5 ms·

People on or below median income (i.e. "most people") live above their means, because they have little choice.

caseysoftware 11y ago
Some portion of them, yes. But something as simple as cutting cable can save $500+/year, usually over $1k/year. And to someone who is below the median, either of those numbers is non-trivial. Exclude a few other optional behaviors and the numbers shift more positive pretty quickly. Examples: smoking, iphone plans, pets. Someone doesn't have to go without those things forever but cutting out all the non-necessities for a few years to stabilize and build a little savings is a great thing everyone should be encouraged to do.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
  As a student, I've gotten laughed at for having a prepaid (and cheap) cell phone. Saves me several hundred a year, easily. Ditto: I don't drink, and I don't have a car. And I still struggle. Don't know how some students do it.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    The good news is that if you're working in STEM, this is probably the worst time you'll ever have.
    - hrehhf 11y ago
      "probably" may be true, but do not listen to this comment and become complacent! Struggle in work/school will be necessary for a long time to get out of being poor and comments like this make it sound like its as simple as getting a STEM degree or job. Its not.
      - caseysoftware 11y ago
        No, it's not a golden ticket. You still have to work hard, constantly learn, and expand/refresh your skills. But someone studying STEM is already doing those things and it's much easier to continue doing them than to start in the first place. "An object in motion.." and all that.
    - TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
      Not really. My mother also went through for a degree in a STEM field. And got caught in a bubble of biochemists. To the point where people with PHDs are applying for research tech work.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  In my experience, a typical person under median income has never owned a pet or an iPhone or had cable or gym membership, or they have already cut those things, just to keep afloat. It's poor form for a rich person to say "just stop doing [luxury that I consider a social norm]" when a person on median income most probably doesn't do [luxury] to begin with. You are really saying that poor people are not welcome to those things: cheap entertainment is not for them; the comfort of a pet is not for them; access to communication is not for them. Not having fair access to those things keeps people in poverty. I would point out that owning a pet, in particular, has major health benefits for the owner - the benefit of owning a pet may easily outweigh the cost.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    I specifically said "to stabilize and build a little savings" and nothing about retirement. It's great that you've cut unnecessary things. But I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the overall trends and data: According to Mintel[1][2], 57% of those making less than $35k own pets. Further, 34% of people without a high school diploma and 31% of those with only a high school diploma smoke[3]. Odds are those two groups are also low income. Social norm or not, you have to prioritize and make hard choices. [1] - http://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/3-in-5-americans-own-pets-17938/ http://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/3-in-5-americans-... [2] - Updated report: http://store.mintel.com/americas-pet-owners-us-september-2014 http://store.mintel.com/americas-pet-owners-us-september-201... [3] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanton-peele/why-do-poor-people-smoke_b_627057.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanton-peele/why-do-poor-peop...
    - learnstats2 11y ago
      > Social norm or not, you have to prioritize and make hard choices. Yes, my point is that you have to prioritize and make hard choices to live at that level of income; not to build savings. (I edited my parent comment because I didn't feel my personal data was really relevant, sorry for any confusion.)
      - 11y ago

Some portion of them, yes. But something as simple as cutting cable can save $500+/year, usually over $1k/year. And to someone who is below the median, either of those numbers is non-trivial. Exclude a few other optional behaviors and the numbers shift more positive pretty quickly. Examples: smoking, iphone plans, pets. Someone doesn't have to go without those things forever but cutting out all the non-necessities for a few years to stabilize and build a little savings is a great thing everyone should be encouraged to do.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
As a student, I've gotten laughed at for having a prepaid (and cheap) cell phone. Saves me several hundred a year, easily. Ditto: I don't drink, and I don't have a car. And I still struggle. Don't know how some students do it.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  The good news is that if you're working in STEM, this is probably the worst time you'll ever have.
  - hrehhf 11y ago
    "probably" may be true, but do not listen to this comment and become complacent! Struggle in work/school will be necessary for a long time to get out of being poor and comments like this make it sound like its as simple as getting a STEM degree or job. Its not.
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      No, it's not a golden ticket. You still have to work hard, constantly learn, and expand/refresh your skills. But someone studying STEM is already doing those things and it's much easier to continue doing them than to start in the first place. "An object in motion.." and all that.
  - TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
    Not really. My mother also went through for a degree in a STEM field. And got caught in a bubble of biochemists. To the point where people with PHDs are applying for research tech work.
learnstats2 11y ago
In my experience, a typical person under median income has never owned a pet or an iPhone or had cable or gym membership, or they have already cut those things, just to keep afloat. It's poor form for a rich person to say "just stop doing [luxury that I consider a social norm]" when a person on median income most probably doesn't do [luxury] to begin with. You are really saying that poor people are not welcome to those things: cheap entertainment is not for them; the comfort of a pet is not for them; access to communication is not for them. Not having fair access to those things keeps people in poverty. I would point out that owning a pet, in particular, has major health benefits for the owner - the benefit of owning a pet may easily outweigh the cost.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  I specifically said "to stabilize and build a little savings" and nothing about retirement. It's great that you've cut unnecessary things. But I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the overall trends and data: According to Mintel[1][2], 57% of those making less than $35k own pets. Further, 34% of people without a high school diploma and 31% of those with only a high school diploma smoke[3]. Odds are those two groups are also low income. Social norm or not, you have to prioritize and make hard choices. [1] - http://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/3-in-5-americans-own-pets-17938/ http://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/3-in-5-americans-... [2] - Updated report: http://store.mintel.com/americas-pet-owners-us-september-2014 http://store.mintel.com/americas-pet-owners-us-september-201... [3] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanton-peele/why-do-poor-people-smoke_b_627057.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanton-peele/why-do-poor-peop...
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    > Social norm or not, you have to prioritize and make hard choices. Yes, my point is that you have to prioritize and make hard choices to live at that level of income; not to build savings. (I edited my parent comment because I didn't feel my personal data was really relevant, sorry for any confusion.)
    - 11y ago