Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A. I don't know how this discussion is just limited to poor people. Someone making 40k can live check to check too, and is included in that 40%.
B. This is why Conservatives are bad for the economy. They don't understand how it works.
C. Purchases made are not replaced by shifting the disposable income to someone else. Would you buy two iPhones just bc you suddenly got extra money? No. Would you buy two TVs for your living room? No. The top companies in our economy succeed bc buying power is spread out.
D. You don't understand how portfolios work if you don't understand that people supporting the companies in your portfolio directly impacts the returns of your portfolio.
The liberals on this forum diverted to "poor people," because that is where liberals tend to focus.
The topic was people who don't have $400 in savings, and I - and many others - pointed out that there are many middle-income earners who choose to spend money on luxuries (latest Iphones, expensive restaurants meals, 55" flat screen TVs) when they don't even have $400 in savings. That is very poor decision making. The fact that you think it is GOOD for people to spend every last cent they have on luxuries when they don't have $400 in savings is where liberals and conservatives diverge (well, one of the places they diverge.)
And this is why liberals are bad for the economy. They don't understand that if Americans spend every cent and are too irresponsible to save for their old age, we will end up with everyone on government support in their retirement years, forcing younger workers to fork over even more of their paychecks in taxes to support the elderly, and then they will have very little to spend....on anything.
I am appalled that you would encourage people who have no savings to keep buying expensive luxuries that they can't afford.
I was being generous on purpose, because there's always the "yeah, but that's for that one street/neighborhood/city and nobody lives like that blah blah" rebuttal. It's also why I actually calculated on only 40 hours per week of work, which I personally exceeded with AT LEAST 2 jobs, until my mid 30s? And I still do extra work on a contracting basis right now, at age 52, when my salary is solidly in the 6 figures. There are 168 hours in the week, and I only use about 50 for my day job and another 10 for powerlifting. I have lots of time left over to do other stuff, and sometimes I make a profit with that time.
In NE Ohio, same thing. If you want to work more than 40 hours a week, you can, easily, and you'll be making at least $10-12 an hour almost anywhere that hires you. Even the below minimum folks like servers, bartenders, etc...they actually make more than MW, but for tax purposes they never claim that they do.
Working more than 40 isn't hard, and the jobs are everywhere.
I don't like to discuss working more than 40 hours/week because
a) I'm too lazy to do it myself; I'd rather scale back my lifestyle than work that much
b) People will use that as a negative: slave labor! Worked to death! Exploitation!
I was also being modest at $10+. It's more like $12+. Which is very livable in the region. Even without roommates (although that makes things significantly easier).
It's really a matter of people trying to live a $100k lifestyle on $50k. Or a $50k lifestyle on $25k.
A. I don't know how this discussion is just limited to poor people. Someone making 40k can live check to check too, and is included in that 40%.
B. This is why Conservatives are bad for the economy. They don't understand how it works.
C. Purchases made are not replaced by shifting the disposable income to someone else. Would you buy two iPhones just bc you suddenly got extra money? No. Would you buy two TVs for your living room? No. The top companies in our economy succeed bc buying power is spread out.
D. You don't understand how portfolios work if you don't understand that people supporting the companies in your portfolio directly impacts the returns of your portfolio.
It is not just poor people. The fact that many in the middle class fall in that 40% is a warning sign saying things are not as well as we are being told. The US economy depends on spending, and 40% spend all they have and yet the numbers suggest the economy is average. What happens when the consumption takes a dip (or a dive)?
The liberals on this forum diverted to "poor people," because that is where liberals tend to focus.
The topic was people who don't have $400 in savings, and I - and many others - pointed out that there are many middle-income earners who choose to spend money on luxuries (latest Iphones, expensive restaurants meals, 55" flat screen TVs) when they don't even have $400 in savings. That is very poor decision making. The fact that you think it is GOOD for people to spend every last cent they have on luxuries when they don't have $400 in savings is where liberals and conservatives diverge (well, one of the places they diverge.)
And this is why liberals are bad for the economy. They don't understand that if Americans spend every cent and are too irresponsible to save for their old age, we will end up with everyone on government support in their retirement years, forcing younger workers to fork over even more of their paychecks in taxes to support the elderly, and then they will have very little to spend....on anything.
I am appalled that you would encourage people who have no savings to keep buying expensive luxuries that they can't afford.
So we're in agreement that I didn't limit this to poor people, so there's no reason for you to do that.
I didn't say it was good. I said it's the basis of our economy, and a symptom that our economy is on a weak foundation.
What you don't understand is that your IRA performance is based on the bad spending that you keep saying people should stop doing.
You're appalled bc you don't understand how the economy works. If that 40% stopped spending our economy would crater. That IRA return that you keep talking about will be diminished to nothing. this is literally one of the most basic parts of our economy and you can't seem to grasp that.
Last edited by EddieB.Good; 01-24-2020 at 08:37 AM..
It is not just poor people. The fact that many in the middle class fall in that 40% is a warning sign saying things are not as well as we are being told. The US economy depends on spending, and 40% spend all they have and yet the numbers suggest the economy is average. What happens when the consumption takes a dip (or a dive)?
There needs to be an American economy 101 class where people like you and me explain to the conservatives on here how things like GDP growth and portfolio returns are based on people spending money. Especially poor and middle class people.
Why is this the politicians' fault? If you don't have $400, save a damn $400.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
