Poll of the Day > Do you live paycheck to paycheck?

(+) Yeah! (+)

LinkPizza posted...

Why or why not, I guess. And are you single or love with someone(roommate(s), SO(of any kind), family, etc...

No. I live with my wife, and we have ~6+ months of expenses saved up, and try to maintain a positive net income each month.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

in American society it is considered "normal" and "comfortable" to be able to raise a family and plan for your retirement, meaning that so long as you follow those 3 rules, you have over a 99% chance of accomplishing both of those things.

11.1% of all American families and 22% of all unrelated individuals are below the poverty line (2009 numbers), so I think your numbers need rejiggering (and for someone doing a lot of complaining about "anecdotal stories", I don't see a lot of hard sources behind your assertions).

I also have to chuckle that your rules include "not having kids out of wedlock" (I might have agreed with "not having kids young", but modern marriage is a paper transaction and given the increasing prevalence of unmarried cohabitation, this "rule" effectively means nothing) and a simple "get a job" (which didn't really help all the out-of-work labourers and factory workers who entered the work force a few decades ago when jobs were plentiful but have since seen their jobs - and in some cases their entire occupation - rendered obsolete by automation).

Related: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/
---

Yes ;_;
---

darkknight109 posted...

11.1% of all American families and 22% of all unrelated individuals are below the poverty line, so I think your numbers need rejiggering (and for someone doing a lot of complaining about "anecdotal stories", I don't see a lot of hard sources behind your assertions).

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/12152935/The-rules-for-avoiding-poverty-stay-in-school-keep-your-job-and-find-love.html

and youre right, i wildly inflated the numbers

its 98%, not 99%

darkknight109 posted...

I also have to chuckle that your rules include "not having kids out of wedlock" (I might have agreed with "not having kids young", but modern marriage is a paper transaction and given the increasing prevalence of unmarried cohabitation, this "rule" effectively means nothing) and a simple "get a job" (which didn't really help all the out-of-work labourers and factory workers who entered the work force a few decades ago when jobs were plentiful but have since seen their jobs - and in some cases their entire occupation - rendered obsolete by automation).

my "rules" aren't my rules homie. they are statistical FACTS

so how you feeling right now about that post? care to maybe retract some of those statements now that ive cited sources and shoved it up your bum?
---

Not only are a large percentage of Americans poor, but almost 15% of Americans receive food stamps.

That is just the ones that dont' make enough money to not qualify (and you can most certainly be poor and not qualify), or all the ones that are homeless (and therefore can't receive them, or alot of them can't).

Now the official poverty rate is only about 14%, but...what is considered poor enough to qualify?

Well first off, it does not consider the homeless at all, they don't count.

Next it is determined federally, by income. Under 12k if your single, and 15k if you are married.

So if you make 14k, you don't qualify.

If you live in many places now (not just NY or California, but many cities etc, places with high population density), you can't freaking pay RENT for a single person with 14k a year. How is that not under the poverty level?

Heck you can't rent a room in some places (bay area) with that much income.

So what does this mean? The official poverty level is JACK, and if you actually consider anyone who doesn't make more then 20% over their cost of living (including renting a 1 bedroom if they are single), you would see well over 50% of Americans under the poverty level.

That is the truth, not a small 14%, it's more like 40-55% I would estimate.
---

wolfy42 posted...

Not only are a large percentage of Americans poor, but almost 15% of Americans receive food stamps.

That is just the ones that dont' make enough money to not qualify (and you can most certainly be poor and not qualify), or all the ones that are homeless (and therefore can't receive them, or alot of them can't).

Now the official poverty rate is only about 14%, but...what is considered poor enough to qualify?

Well first off, it does not consider the homeless at all, they don't count.

Next it is determined federally, by income. Under 12k if your single, and 15k if you are married.

So if you make 14k, you don't qualify.

If you live in many places now (not just NY or California, but many cities etc, places with high population density), you can't freaking pay RENT for a single person with 14k a year. How is that not under the poverty level?

Heck you can't rent a room in some places (bay area) with that much income.

