Author Topic: “I see no way out”: Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common  (Read 5844 times)


soccerluvof4

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4443
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal
Kinda the Cart and the horse if you ask me. Why are they not saving from the get go knowing that this is not overly uncommon or just saving? Why did they consider this profession and area of cost of living? These were all choices made early on and now looking to blame or sympathy. Yea it sucks but they chose it.

stoaX

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 461
  • Location: SoCal
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
What I find interesting is how the amount of money one makes doesn't seem to have a strong influence on whether someone is living paycheck to paycheck. 

I'd wager that the hotel clerk in this article thinks her problems would be solved if only she made as much money as the administrator/waitress...who thinks if only I made as much as the software engineer...who thinks if only I made as much as the chair of liberal arts at the SoCal college. 


cats

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
I'm all for taking responsibility for one's actions and I know plenty of Americans are living beyond their means, but really...the fact that so many people are like this makes me think we need to stop blaming individuals for buying too many lattes and start blaming entities like:

-corporations, for shamelessly creating products that nobody needs and that do not truly enrich anyone's life, and then hiring con artists (advertisers) to convince the general public that various items are not silly, worthless, or perhaps even harmful to one's health, but in fact wonderful things that you NEED to be a happy and fulfilled person.  To be alive in America today is to be constantly bombarded with persuasive messages about spending your money in ways that do not benefit you.  To me, this shows tremendous amorality on the part of many corporations, that they are concerned only about their personal short-term bottom line and not much about the long-term well-being of the population.

-The government, for not stepping in and regulating all this advertising more rigorously.  Would we allow drug dealers to beam their message about how great it feels to snort coke into living rooms across the country?  So why is it that you have to make a conscious effort not to be exposed to dealers of junk goods, junk food, junk in general?

-The government again, for shamelessly permitting massive wealth inequality and slashing social support programs. 

Yes, individuals need to rethink their mindset around consumption and take a long-term view about how their choices (where to live, how many kids to have, what career to pursue) will impact their financial well-being.  But when so many people are in this paycheck-to-paycheck boat?  Seems worth questioning whether that's been the goal of entities with more power and influence all along.

El Jacinto

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 42
I'm all for taking responsibility for one's actions and I know plenty of Americans are living beyond their means, but really...the fact that so many people are like this makes me think we need to stop blaming individuals for buying too many lattes and start blaming entities like:

-corporations, for shamelessly creating products that nobody needs and that do not truly enrich anyone's life, and then hiring con artists (advertisers) to convince the general public that various items are not silly, worthless, or perhaps even harmful to one's health, but in fact wonderful things that you NEED to be a happy and fulfilled person.  To be alive in America today is to be constantly bombarded with persuasive messages about spending your money in ways that do not benefit you.  To me, this shows tremendous amorality on the part of many corporations, that they are concerned only about their personal short-term bottom line and not much about the long-term well-being of the population.

-The government, for not stepping in and regulating all this advertising more rigorously.  Would we allow drug dealers to beam their message about how great it feels to snort coke into living rooms across the country?  So why is it that you have to make a conscious effort not to be exposed to dealers of junk goods, junk food, junk in general?

-The government again, for shamelessly permitting massive wealth inequality and slashing social support programs. 

Yes, individuals need to rethink their mindset around consumption and take a long-term view about how their choices (where to live, how many kids to have, what career to pursue) will impact their financial well-being.  But when so many people are in this paycheck-to-paycheck boat?  Seems worth questioning whether that's been the goal of entities with more power and influence all along.

I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to. It isn't hard to be successful in this world. People just have to learn the difference between needs and wants and stop living beyond their means. How many times do you think the people in that article go to Starbucks or eat out?

If I were to blame anyone, it would be the media that tries to incite class warfare. They make people think that they can't get by in this world unless they make $200k/year. Do more profiles on wealthy people earning average incomes, so that more people can see that it is possible. Politicians are just as guilty too. They spout nonsense about the death of the middle class to get votes.

elliha

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
What I find interesting is how the amount of money one makes doesn't seem to have a strong influence on whether someone is living paycheck to paycheck. 

I'd wager that the hotel clerk in this article thinks her problems would be solved if only she made as much money as the administrator/waitress...who thinks if only I made as much as the software engineer...who thinks if only I made as much as the chair of liberal arts at the SoCal college.

