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.

(The Consumerist)   Remember the old advice of having 6 months salary saved for an unexpected expense? Well, half of America is not even prepared for a $100 emergency   ( consumerist.com) divider line
    More: Scary, respondents, minor auto repair, online respondents, survey respondents, nearly half, financial surprises, hospital bills, forgettable lunch  
•       •       •

984 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 May 2017 at 1:19 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-05-18 11:15:54 AM  
Trumpy will fix it
 
2017-05-18 11:34:23 AM  
Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!
 
2017-05-18 01:27:50 PM  

cretinbob: Trumpy will fix it


An embattled president is more likely to make big compromises to change the subject and try and swing public opinion. Maybe, just maybe tax cuts will be focused on the middle or lower classes than the job creators. Nixon gave us the EPA and clean water act.
 
2017-05-18 01:31:47 PM  
Four out of five survey respondents said they would not be able to afford an unanticipated bill of $1,000.

We had a thread about that.  Was it from a different study, or just preliminary results from this one?
 
2017-05-18 01:32:37 PM  
I wonder how many who don't have $100 saved have over $600 in car payments each month?
 
2017-05-18 01:38:08 PM  
That's okay though, because they all have credit cards.
 
2017-05-18 01:38:17 PM  
But don't worry, not having universal healthcare is totally a personal choice that should be celebrated. Nobody every got at $100 or more medical bill that didn't plan for it.
 
2017-05-18 01:44:00 PM  

SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!


You are aware of course that 16 of those years have had Democrat Presidents and 18 have had strong Democrat majorities in Congress (roughly half the time), right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ov​e​r_time

Of course you did.  Both sides totally not the same though.

Fun fact: "Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party"
 
2017-05-18 01:46:32 PM  

Cheron: cretinbob: Trumpy will fix it

An embattled president is more likely to make big compromises to change the subject and try and swing public opinion. Maybe, just maybe tax cuts will be focused on the middle or lower classes than the job creators. Nixon gave us the EPA and clean water act.


hahahahahahahahahaha
 
2017-05-18 01:50:20 PM  
This explains why damn payday loan places won't die like the roaches they are.
 
2017-05-18 01:59:49 PM  
i1.kym-cdn.comView Full Size


or get a small loan from Daddy of $1 million or so

49.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2017-05-18 02:08:02 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: This explains why damn payday loan places won't die like the roaches they are.


Payday loan places offer critical services for a good chunk of the working population.  Especially for those who don't like or use banks.
 
2017-05-18 02:08:36 PM  
For instance, when 1,000 online respondents were asked

That's where I stop reading.
 
2017-05-18 02:09:54 PM  

gingerjet: HMS_Blinkin: This explains why damn payday loan places won't die like the roaches they are.

Payday loan places offer critical services for a good chunk of the working population.  Especially for those who don't like or use banks.


On what planet can you get a payday loan without a bank account? Every single one of those places requires that you sign an agreement allowing them to withdraw the money from your account on a certain date.
 
2017-05-18 02:14:52 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: This explains why damn payday loan places won't die like the roaches they are.


Once the banks start offering sub $1k short term loans for a competitive interest rate, the PD loan places will probably go away.
 
2017-05-18 02:16:55 PM  

gingerjet: HMS_Blinkin: This explains why damn payday loan places won't die like the roaches they are.

Payday loan places offer critical services for a good chunk of the working population.  Especially for those who don't like or use banks.


Debbie, is that you?
 
2017-05-18 02:37:00 PM  
But Reagan said that the money would trickle down! It's impossible that billionaires would ever become insatiable and want more billions.
 
2017-05-18 03:21:23 PM  

SurfaceTension: * instituted "trickle down economics"


No one in the history of modern economics has ever said that the benefits of tax cuts for high income earners will trickle down to lower income classes.

Never.

Not once, from Adam Smith and David Ricardo in the 1700s to the present has that claim ever been made.

However, the motives and goals of those who propose tax cuts have often been misrepresented.

images-na.ssl-images-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2017-05-18 03:37:27 PM  

zeppo_shemp: SurfaceTension: * instituted "trickle down economics"

No one in the history of modern economics has ever said that the benefits of tax cuts for high income earners will trickle down to lower income classes.

Never.

