Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   As of August, 60% of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck. Seems low   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, Price index, Consumer price index, Inflation, Central bank, consumer price index, Goods, Interest rate, Money  
•       •       •

446 clicks; posted to Business » and Main » on 03 Oct 2022 at 8:10 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



35 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-10-03 8:18:48 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-10-03 8:25:17 PM  
Gotta bump up those numbers! Let's get 70% serfs!
 
2022-10-03 8:26:23 PM  
Don't worry. The Fed is going to make sure you're unemployed, too, thus solving the problem once and for all.

/once and for all!
 
2022-10-03 8:38:45 PM  
What is the definition of "paycheck to paycheck" that they're using? That you use the entirety of your paycheck each month? Or that you would be bankrupt after missing one paycheck? Hard to believe people making six figures aren't contributing to retirement savings which they couldn't turn around and dip into if needed. It cheapens the reality for people truly living paycheck to paycheck to lump high earners in there.
 
2022-10-03 8:47:00 PM  
"Even high-income earners are feeling the strain, the report found. Of those earning more than six figures, 45% reported living paycheck to paycheck, a jump from the previous year's 38%."


Oh fark off...
 
2022-10-03 8:48:41 PM  

cocozilla: "Even high-income earners are feeling the strain, the report found. Of those earning more than six figures, 45% reported living paycheck to paycheck, a jump from the previous year's 38%."


Oh fark off...


Yeah they have options.
 
2022-10-03 8:54:17 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-10-03 8:54:25 PM  
For high earners, living paycheck to paycheck includes sending little Tarkin and Nutella to private school.  That's 30G per sprog per year.
 
2022-10-03 9:16:12 PM  
Did the other 40%...not live?
 
2022-10-03 9:20:49 PM  

cocozilla: "Even high-income earners are feeling the strain, the report found. Of those earning more than six figures, 45% reported living paycheck to paycheck, a jump from the previous year's 38%."


Oh fark off...


Blow's expensive.
 
2022-10-03 9:29:34 PM  
60% pay check to paycheck, also X% just have no pay check at all.


never forget the trust is, Relativity.


Anyone trying to tell you they know the objective value of anything is obliviously a lying sack of dik tips.
the value of a dollar is relative to how many you already have, so what is affordable and costly is also relative.

thus anyone who claims to advocate for "affordable housing" is also a liar if they don't say what they define as "affordable."
 
2022-10-03 9:47:26 PM  
Pre-COVID it was 80%+

When we get back to that, job market's back to normal.
 
2022-10-03 9:47:34 PM  
WTF? The article is only about feelings. It says 45% of six-figure earner think theya re living paycheque-to-paycheque. Which would be absolutely astounding, if the article had any analysis of how many pay periods a person could go without having a negative bank balance resulting in not buying food that week. Any analysis whatsoever. To frame the concept as feelings is to push a Neo-Nazi lie, that living paycheque-to-paycheque is a problem shared by six-figure earners and someon earning at-or-below the LICO. To say that it's a feeling, instead of a math fact, especially during an election, is to lie for the benefit of white supremacists.
 
2022-10-03 10:29:08 PM  
Prices of basic necessities are going up, but not because of inflation.

Prices are going up because the workers are complaining that prices are going up. Inflation is just the excuse magicked into existence by the news-entertainment industry.
 
2022-10-03 10:33:49 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: WTF? The article is only about feelings. It says 45% of six-figure earner think theya re living paycheque-to-paycheque. Which would be absolutely astounding, if the article had any analysis of how many pay periods a person could go without having a negative bank balance resulting in not buying food that week. Any analysis whatsoever. To frame the concept as feelings is to push a Neo-Nazi lie, that living paycheque-to-paycheque is a problem shared by six-figure earners and someon earning at-or-below the LICO. To say that it's a feeling, instead of a math fact, especially during an election, is to lie for the benefit of white supremacists.


A lot of six-figure earners live in places where six figures is barely enough to qualify for a rental. Maybe instead of working class infighting (and yes, most "six figure earners" are working class,) you can focus on something beneficial like, you know, actually looking for solutions that aren't "literally everyone that earns more than I do is a Nazi."
 