This is true. I am not in any way an extremely frugal person but we have rarely lived paycheck to paycheck despite being significantly lower income than most of our friends. I rarely talk about money but when it has come up most of our friends are very surprised by this. I know several people that make 1000 dollars more per month than us or more and still live paycheck to paycheck. We usually have around 1000 dollars left each month when both of us are working (my husband is unemployed at them moment) and maybe 400-500 dollars when only I work. We still buy tons of stuff and do not eat rice and beans or anything like that every night. I even buy lunch at restaurants and such that is not frugal at all so we probably could cut way back and still live a good life.

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
Not for nothing, but couples with 3 and 4 children complaining about how hard it is to get by don't elicit a lot of sympathy from me.

Cool Friend

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171

I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to. It isn't hard to be successful in this world. People just have to learn the difference between needs and wants and stop living beyond their means.

That's true, but that's not a simple or easy ask in a society that heavily conditions its populace from the cradle to the grave to do the exact opposite of that.  Our legislators are often in the pocket of the same banks and corporations who profit from that messaging. Even the people on this forum who "get it" still struggle with their spending sometimes--that's how powerful the messaging is.  Breaking a lifetime of conditioning to spend spend spend is a difficult, lifelong project that carries the risk of ostracism, a consequence experienced as similar to death to the human brain. 

Of course everyone is responsible for their own lives, and everyone has their own sphere of control, but ignoring the mechanisms that are in place to prevent people from making those changes is missing a huge piece of the story, imo.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Location: Canada
I'm all for taking responsibility for one's actions and I know plenty of Americans are living beyond their means, but really...the fact that so many people are like this makes me think we need to stop blaming individuals for buying too many lattes and start blaming entities like:

...

Yes, individuals need to rethink their mindset around consumption and take a long-term view about how their choices (where to live, how many kids to have, what career to pursue) will impact their financial well-being.  But when so many people are in this paycheck-to-paycheck boat?  Seems worth questioning whether that's been the goal of entities with more power and influence all along.

The primary fix for this would have to be early education.  If my parents could train me and I could train my kids not to live outside their means, then we can educate young children the same way.

1.  How much money are you getting?
2.  Do some arithmetic and make sure your life (rent, groceries etc) costs way less than that.

The people in this article clearly chose houses and living arrangements that are financially destroying themselves.  I see a software engineer in L.A. who can't make $27k in annual housing costs without going cheque to cheque?  They didn't have the skills or the awareness to do the basic arithmetic of living.  Why not?  We clearly can't count on their parents to teach them this, no more than we can count on parents to teach their kids about birth control and STDs.  We have to step in with public education.

After that, there are a couple other things we can do to protect people from predatory lending.

For instance, we had a half left wing coalition for a federal gov't here in Canada a decade ago.  One result was a few changes in how credit cards report what you have to pay, what you owe and how long it will take if you only make minimum payments.

If you wanted to help fix this problem, you might make rules about credit card limits.  (Something like, "CC companies must ask for salary letters and not let anyone have a total max on all their CCs of more than 10 or 20% of their salaries).  This way, people hit the red flags sooner, before they find themselves in deep holes.  (Also, just ban those stupid short-term loan places.)

So you can address the "personal responsibility" side in children, and some of the more ridiculous commercial practices.

Toque.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Location: Canada

I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to. It isn't hard to be successful in this world. People just have to learn the difference between needs and wants and stop living beyond their means.

That's true, but that's not a simple or easy ask in a society that heavily conditions its populace from the cradle to the grave to do the exact opposite of that.  Our legislators are often in the pocket of the same banks and corporations who profit from that messaging. Even the people on this forum who "get it" still struggle with their spending sometimes--that's how powerful the messaging is.  Breaking a lifetime of conditioning to spend spend spend is a difficult, lifelong project that carries the risk of ostracism, a consequence experienced as similar to death to the human brain. 

Of course everyone is responsible for their own lives, and everyone has their own sphere of control, but ignoring the mechanisms that are in place to prevent people from making those changes is missing a huge piece of the story, imo.

One of the most powerful educational experiences of my young life was a grade 11 (or grade 12?) exercise where each student had to record a 30 second commercial off of television (on VHS tapes!  I'm old...).  Then you spent an hour at home, playing it over and over again, picking through all the messages it was sending.

