon't have anything extra *after* they've done all of their socking away of money each money. Which is weird to me, but hey.
- lucb1e 2y ago
  I'm not an English native speaker but that doesn't sound correct to me. If you need next month's paycheck in order to survive that month, for whatever reason (even if you gambled last month's money away, much less saved up for retirement or spent it on your health), that's my understanding of living paycheck to paycheck: you miss one paycheck and you're bust. (I assume you can't take it back out of that 401k thing or it wouldn't be a pension fund but a bank account. Correct me if I'm wrong about the mechanics of a 401k) Dictionary seems to agree, Merriam Webster says: "to spend all of the money from one paycheck before receiving the next paycheck", not specifying that you can't have spent the money on semi-essentials that could perhaps be moved by a few months but you'd need to catch up with sooner or later
  - MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
    The problem with “paycheck to paycheck” is that it evokes images of people struggling to make ends meet—to pay the rent, keep the lights on, and put food on the table. But a lot of people today are using it to mean someone who’s living beyond their means—spending $1100/month on a brand new pickup truck while sending their kids to private school and maxing out their 401k. That’s not a problem of an unfair economy; it’s simply poor discipline. And so when a half-assed marketing survey asks people if they’re living paycheck to paycheck, you end up with 60% of respondents saying, “Yes,” when in reality only maybe 20% are struggling because they’re in a truly difficult situation. The rest of them may just need to settle for a less expensive car and maybe turn down their 401k contribution for six months so they can pay off their credit cards.
    - lucb1e 2y ago
      Sounds all correct to me, just the second word in your comment: I'm not sure how this adds up to it being a "problem". It's what "paycheck to paycheck" literally sounds like, it's what the dictionary says it means, it's how people use it -- but apparently not everyone. If you want to refer to people who are financially struggling, not using a broad term but just saying what you mean sounds okay to me?
      - 2y ago

varjag 2y ago

Well that's what paycheck to paycheck means: you barely have the ends meet for essentials. Not that you're zero after topping 401(k) and your yoga classes.

truckerbill 2y ago
<2 months rent p.m. and no savings basically, is a generous definition
hombre_fatal 2y ago
Well, you threw 401k in there for some reason. But living paycheck to paycheck to most people definitely does include spending one’s money on non-bill things like lotto tickets, consumer goods, restaurants, and things beyond their means.
- varjag 2y ago
  Thing is it's absolutely possible to scale up your spending to any income level. And this is indeed what happens with many people, this is how you get these NYT pieces on households struggling on $500k. If you go by this the whole expression is kinda meaningless.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Maybe not any income level. Well, you can buy Twitter I suppose. But, yes, you can fly Netjets or whatever, buy supercars, have a bunch of personal staff, and eat out at Michelin-starred restaurants on a regular basis. And burn through certainly multiple $100Ks or even 6 figures annually pretty quickly.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      There was once a billionaire in Brazil who blew it all. Instead of Netjets you can own your own jet(s). Instead of restaurants you can buy them or have the chef come to your house. At the extreme end, you can start a space program. The sky’s the limit!
      - ghaff 2y ago
        Yeah. I sometimes feel like I'm being a bit extravagant but it's pretty small-scale in the scheme of things. No interest in multiple homes, yachts, jets, etc. Don't even eat out all that much except when I'm relatively modestly traveling.
      - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
        Eating from the hand of the same chef all my life? No, thanks.
        regularfry 2y ago
        Having known (tangentially) someone with a live-in chef, I can confirm that they do not supply literally all the meals.
    - varjag 2y ago
      For all his failings I can't recall Musk ever claiming he lives paycheck to paycheck.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    There is a guy on YouTube that runs a channel called "I will teach you to be rich". Part of his content is like a call-in radio show, where people share their trainwreck expenses. It is unbelievable how people spend their money. And these are people frequently earning over 200K USD per year. If you watch more than a few episodes they all sound the same, and it is very hard to have any sympathy for their wasteful spending habits. When confronted by the host about various line items in their shared budget, the guests (invariably!) have unlimited excuses why this or that cannot be cut. Most people that I know that are earning more than 50% above median income are incredibly wasteful spenders. Most of them are in for a huge shock in their 50s when thinking about retirement.
