47% of Americans would have to Borrow or Sell Something to Cover an Unexpected Expense of $400
- Thread starter fredjr82
- Start date
Same here but I have a wife, two daughters, and a son. Except that the X000.00 that we should have left over each month ends up being X0.00. I don't know where all of it goes unless she also has a secret divorce slush fund too.
What comes up? School pictures, random nights out, extra groceries, car repairs? If it's the same things over and over, your budget needs reworking. Either by creating sinking funds (car/home repairs, medical, stocking up on TP/paper towels/half a cow) and/or tracking these expenses to better understand what's happening (back to school clothes? school pictures? dry cleaning? dinners out? medical bills?).
Well you have a pregnant wife, so hookers and blow could be reliably budgeted for. Probably a bigger deal when one just randomly shows up on the monthly expense report.
Well, I didn't label the account hookers and blow. I thinks it's charitable education and health maintenance.
That was my first impression, as well.
And Huey is nuts, of course. There's no way in hell that 47% of Americans are unable to handle a $400 expense simply because their jobs don't pay enough.
The education comments are worth pursuing. I have no idea what is taught, if anything, about money management in today's high schools. Back when I was in high school, the answer was zippo.....although the "dumb" kids in the "dumb" math program were taught how to do income tax and other stuff the "smart" kids weren't expected to need to know. Of course, this is a school that didn't let college prep students take typing, so there's that.
Please define "serious money" for me. And please, don't blame the "school system" for a value that is learned at home. That "give a man a fish" crap is just that....crap. Simplistic...and easy foe simple people to understand....not necessarily true, however.
Remember, in order to catch a fish one needs bait, a hook, a line....and a fish to catch.
That was my first thought in response to Hawkeyemc's comment, as well.
Are you more favorable toward the MW increase now?
I wouldn't go quite that far, but part of the argument for raising the MW is that it would reduce the money spent on welfare. That's always seemed like a good trade-off to me. Surely both the person and the nation are better off.
That doesn't eliminate the need for programs to create jobs and help get people into them, but it should encourage people to look for jobs if they pay better than the dole.
Certainly smoking isn't a good money management choice, but it's also not what is keeping these people poor. Low paying jobs, less benefits, an erosion of the social safety net, and in general less opportunity is what is keeping these people poor.
Further, financial success often has less to do with the merits of your choices (the so-called Meritocracy argument) and more to do with what environment your were born into. If you're born in poverty, there is an excellent chance that you will stay in poverty. Whereas if you're born into riches, chances are you will stay in riches. And the reasons for this are many: Worse educational choices for the poor. Less professional connections. Less healthcare which leads to more sickness and a worse appearance. And in general less resources to become successful. This lack of resources for those in poverty compared to the rich is indisputable.
In a general, I think it's a bit simplistic to say that people are poor because they made bad choices. Often, they are poor because they have no choices.
You and I are from the same generation. Like you, I was never taught any money management skills. Not how to balance a checkbook, or a budget. Not how to do taxes. Nor did I get that from my intelligent college-educated parents, who never discussed money matters with the kids present. If they were still alive I'd ask them about that. Was that a "class" thing? A "value" to protect children from unpleasant things or just an omission?
What's worse, about the time I went to college, they came up with debit cards. I learned very quickly that while I could keep track of my bank account with a checkbook, I couldn't (or at least didn't) with a debit card. I have never had a debit card since then. Sure, I have enough money now that it wouldn't matter, but I just won't use them.
It would be interesting to see if today's kids are getting money management skills in school these days. And whether those skills encompass the latest high-tech ways to spend and get out of control.
Do people use checks any more? I probably use 4 or 5 a year, if that. Everything else is credit card or on line.
Cigarette smoking could increase soon.
I don't know if you have been following it but Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for billions in lost profits and to roll back Uruguay's cigarette warning labels. Those required labels are more extreme than ours. More like those in Australia (which also got sued).