"Boy sits across from pretty girl on train.  Train darkens. Cut to outside shot of train entering tunnel - sexually suggestive - back to interior seen.  Girl licks lips.  Boy offers girl a chocolate"
etc. etc.

We spent *so* long watching these commercials get torn apart that we couldn't watch TV anymore without going, "AHA!  I see what you're doing to my brain!  Caught you!" or "Wait a second.  No one's going to have sex with me just because I drink this cola.  Nice try, Coke."

There are well known ways to help proof people against media control.  We just don't always use them.

Toque.

El Jacinto

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Something to add- most people don't want to do better than paycheck to paycheck. Post something about how to succeed with money somewhere like Reddit or Imgur, and you'll probably get downvoted. Unless someone asks for help at work or in extended family, it's better to keep the mouth shut. They want to believe that it's not their fault, so I don't feel sorry for these people or give outside influences nearly as much blame.

Cool Friend

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171

I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to. It isn't hard to be successful in this world. People just have to learn the difference between needs and wants and stop living beyond their means.

That's true, but that's not a simple or easy ask in a society that heavily conditions its populace from the cradle to the grave to do the exact opposite of that.  Our legislators are often in the pocket of the same banks and corporations who profit from that messaging. Even the people on this forum who "get it" still struggle with their spending sometimes--that's how powerful the messaging is.  Breaking a lifetime of conditioning to spend spend spend is a difficult, lifelong project that carries the risk of ostracism, a consequence experienced as similar to death to the human brain. 

Of course everyone is responsible for their own lives, and everyone has their own sphere of control, but ignoring the mechanisms that are in place to prevent people from making those changes is missing a huge piece of the story, imo.

One of the most powerful educational experiences of my young life was a grade 11 (or grade 12?) exercise where each student had to record a 30 second commercial off of television (on VHS tapes!  I'm old...).  Then you spent an hour at home, playing it over and over again, picking through all the messages it was sending.

"Boy sits across from pretty girl on train.  Train darkens. Cut to outside shot of train entering tunnel - sexually suggestive - back to interior seen.  Girl licks lips.  Boy offers girl a chocolate"
etc. etc.

We spent *so* long watching these commercials get torn apart that we couldn't watch TV anymore without going, "AHA!  I see what you're doing to my brain!  Caught you!" or "Wait a second.  No one's going to have sex with me just because I drink this cola.  Nice try, Coke."

There are well known ways to help proof people against media control.  We just don't always use them.

Toque.

Ohhh yeah I had a class like that too.  I have to find this article I read a while ago that talked about how even when people are educated on how to deconstruct ad messaging, it still effects them unconsciously (albeit to a lesser degree).  Scary stuff.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9665
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:

One of the most powerful educational experiences of my young life was a grade 11 (or grade 12?) exercise where each student had to record a 30 second commercial off of television (on VHS tapes!  I'm old...).  Then you spent an hour at home, playing it over and over again, picking through all the messages it was sending.
...
There are well known ways to help proof people against media control.  We just don't always use them.

interesting assignment Toque. 
I remember one such assignment vividly, when we were required to jot down every advertisement we saw from the time we left school at 2:45pm until we went to sleep.  Many of the students listed literally hundreds of ads, and even they missed a lot of them. One girl (the best in the class) filled an entire composition notebook in ~6 hours.

Back OT - we're hardwired for instant gratification over long term planning, and advertisers exploit that. I agree with Toque that we've done a piss-poor job of educating our youth against this.  Most school systems don't even teach economics anymore, and the ones that do wait until high-school.  Of all the lifeskills we must master to successfully be an adult, managing money is pretty high up there, yet budgeting isn't even a concept in elementary school.  I'm grateful my parents taught me money management skills when I was young, but few children are as lucky.


StarBright

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
I just finished reading "Squeezed" and the thing that I really took away from it is that there is such a web of larger and interlocking problems (health insurance, child rearing, constantly and quickly changing economy and technologies, robots!) that people may even think they are making the right choice but two years later the world has changed enough that the choice doesn't work out.  The book also did a great job of giving stories from different types of people so that it illustrated how lots of different types of choices don't work out (trade school, college educated, kids, moving across country for a different job, etc).