    - matwood 2y ago
      Almost all of us are wasteful spenders in our own ways. The point of that guys show is to teach people to only spend money in ways that really matter to them. But, my matters might (likely) be your wasteful.
- detourdog 2y ago
  We definitely live in a time when one can create their own inflation. Khaki's in the USA can range from sub $50 to $900+. One can decide what is the correct price for our pants.
  - hx8 2y ago
    It's called lifestyle creep. Housing and transportation are the two most impactful items, which can scale from $20k/yr to $20m/yr smoothly.
    - detourdog 2y ago
      I think lifestyle creep is too general of a description. The difference between $900 pants and $50 pants is more than lifestyle creep. I see it as indicative of a stratified society. Previous times had wealthy paying more for clothes but it showed in workmanship or materials. In the words of Lucille Blutb: How much could a banana cost, $10? I see Lifestyle creep as an individual gradually spending more for meals and cloths
      - ghaff 2y ago
        Not that I really go to Vegas much any longer (thank the stars!) but when I did for conferences regularly, I'd go into some of the shopping malls and would be (not really literally but close) "I couldn't afford a single thing in this store!"
- wat10000 2y ago
  Because when you look at the people in those surveys who “live paycheck to paycheck,” there’s an awful lot of them who say “after we pay for the mortgage and the car loans and groceries and max out our 401ks and contribute to the vacation fund, there’s nothing left.”
- octopusRex 2y ago
  It definitely does not mean lotto tickets and restaurants. People living paycheck to paycheck do not go to restaurants. If you are going to restaurants it means you have funds AFTER bare expenses. Paycheck to paycheck means just enough to survive.
highcountess 2y ago
[dead]
ReptileMan 2y ago
Paycheck to paycheck means just that - your income is balancing exactly your expenses. This doesn't mean that you are not living in modest luxury. Having enough money to cover essentials is just definition of - at the edge of poverty. Paycheck to paycheck is about (anti) fragility. They overlap strongly in the bottom part of the income ladder and diverge as you go up. You may be financially vulnerable even if pulling a lot of income. This doesn't mean that you can't get easier out of a hole if you fall with higher income, but paycheck to paycheck evaluate the chance of falling into it.
dingnuts 2y ago
if this is what you think, I highly recommend you watch some episodes of Financial Audit on YouTube. Lots of people out there living paycheck to paycheck because they spend all their money on DoorDash and interest on bad debt, even with good income.
bryanrasmussen 2y ago
I bet paycheck to paycheck like most things has a range of meanings circling around the same essential thing, which is that if you do not get paid next month you cannot afford to live the same next month as you did this one. You might be able to make ends meet by cutting the 401K and yoga classes, but if that's what you need to cut to eat the next month, what do you cut to eat the month after that? This guy was obviously not living anywhere near paycheck to paycheck.
- shubb 2y ago
  Mandatory spending isn't stable either. In my 20s I had low income, but at the end of the month I'd have a bit of money left over. Then the next month my car I needed to get to work would break down or I'd need to get a new shirt to look nice enough for the dress code rules or something. So over time I went slowly into debt. By this definition I was not living paycheque to paycheque, but my situation was definitely not good, compared up someone who made better money but spent it each month on nonessential.
  - MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
    I think this nails the problem with using that phrase as a rallying cry. There is a difference between people whose problem is that their income is too low to be secure and people who could easily live a secure and comfortable lifestyle if they just managed their budget better.
