In today's nyt 2 Page spread of "the most surprising intriguing fascinating facts of the year" this claim is placed at the bottom left corner: "In the United States, more than 60 percent of the work force lives paycheck to paycheck. The average American is in five to six figure debt and often has only cursory knowledge of how they got there."
In good faith, i ask about the point of this article.
I came into this article with the belief that living paycheck to paycheck is a state of mind. You've underscored that by observing that some who say that they live paycheck to paycheck are not actually strapped for cash if they can save money and order out 30 days a month.
The problem is that there are 350 million money stories in America.
People save money because it's a responsible thing to do. The actual saving of money requires that you budget your other expenses as though you don't have the portion that you're saving.
Not everyone who owns a house can easily afford it. People get assistance with down payments and mortgages.
In judging the size an setup of newer kitchens, people don't coook the way they used to. This is actually to say that man may not cook at all. While I enjoy cooking, my schedule and neurodivergence translate to an inability to cook as often as I would like and so I eat out more than I actually want. And I'm someon
e who actually lkes to cook.
It seems like the desired goal is to tell people in these categories that they have nothing to complain about.
Who are you to tell me that I don't truly live paycheck to paycheck?
What goal is achieved if, by chance, you succeed in convincing me that I'm not living paycheck to paycheck?
How do you define what paycheck to paycheck means for an individual? In some cases, the change of mindset is dependent upon a change of behavior. That's a heavy lift, especially for someone who may not realize a return on that investment.
Assuming that you can convince/shame 80% of the population that their preception is wrong, what does that mean for the 20% who do, by your standards, live week to week? Do you seek to make it easier to support that demographic or is it fine to create yet another division in an already greatly fractured socety?
Poor was how my Russian immigrant grandparents lived. 1915 arrival. No English. Rented apt. in Queens, N.Y. Left to California in 1934 thinking there was work there. Failed and returned.
They still would never trade America for Soviet Russia. They still ate, had friends, raised children who went to good public schools. They had no car payments (no car), no T.V. or internet (haha)
and still had a good life.
The working poor folks I know (40 k per year) have an apartment car, color t.v., cell phone, laptop, eat out a couple times a week, can go to public school, community college, and get discounted medical care.
My point is that even the less fortunate have opportunities in this country.
This is comforting in some ways, in that Matt is describing a less fraught relationship between Americans and their economic resources, on a daily/monthly/yearly basis. I am not picking a rhetorical fight (or even a contretemps); but, I just subbed a class with 35 students, a sizable fraction of whom would qualify as those in the low-income-to-poverty-line citizens. I witnessed a microcosm of the anxiety that comes from not having enough: not enough attention, not enough nutrition, and not enough time to learn the things they need to know in the fourth grade. I can't lose sight of them when I think about my own circumstances, which are relatively fragile because I'm old and still have to work.
The comments here are enlightening, and I will continue to go through them, in order to distract myself from the upcoming election.
The consensus since I last looked in seems to be that Americans have nothing but their own ambitions to blame for feeling financially stretched. Here’s a relevant bit of news: ““In 1990 America accounted for about two-fifths of the overall GDP of the G7 group of advanced countries; today it is up to about half. On a per-person basis, American economic output is now about 40% higher than in western Europe and Canada, and 60% higher than in Japan—roughly twice as large as the gaps between them in 1990. Average wages in America’s poorest state, Mississippi, are higher than the averages in Britain, Canada and Germany.””
A lot of economic policy proposals are based on bad ideas like this one and the myth of a manufacturing paradise that never really existed. Most of the Republican platform is based on ideas that are just wrong, but I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone. https://readingplatforms.substack.com/p/stop-outsourcing-and-turn-the-united?r=9ze7y
This type of exaggeration is a problem for all politicians. Another issue that gets the same treatment is race. Anyone remember hearing that George Floyd was just another part of the genocide?
In our online and polarized world, a headline that 18% of people are struggling doesn't really catch my eye like 60% does. So the 60% gets publicized and we are all dumber for it.
