5 ms·

If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion. Having children you cannot

If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion. Having children you cannot afford is a common way that lower income people live above their means, even if it sounds crass to word it in that way. My anecdotal experience working alongside lower class workers is that most of them run into trouble through trying to live a middle class lifestyle without the income to support it. They buy new cars, they eat out often, they refuse to work more than 40 hrs/wk, and they live in pricier apartments without roommates. All of these mistakes tie into the financial illiteracy that plagues people who were never exposed to those with good money habits.

zzalpha 11y ago
Or, alternatively: the erosion of wages in the face of rising inflation has placed a reasonable lifestyle out of the reach of many people. No longer can a household function on a single income while owning a home and raising a couple kids. Unfortunately society demands such a lifestyle from folks in order to be deemed a "success" and so people life beyond their now eroded means because they only alternative is to give up the dream they were sold every time someone opined about the "American Dream". Of course the alternative view is to blame these folks and tacitly assume that the right to a comfortable lifestyle with a couple kids is a luxury only for the rich.
- Omniusaspirer 11y ago
  I don't mean to assert this is an optimal scenario, but it is the one we've all been placed in. What choice do we really have but to try and live according to the circumstances we were born into?
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    >What choice do we really have but to try and live according to the circumstances we were born into? We can also work to change those circumstances for future generations.
- Kalium 11y ago
  How about we admit to ourselves that the "American Dream" lifestyle was only workable because most of the rest of the first world was a series of smoking craters? It's not sustainable going forward. It's not a sane goal. Abandon it. Reshape our goals around what can be reasonably accomplished.
dionidium 11y ago
> Having children you cannot afford is a common way that lower income people live above their means Poor people will never stop having sex, or wanting kids, or desiring a drink at the end of the day, because it just so happens that you don't lose basic human desires when you're poor. A lot of talk about financial literacy is really just moralizing about behaviors the lecturer would never dream of giving up himself. It's a dead-end conversation, because, again, humans are always going to do the stuff that humans do. But this entire thread is doomed because it stems from a claim that most people who struggle do so because they're living above their means. It seems to me that most people who struggle do so because they don't have as much money as the people who don't struggle. EDIT: Dear HN, can we make > start a quote, already? Look at how many people in this thread alone have used it in that way! I do it all the time and usually edit it back out.
fweespeech 11y ago
> If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion. The living wage project from MIT is designed to be the minimum viable estimate with no savings and living paycheck to paycheck. http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06037 http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06037 $23,640/year http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1308904000 http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1308904000 $21,007/year http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01_001.htm http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01... http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1324504204 http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1324504204 > $17,640 Btw, Augusta, Georgia is literally one of the 10 cheapest cities [and if you read the Household Income as a "well they can do it!", remember the living wage is a single adult, two adults is double and they can't again]: http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/real-estate/T006-S001-10-cheapest-u-s-cities-to-live-in/index.html http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/real-estate/T006-S001-10-... ~36% of the population is below the living wage number in major metro areas. 52.16% make less than $30,000.00 > My anecdotal experience working alongside lower class workers is that most of them run into trouble through trying to live a middle class lifestyle without the income to support it. They buy new cars, they eat out often, they refuse to work more than 40 hrs/wk, and they live in pricier apartments without roommates. All of these mistakes tie into the financial illiteracy that plagues people who were never exposed to those with good money habits. > The basic framework of early retirement is pretty simple: cut way down on your spending, then invest your savings. High savings rates can lead to surprisingly fast retirements. For example, if you save half your income, you'll be ready to retire in around 17 years. http://www.vox.com/2015/5/1/8518455/extreme-early-retirement http://www.vox.com/2015/5/1/8518455/extreme-early-retirement The majority of the population can't save half of their income like Mr Money Mustache and other FI people suggest. It isn't even mathematically possible for most of the country. Your moralizing is proof you are ignorant and don't have a real argument.
- Omniusaspirer 11y ago
  I like the personal attack at the end. The figures given by the living wage calculator are assuming a middle class lifestyle which is obviously ignorant when discussing lower class economics. Plugging in my own city of Ann Arbor, Michigan gives wildly inflated figures that fall in line exactly with my claims up above. The rent figure given is for having your own one bedroom apartment with no roommates, the food figure is hilariously overstated ($242/month), transportation assumes a pretty new car or very long commutes ($306/month). These figures simply are not realistic for a lower class individual. I am living a lower class lifestyle right now as I type this. I live in a shared home with 2 other people. I drive an older but reliable car I purchased for $2.2k cash (a luxury expense, I could have kept taking the bus/biking to work). I rarely eat out, and I avoid expensive items at the grocery store barring a few healthy choices like nuts. I split a $45/month 50 mbit internet connection with both my roommates. No cable. $30/month cell phone bill (another luxury). I have health and auto insurance. Overall, I have a pretty comfortable life for less than <$10k/yr. Nothing is stopping genuinely poor people from doing the same except extraordinary misfortunes (birth defects, severe disabilities). There is no moralizing here, just the cold hard numbers and experience from someone actually living this life and interacting daily with others at the bottom of the workforce. EDIT: After seeing your comment above I want to point out that at no point did I assert you could retire by 30 years old on this kind of income. If you're trying to argue that point then it's a strawman. I will also add that if you're still making ~20k/yr all of your life then you've made some financial mistakes in regards to your actual career choices, even janitorial staff end up around 35k/yr after a while.

