3 ms·

You have to appreciate the context of the situation the author came from... The procedure you describe is conservative but sound for someone who is starting wit

You have to appreciate the context of the situation the author came from... The procedure you describe is conservative but sound for someone who is starting with nothing and building wealth. The shocks to lifestyle when you already have some wealth and lose your income look very different and require a somewhat different approach. The author began 2008 with dual-source, six-figure income, a modest house, and a couple of cars, and no kids. Within the year, the couple had twins, had lost the greater of their two income sources, and had the audacity to hope that they could recover from their sudden and not-at-all-expected fall from grace. This is not poverty born of mismanagement of funds, irresponsible spending, or negligence. It is temporary poverty born of bad luck. It's also the sort that the assistance programs in the U.S. are designed to help, and the fact that the author's family was able to recover with that assistance makes this a success story.

kamaal 12y ago
Agreed, I one lesson I take out of this for my own good is if I'm having a good run, I'm going to use that to save/invest and not spend. Until the trend moves to becoming permanent and becomes the norm I'm not going to assume it will last forever. Lifestyle pitfalls are difficult to climb out of.
pdkl95 12y ago
[There are, of course, quite a few different assistance programs (and variations) in the U.S. - I'm sure the following generalization fails in various specific cases] Your comments about assistance for temporary bad luck nicely describe how many assistance programs should work. Unfortunately... > It's also the sort that the assistance programs in the U.S. are designed to help ...this is not even remotely true for almost all of the assistance programs in the U.S. Unless you have literally no other choice, you will be rejected. This what we get after decades of rhetoric about "welfare queens" and related fears that someone could be scamming the system. Do you still have at least ~$30 in your wallet? A lot of programs will reject you for too much cash. Own anything?[1] Sell it first. Have a pittance in a retirement package that you're not allowed to touch for 30 years? Take the 90+% penalty to cash it in first. Unfortunately, we have effectively optimized most of our welfare/assistance programs in exactly the wrong way. I suspect we could save quite a bit of money if we dropped the suspicion and helped people early, while they still had a job. [1] A single "used-econobox" tier car (YES, they check models and current market price) is often excluded, in the theory that you can't actually get most jobs without it.

kamaal 12y ago

Agreed, I one lesson I take out of this for my own good is if I'm having a good run, I'm going to use that to save/invest and not spend. Until the trend moves to becoming permanent and becomes the norm I'm not going to assume it will last forever. Lifestyle pitfalls are difficult to climb out of.

pdkl95 12y ago

[There are, of course, quite a few different assistance programs (and variations) in the U.S. - I'm sure the following generalization fails in various specific cases] Your comments about assistance for temporary bad luck nicely describe how many assistance programs should work. Unfortunately... > It's also the sort that the assistance programs in the U.S. are designed to help ...this is not even remotely true for almost all of the assistance programs in the U.S. Unless you have literally no other choice, you will be rejected. This what we get after decades of rhetoric about "welfare queens" and related fears that someone could be scamming the system. Do you still have at least ~$30 in your wallet? A lot of programs will reject you for too much cash. Own anything?[1] Sell it first. Have a pittance in a retirement package that you're not allowed to touch for 30 years? Take the 90+% penalty to cash it in first. Unfortunately, we have effectively optimized most of our welfare/assistance programs in exactly the wrong way. I suspect we could save quite a bit of money if we dropped the suspicion and helped people early, while they still had a job. [1] A single "used-econobox" tier car (YES, they check models and current market price) is often excluded, in the theory that you can't actually get most jobs without it.