2022-10-03 10:40:56 PM  
If you're in the high income bracket and living paycheck to paycheck it's your own damn fault. If you're an average to low wage earner living paycheck to paycheck it's because being poor is expensive and that's the high income brackets fault.
 
2022-10-03 11:14:37 PM  

Lusiphur: Bennie Crabtree: WTF? The article is only about feelings. It says 45% of six-figure earner think theya re living paycheque-to-paycheque. Which would be absolutely astounding, if the article had any analysis of how many pay periods a person could go without having a negative bank balance resulting in not buying food that week. Any analysis whatsoever. To frame the concept as feelings is to push a Neo-Nazi lie, that living paycheque-to-paycheque is a problem shared by six-figure earners and someon earning at-or-below the LICO. To say that it's a feeling, instead of a math fact, especially during an election, is to lie for the benefit of white supremacists.

A lot of six-figure earners live in places where six figures is barely enough to qualify for a rental. Maybe instead of working class infighting (and yes, most "six figure earners" are working class,) you can focus on something beneficial like, you know, actually looking for solutions that aren't "literally everyone that earns more than I do is a Nazi."


That sounds like something a Nazi who earns more than me would say...
 
2022-10-03 11:36:26 PM  
Show me more Elon musk tweets and Donald Trump articles.
 
2022-10-03 11:36:34 PM  

Hawk the Hawk: Did the other 40%...not live?


Not really, no.

But only from personal experience.

No autobiography will be written about my exciting life of work, home, chores, sleep, repeat.
 
2022-10-03 11:53:43 PM  

Gergesa: Lusiphur: Bennie Crabtree: WTF? The article is only about feelings. It says 45% of six-figure earner think theya re living paycheque-to-paycheque. Which would be absolutely astounding, if the article had any analysis of how many pay periods a person could go without having a negative bank balance resulting in not buying food that week. Any analysis whatsoever. To frame the concept as feelings is to push a Neo-Nazi lie, that living paycheque-to-paycheque is a problem shared by six-figure earners and someon earning at-or-below the LICO. To say that it's a feeling, instead of a math fact, especially during an election, is to lie for the benefit of white supremacists.

A lot of six-figure earners live in places where six figures is barely enough to qualify for a rental. Maybe instead of working class infighting (and yes, most "six figure earners" are working class,) you can focus on something beneficial like, you know, actually looking for solutions that aren't "literally everyone that earns more than I do is a Nazi."

That sounds like something a Nazi who earns more than me would say...


Dammit, you caught me!
 
2022-10-04 12:10:49 AM  

Shaggy_C: What is the definition of "paycheck to paycheck" that they're using? That you use the entirety of your paycheck each month? Or that you would be bankrupt after missing one paycheck? Hard to believe people making six figures aren't contributing to retirement savings which they couldn't turn around and dip into if needed. It cheapens the reality for people truly living paycheck to paycheck to lump high earners in there.


It's all relative.

I use up all my pay every month and have no savings. I've been in trouble often enough to know that losing my income would be a crisis, but it's not a I'm going to die right now crisis.

If you still have something coming in you communicate with the people you owe, you juggle who gets what when to keep everyone as placated as you can. Most places give considerable leeway if you communicate.

For my part the worst case scenario of nothing coming in would mean selling my home posthaste. Thankfully the equity I could collect from that could pay off all my debt and leave me a bit to live on while I go live with family until I'm sorted.

I only have extra coming in when I have two renters. Been down one most of the year. When I have extra I put it towards fixing things I've put off or towards digging out of a debt hole for the next few years. There's no point in saving money at .000001 percent interest when I could be putting that money towards a tangible property improvement or debt that's drawing 4/10/20 percent or more.

I'm literally at the bottom of the "people who have options" barrel though, I've got family and friends I can get help from, and one big fat asset whose appreciation has me technically with positive net worth for the first time in my life.
 