I agree that an amount of personal responsibility is important, but I've seen people on these forums basically calling others suckers for going into what were once solid middle class professions (teaching, law, and civil service specifically). I am finding that I'm way less judgmental about people's jobs than I used to be, because the job market seems to be changing quickly enough that the major you pick freshman year might turn out to be a shitty choice 7 years later.

If it comes down to either having children/living near family members (often to care for them/support them) or having money  (as I see people argue on this forum) - then I reject that as a system! It might be how one has to choose to live in this particular moment, but I think we need to have these conversations about inequality so that we don't accept it as the status quo. Money or Children is not a sustainable solution and I tend to think the system is broken. Let's start to fix it; it will likely take a long time to right the ship. 

I also see lots of people talk about how if we Mustachians can do it, anyone can do it, and like @cats I honestly do not agree with that. We've seen over and over on certain polls that Mustachians tend to fall into very specific personality types, job types, and (I suspect) intelligence average. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I don't find this lifestyle easy and I can't imagine attempting it if I was some of my family members.

Anyways, that felt a little ranty by the time I finished and I may have gone in too many disparate directions, but in my mind a lot of these things are linked and I feel like they are reflected in  the article posted by the OP.




cats

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072

I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to. It isn't hard to be successful in this world. People just have to learn the difference between needs and wants and stop living beyond their means. How many times do you think the people in that article go to Starbucks or eat out?


I disagree.  This forum appears to have a higher than average level of income and education.  I would argue that the higher income puts you in a better position to recover from periodic stupid spending decisions, while the education probably makes you slightly more immune to the social pressure to spend spend spend (particularly for the science/engineer types who seem to be a big chunk of this forum--we've always been slightly social outcasts so why bother trying to fit in too much, right?)

I would argue also that it would, in the long term, benefit even those of us who have our financial shit together to have more sensible behavior encouraged/imposed upon society at large, through education or other means.  Other people buying a bunch of crap they don't need does actually hurt me (environmental impacts).  All the Starbucks and eating out you mention is bad for public health, who is going to wind up paying the health care costs for everyone's bypass surgeries or insulin or....?  Oh, right, financially responsible types like you and me! Etc.  Everyone would benefit more if the widespread phenomenon of living paycheck to paycheck or flat out beyond your means was viewed as a societal problem that we actually need to fix together (rather than telling people to spend smarter as individuals).

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9665
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
I just finished reading "Squeezed" and the thing that I really took away from it is that there is such a web of larger and interlocking problems (health insurance, child rearing, constantly and quickly changing economy and technologies, robots!) that people may even think they are making the right choice but two years later the world has changed enough that the choice doesn't work out.  The book also did a great job of giving stories from different types of people so that it illustrated how lots of different types of choices don't work out (trade school, college educated, kids, moving across country for a different job, etc).

I agree that an amount of personal responsibility is important, but I've seen people on these forums basically calling others suckers for going into what were once solid middle class professions (teaching, law, and civil service specifically). I am finding that I'm way less judgmental about people's jobs than I used to be, because the job market seems to be changing quickly enough that the major you pick freshman year might turn out to be a shitty choice 7 years later.

If it comes down to either having children/living near family members (often to care for them/support them) or having money  (as I see people argue on this forum) - then I reject that as a system! It might be how one has to choose to live in this particular moment, but I think we need to have these conversations about inequality so that we don't accept it as the status quo. Money or Children is not a sustainable solution and I tend to think the system is broken. Let's start to fix it; it will likely take a long time to right the ship. 

I also see lots of people talk about how if we Mustachians can do it, anyone can do it, and like @cats I honestly do not agree with that. We've seen over and over on certain polls that Mustachians tend to fall into very specific personality types, job types, and (I suspect) intelligence average. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I don't find this lifestyle easy and I can't imagine attempting it if I was some of my family members.

Anyways, that felt a little ranty by the time I finished and I may have gone in too many disparate directions, but in my mind a lot of these things are linked and I feel like they are reflected in  the article posted by the OP.