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      >people who could easily live a secure and comfortable lifestyle if they just managed their budget better. and inside that group - people who made one bad decision, and people who have neuro-divergent issues that make managing the budget more of chore than it is for someone without the issue.
ericd 2y ago
The problem with that is there are also a large number of people who make a large amount of money and still save very little. So we should maybe put more work into figuring out what is the fault of economic structure, and what is the fault of poor decision making. Perhaps define some metric that’s a measure of what percentage of people would be unlikely to be able to do anything other than live paycheck to paycheck to paycheck in their current setup and where they live.
bawolff 2y ago
If losing your job means you won't be able to make rent this month, i'd consider that paycheque to paycheque. Like that is literally what the phrase is saying. Whether that is because you simply dont have much money, or you spent it all on something frivilous is immaterial.
- alsetmusic 2y ago
  Yes, absolutely. I took a job where the company (a major one) effed up HR in some way where I and another person, who got hired at the same time, didn't get paid for around six weeks. He got evicted from his apartment. I had the means to keep mine. His life was ruined. Mine kept on. I believe his situation is / was far more common than mine.
  - detourdog 2y ago
    My first job in NYC paid very little. I did something to my foot that required surgery and about 6 weeks on crutches. I ended up spending most of my paycheck at that time to getting car service from Brooklyn to Manhattan for work. During that time I was just spending whatever was needed to maintain the status quo. Only years later did I realize the privilege I was experiencing. During that time I remember colleagues remarking in disbelief that I was taking car service to work. My thinking was the only alternative was the subway and no way thought I was experiencing privilege. I was just trying to keep my job.
    - oblio 2y ago
      You were being taxied to and from work for what seems like a big distance ? Yeah, for sure most people can't afford that :-)
      - detourdog 2y ago
        That was my point. One is struggling with life and it may not have to do with money/resources. The struggle removes the sense of privilege from the fore front of one’s thoughts. I was spending $40 a day while earning $70 a day. Later on I realized that for some people that would have ended their NYC experience.
jghn 2y ago
> you barely have the ends meet for essentials This exact debate showed up on another thread here the other day. While I agree with you, I was surprised to learn that many people view it to mean that tdon't have anything extra *after* they've done all of their socking away of money each money. Which is weird to me, but hey.
lucb1e 2y ago
I'm not an English native speaker but that doesn't sound correct to me. If you need next month's paycheck in order to survive that month, for whatever reason (even if you gambled last month's money away, much less saved up for retirement or spent it on your health), that's my understanding of living paycheck to paycheck: you miss one paycheck and you're bust. (I assume you can't take it back out of that 401k thing or it wouldn't be a pension fund but a bank account. Correct me if I'm wrong about the mechanics of a 401k) Dictionary seems to agree, Merriam Webster says: "to spend all of the money from one paycheck before receiving the next paycheck", not specifying that you can't have spent the money on semi-essentials that could perhaps be moved by a few months but you'd need to catch up with sooner or later
- MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
  The problem with “paycheck to paycheck” is that it evokes images of people struggling to make ends meet—to pay the rent, keep the lights on, and put food on the table. But a lot of people today are using it to mean someone who’s living beyond their means—spending $1100/month on a brand new pickup truck while sending their kids to private school and maxing out their 401k. That’s not a problem of an unfair economy; it’s simply poor discipline. And so when a half-assed marketing survey asks people if they’re living paycheck to paycheck, you end up with 60% of respondents saying, “Yes,” when in reality only maybe 20% are struggling because they’re in a truly difficult situation. The rest of them may just need to settle for a less expensive car and maybe turn down their 401k contribution for six months so they can pay off their credit cards.
  - lucb1e 2y ago
    Sounds all correct to me, just the second word in your comment: I'm not sure how this adds up to it being a "problem". It's what "paycheck to paycheck" literally sounds like, it's what the dictionary says it means, it's how people use it -- but apparently not everyone. If you want to refer to people who are financially struggling, not using a broad term but just saying what you mean sounds okay to me?
    - 2y ago