2022-10-04 1:15:49 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: WTF? The article is only about feelings. It says 45% of six-figure earner think theya re living paycheque-to-paycheque. Which would be absolutely astounding, if the article had any analysis of how many pay periods a person could go without having a negative bank balance resulting in not buying food that week. Any analysis whatsoever. To frame the concept as feelings is to push a Neo-Nazi lie, that living paycheque-to-paycheque is a problem shared by six-figure earners and someon earning at-or-below the LICO. To say that it's a feeling, instead of a math fact, especially during an election, is to lie for the benefit of white supremacists.


And even then they could only conjure a slight uptick from last year, based on a surge among high earners who apparently feel that they're spending beyond their higher-than-average means but can't bring themselves to rein their spending in.
 
2022-10-04 3:53:00 AM  
They do a survey, find that 40% of people can't afford a $500 emergency.
They do a survey, find that 40% of people can't afford a $1000 emergency.

What they actually found was 40% of people think they're about to be asked to make a donation.
 
2022-10-04 8:29:37 AM  

wildcardjack: They do a survey, find that 40% of people can't afford a $500 emergency.
They do a survey, find that 40% of people can't afford a $1000 emergency.

What they actually found was 40% of people think they're about to be asked to make a donation.


Exactly.  There are poor definitions, and the inferences are faulty.

It seems to be based on this:

"Nearly six in 10 Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 or $1,000 unplanned expense, according to a new report from Bankrate.

Only 41% of adults reported having enough in their savings account to cover a surprise bill of this magnitude. A little more than 20% said they would put it on a credit card, the report said, while 20% would cut their spending and 11% would turn to friends and family for financial assistance."


So, they take the 41% of adults who say they would pull money from savings for an unexpected expense, and assume that the other 59% simply don't have the savings.

Now, I actually had an quasi-unexpected expense last month - I forgot the bill for flood insurance was due, a little under $600.

I threw it on my Amex.  Just like every other bill.
I paid off the Amex at the end of the month, just like every other month.
Since I knew that charge was there, I cooled it on my usual splurges a bit.
At the end of the month, when I paid it off, I diverted a bit of the money that would usually be earmarked for savings.

So, did I put it on a credit card?  Did I cut other expenses? Did I use savings?

I would order the Bankrate Categories this way:

20% have enough flex in their budget to just absorb it.
41% would tap into savings
20% would put it on a credit card (not clear if this means carrying a balance, nor how long... 2?  3 mos?  just long enough to spread it across several months budget?  Let's assume half are actually adding it to long term balances
11% would go to family/friends hat in hand.

That would mean that for 71% of people, it's basically a non-issue.

Another 10% might add a bit to their CC balance.

11% would have to rely on the charity of others.

The last, what, 9%?  Sell Plasma?  Steal a bicycle?  🤷‍♂


Shaggy_C: What is the definition of "paycheck to paycheck" that they're using? That you use the entirety of your paycheck each month? Or that you would be bankrupt after missing one paycheck? Hard to believe people making six figures aren't contributing to retirement savings which they couldn't turn around and dip into if needed. It cheapens the reality for people truly living paycheck to paycheck to lump high earners in there.


Yeah, for "paycheck to paycheck,' what the usually mean is "everything is budgeted already."  I personally don't really do this type of budgeting because having a lot of flex in my monthly flow is important to me - I'd rather live in a less ornate house, drive a used car, wear cheaper clothing, and have a big ol' monthly slush fund... That is, in part because in my first marriage, my ex-wife wanted to squeeze every single drop of lifestyle out of our pay, and the stress was unbearable, so I make a conscious choice to live way below my means.  Wife 2.0 shares that philosophy, so it works well for us. YMMV.

Meanwhile, a coworker was whining about gas prices, and I'd guess their annual household income is somewhere in the $250K/year range. 

"But we live paycheck to paycheck."  I gave her the side eye... "Oh do tell."

Apparently, that means the mortgage on a 3500 sq ft SFH.  A motorhome used a few times a year.  Private schools. Maxed-out 401Ks. shiat, the Department of Defense has a massive budget, but it gets used up every year.  They live from fiscal year to fiscal year.
 
2022-10-04 8:33:51 AM  

RedVentrue: Gotta bump up those numbers! Let's get 70% serfs!


It's an odd story because the number I've heard the last several years was already at 70% living pay to pay. The fact that almost 1-in-2 making six-figures are also living PtP is rampant consumerism at its finest.
 