In general I don't see people's career choices scrutinized as much as their spending habits, but that might be as much a function of whom I interact with on these forums as anything.  As it is, we are pretty close to what you describe; educators/researchers with a family, and we've chosen where we live in part to be closer to our aging parents. In doing so we've accepted a household income far below the national median, and much less than what our educational degrees suggest.   I see a lot of people in similar fields constantly struggle with money regardless of their incomes, but to me it all boils down to their choices about how they spend rather than what they make.  I don't find a strong correlation with the statement that :  higher income puts you in a better position to recover from periodic stupid spending decisions, while the education probably makes you slightly more immune to the social pressure to spend spend spend - almost no income level seems high enough to prevent future insolvency, and people with higher educational levels (and correspondingly higher income brackets) seem to actually have more social pressure to meet a certain standard (e.g. new vehicles, destination vacations, large homes with separate bedrooms for each person plus a guest room).

Time and again we hear about "4-in-10 adults can't meet a $400 emergency expense without going into debt" or case studies of how so-and-so was forced into a debt trap because of one unforseen medical/car/wedding expense.  To me, >90% of these are a direct and predictable result of years of spending habits.  If you're spending at or close to 100% of your paycheck each month then it's a mathematical certanty that some unforseen expense will screw you. For those that claim that they need to spend every dollar they make then the reality is that they have things they simply can't afford. Expectations > economic reality. For every 30-something who claims that an unexpected 5-figure expense forced them into insolvency I think "you've had over a decade to prepare for just such a thing, but your actions only exacerbated what should have been an easily expensed problem".

I'm always a bit skeptical of government regulation to cure social ills, as @cats seems to be suggestion.  When done carefully it can have a positive impact, like limiting cigarette access and advertising to minors. But those are backstop measures, not leading strategies. parental and school involvement is almost always more effective than governmentally imposed limitations. For example, growing up active with a proper diet is far more effective than taxes or limits on sugary beverages in stores (e.g. "soda taxes").  I might support both but our societal failings with the current obesity epidemic aren't because we were too slow to tax and prohibit unhealthy snacks, but because too many kids grew up with unhealthy lifestyles and diets to begin with.  The same is true with spending beyond our means. As an example I support basic assert/income standards for anyone applying for a mortgage to prevent people from purchasing a home via loan they simply cannot afford, but that won't stop them from installing a pool and replacing all the fixtures even when their budget is tight. Teaching basic fiscal concepts like the necessity of saving and living on less than your paycheck to children early and often will.

 

StarBright

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
@nereo - I actually agree with a ton of what you wrote. But here is where my lens is a bit different.

I know that I am just one person and anecdotes don't count but will just say that we did have almost a decade to prepare for our emergencies, and we actually did prepare. After 8 years of doing "everything" right*, two years in a row of hitting max out of pocket medical expenses,  a major house expense and several mini emergencies nearly wiped us out. One more thing wrong would have put us in debt.

We've built ourselves back up over the last 5 years but are now dealing with things like doctors suggesting we put our oldest child in an expensive private school (for which we won't qualify for any help because we make too much) and special therapies that aren't covered by insurance. If we did both of those things it would use up almost every dollar that we are currently saving.

If we did that and then had another year of medical expenses like we did 7 years ago, we would again quickly find ourselves in a place where we'd run through our savings with little to no way to save them back up.

I see where we almost lost it all, I see how we could almost lose it all again, and meanwhile we just keep putting our heads down, saving about 40%  of our income and hoping things don't go wrong. If things don't go wrong then we could have very lovely lives, but a few twists of fate and I could see us easily running out again. We are just worn out by the constant saving for a rainy day.

Because I have lived it, I have a really hard time judging others (especially middle to lower middle class parents) choices.  Also knowing that for years our biggest expenses were Daycare, Medical Insurance, Housing (in that order) I actually do not have a hard time believing that people don't have much money left over.



*We did everything right except for becoming engineers because neither DH or I are talented in that way. And we both received large college scholarships to study in non-engineering fields.

Righty

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Fairfield County, CT
Only going to get worse when these people can't get their tax refunds if the government stays shut down!

Margie

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Location: SW Ontario

I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to. It isn't hard to be successful in this world. People just have to learn the difference between needs and wants and stop living beyond their means.

That's true, but that's not a simple or easy ask in a society that heavily conditions its populace from the cradle to the grave to do the exact opposite of that.  Our legislators are often in the pocket of the same banks and corporations who profit from that messaging. Even the people on this forum who "get it" still struggle with their spending sometimes--that's how powerful the messaging is.  Breaking a lifetime of conditioning to spend spend spend is a difficult, lifelong project that carries the risk of ostracism, a consequence experienced as similar to death to the human brain. 

