this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
131 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59431 readers
3391 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whoa. What group do you run in? Literally everyone I talk to on a daily basis is.
I actually just thought through an average day, and the people I talk to regularly. I've had conversations with each and every one of them over the past few months about how we've had to make major changes to our lifestyles in one way or another because the money is going out faster than it's coming in. We're all solidly middle-class, for whatever that means anymore.
So what circles are you in where not everyone is looking for every possible discount they can get? Saving $5 on groceries means I can afford another gallon and a half of gas. I can't afford to be principled about privacy when those are the stakes. But it doesn't mean I have to like it.
My circle of friends are also not strapped for cash. I’m confused as to how that’s so baffling to you. We’re very much NOT upper class.
I kinda think that not being strapped for cash is being upper-class.
Upper-class: Always having enough
Middle-class: Always having almost enough
Lower-class: Never having enough
"Class" is determined by income, "enough" is determined by spending habits. You could make $50k and have positive cash flow, or you could make $400k and always be strapped for cash. The higher your income is, the more options you have, but also the more exposure you have to more ways to waste your money.
This is a great video about this. Basically:
At each level, I see two types of people:
By this metric, not being strapped for cash is possible for pretty much anyone in the lower-middle class and above, and even those in the lower class could get there by stabilizing their finances so they can take some risks to increase their income (i.e. night school, quitting a bad job for a better job, getting CDL and financing a truck, etc). On the flipside, being strapped for cash is also quite possible at pretty much any income level, and I've heard plenty of stories about lawyers and doctors having trouble keeping up with debt payments because they got caught trying to keep up with those wealthier than them.
So I don't think "strapped for cash" is a good metric for economic class, income is, because you can make choices that can cause you to be paycheck-to-paycheck at almost any income level, as well as choices to maintain stability at almost any income level.
It's easy to say "stabilize your finances!" but on a practical level it's almost impossible to do when there's no wiggle room. You can't stabilize any finances if you're taking out payday loans in order to pay rent every month. It's not like there's any money to be put into savings if you're making $2,000 a month but putting $1,000 toward rent, since most people rather like to eat.
I'm thankful to not be in that situation, personally, but it's not something you can just wish your way out of. Even your examples require a certain level of financial breathing room that people don't tend to have when every dollar is spoken for. You can't finance a truck if your DTI is already high. You can't take CDL training or night school if you have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table.
But if you get into that scenario, you can just sell the supercar or downsize your house or whatever. That's not really an option for people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
I think income divided by local cost-of-living could be, maybe.
At the end of the day, irresponsibility with money is still a problem for sure. And keeping-up-with-the-joneses is probably a problem for some people. I'm not one of them, and none of the people I know are either, but I suppose some people have that issue. In my experience, though, most people who are struggling financially are not in those situations. They're just trying to keep their heads above water.
Oh, I 100% agree. But in many cases, taking payday loans is a symptom of other serious problems in someone's spending patterns and not necessarily an income problem. Maybe the car payment is too high, or perhaps they're paying too much for food. Whatever it is, that needs to get fixed to end the need for emergency cash.
If you're in the lower middle class or higher, there's no excuse for it IMO. If you're in the lower class, you'll need to get creative (government assistance, co-living, etc).
You say that, but in many cases, they still end up net worth negative. The problem here isn't with income, but spending, and you're not going to sell your way out of a spending problem.
Certainly. Economic classes are very much location-dependent. If you live in NYC or SF, you'd need to adjust the numbers a bit, likewise if you live in rural Mississippi or something. And there are calculators available online to help with that.
Pretty much everyone will say that though, because people are pretty bad at noticing the excesses in their own spending. If you're not standing out as being "weird" for spending so little, then you're probably "keeping up with the Joneses," because the average American is pretty irresponsible.
This is a pretty broad brush stroke to be sure, and I'm sure there are plenty who are legitimately struggling despite a conscious effort to cut costs. I'm just saying that many, if not most, people who aren't "financially stable" could make room in their budget to get financially stable, but instead end up throwing a ton of money down the drain due to interest.
Do you actually know anyone who's in this situation?