So what does this mean? The official poverty level is JACK, and if you actually consider anyone who doesn't make more then 20% over their cost of living (including renting a 1 bedroom if they are single), you would see well over 50% of Americans under the poverty level.

That is the truth, not a small 14%, it's more like 40-55% I would estimate.

LOL

bro, if you seriously think that HALF of America lives in poverty you are just straight up delusional.

seriously, that is some north korea level brainwashing youve got going on there
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

wolfy42 posted...

Not only are a large percentage of Americans poor, but almost 15% of Americans receive food stamps.

That is just the ones that dont' make enough money to not qualify (and you can most certainly be poor and not qualify), or all the ones that are homeless (and therefore can't receive them, or alot of them can't).

Now the official poverty rate is only about 14%, but...what is considered poor enough to qualify?

Well first off, it does not consider the homeless at all, they don't count.

Next it is determined federally, by income. Under 12k if your single, and 15k if you are married.

So if you make 14k, you don't qualify.

If you live in many places now (not just NY or California, but many cities etc, places with high population density), you can't freaking pay RENT for a single person with 14k a year. How is that not under the poverty level?

Heck you can't rent a room in some places (bay area) with that much income.

So what does this mean? The official poverty level is JACK, and if you actually consider anyone who doesn't make more then 20% over their cost of living (including renting a 1 bedroom if they are single), you would see well over 50% of Americans under the poverty level.

That is the truth, not a small 14%, it's more like 40-55% I would estimate.

LOL

bro, if you seriously think that HALF of America lives in poverty you are just straight up delusional.

seriously, that is some north korea level brainwashing youve got going on there

I consider anyone making less then 15$ an hour living in poverty, and it's higher in some areas.

Here is a few charts, but basically about 43% of all Americans make less then $15/hr or $31k a year.

Almost 50% of Women do, and minorities have a higher percentage.

So yeah, delusional.

http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/who-makes-15-per-hour/
---

And you might say....dude...$15 an hour or $31 k a year is waaay higher then the poverty level.

I would argue that it is not even close in many areas of this country, but that it's a good benchmark for most.

If your cost of living is over $2000 a month (just for rent/utilities/transportation and food) $15 an hour isn't gonna do it.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

and youre right, i wildly inflated the numbers

its 98%, not 99%

And by 98% you mean 75%. "Poor" and "impoverished" are not the same thing. Moreover, "There are surely influences other than these principles at play" is a direct quote from the research given, which is them tacitly admitting that they're not addressing the actual root causes of poverty.

And I also note their second rule ("Wait until age 21 to get married and have children") is considerably different than yours ("Don't have kids out of wedlock").

Finally, you've grossly overstated the study's findings. Those rules are recommendations for teens growing up in poor households, not for the population at large, which should be so obvious I'm amazed I even have to explain it. Again, talk to the coal worker who graduated high school, got a full-time job in a mine and *was* part of the middle class, at least until that mine shut down and left him up shit creek without a paddle. The US has seen its manufacturing sector shrink from nearly a quarter of all jobs in the labour force to under 10% over the last 40 years; that's 15-20 million jobs that have disappeared and if those jobs are all you were trained to do, you're pretty much hosed.

Troll_Police_ posted...

my "rules" aren't my rules homie. they are statistical FACTS

I'm forced to conclude you either didn't read your own sources or you don't understand what they're actually saying.

Troll_Police_ posted...

so how you feeling right now about that post? care to maybe retract some of those statements now that ive cited sources and shoved it up your bum?

Guess this is your version of a "civil discourse", right?
---

by 98% i mean 98%.

im just gonna stop reading there since you asked for a source and then evidently just completely blew it off when one was provided. dont really need to read whatever other drivel you wrote out if you cant do it yourself homie. better luck next time.


---

Kinda but only because my hobbies cost a lot. I'm able to save around $100-$300 a month but the rest goes to mortgage, insurance, bills, food, gas, family stuff, hobby and so on.

No but I'm in an easy situation. 4 years ago I moved in with my grandpa as an in between for a while before getting my own place. During this time he had a couple mini strokes. He recovered amazingly but the family was clearly relieved I was there and kind of want me to stay there and so do I.