It’s pretty obvious that prices in the US for nearly everything reflect, not underlying costs but our ability to pay. We are rich, so prices for everything go up. We see that in the cost of staples—why for example is the drugstore price a bottle of 500 generic acetaminophen too high for working class families? Because people like me will buy it at any price, while the poor get overpriced baggies at the bodega. This is essentially true at every economic level. Americans marvel at cheaper prices elsewhere, without knowing that incomes historically have been lower, taxes higher. Indeed, a lot of systemic imbalances in the US could be fixed with higher taxes.
Taking the first search result: Walgreen’s 150 generic acetaminophen @ $10.99 (500mg). And yes, that’s too much for a family that is barely making food expenses. And take the time to examine how many brand name otc remedies cost $20 or more for a small quantity. Generics used to be much cheaper; now it’s like 15% less. And I’m talking about urban shoppers, who don’t drive to Walmart or Costco, don’t have an Amazon Prime account. As for BOGO—it’s still cash out of pocket; there’s no way that paying more is the solution. Why do you think CVS is now locking up deodorants and toothpaste? Are middle class people shoplifting for the fun of it?
Wow! That explains why I’m getting stuff from Amazon in beat up boxes and home-made packaging. Sometimes also with hospital stock numbers. Middle class people are stealing for the sport of it! Only in America!!
Yeah, acetaminophen was perhaps a poor example. Generic Imodium usually varies a lot, as does generic Pepcid complete and, say, generic Flonase or Allegra
Everyone should read “The Economist” this week. The Envy of the World is the cover article. Our productivity is much greater than any other country in the world. The dollar is strong still. Purchasing power is weaker than in 1990 although wages are a bit higher. The looming cloud for keeping our robust economy is of course the Deficit. Neither candidate for President is addressing this at all. Water is also an economic issue we need to address immediately.
If I’m not jumping with joy when I hear all the happy talk about how great the economy is, it’s because I have an intuitive sense for what’s going to happen if the deficit is to be erased.
Well, this was eye-opening. Using the definition on the survey, I too would be considered living paycheck-to-paycheck even though I am usually able to save a fraction of my paycheck every month.
I'm surprised no one in the comments has asked who LendingClub even is. One of my pet peeves is media coding dubious studies from organizations no one has ever heard of. It's one thing to cite Brookings or other organizations that are well-known, but media citations of relatively unknown organizations don't provide enough context to evaluate who is behind the organization. Half the time they turn out to be an industry group citing in dubious proprietary data or a corporate astroturf org, while the other half of the time the think tank turns out to be a couple of guys running it out of their apartment who don't necessarily have good credentials.
Lending club is a personal loan matching site. I used them to consolidate and pay off some credit card debt. You put in some information and they go and see who will offer you a loan and what the basic terms of it are. So they do have a stake in things here but they also have a lot of data from both sides of the loan market.
But do they have a widely known and independently verified reputation for quality information? When a lot of their data is proprietary, is there a way for people outside the org to know it's good? I've worked on research projects with major industry groups for which my questions on data quality just met a wall of "proprietary information" where we couldn't verify the data quality. A lot of media pieces on such studies basically read like a press release since the journalists can't necessarily dive into the data (or have the quant skills to do so).
The old song is ”Figures can lie and liars can figure” if you want to stay fully informed you best learn how to figure. And if you are a candidate in the present cycle you are figuring the best way to convincingly spin the figures for your demographic just short of not getting caught in a lie unless the lie will get elected.
Well argued all the way around and I agree with both the premise of the article and the conclusions. But one minor bone to pick: a lot of Americans have a good portion of their net worth tied up in their home, which is very much illiquid (Ben sort of acknowledges this but mostly glosses over it). I don't have the statistics for what percentage of Americans and what percentage of their net worth, but suffice it to say, people wouldn't be such NIMBYs if they didn't have to worry about their home values depreciating.
I feel like ever since 2008 the de facto thing to say regarding the economy is that it’s struggling and needs improvement.
In today's nyt 2 Page spread of "the most surprising intriguing fascinating facts of the year" this claim is placed at the bottom left corner: "In the United States, more than 60 percent of the work force lives paycheck to paycheck. The average American is in five to six figure debt and often has only cursory knowledge of how they got there."
In good faith, i ask about the point of this article.