How can they sue Uruguay, you ask, and how could they possibly win that suit? It has to do with NAFTA and WTO rules. These laws interfere with profit. And since other countries who are signatory to those agreements don't impose similar restrictions, those restrictions are in restraint of free trade. See how that works?
The TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) will expand the basis for bringing such suits, will extend these rules to more nations, and will make it even easier for corporations to bring nations to their knees, and to siphon money from national treasuries.
These cases won't be heard in national courts, or even international courts, as they usually are now. Rather, they will be arbitration hearings where the arbitrators are private lawyers who work for the corporations they will be judging. Technically impartial. But really?
Getting back to the topic of cigarettes, once the TPP happens, expect our cigarette labeling to be declared in restraint of trade. Perhaps laws that limit where people can smoke, too.
Also at risk will be laws against dumping coal ash into our water supplies, and worker safety programs, and more. For some of these, a showing that some other trade partner doesn't require such environmental, health or safety compliance may be sufficient to invalidate our laws AND to require billions be taken from our treasury. Congress and our courts will have no say. The only way out would be to pull out of these so-called free trade agreements. And if you have been paying attention you know that majorities of both parties - including the top leaders as well as Obama - are pushing FOR the TPP.
Firstly, those in poverty don't drive late model cars. On average, they drive older cars at least a decade old. Secondly, a flat-screen TV is no longer the measure of wealth. They are so cheap now that one can be purchased for just a few hundred dollars. Maybe you would call this a good measure of wealth, but I sure wouldn't. Thirdly, people in poverty don't typically own new smartphones. In fact, they don't tend to have smartphones period. Most poor people either have no cell phones, or have ones that aren't smart.
Sorry, but you are flat out wrong on all accounts. I live in a area that is a mixture of upper and middle class as well as poor. They absolutely have smart phones that they talk on while manipulating 3 different assistance cards to buy food, liquor and lotto tickets and then get into either a late model or used luxury car or at worst an older car with a fancy paint job and 20 inch or bigger chrome wheels. You are as wrong as you can possibly be. You are full of crap.
You would think so, but you would be wrong. Literally, half of the population is either in poverty or low income. For a lot of these people, a $400 expense can comprise nearly half a month's pay. I can easily see how they wouldn't be able to cover these costs.
A lot of people get confused about this. I suspect it's because they see some black people with nice cars and the latest smart phones. Since they equate "poor" with "black" if they see some black people with an iPhone6, all poor people have them.
I don't expect any of our cons to have an epiphany from reading that, but I would bet money that it's more true than they would admit. And not just among cons, either.
When proven wrong, pull the race card. Way to follow the script.
Where I live it is not that hard to find a job where you can make a decent living if you are willing to A) show up and B) work. Most employers that I talk to their biggest problems are finding qualified people to do the work (jobs in manufacturing that take limited training/schooling) and finding people that will actually show up to work.
A quick Google search of the price of a pack of smokes brought up the following numbers for someone smoking a pack per day. Not smoking a pack a day for a year would set up a nice little emergency fund for most low income people.
Iowa State Avg. Price per Pack: $6.29
Cost Over One Year: $2,296
Cost Over 20 Years: $45,917
That being said I don't live in an area with persistent poverty. Around here there are opportunities to better your situation if you are willing to take advantage of it. If you live in an area with no opportunities to live a good, decent life, why do you choose to live there?
Says the guy who in his previous post pretty nicely illustrated my argument.
Good job.
And don't tell me it was the white people with nice cars and iPhones buying lottery tickets with their assistance cards who caught your eye. Nobody is buying that. If it had been white people, you wouldn't have given it a second thought - if you had noticed them at all. You notice it when you see blacks doing it and you inappropriately extrapolate to poor people.
Could you be the rare exception? Sure, why not. But are you?
Moreover, how would he know that they are poor? If they are driving new cars, using new technology, and otherwise appear wealthy, then why would he think that they were poor? Did Kiting personally check their tax returns? His whole argument makes no sense.