Not once, from Adam Smith and David Ricardo in the 1700s to the present has that claim ever been made.

However, the motives and goals of those who propose tax cuts have often been misrepresented.

[images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com image 333x499]


Trickle down was implied by Laffer's idea that tax cuts pay for themselves through economic growth.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp
 
2017-05-18 03:39:01 PM  

AngryDragon: SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!

You are aware of course that 16 of those years have had Democrat Presidents and 18 have had strong Democrat majorities in Congress (roughly half the time), right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove​r_time

Of course you did.  Both sides totally not the same though.

Fun fact: "Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party"


Yea, FDR's policies are just like Trump's, Reagan's or GWB's.
 
2017-05-18 03:42:11 PM  

SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!


As a working-class person, I've never really understood why many people in the same economic boat as me ALWAYS vote Republican. IMHO, it's like stabbing oneself in the back.

/ the religious and "moral" reasons for voting GOP are equally baffling to me.
 
2017-05-18 04:11:31 PM  

AngryDragon: SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!

You are aware of course that 16 of those years have had Democrat Presidents and 18 have had strong Democrat majorities in Congress (roughly half the time), right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove​r_time

Of course you did.  Both sides totally not the same though.

Fun fact: "Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party"


Yes, be that as it may, you can't change the fact that
Republican=Bad
Democrat=Good
Facts=Racist
 
2017-05-18 04:11:54 PM  

GanjSmokr: HMS_Blinkin: This explains why damn payday loan places won't die like the roaches they are.

Once the banks start offering sub $1k short term loans for a competitive interest rate, the PD loan places will probably go away.


You mean credit cards? Granted they require you to be responsible and pay them off, but banks have had that for decades.
 
2017-05-18 04:42:39 PM  
It's almost like the economic gains of the last 40 years have gone almost entirely to the rich!

Thanks, neoliberalism!


currydemocrats.orgView Full Size
 
2017-05-18 04:43:37 PM  
As one of the poors who can't buy more money, shedding the ex-wife was a big help to fixing my finances.  From there I took the typical approach, whether it be spouted by Dave Ramsey  or Mr. Money Mustache or whomever:

Having $1,000 saved really did save my arse when my water heater and transmission went out within a week of each other.
Got rid of higher interest debt.  Just having a credit card with a balance above $1K was costing me $25ish a month.
Now I'm working on the 3-6 month income saved, and building wealth in a Vanguard fund (not retirement, that's separate).
 
2017-05-18 04:51:47 PM  

zeppo_shemp: SurfaceTension: * instituted "trickle down economics"

No one in the history of modern economics has ever said that the benefits of tax cuts for high income earners will trickle down to lower income classes.

Never.

Not once, from Adam Smith and David Ricardo in the 1700s to the present has that claim ever been made.

However, the motives and goals of those who propose tax cuts have often been misrepresented.

[images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com image 333x499]


In the 1880s and 1890s, the reasoning was that if you give a horse enough oats, eventually some would pass on to the sparrows.

In other words, the poors can eat horse sh*t.
 
2017-05-18 04:52:23 PM  

Ima_Lurker: GanjSmokr: HMS_Blinkin: This explains why damn payday loan places won't die like the roaches they are.

Once the banks start offering sub $1k short term loans for a competitive interest rate, the PD loan places will probably go away.

You mean credit cards? Granted they require you to be responsible and pay them off, but banks have had that for decades.


And there is peer to peer lending, which is going to be a lower interest rate than credit cards (unless paid off in full each billing cycle).
 
2017-05-18 05:36:17 PM  

Smackledorfer: AngryDragon: SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!

You are aware of course that 16 of those years have had Democrat Presidents and 18 have had strong Democrat majorities in Congress (roughly half the time), right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove​r_time

Of course you did.  Both sides totally not the same though.

Fun fact: "Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party"

Yea, FDR's policies are just like Trump's, Reagan's or GWB's.


Good job ignoring the part that directly discredited your rant.  Bless your heart!
 
2017-05-18 05:53:22 PM  

AngryDragon: Smackledorfer: AngryDragon: SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!

You are aware of course that 16 of those years have had Democrat Presidents and 18 have had strong Democrat majorities in Congress (roughly half the time), right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove​r_time

Of course you did.  Both sides totally not the same though.

