Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:17 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,409 posts, read 45,120,542 times
Reputation: 13823

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redsoxrob View Post
We’ve already explained this. If you are truly living paycheck to paycheck, that means you are spending all of your money between paychecks, with no money for emergencies and no savings account. If you can comfortably pay your bills, and you can save enough money to build up a $12,000 savings, you likely aren’t living paycheck to paycheck. The “living comfortably” group also stated that they would be able to pay for a $400 emergency with cash. That is not living paycheck to paycheck. But then again, you know this already. Because we’ve explained this already. Multiple times.
No. You're wrong. The study clearly explains that living paycheck to paycheck is done by both those who may have savings and those who don't.

The key thing to remember about living paycheck to paycheck is that one's bills/spending meet or exceed one's income. That's living paycheck to paycheck.

I'd advise you, too, to read the data presented in Figure 4.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:25 PM
 
2,335 posts, read 820,082 times
Reputation: 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. You're wrong. The study clearly explains that living paycheck to paycheck is done by both those who may have savings and those who don't.

The key thing to remember about living paycheck to paycheck is that one's bills/spending meet or exceed one's income. That's living paycheck to paycheck.

I'd advise you, too, to read the data presented in Figure 4.
Uh huh, then explain how they have savings?

Based on what you just said, they would have no discretionary income and therefore no savings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:28 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,409 posts, read 45,120,542 times
Reputation: 13823
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicipher View Post
Uh huh, then explain how they have savings?
They weren't living paycheck to paycheck before. They are now. You clearly didn't think that through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:30 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,409 posts, read 45,120,542 times
Reputation: 13823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redsoxrob View Post
I’d advise you to learn how to read a study. Keep a dictionary handy in case you need to look some words up.
The data in Figure 4 is very clear.

48.3% are living paycheck to paycheck.
51.7% are not.

What are you not understanding about that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:32 PM
 
2,335 posts, read 820,082 times
Reputation: 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
They weren't living paycheck to paycheck before. They are now. You clearly didn't think that through.
.

They had enough to save $12k before and now they have zero discretionary.

Do you even read what you write?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:35 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,409 posts, read 45,120,542 times
Reputation: 13823
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicipher View Post
.

They had enough to save $12k before and now they have zero discretionary.

Do you even read what you write?
Do you?

What do you think having zero discretionary income means? Living paycheck to paycheck. The respondents were able to figure it out. Why can't you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:39 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,409 posts, read 45,120,542 times
Reputation: 13823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redsoxrob View Post
Here’s the truth. You didn’t actually read the study, did you? Because up to this point, you never quoted anything from the study. And the things that you said were in direct contradiction to what the study was saying. Now, the only thing that you ever seem to “is figure for. But there a heck of a lot more figures then just figure 4. What does figure 10 look like? What does it say there? Exactly how did they decide who was living paycheck to paycheck? Did they actually do a study on it, or did they just take everybody’s word for it? This is important question because if we can’t operationally define living what living paycheck to paycheck is, then the whole purpose of the study is bunk.
You're embarrassed that you've been proven wrong. The data shown in Figure 4 is quite clear. And it's what I've been saying this entire thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:39 PM
 
2,335 posts, read 820,082 times
Reputation: 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Do you?

What do you think having zero discretionary income means? Living paycheck to paycheck. The respondents were able to figure it out. Why can't you?
Nice deflection. Care to answer the question of how they suddenly went down to nothing on discretionary income. I'm looking forward to your answer so you can commit to something instead of look at figure 4.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:42 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,409 posts, read 45,120,542 times
Reputation: 13823
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicipher View Post
Nice deflection. Care to answer the question of how they suddenly went down to nothing on discretionary income. I'm looking forward to your answer so you can commit to something instead of look at figure 4.
Inflation. Their expenses have increased. It's affecting everyone, even those who earn more than $100,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2022, 06:42 PM
 
5,527 posts, read 3,281,520 times
Reputation: 7764
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
how in the hell can nearly half of those earning $100,000+ barely keep their heads above water?
There's lifestyle creep, which I won't defend except to note that it's real and it can sneak up on you. But the real reason is that a lot of parts of the country are Uber expensive. Anywhere on the west coast and in the northeast, $100k for a household isn't much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:56 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top