I came into this article with the belief that living paycheck to paycheck is a state of mind. You've underscored that by observing that some who say that they live paycheck to paycheck are not actually strapped for cash if they can save money and order out 30 days a month.
The problem is that there are 350 million money stories in America.
People save money because it's a responsible thing to do. The actual saving of money requires that you budget your other expenses as though you don't have the portion that you're saving.
Not everyone who owns a house can easily afford it. People get assistance with down payments and mortgages.
In judging the size an setup of newer kitchens, people don't coook the way they used to. This is actually to say that man may not cook at all. While I enjoy cooking, my schedule and neurodivergence translate to an inability to cook as often as I would like and so I eat out more than I actually want. And I'm someon
e who actually lkes to cook.
It seems like the desired goal is to tell people in these categories that they have nothing to complain about.
Who are you to tell me that I don't truly live paycheck to paycheck?
What goal is achieved if, by chance, you succeed in convincing me that I'm not living paycheck to paycheck?
How do you define what paycheck to paycheck means for an individual? In some cases, the change of mindset is dependent upon a change of behavior. That's a heavy lift, especially for someone who may not realize a return on that investment.
Assuming that you can convince/shame 80% of the population that their preception is wrong, what does that mean for the 20% who do, by your standards, live week to week? Do you seek to make it easier to support that demographic or is it fine to create yet another division in an already greatly fractured socety?
Again, I approach in good faith.
Poor was how my Russian immigrant grandparents lived. 1915 arrival. No English. Rented apt. in Queens, N.Y. Left to California in 1934 thinking there was work there. Failed and returned.
They still would never trade America for Soviet Russia. They still ate, had friends, raised children who went to good public schools. They had no car payments (no car), no T.V. or internet (haha)
and still had a good life.
The working poor folks I know (40 k per year) have an apartment car, color t.v., cell phone, laptop, eat out a couple times a week, can go to public school, community college, and get discounted medical care.
My point is that even the less fortunate have opportunities in this country.
This is comforting in some ways, in that Matt is describing a less fraught relationship between Americans and their economic resources, on a daily/monthly/yearly basis. I am not picking a rhetorical fight (or even a contretemps); but, I just subbed a class with 35 students, a sizable fraction of whom would qualify as those in the low-income-to-poverty-line citizens. I witnessed a microcosm of the anxiety that comes from not having enough: not enough attention, not enough nutrition, and not enough time to learn the things they need to know in the fourth grade. I can't lose sight of them when I think about my own circumstances, which are relatively fragile because I'm old and still have to work.
The comments here are enlightening, and I will continue to go through them, in order to distract myself from the upcoming election.
The consensus since I last looked in seems to be that Americans have nothing but their own ambitions to blame for feeling financially stretched. Here’s a relevant bit of news: ““In 1990 America accounted for about two-fifths of the overall GDP of the G7 group of advanced countries; today it is up to about half. On a per-person basis, American economic output is now about 40% higher than in western Europe and Canada, and 60% higher than in Japan—roughly twice as large as the gaps between them in 1990. Average wages in America’s poorest state, Mississippi, are higher than the averages in Britain, Canada and Germany.””
A lot of economic policy proposals are based on bad ideas like this one and the myth of a manufacturing paradise that never really existed. Most of the Republican platform is based on ideas that are just wrong, but I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone. https://readingplatforms.substack.com/p/stop-outsourcing-and-turn-the-united?r=9ze7y
I did a version of this a couple of years ago, but with musical lyrics:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/29/opinion/paycheck-finances.html
This type of exaggeration is a problem for all politicians. Another issue that gets the same treatment is race. Anyone remember hearing that George Floyd was just another part of the genocide?
In our online and polarized world, a headline that 18% of people are struggling doesn't really catch my eye like 60% does. So the 60% gets publicized and we are all dumber for it.
It’s pretty obvious that prices in the US for nearly everything reflect, not underlying costs but our ability to pay. We are rich, so prices for everything go up. We see that in the cost of staples—why for example is the drugstore price a bottle of 500 generic acetaminophen too high for working class families? Because people like me will buy it at any price, while the poor get overpriced baggies at the bodega. This is essentially true at every economic level. Americans marvel at cheaper prices elsewhere, without knowing that incomes historically have been lower, taxes higher. Indeed, a lot of systemic imbalances in the US could be fixed with higher taxes.