He charges cheap rent, and the amount of rent he pays I attempt to save up and put away each month. Once I have my own place I assume it'll be tougher, but at least I'll have some savings to fall back on should I need it.

Troll_Police_ posted...

by 98% i mean 98%.

Didn't read your own source, confirmed/10.

Either that or you realised that my post pretty much proved you wrong and you don't like admitting you screwed up.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

by 98% i mean 98%.

im just gonna stop reading there since you asked for a source and then evidently just completely blew it off when one was provided. dont really need to read whatever other drivel you wrote out if you cant do it yourself homie. better luck next time.

But he literally read your sources. And the stuff he said is true. You said on e of the rules was not to have children out of wedlock, but that was't one of the rules. It was wait until 21 to get married to have children. It did mention something about kids out of wedlock, but that was in another section saying how a good chunk of kids grow up in single parent homes. And it also mentions that that comes from divorce as well... He's also right about that being for kids who are growing up in poor households. It says something at that right at the beginning. Also, it does saying that exact quote he mention. The quote that says, "There are surely influences other than these principles at play" And it says that only 2% remain poor, but only 75% join middle class. So, that still leaves 23% somewhere in between. These are facts that he could only have by reading you sources...

As for the second article, it's different. It has four rules. And they don't exactly match. The first rule is basically the same. But the second rule makes it seems like it really moreso applies to women. The third rules almost contradicts the other rules. One says get a full time job(possibly early), while one tells you to avoid long term employment early. And the the fourth is to find love. And even then, it says that by following all the rules, you still had a 13% chance of falling into poverty...
---

The truth is, no matter what, those who are barely getting by and struggling are going to keep increasing as the number of jobs that pay enough for them to "save" decrease and the number of adults who needs to actually support themselves continue to go up.

Many job markets are actually shrinking, at least high paying ones, as technology and outsourcing take its toll. This is especially harsh in specialized fields that require extensive training, since people spend years and tons of money getting trained for a job that only exists for a short time, or sometimes is no longer available by the time they finish training.

Meanwhile the low paying jobs (the ones that are currently expanding but are in danger of dropping drastically due to technology eventually) are less and less able to support a single person let alone a family.

Yes, in some areas minimum wage is increasing, but, look at those areas again, most have even larger increases in cost of living (especially rent).

An increase from $9 an hour to $11 an hour for minimum wage is good (For some, not people who used to make $11 though), but not at the cost of a 30% increase in average rent. It used to be only places like the Bay Area in CA etc that charged at least $1000 a month for a 1 bedroom. Even where I live now (which only a few years ago still charged only $600 on average, has increased base cost for a 1 bedroom to about $900 (and most are over $1000 now).

That is bad even for people making minimum wage (considering 11$ an hour * 40 hours is about $1100 a month after taxes), but it's REALLY bad for those who used to make $11-$15 an hour for skilled labor.

Elder care? Made $11 an hour, still does....now it's minimum wage but you need to be trained (3-6 months and at least $500) for that job. That is just one example, there are TONS of jobs that paid between the old min wage and 150% of it. As posted above almost 50% of jobs pay less then $15, and in my area, they have basically been bent over by the minimum wage increase/cost of living combination.

So yeah, in just the last few years, since the changes, the amount of people who are "poor" or basically just barely getting by, have increased, I'd say drastically.

I personally think minimum wage in any area should be partially affected by the cost to rent in the area, with the bare minimum wage revolving around the average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment + 50% divided by 120. That would allow people to work a full time job, rent a place to live and eat, while paying for transportation etc, and possibly health insurance (though they would probably need help with that).

The increase though, needs to be universal, not just for the minimum you can pay, so someone making say $14 an hour right now, should get the same increase in pay as someone making $11. In my area that would only be about $1.50 increase or so over all (for now) but as rental prices go up, so would the increase.
---

Its a fact most people cant afford a $1000 emergency. So some folks are lying or not the target for this type of poll. Get back if you live alone and single.
---

wolfy42 posted...