Why are you guys obsessed with cigs? They aren't a good idea, but they also aren't what is causing poverty in this country. Lack of good paying jobs is what is causing poverty. There are currently 12 million active job seekers (even more if you count the discouraged and those who want more than part-time work), yet only 4 million jobs. That means that there are most definitely not enough jobs to go around.
The entire world could stop smoking tomorrow and it wouldn't change the fact that half of this country is in poverty or close to it.
I think this is an interesting question. I don't know the answer but I bet it's been studied.
Answers presumably range from family and friends and having a place to live to mere inertia and fear of the unknown.
I suspect we'd see a lot of people leaving for greener pastures if they thought there were some greener pastures. And if they thought there would be a job for them when they got there.
But this isn't the Wild West. Most people today won't live rough while panning for gold in California, or while trying to bring in that first crop. Not just because they don't find the prospect attractive, but because they haven't a clue how to live that way or the skills to make it work.
So what happens if poor people in Baltimore hear that there are 10,000 jobs available right now to work the fracking fields in N.Dakota. Do they rush to N.Dakota?
How do they get there? Why would they think the jobs would still be available when they arrive? Why do they think they would be chosen?
It would be interesting to try an experiment like that. Maybe some rich folks like the Kochs or Soros or Buffett or Gates could give it a try. Guarantee the jobs. Give people 2 weeks to show up. Any able-bodied legal candidate who shows up on time is guaranteed a full-time, long-term job paying at least $15/hour somewhere in the country. You'll either be given work right away or you'll get some training and you'll be shipped (at employer expense) to your new job location. You'll get free lodging and food while being trained and for the first few weeks on the job, until you start getting paid.
How many people do you think would make the trip?
What quality workers do you think would come out the other end?
Do you think anyone would get suspicious when they were asked to travel to their new jobs crammed into cattle cars?
Smoking represents just one of many bad spending habits and poor money management of those in or near poverty. I just wanted to point out that most poor people that smoke could really use an extra $2,200 a year.
The answer is that most places lack opportunities. So if you move somewhere, you will be facing most of the same challenges.
They sure could use that extra money, but the fact is that they would still be in poverty. Moreover, the vast majority of poor people don't smoke. 70% don't. So they are already saving this money yet still mired in poverty. This is why I think blaming cigs is misplaced
Wrong. Everybody has a choice. People are poor because that is the lifestyle they know and they are accustomed to it. There are those who are born poor that look at how other classes of people live and reject the poor lifestyle, vowing they will do what it takes to never be poor. There are others born into poverty that just accept that is their lot in life. Personally, I was born into a middle class family. I would not accept being poor. I would do anything in my power to not slip into the poor class. On the other hand, I realize I have given myself a self imposed ceiling and will probably never break into the uber-rich category. That is because when things are going good for me I become satisfied and take the foot off the pedal or, more accurately, I don't take risks with my money and buy into higher risk investments, speculative real estate, etc. I have a plan I am satisfied with and am sticking to it. If a person born into wealth were in my position they could not tolerate being in my station in life and would more than likely push through the ceiling I have built for myself in order to accumulate more wealth.
There are plenty of poor people in Iowa that go to public schools right along with kids from the middle and upper classes. They take the same classes, tests, and have the same opportunity to escape their class in life. Sadly that doesn't always happen because they gravitate back to the life they know.
TL;DR - People get accustomed to their class in life and "settle".
Agreed wish we would of started saving for their college fund long before having them. The good thing is though Grandparents and even uncles have started to pitch in 20 dollars a month into their 529 plans. So its steadily going up. I just couldn't believe all the extra's you have when you have kids, we finally got on a budget and its actually saving us quite a bit a month and we are putting that extra towards retirement or 529 plans.
We are the same we have our emergency fund that does not get touched. We are also maxing out our ROTH IRA's and our retirements through work. Hopefully we can retire before were 70, but I doubt it.