2022-10-04 9:14:20 AM  

Boudyro: Shaggy_C: What is the definition of "paycheck to paycheck" that they're using? That you use the entirety of your paycheck each month? Or that you would be bankrupt after missing one paycheck? Hard to believe people making six figures aren't contributing to retirement savings which they couldn't turn around and dip into if needed. It cheapens the reality for people truly living paycheck to paycheck to lump high earners in there.

It's all relative.

I use up all my pay every month and have no savings. I've been in trouble often enough to know that losing my income would be a crisis, but it's not a I'm going to die right now crisis.


I agree with its being relative.  Living check to check is dependent on the context -- what are you spending your money on?  Are you spending your money on essentials only -- rent/mortgage, utilities, food -- and nothing else?  Or are you stopping at Starbucks on the way to work every morning, going out to lunch almost every day, and maybe out to dinner a few times per week?  Are you going to the movies regularly, diverting money towards a vacation, buying a new phone so you can have three cameras instead of a paltry two, buying a new car and taking on a car payment when your paid-off car is still reliable, etc.?  If you're in the latter category, you should live within your means, a concept which seems to have become foreign to a lot of people.

If you're in the former category, I can certainly sympathize because that was me for most of my adult life, and especially after I ended up with a giant stack of medical bills from a cancer diagnosis.  For a stretch of about three years, my life largely consisted of two things -- going to work and sitting in my apartment -- because I was on the brink of bankruptcy.  I didn't watch a movie unless I already had it or if it was on broadcast TV.  I stopped buying books, re-reading the ones I already had or checking books out from the library.  Vacations?  Yeah, right.  I took my vacation time, but I would spend the day sitting in my apartment, or going for a walk.  The only variation from this routine was going across town to visit a couple friends, and they'd supply the dinner, followed by an evening of board games and/or movies.
 
2022-10-04 9:30:39 AM  
"good money" is relative to where you live, but at least in the midwest, if you make anything above 70k per year (so lets ballpark a 100k household income with 2 earners), and you're still living paycheck to paycheck? I have no sympathy.   And I work with people who most definitely make more than that and are still "struggling".

Most of this comes down to dumb decisions related to either the size of house someone bought, or the car they bought, And i'll note that right now, in 2023, you can get a brand new kia sedan for less than 20k. BRAND NEW car.  But buying that would somehow be indicative that you're not rich or something. Or being willing to accept that at your current stage in life, you can't take vacations every year that cost two or three thousand dollars.

Mostly though, financial smarts aren't taught to vast majority of people.  If you learned when you were young (20's) that not only do you need a reliable, cheaper car & that in order to save up a couple months worth of money for emergencies, you need to be willing to live on some beans and rice, then you never forget that thought process regardless of what you are making 20 years later.

I don't know, I never felt like i went "without" in my struggling years. I would still take yearly road trips with my closest friends, share a hotel room on the beach & on the cheap. I'd treat my girlfriend to dinners, and eat meager by myself.  I never drove a rust bucket that i was ashamed of, but every car purchased was 7-8 years old; it just took months of searching for that used car that had lower miles.
 
2022-10-04 9:48:15 AM  

phedex: Mostly though, financial smarts aren't taught to vast majority of people.


I don't disagree with you on what you said, just want to comment on this.  The vast majority of adults walk around with a smartphone now, which gives them instant access to the sum total of human knowledge.  If they choose not to use it as the tool it is, and instead spend their time on social media, they're choosing ignorance.  The information on financial smarts is available to anyone who goes looking for it.
 
2022-10-04 9:48:50 AM  

Lusiphur: Bennie Crabtree: WTF? The article is only about feelings. It says 45% of six-figure earner think theya re living paycheque-to-paycheque. Which would be absolutely astounding, if the article had any analysis of how many pay periods a person could go without having a negative bank balance resulting in not buying food that week. Any analysis whatsoever. To frame the concept as feelings is to push a Neo-Nazi lie, that living paycheque-to-paycheque is a problem shared by six-figure earners and someon earning at-or-below the LICO. To say that it's a feeling, instead of a math fact, especially during an election, is to lie for the benefit of white supremacists.