Of course everyone is responsible for their own lives, and everyone has their own sphere of control, but ignoring the mechanisms that are in place to prevent people from making those changes is missing a huge piece of the story, imo.

One of the most powerful educational experiences of my young life was a grade 11 (or grade 12?) exercise where each student had to record a 30 second commercial off of television (on VHS tapes!  I'm old...).  Then you spent an hour at home, playing it over and over again, picking through all the messages it was sending.

"Boy sits across from pretty girl on train.  Train darkens. Cut to outside shot of train entering tunnel - sexually suggestive - back to interior seen.  Girl licks lips.  Boy offers girl a chocolate"
etc. etc.

We spent *so* long watching these commercials get torn apart that we couldn't watch TV anymore without going, "AHA!  I see what you're doing to my brain!  Caught you!" or "Wait a second.  No one's going to have sex with me just because I drink this cola.  Nice try, Coke."

There are well known ways to help proof people against media control.  We just don't always use them.

Toque.

Thank you for this example!!  I have had my kids go through magazines looking for "normal" people....it was eye opening to them to see all the obvious plastic surgery...such strong jaw lines and boobs!  lol  I want them to appreciate a healthy human body and be grateful for their health and not to take it for granted...I will do some TV watching with them and look for commercials to dissect!  Also, a good project idea for school!  Thanks!!!

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9665
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
@nereo - I actually agree with a ton of what you wrote. But here is where my lens is a bit different.

I know that I am just one person and anecdotes don't count but will just say that we did have almost a decade to prepare for our emergencies, and we actually did prepare. After 8 years of doing "everything" right*, two years in a row of hitting max out of pocket medical expenses,  a major house expense and several mini emergencies nearly wiped us out. One more thing wrong would have put us in debt.

We've built ourselves back up over the last 5 years but are now dealing with things like doctors suggesting we put our oldest child in an expensive private school (for which we won't qualify for any help because we make too much) and special therapies that aren't covered by insurance. If we did both of those things it would use up almost every dollar that we are currently saving.

If we did that and then had another year of medical expenses like we did 7 years ago, we would again quickly find ourselves in a place where we'd run through our savings with little to no way to save them back up.

I see where we almost lost it all, I see how we could almost lose it all again, and meanwhile we just keep putting our heads down, saving about 40%  of our income and hoping things don't go wrong. If things don't go wrong then we could have very lovely lives, but a few twists of fate and I could see us easily running out again. We are just worn out by the constant saving for a rainy day.

Because I have lived it, I have a really hard time judging others (especially middle to lower middle class parents) choices.  Also knowing that for years our biggest expenses were Daycare, Medical Insurance, Housing (in that order) I actually do not have a hard time believing that people don't have much money left over.



*We did everything right except for becoming engineers because neither DH or I are talented in that way. And we both received large college scholarships to study in non-engineering fields.

I hope my comments above didn't have me coming off as a big judgmental jerk.  I fully acknowledge that some people are dealt a s*&t sandwich that will strain - or potentially bankrupt - even those that did almost everything 'right'. 
My broader point is that - from my perspective - your experience is hte exception instead of the norm.

My main criticisms of the current norm involve what we perceive as 'normal'. In the last several decades there's been well documented increases in the size of our homes, the number and fanciness of our vehicles, the frequency and distance of airplane vacations, the amount spent on 'going out' and numerous other categories. So our normal for a middle class family has been two cars under warranty parked in front of a 2,200 sqft home (etc. etc.) Given those metrics - yes, it's very hard for those at or slightly below the median household income to not live paycheck to paycheck. And therein lies the problem - we keep boosting our expectations faster than our salaries, including what's considered 'scraping by'.  As an anecdotal example, my grandfather was a dentist with a (for then) middle-class salary, a wife and three kids.  They had one used car, the two girls shared a bedroom and vacations were driveable distance only. Today the expectation for what is 'necessary' has grown so much, and faster than incomes.

Regardless of your income level, the default needs to be spend less than you earn - and for a wide swath of society that isn't their reality. When all of these economic-hardship stores emerge I wish I could know i) how many months total these people had been employed and ii) what percentage of those months they had managed to save at least 5% of their paycheck.  From what I know of savings rates in this country and employment data the answers all too often seem to be 'a long history of working while saving very little'. 