Fun fact: "Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party"

Yea, FDR's policies are just like Trump's, Reagan's or GWB's.

Good job ignoring the part that directly discredited your rant.  Bless your heart!


I was ranting by pointing out that actual differences in domestic policy exist, as a contrast to your claim that bsab?
 
2017-05-18 05:57:48 PM  
Oh, if you'd like other examples, try Obama and GWB or Trump. By all means, tell me they are the same.
 
2017-05-18 06:11:56 PM  

SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!


If we only had a Democrat for president recently...
 
2017-05-18 06:13:55 PM  
I think of that every time my rear suspension makes a noise in rough conditions.  Hope it's nothing dangerous!
 
2017-05-18 06:39:47 PM  

stappawho: SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!

If we only had a Democrat for president recently...


A president who oversaw the growth of real median income? Oh right, we just did.
 
2017-05-18 06:40:17 PM  

Smackledorfer: as a contrast to your claim that bsab?


Which was a debunking of your "only one side is bad".
 
2017-05-18 06:45:46 PM  

Smackledorfer: A president who oversaw the growth of real median income? Oh right, we just did.


Oh, so this only having $100 for emergencies has only happened in the past 100 days?  Or are you cherry picking one of the few items you can from a very mediocre decade?
 
2017-05-18 06:47:14 PM  
No shiat.  It's hard to put savings aside when you need to spend your last dollar on rent, electricity and a can of tunafish for dinner.
 
2017-05-18 06:58:50 PM  
I would literally scream for 8 hours straight instead of sleeping at night if I couldn't down $100 on a whim. Having to consider a $100 expense an emergency would straight kill me.
 
2017-05-18 07:19:48 PM  

thurstonxhowell: I would literally scream for 8 hours straight instead of sleeping at night if I couldn't down $100 on a whim. Having to consider a $100 expense an emergency would straight kill me.


Most farkers can't sleep 8 straight hours a night unless they down $100 worth of booze.
 
2017-05-18 07:50:23 PM  
I don't understand people who don't do this.  I've typically got 2-3 months readily available (checking/saving), and 6 months easily available (brokerage accounts).

You can't get 2-3 months ahead?  I don't care what your job is, you're spending too damn much.
 
2017-05-18 08:10:43 PM  
I thought that the advice was for 6 months of expenses.  Unless you are living check to check, it is two different things.
 
2017-05-18 09:26:24 PM  
I don't understand this either. When I had 1 job, and couldn't sustain the lifestyle I wanted, I got a 2nd job. Did it suck? Yeah it did, I missed a lot of fun in my early 20's because I was at work. I also was one of the few people I knew that was financially ok for my age. Now, I have an emergency fund, and my SO and I have a large emergency fund. You have to plan for the sky is falling, no matter how hard it is.
 
2017-05-18 09:30:19 PM  

honestlylincoln: I thought that the advice was for 6 months of expenses.  Unless you are living check to check, it is two different things.


Most of the advice I have seen is anywhere from 3 to 6 months of expenses in some sort of liquid savings.
 
2017-05-18 09:34:13 PM  
I have 6 months, but liquid at any given moment? Maybe a few hundred if I'm lucky. Everything else is in IRAs, college funds, etc.
 
2017-05-18 09:50:44 PM  

AngryDragon: SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!

You are aware of course that 16 of those years have had Democrat Presidents and 18 have had strong Democrat majorities in Congress (roughly half the time), right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove​r_time

Of course you did.  Both sides totally not the same though.


Based off of the census data from 2015 (to be confirmed in 2020) the median income has risen for all percentiles during the Clinton and Obama years, but fell for the lowest 75% during the Bush and Bush years.

The biggest jump in household income was during the Regan years and was for the top 25% exclusively.  The next biggest jump was during the Fair Standard Act of 1938 (FDR) and the Affirmative Action laws of 1961 (JFK) and 1965 (LBJ).

advisorperspectives.comView Full Size

The dips you see in the chart above for the top 25% are all related to stock market crashes

The 1990 stock market crash thanks to Oil prices and the war in Kuwait.
The technology bubble of 2000~2001
The 2008 Subprime mortgage bubble

So to summarize:
Rich people are going to make money no matter what.
The best thing you can do to prop up the economy is to prevent the stock market from crashing.
The best way to prevent the stock market from crashing is to prevent large scam funds (Enron, Madoff, subprime loans)
The best way to do that is through regulation.
Republicans prefer to repeal regulation.
Democrats tend to impose regulation.