A lot of six-figure earners live in places where six figures is barely enough to qualify for a rental. Maybe instead of working class infighting (and yes, most "six figure earners" are working class,) you can focus on something beneficial like, you know, actually looking for solutions that aren't "literally everyone that earns more than I do is a Nazi."


And everybody who earns less than me is a communist
 
2022-10-04 9:58:18 AM  

Mail Order American Husband: If you're in the high income bracket and living paycheck to paycheck it's your own damn fault. If you're an average to low wage earner living paycheck to paycheck it's because being poor is expensive and that's the uber high, trust fund, beyond greedy income brackets fault.

 
2022-10-04 10:49:22 AM  

Boudyro: There's no point in saving money at .000001 percent interest when I could be putting that money towards a tangible property improvement or debt that's drawing 4/10/20 percent or more.


10k in an  I Bond is paying about 9% right now, but you can't touch it for a year.   High yield online savings accounts are paying 2% and it's just as easy to transfer money as a traditional savings account.

But, yeah, you should be maintaining your properties regardless, and if you have some equity and good credit, then you could have a HELOC to handle emergencies.  Or, as you stated, sell them in a worst case scenario.
 
2022-10-04 10:57:34 AM  

Nick Nostril: RedVentrue: Gotta bump up those numbers! Let's get 70% serfs!

It's an odd story because the number I've heard the last several years was already at 70% living pay to pay. The fact that almost 1-in-2 making six-figures are also living PtP is rampant consumerism at its finest.


Probably a combo of student loans and keeping up with the Joneses.
 
2022-10-04 11:08:47 AM  

Shaggy_C: What is the definition of "paycheck to paycheck" that they're using? That you use the entirety of your paycheck each month? Or that you would be bankrupt after missing one paycheck? Hard to believe people making six figures aren't contributing to retirement savings which they couldn't turn around and dip into if needed. It cheapens the reality for people truly living paycheck to paycheck to lump high earners in there.


The Fark financial experts have convinced me the following are S-M-R-T ways to handle money: 1) leasing a vehicle; 2) purchasing a new vehicle; 3) running up credit cards and "just paying them off every month"; and, 4) keeping a mortgage for 30 years under the guise that interest rates will always be low, and the possibility of becoming unemployed or hit with a financial emergency will never happen.
 
2022-10-04 11:18:51 AM  
At the *very* least we should outlaw predatory practices towards the low income demographic.  That's the bare minimum we could do.
 
2022-10-04 4:42:28 PM  

Chief Superintendent Lookout: Shaggy_C: What is the definition of "paycheck to paycheck" that they're using? That you use the entirety of your paycheck each month? Or that you would be bankrupt after missing one paycheck? Hard to believe people making six figures aren't contributing to retirement savings which they couldn't turn around and dip into if needed. It cheapens the reality for people truly living paycheck to paycheck to lump high earners in there.

The Fark financial experts have convinced me the following are S-M-R-T ways to handle money: 1) leasing a vehicle; 2) purchasing a new vehicle; 3) running up credit cards and "just paying them off every month"; and, 4) keeping a mortgage for 30 years under the guise that interest rates will always be low, and the possibility of becoming unemployed or hit with a financial emergency will never happen.


1 and 2 might be, but I get the .  Depends on your situation.  Buying a new car and keeping it long term, you know the maintenance is being done properly all along.  Leasing can be good if you own a business, but these will all be conditional.

For 3:  WTF?  If you pay them off, you aren't running them up.  You're just spending money, but with better protections and lots of bonus benefits.  What would you suggest as the alternative?  Debit cards?  Cash?  Gold Dust?  Checks?

For 4:  Please explain:  If you're afraid of being hit by financial emergencies, why on earth would you throw extra funds into your mortgage?  If you needed to access it, the only way would be to refinance into a higher rate loan. Like... should I put all my extra funds into paying down my 2.625% mortgage more quickly, just to have to refinance or borrow at 7+% if I have an emergency?  Or should I draw down my savings and sell off a big chunk of my portfolio to pay it off now, rather than keeping my negative real rate loan? 

How does that make any fucking sense whatsoever?
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.