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to.

Ah yes, the old "everyone can" argument, the love child of the neolibs.

Yes, anyone can become president. But not ALL.

And with many other things in life, this is also true(ish). 

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
As someone who lived a long time paycheck-to-paycheck and can now go for years without being paid, I can tell you that a lot of the people in the article were very foolish to choose to live where they do.

If the rent costs you $3000/mo, then move somewhere else. Unless you are a Fortune 500 executive, you should never be paying that much for rent. I live in a high cost of living area, but I spent two years living in rented rooms for $575/mo while building my financial future. Most people are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to improve their lives.

On the flipside, if you live somewhere where there is inadequate employment, then move. The USA is awash with good-paying jobs right now. They just won't be found on Hillbilly Mountain or in the Inner City. Get the Hell out of Dodge and move on with your life. It's not your job to be the hero of the city.

I'm stunned (not not really) that these government employees didn't save up an emergency fund after the shutdown in 2013. This is the New Normal. Government shutdowns happen all the time now because Red States and Blue States are engaged in a long-term Cold War and partisans don't care what happens to the civilians caught in the crossfire. You have to look out for yourself and your family in the face of this.

El Jacinto

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 42
I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to.

Ah yes, the old "everyone can" argument, the love child of the neolibs.

Yes, anyone can become president. But not ALL.

And with many other things in life, this is also true(ish).

In 232 years, 45 people have been president. Not everyone has the potential to be president. That's comparing apples to oranges.

There have been (at the very least) tens of thousands of people who have started their life lower class and have built very successful lives in this country, with the common theme being that they were willing to work hard.

I was borderline homeless in my late teens and worked to escape that. I watched people around me who are still living like that because of their choices. It may make me a heartless bastard, but I don't feel any pity for people like that.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9665
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to.

Ah yes, the old "everyone can" argument, the love child of the neolibs.

Yes, anyone can become president. But not ALL.

And with many other things in life, this is also true(ish).

In 232 years, 45 people have been president. Not everyone has the potential to be president. That's comparing apples to oranges.

There have been (at the very least) tens of thousands of people who have started their life lower class and have built very successful lives in this country, with the common theme being that they were willing to work hard.

I was borderline homeless in my late teens and worked to escape that. I watched people around me who are still living like that because of their choices. It may make me a heartless bastard, but I don't feel any pity for people like that.

Agreed.  This is a false equivalence if ever there was one.  Of 300MM+ citizens alive today fewer about a dozen might be president, and most (>99%) have no realistic shot.  But the majority of people can be financially independent simply by consistently spending less than they earn and investing the difference.  Millions have already achieved this, and it isn't particularly tied to having an abnormally high income.

No idea what 'the love child of neolibs' is supposed to mean here.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to.

Ah yes, the old "everyone can" argument, the love child of the neolibs.

Yes, anyone can become president. But not ALL.

And with many other things in life, this is also true(ish).

In 232 years, 45 people have been president. Not everyone has the potential to be president. That's comparing apples to oranges.

There have been (at the very least) tens of thousands of people who have started their life lower class and have built very successful lives in this country, with the common theme being that they were willing to work hard.

I was borderline homeless in my late teens and worked to escape that. I watched people around me who are still living like that because of their choices. It may make me a heartless bastard, but I don't feel any pity for people like that.

Agreed.  This is a false equivalence if ever there was one.  Of 300MM+ citizens alive today fewer about a dozen might be president, and most (>99%) have no realistic shot.  But the majority of people can be financially independent simply by consistently spending less than they earn and investing the difference.  Millions have already achieved this, and it isn't particularly tied to having an abnormally high income.

No idea what 'the love child of neolibs' is supposed to mean here.

No, it is exactly the same. Just because the chances for A are greater than for B does not mean it is different.

In both cases there are a lot of factors that play a big role. There may be a dishwasher that became a millionaire. But most dishwasher do not. Does that mean that 99,99999999% of dishwashers are totally incabable?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9665
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to.

Ah yes, the old "everyone can" argument, the love child of the neolibs.

Yes, anyone can become president. But not ALL.

And with many other things in life, this is also true(ish).

In 232 years, 45 people have been president. Not everyone has the potential to be president. That's comparing apples to oranges.