Make of that what you will.
 
2017-05-18 10:06:52 PM  

AngryDragon: SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!

You are aware of course that 16 of those years have had Democrat Presidents and 18 have had strong Democrat majorities in Congress (roughly half the time), right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove​r_time

Of course you did.  Both sides totally not the same though.

Fun fact: "Over the past 100 years the Democratic party has held power nearly twice as long as the Republicans in both the Senate and the House. And the Democratic party has had control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress for 35 years, compared to 16 years for the Republican party"


At least he's trying.

Some people are still learning that both parties have exactly one constituency in their hearts.

img.fark.netView Full Size


Instead of belittling him, encourage him to open his eyes.
 
2017-05-18 10:13:46 PM  

degenerate-afro: The biggest jump in household income was during the Regan years and was for the top 25% exclusively.


Not sure where you are getting that.  looks like all incomes jumped between 80 and 88.  Kind of hard to justify that only one income group jumped during this time.
 
2017-05-18 10:18:27 PM  

degenerate-afro: The dips you see in the chart above for the top 25% are all related to stock market crashes


Incorrect as you will notice that the blue line starts to dip at 2005, instead of 2008
 
2017-05-18 10:21:31 PM  

degenerate-afro: AngryDragon: SurfaceTension: Republicans in the past 35 years have:

* instituted "trickle down economics"
* incentivized companies focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long-term gains, which
* has pushed down wages as companies offshore and automate, creating
* a service economy that pays about 1/3 as well as the manufacturing economy before it, yet
* engineer a laissez-faire government, which
* enabled an economic breakdown that
* drained income and eventually savings from low-middle class people, causing
* what will be an awful situation for many, who
* thought it necessary to fix things by
* voting in more Republicans!

You are aware of course that 16 of those years have had Democrat Presidents and 18 have had strong Democrat majorities in Congress (roughly half the time), right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove​r_time

Of course you did.  Both sides totally not the same though.

Based off of the census data from 2015 (to be confirmed in 2020) the median income has risen for all percentiles during the Clinton and Obama years, but fell for the lowest 75% during the Bush and Bush years.

The biggest jump in household income was during the Regan years and was for the top 25% exclusively.  The next biggest jump was during the Fair Standard Act of 1938 (FDR) and the Affirmative Action laws of 1961 (JFK) and 1965 (LBJ).

[www.advisorperspectives.com image 850x619]
The dips you see in the chart above for the top 25% are all related to stock market crashes

The 1990 stock market crash thanks to Oil prices and the war in Kuwait.
The technology bubble of 2000~2001
The 2008 Subprime mortgage bubble

So to summarize:
Rich people are going to make money no matter what.
The best thing you can do to prop up the economy is to prevent the stock market from crashing.
The best way to prevent the stock market from crashing is to prevent large scam funds (Enron, Madoff, subprime loans)
The best way to do that is through regulation.
Republicans prefer to repeal regulation.
Democrats tend to impose regulation.

Make of that what you will.


Yea, but like, saying both sides are the same makes him feel so smrt.
 
2017-05-18 10:31:33 PM  

degenerate-afro: So to summarize:
Rich people are going to make money no matter what.
The best thing you can do to prop up the economy is to prevent the stock market from crashing.
The best way to prevent the stock market from crashing is to prevent large scam funds (Enron, Madoff, subprime loans)
The best way to do that is through regulation.
Republicans prefer to repeal regulation.
Democrats tend to impose regulation.

Make of that what you will.


That is a two-edged sword.  Too much regulation will also cripple the ability of the economy to grow.  You need to be smart about the regulations you impose.  There needs to be a balance between allowing the market to do its things and to head off manipulation/corruption of market forces.
 
2017-05-18 10:44:20 PM  

skyotter: Four out of five survey respondents said they would not be able to afford an unanticipated bill of $1,000.

We had a thread about that.  Was it from a different study, or just preliminary results from this one?


So how reliable are self reported survey responses? Because every time they have one it's less and less like it's a bunch of junior high girls playing "I never"
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.

Report