47% of Americans would have to Borrow or Sell Something to Cover an Unexpected Expense of $400

[UIHawk64]

Also, I didn't sidestep anything. Fred changed the argument to something that it wasn't. I stayed on point! I don't think this is Opposite Day!

I answered that question in the previous post as soon as we came to somewhat of a conclusion to the conversation we were having. Thus allowing us to move on to another topic.

I never once argued that flip phones are keeping or putting people in poverty. You and Fred made that up. I'm not sure where either of you got that notion.

 

[Huey Grey]

Also, I didn't sidestep anything. Fred changed the argument to something that it wasn't. I stayed on point! I don't think this is Opposite Day!

I answered that question in the previous post as soon as we came to somewhat of a conclusion to the conversation we were having. Thus allowing us to move on to another topic.

I never once argued that flip phones are keeping or putting people in poverty. You and Fred made that up. I'm not sure where either of you got that notion.

So you agree with us that it's ridiculous to claim that flip phones are keeping people in poverty. Glad to see you come around on the issue. Why have you spent this entire thread trying hard to prove that poor people have smartphones then? God, your full of it.

 

[UIHawk64]

So you agree with us that it's ridiculous to claim that flip phones are keeping people in poverty. Glad to see you come around on the issue. Why have you spent this entire thread trying hard to prove that poor people have smartphones then? God, your full of it.

How is it that you are constantly so far behind in this thread. Give up or catch up. I do agree with you that flip phones don't keep people in poverty. I said that earlier. I never once said any different. Quit writing fiction Dr. Seuss. Furthermore, if I felt that way from the beginning there is no coming around to it.

Once again you have it opposite. When you make stuff up and continually claim false ideas or false narratives, it is you who are full of it.

Point out one time in this entire thread that I said (or tried to "prove") that poor people have smart phones. All of my responses in this entire thread have been about your false claims and nothing else. Like I said earlier, I can't stand when people make stuff up, claim it's true, fight tooth and nail to pretend what they initially said was true, keep changing the argument into something that it's not, or just keep slinging accusations against the wall to see what sticks. Congratulations, you did all of those things! I wouldn't be too proud of your accomplishments if I were you.

 

[Huey Grey]

How is it that you are constantly so far behind in this thread. Give up or catch up. I do agree with you that flip phones don't keep people in poverty. I said that earlier. I never once said any different. Quit writing fiction Dr. Seuss. Furthermore, if I felt that way from the beginning there is no coming around to it.

Once again you have it opposite. When you make stuff up and continually claim false ideas or false narratives, it is you who are full of it.

Point out one time in this entire thread that I said (or tried to "prove") that poor people have smart phones. All of my responses in this entire thread have been about your false claims and nothing else. Like I said earlier, I can't stand when people make stuff up, claim it's true, fight tooth and nail to pretend what they initially said was true, keep changing the argument into something that it's not, or just keep slinging accusations against the wall to see what sticks. Congratulations, you did all of those things! I wouldn't be too proud of your accomplishments if I were you.

So flip phones aren't keeping people poor. Neither are smartphones. And the same goes for cigarettes and tvs. So, IYO, why are so many people poor? I'd like to know your take?

 

[UIHawk64]

So flip phones aren't keeping people poor. Neither are smartphones. And the same goes for cigarettes and tvs. So, IYO, why are so many people poor? I'd like to know your take?

Let me answer the cigarette thing first. Do I think cigarettes keep people poor? I think it contributes. If we look at numbers it's hard to argue that it doesn't.

According to lung.org the average cost nationally for a pack of cigarettes is $5.51. Again, that's national average, apparently their is a wide range of up to $14 a pack in places like NYC. I tried to find average number of cigarettes smoked per smoker per day and it looks like a pack (20 cigarettes). $38.57 per week spent on smoking. If these people work full time, that would figure out to be a 96 cent per hour raise. Per year that amounts to $2,005.64. That alone is a couple rent payments, a couple months of food for the family, whatever you want to call it.

Furthermore, using your $15,000 a year poverty number, these people would be spending 13.4% of their annual income on cigarettes, that amounts to a little more than one dollar per every eight earned. This also doesn't take into account that smokers allegedly take 2.7 more sick days per year than nonsmokers. If these people are working hourly, I don't know that they get sick pay (some will and some won't), which may or may not further add to their decreased yearly income.

Looking at these numbers, do you agree or disagree that it would contribute?

 

[UIHawk64]

So flip phones aren't keeping people poor. Neither are smartphones. And the same goes for cigarettes and tvs. So, IYO, why are so many people poor? I'd like to know your take?

Answering the rest of your question, why are so many people poor? In my opinion, there is no smoking gun. The vast majority of poor people are poor for a variety of reasons.

Are you asking why people only make $15,000 a year, why people spend more money than they have coming in? I'm guessing we have different definitions of this. To me, anybody who is terribly in debt or barely scrapes by and lives terribly is poor. That creates a range of things to talk about. If you can give me a specific thing to talk about, I would enjoy that conversation.

 

[TexMichFan]

Be better if you borrowed something and then sold it. A bonus would be if you could sell it back to the person you borrowed it from .

 

[Guido Sarducci]

[QUOTE="What Would Jesus Do?, post: 358176, member: 11668"Yes, I think it's responsible to buy a $400 TV even if it leaves you with little in the bank [/QUOTE]

Lol.

Buying a luxury item regardless of the "deal" you are getting should not be prioritized above money for food, shelter and healthcare.

 

[cruhawk]

Financial security has been elusive for millions of Americans since the Great Recession ended. A new report (pdf) from the Federal Reserve demonstrates one way that this insecurity can manifest itself for people.

As part of its October 2014 survey, the agency asked 50,000 people if they could handle an unexpected “financial disruption” costing them $400. Just over half (53%) said they could “fairly easily handle such an expense” by using money in their bank accounts (checking or savings) or by leaning on a credit card.

But for 47% of respondents, $400 was a tougher problem to handle. Within this group, 14% said they simply couldn’t cover it. Another 10% would have to sell something, 13% would have to borrow money from a friend or relative and 2% would have to resort to a high-interest payday loan.

This finding was buried within the Fed report that otherwise offered a rosier outlook on the state of Americans’ financial status.

“Overall, since the previous survey in 2013, individuals and their families experienced only mild improvements in their overall well-being, but they are increasingly optimistic about the trajectory of their well-being going forward,” the report says.

http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/47-of-americans-would-have-to-borrow-or-sell-something-to-cover-an-unexpected-expense-of-400-150502?news=856624[/QUOTE]

The vast majority of this is about personal money management.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[QUOTE="What Would Jesus Do?, post: 358176, member: 11668"Yes, I think it's responsible to buy a $400 TV even if it leaves you with little in the bank

Lol.

Buying a luxury item regardless of the "deal" you are getting should not be prioritized above money for food, shelter and healthcare.[/QUOTE]
Since NO ONE is saying that, I have to wonder if you are paying attention.