Taking the first search result: Walgreen’s 150 generic acetaminophen @ $10.99 (500mg). And yes, that’s too much for a family that is barely making food expenses. And take the time to examine how many brand name otc remedies cost $20 or more for a small quantity. Generics used to be much cheaper; now it’s like 15% less. And I’m talking about urban shoppers, who don’t drive to Walmart or Costco, don’t have an Amazon Prime account. As for BOGO—it’s still cash out of pocket; there’s no way that paying more is the solution. Why do you think CVS is now locking up deodorants and toothpaste? Are middle class people shoplifting for the fun of it?
> Are middle class people shoplifting for the fun of it?
Mainly because they can sell it for a profit with minimal risk. Some probably do find it fun too.
Wow! That explains why I’m getting stuff from Amazon in beat up boxes and home-made packaging. Sometimes also with hospital stock numbers. Middle class people are stealing for the sport of it! Only in America!!
100 generic acetaminophen is around $2.30. Is that really a prohibitive price?
At Walmart sure. At Walgreens you probably have a BOGo half off deal that’s triple that, unit cost.
Your best bet always for OTCs is Walmart or Amazon
The price I quoted was Wegman’s grocery store, today. Walmart’s online price is 1.98. Food Lion per Instacart is 1.99.
Yeah, acetaminophen was perhaps a poor example. Generic Imodium usually varies a lot, as does generic Pepcid complete and, say, generic Flonase or Allegra
Everyone should read “The Economist” this week. The Envy of the World is the cover article. Our productivity is much greater than any other country in the world. The dollar is strong still. Purchasing power is weaker than in 1990 although wages are a bit higher. The looming cloud for keeping our robust economy is of course the Deficit. Neither candidate for President is addressing this at all. Water is also an economic issue we need to address immediately.
Water? How? (I don’t have access to the economist anymore now that I’m no longer a student)
If I’m not jumping with joy when I hear all the happy talk about how great the economy is, it’s because I have an intuitive sense for what’s going to happen if the deficit is to be erased.
Well, this was eye-opening. Using the definition on the survey, I too would be considered living paycheck-to-paycheck even though I am usually able to save a fraction of my paycheck every month.
I'm surprised no one in the comments has asked who LendingClub even is. One of my pet peeves is media coding dubious studies from organizations no one has ever heard of. It's one thing to cite Brookings or other organizations that are well-known, but media citations of relatively unknown organizations don't provide enough context to evaluate who is behind the organization. Half the time they turn out to be an industry group citing in dubious proprietary data or a corporate astroturf org, while the other half of the time the think tank turns out to be a couple of guys running it out of their apartment who don't necessarily have good credentials.
Lending club is a personal loan matching site. I used them to consolidate and pay off some credit card debt. You put in some information and they go and see who will offer you a loan and what the basic terms of it are. So they do have a stake in things here but they also have a lot of data from both sides of the loan market.
But do they have a widely known and independently verified reputation for quality information? When a lot of their data is proprietary, is there a way for people outside the org to know it's good? I've worked on research projects with major industry groups for which my questions on data quality just met a wall of "proprietary information" where we couldn't verify the data quality. A lot of media pieces on such studies basically read like a press release since the journalists can't necessarily dive into the data (or have the quant skills to do so).
Isn’t that the point of this post their survey wasn’t of high quality?
... Yes, I'm agreeing with the thrust of the post. Stop being weird.
The old song is ”Figures can lie and liars can figure” if you want to stay fully informed you best learn how to figure. And if you are a candidate in the present cycle you are figuring the best way to convincingly spin the figures for your demographic just short of not getting caught in a lie unless the lie will get elected.
Well argued all the way around and I agree with both the premise of the article and the conclusions. But one minor bone to pick: a lot of Americans have a good portion of their net worth tied up in their home, which is very much illiquid (Ben sort of acknowledges this but mostly glosses over it). I don't have the statistics for what percentage of Americans and what percentage of their net worth, but suffice it to say, people wouldn't be such NIMBYs if they didn't have to worry about their home values depreciating.
What’s the source on the household debt at all time low? Does this look specifically at income to debt ratios ?