I think it is interesting that companies like Tyson, Smithfield Foods, etc. recruit labor from the 3rd world countries of South America and Asia to work in their beef, pork, and poultry processing facilities when they could be recruiting labor from inside America's blighted inner cities. I am guessing if I drive through the streets of Gary, Indiana or East St. Louis I won't find a Tyson Foods recruiting office.
The jobs are available, we have the people available to fill them, why isn't it happening? Misguided policies is my guess.
I've already pointed this out, but your argument totally ignores the fact that poor people have less opportunities than everyone else. They have less educational opportunities, less job networking opportunities, less healthcare opportunities, less transportation opportunities, and less technological opportunities. And since our society is one largely based on competition, all these disadvantages represent a clear handicap for the poor. Maybe you think that ignoring all of this is reasonable, but I don't. I recognize that all these built-in limitations have more to do with results than simply choosing to be poor, as you suggest.
Maybe the jobs are available in certain industries, but across all industries, there is a severe shortage of jobs.
Sorry Huey. I live and work in smaller rural communities. There are all classes of people who live in these towns across the midwest. Those kids go to the same public schools as my kids and the rich kids in town. They get taught the same thing in class and have the same opportunities. There is no limit on what they choose to do with their lives. In fact, I could argue they have more advantages given tehir socio-economic status gives them access to programs and grants my kids would not be eligible for. The reality is that many poor people gravitate to the poor lifestyle because that is what they know. The know the social programs, what to apply for, how to work the system because they learned it from their parents. My kid wouldn't know how to apply for SNAP or energy assistance because I have no clue how to apply for it myself.
Now if we are talking about the inner cities. If they are so bad then those people should just leave and look for other opportuntities. The jobs are out there, one just needs to be willing to look for opportunity.
Now if we are talking about the inner cities. If they are so bad then those people should just leave and look for other opportuntities. The jobs are out there, one just needs to be willing to look for opportunity.
I think it's pretty cute how you and Huey chastise "cons" for the generalizations they make , and then you both cast wide generalizations about cons' beliefs.
Not every welfare recipient smokes. Not every one has an iPhone. Not everyone has a flat screen TV.
But a ridiculously high number exhibits some aspect of this moronic type of spending behavior , egregious enough that they should not be handed money off the hands of those who are more responsible and live more within their means.
As I read the smoking example, it's not about the smoking per se it's about bad decisions on a daily basis. Smoking costs far more than $400 per year. And even if flat screen costs have come down , there are still cheaper options and if you prioritize that ahead of a "rainy day" fund then you are an f'ing moron and don't deserve my hard earned tax dollars. Period.
I think it's reasonable to invest a lot in education at a basic level to give a populace it's opportunity to learn appropriate decision-making , but beyond that funding and rewarding bad decisions and bad behaviors is something only a liberal with no financial stake in the game could embrace.
I have 90k in 3 bank accounts...doesn't include my pension checks and I am 3 years away from early SS(which I intend to take despite the penalty)...not great but not too shabby for someone who lived on teachers pay.
The vast majority of poor people don't smoke. And the vast majority don't own iPhones. As for flatscreen tvs, they are as little as a few hundred bucks now and that's a one time purchase that will last for years. None of these are good examples that the poor are wasting their money. All you've done is to highlight few bad financial decisions that the vast majority of poor people don't even engage in while ignoring that lack of opportunities and good paying jobs is the real culprit.
Which was the point of my experiment. If people knew that they would get a job if they went, how many would go? Not all, of course. And it would be fascinating to study why not. But a lot would. Or so I think.
If you cost this out, it really ought to be worth trying. Suppose a MILLION people showed up. How much would that cost? $50 billion ? Would it be worth it to get 1 million people back to work, off the welfare rolls, off the streets, not clogging the courts and jails...? And of course it wouldn't cost $50 billion because the "pay" would be picked up by employers and the workers would stop needing housing and training and so on.
This is basically the American public following the lead of the American Govt. Spend more than you have, push it down the road with credit, buy things you don't need,...ect. Why would the public do anything different?