In my experience, it's not a choice they've made. Some people are bad with money, to be sure. I'm related to a few. But they don't typically just decide they're going to blow August's grocery budget on a new wardrobe; they have a job opportunity dry up after they already moved for it, or they had a messy divorce because their spouse was abusive, or they poured a ton of money into some career training that turned out not to give them any real, marketable skills. Some bad choices, some unavoidable occurrences, some terrible luck, but nothing that crosses the line to them being frivolous.
Thirty years ago, a family could weather one or two of those, no problem. My dad got laid off not too long before I was born, and he was the sole earner for our family. He got hired fairly soon after, but in the meantime we were fine.
I don't live a whole lot different than my parents did then. We have more kids than they did, but I'm in a higher earning potential career than he was. Plus, my wife and I are both employed. Yet if either of us were laid off, we would not last long on savings.
One thing I've learned as I get older: yeah, people are irresponsible. But the generations are pretty much the same, and trying to pretend otherwise is a good way to get clicks on your article but a bad way to actually get any meaningful insight about people. So if our generation is having more widespread problems than our parents' generation did at this age, it's probably not because we aren't as responsible as they are. Something systemic probably changed.
I think age / location / profession have a lot to do with what socioeconomic circles people run in.
Not to mention luck of the draw.
For sure, but like...I'm a middle-aged software engineer in a low cost-of-living area. My parents always had enough on one income, but we're struggling on two.
I'm similar, but probably a bit younger. I make a good salary now (I'm in a leadership position), but the people on my team are a bit more "average." Software engineering will have a higher than average salary, but I'm talking $80-120k for the people who work for me in an area where the median income is $70-80k ($80-120k), and most are single or single-income.
There's a pretty stark difference between those who are financially stable and those who... aren't. I don't have everyone's salary, but here's what I see:
Notice I didn't say anything about income. Some of the financially unstable people have a much higher income (probably double the range above), and some of the financially stable people have a much lower income (e.g. one of my employees is single and just bought a house in a pricier area, while being at the bottom of the income range).
I obviously don't know your income or situation, but I think most people can do much better than they are without changing their income. And the more financially stable you can be, the more "quiet" confidence you get (i.e. you're not distracted by when payday is), and the more likely you are to get that promotion or better paying job. Success tends to breed success.
Check out The Millionaire Next Door, which gives lots of examples about how wealthy people tend to be frugal and careful with money. There's not really any secret sauce here, just delayed gratification and discipline. Obviously a $100k salary will go a bit further than a $50k salary, but even a median income can rocket you to an upper-middle class/lower-upper class retirement if you manage it carefully. I'm happy to walk through a scenario if you like, but that's a bit off-topic for this community and is probably better for one of the PF communities.
I have a rule of thumb for financial stability.
Level 1 - just buy groceries and pay for them without stressing
Level 2 - don't worry about when payday hits
Level 3 - don't worry about getting laid off
That makes a ton of sense. To add some numbers to it:
Getting to step 1 can be very difficult, especially for the lower class, but $10 or $20 at a time can get there. But it needs to be intentional, and that's really hard when working two (or three) jobs, so many just don't put in the consistent effort needed to get there. But once that first buffer is there, the rest becomes a lot easier since you're no longer getting pushed backwards.
And it fucking SUCKS in the beginning, because for a very long time it keeps getting wiped out by emergencies. But the more emergencies you weather, eventually the fewer you'll have, and your buffer will grow.
Emergency funds are the most important tool for financial stability (after securing a living wage).
Exactly. Just take solace in knowing that each emergency that wipes out your e-fund could have been devastating debt, and the e-fund is doing its job.
Honestly, what you see isn't familiar to me at all. The people I know are very good at being frugal and wringing the last out of every dime, not being extravagant or frivolous, etc. We have no car payment on our ten-year-old minivan, own our home, and haven't been clothes shopping in years except to replace things that wear out, that sort of thing.
The problem isn't budgeting; we have a budget, and we stick to it pretty well. There are very few things we could cut, and doing so might save us a hundred or so dollars per month. The problem is that inflation has eaten up every dollar from my paycheck we used to have in surplus. The problem is that my salary hasn't kept up with inflation and nobody else around here is hiring.
Yes, you can budget yourself from the top of one financial class into the bottom of another one; and you can manage money poorly enough to drop from anywhere to the bottom of the heap. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a significant financial crunch happening for most people in the world right now.
Seems like everyone has their own preferred explanation as to why that's happening (corporate greed vs. government overreach), but the fact that it's happening seems pretty clear.