zzalpha 11y ago

Or, alternatively: the erosion of wages in the face of rising inflation has placed a reasonable lifestyle out of the reach of many people. No longer can a household function on a single income while owning a home and raising a couple kids. Unfortunately society demands such a lifestyle from folks in order to be deemed a "success" and so people life beyond their now eroded means because they only alternative is to give up the dream they were sold every time someone opined about the "American Dream". Of course the alternative view is to blame these folks and tacitly assume that the right to a comfortable lifestyle with a couple kids is a luxury only for the rich.

Omniusaspirer 11y ago
I don't mean to assert this is an optimal scenario, but it is the one we've all been placed in. What choice do we really have but to try and live according to the circumstances we were born into?
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  >What choice do we really have but to try and live according to the circumstances we were born into? We can also work to change those circumstances for future generations.
Kalium 11y ago
How about we admit to ourselves that the "American Dream" lifestyle was only workable because most of the rest of the first world was a series of smoking craters? It's not sustainable going forward. It's not a sane goal. Abandon it. Reshape our goals around what can be reasonably accomplished.

dionidium 11y ago

> Having children you cannot afford is a common way that lower income people live above their means Poor people will never stop having sex, or wanting kids, or desiring a drink at the end of the day, because it just so happens that you don't lose basic human desires when you're poor. A lot of talk about financial literacy is really just moralizing about behaviors the lecturer would never dream of giving up himself. It's a dead-end conversation, because, again, humans are always going to do the stuff that humans do. But this entire thread is doomed because it stems from a claim that most people who struggle do so because they're living above their means. It seems to me that most people who struggle do so because they don't have as much money as the people who don't struggle. EDIT: Dear HN, can we make > start a quote, already? Look at how many people in this thread alone have used it in that way! I do it all the time and usually edit it back out.

fweespeech 11y ago

> If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion. The living wage project from MIT is designed to be the minimum viable estimate with no savings and living paycheck to paycheck. http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06037 http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06037 $23,640/year http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1308904000 http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1308904000 $21,007/year http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01_001.htm http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01... http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1324504204 http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1324504204 > $17,640 Btw, Augusta, Georgia is literally one of the 10 cheapest cities [and if you read the Household Income as a "well they can do it!", remember the living wage is a single adult, two adults is double and they can't again]: http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/real-estate/T006-S001-10-cheapest-u-s-cities-to-live-in/index.html http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/real-estate/T006-S001-10-... ~36% of the population is below the living wage number in major metro areas. 52.16% make less than $30,000.00 > My anecdotal experience working alongside lower class workers is that most of them run into trouble through trying to live a middle class lifestyle without the income to support it. They buy new cars, they eat out often, they refuse to work more than 40 hrs/wk, and they live in pricier apartments without roommates. All of these mistakes tie into the financial illiteracy that plagues people who were never exposed to those with good money habits. > The basic framework of early retirement is pretty simple: cut way down on your spending, then invest your savings. High savings rates can lead to surprisingly fast retirements. For example, if you save half your income, you'll be ready to retire in around 17 years. http://www.vox.com/2015/5/1/8518455/extreme-early-retirement http://www.vox.com/2015/5/1/8518455/extreme-early-retirement The majority of the population can't save half of their income like Mr Money Mustache and other FI people suggest. It isn't even mathematically possible for most of the country. Your moralizing is proof you are ignorant and don't have a real argument.

Omniusaspirer 11y ago
I like the personal attack at the end. The figures given by the living wage calculator are assuming a middle class lifestyle which is obviously ignorant when discussing lower class economics. Plugging in my own city of Ann Arbor, Michigan gives wildly inflated figures that fall in line exactly with my claims up above. The rent figure given is for having your own one bedroom apartment with no roommates, the food figure is hilariously overstated ($242/month), transportation assumes a pretty new car or very long commutes ($306/month). These figures simply are not realistic for a lower class individual. I am living a lower class lifestyle right now as I type this. I live in a shared home with 2 other people. I drive an older but reliable car I purchased for $2.2k cash (a luxury expense, I could have kept taking the bus/biking to work). I rarely eat out, and I avoid expensive items at the grocery store barring a few healthy choices like nuts. I split a $45/month 50 mbit internet connection with both my roommates. No cable. $30/month cell phone bill (another luxury). I have health and auto insurance. Overall, I have a pretty comfortable life for less than <$10k/yr. Nothing is stopping genuinely poor people from doing the same except extraordinary misfortunes (birth defects, severe disabilities). There is no moralizing here, just the cold hard numbers and experience from someone actually living this life and interacting daily with others at the bottom of the workforce. EDIT: After seeing your comment above I want to point out that at no point did I assert you could retire by 30 years old on this kind of income. If you're trying to argue that point then it's a strawman. I will also add that if you're still making ~20k/yr all of your life then you've made some financial mistakes in regards to your actual career choices, even janitorial staff end up around 35k/yr after a while.