I personally think minimum wage in any area should be partially affected by the cost to rent in the area, with the bare minimum wage revolving around the average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment + 50% divided by 120. That would allow people to work a full time job, rent a place to live and eat, while paying for transportation etc, and possibly health insurance (though they would probably need help with that).

The problem is that when min wage goes up, the prices of everything else magically goes up as well. Not just rent. It's the people at the top who would take cuts into their millions that increase costs for the sole reason of keeping their wallets fat.

You want your min wage increased? Well, fine, but that milk is now going to cost $10 a gallon.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

The problem is that when min wage goes up, the prices of everything else magically goes up as well.

That is a very simple take on how inflation works >_>

AllstarSniper32 posted...

You want your min wage increased? Well, fine, but that milk is now going to cost $10 a gallon.

No. This isn't magic. It wouldn't change overnight; there are other economic indicators that affect price changes.
---

While prices will go up, it will help those just getting by far more then it will help them, and it's not just minimum wages, ALL wages will go up according the the basic cost of living. This doesn't affect someone making $300/hr or over $100k a year that much, cause they will see a small increase they barely notice.

Someone making $30k a year though? Yeah it would make a huge difference, someone making $50-60k would still benefit as well, just not as much, so well over 50% of Americans would be better off.

Yes the top 10% would probably end with a small net loss, paying more for stuff then before, but they wouldn't even notice it.
---

Doesn't everyone? It's just a matter of how much you are paid.
---

gguirao posted...

Doesn't everyone? It's just a matter of how much you are paid.

Not exactly. Though I see what you're saying. Some people, depending on job and where they live can make one payment last for 2 or 3 months. For example, if their monthly expenses are about 1/3 of their monthly income, then they are not really living paycheck to paycheck. I think it's something like that. Basically, you always need that next paycheck...
---

Yeah, living paycheck to paycheck means you make almost the same as you spend, or a bit less (racking up credit card debt etc).

Of course what isn't usually factored into that is other types of debt you may be gaining, such as student loans etc, so some people who are not hurting, are actually going negative financially at the same time.

It is quite possible to make less then $1000 a month and still not be living pay check to pay check.

If you live with parents etc, or have roomates in a not too expensive area that you split the bills with, you can get by only spending a small amount on expenses.

There are places where you can still get a 2 bedroom apartment for $600 (possibly even $500), and then get 2 roomates like I did in my 20's, (one uses the living room as a bedroom), and bam, $200 a month expenses for living and your done. Still need money for food/transportation etc, but if your frugal you can do that for only another $300 or so.

It's basically possible to live, and not be homeless, for $500 or so still in the US, but you have to not be choosy about where you live, you won't be in a major city etc (Even Cleaveland), and you will need to share your living space with others.

Done right, with friends you like to hang out with anyway, it can work well though.

It's getting harder and harder to eat for less then $100 a week though, but it is still totally possible to do so for even just $50 a week and still eat pretty healthy.

That is the bottom of the barrel though as low as you can go while still not being homeless or living out of a car.

The car option is actually becoming quite popular especially in places like the bay area. Get a car/van etc (often only $3000 or so for one), with enough space to lay out fully in the back (vans have enough space for other stuff as well). You can even get them with generators etc so you can run a tv/charge a laptop etc. You get a gym membership somewhere to shower etc, and BAM your set. Total cost per month is less then $100.

In the bay area, to rent a 1 bedroom is $1500 or so, which translates to a ton of freaking savings, and you don't really miss out on much if your single.
---

For anyone who's single, living paycheck to paycheck, and has room, I would strongly suggest getting a roommate, if possible. It's is very helpful. And it can help you get out of a hole, if you are in one financially...
---

welp, i might have spoke to soon

4 months of applying to 200+ positions and I finally have my foot in the door for a decent one. Interview on Monday :o

ReggieTheReckless posted...

welp, i might have spoke to soon

4 months of applying to 200+ positions and I finally have my foot in the door for a decent one. Interview on Monday :o

Congrats!:)
---

aye, and I don't even need to relocate... though if we did relocated back to chicago I could make a lot more money :x

but screw that, I like florida too much