There have been (at the very least) tens of thousands of people who have started their life lower class and have built very successful lives in this country, with the common theme being that they were willing to work hard.

I was borderline homeless in my late teens and worked to escape that. I watched people around me who are still living like that because of their choices. It may make me a heartless bastard, but I don't feel any pity for people like that.

Agreed.  This is a false equivalence if ever there was one.  Of 300MM+ citizens alive today fewer about a dozen might be president, and most (>99%) have no realistic shot.  But the majority of people can be financially independent simply by consistently spending less than they earn and investing the difference.  Millions have already achieved this, and it isn't particularly tied to having an abnormally high income.

No idea what 'the love child of neolibs' is supposed to mean here.

No, it is exactly the same. Just because the chances for A are greater than for B does not mean it is different.

In both cases there are a lot of factors that play a big role. There may be a dishwasher that became a millionaire. But most dishwasher do not. Does that mean that 99,99999999% of dishwashers are totally incabable?
Than I and others are completely misunderstanding whatever point you are trying to make.  I interpret your comments and the comparison you've used to suggest that very few people are truly able to become Financially Independent - that just because its technically possible doesn't mean it is likely.

If that isn't what you are saying could you please rephrase your argument?

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
Quote
I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to.

That was the starting point.
I was writing that just because there is this community, it does not mean that "anyone" can be FI "if they decide to". (This community is, per definition, a "survivor bias" community.)

There are always a lot of circumstances that make it harder if not nearly(!) impossible. And 95% of our society is geared towards making you do unresponsible monetary decisions.

Quote
I interpret your comments and the comparison you've used to suggest that very few people are truly able to become Financially Independent - that just because its technically possible doesn't mean it is likely.

Is it likely to become FI?
The statistic says no. For a given amount of "likely". What is likely? The majority?




 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9665
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Quote
I have to disagree. The fact that this community exists is proof that anyone can do this if they decide to.

That was the starting point.
I was writing that just because there is this community, it does not mean that "anyone" can be FI "if they decide to". (This community is, per definition, a "survivor bias" community.)

There are always a lot of circumstances that make it harder if not nearly(!) impossible. And 95% of our society is geared towards making you do unresponsible monetary decisions.

Quote
I interpret your comments and the comparison you've used to suggest that very few people are truly able to become Financially Independent - that just because its technically possible doesn't mean it is likely.

Is it likely to become FI?
The statistic says no. For a given amount of "likely". What is likely? The majority?
 

I guess I do not share your pessimistic views.
One could say that most people in their present state are unable to finish a 10k, but I would say that almost everyone could finish a 10k following a basic, accessible and straightforward training plan. 
You are correct that most don't and likely will not, but that doesn't change the feasibility.

Your analogy of the dishwasher was particularly telling, as that's seen as the starting position for many within service industry.  Most chefs, owners, head waiters and line cooks all started as a dishwasher.  Many will tell you the best way of learning how a successful restaurant is run is to start working as a dishwasher. in that way its a good metaphor.

jengod

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Location: Near LAX
Hi @nereo just wanted to say that I LOVE your signature-line quote.

StarBright

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124


I hope my comments above didn't have me coming off as a big judgmental jerk.  I fully acknowledge that some people are dealt a s*&t sandwich that will strain - or potentially bankrupt - even those that did almost everything 'right'. 
My broader point is that - from my perspective - your experience is hte exception instead of the norm.

My main criticisms of the current norm involve what we perceive as 'normal'. In the last several decades there's been well documented increases in the size of our homes, the number and fanciness of our vehicles, the frequency and distance of airplane vacations, the amount spent on 'going out' and numerous other categories. So our normal for a middle class family has been two cars under warranty parked in front of a 2,200 sqft home (etc. etc.) Given those metrics - yes, it's very hard for those at or slightly below the median household income to not live paycheck to paycheck. And therein lies the problem - we keep boosting our expectations faster than our salaries, including what's considered 'scraping by'.  As an anecdotal example, my grandfather was a dentist with a (for then) middle-class salary, a wife and three kids.  They had one used car, the two girls shared a bedroom and vacations were driveable distance only. Today the expectation for what is 'necessary' has grown so much, and faster than incomes.

Regardless of your income level, the default needs to be spend less than you earn - and for a wide swath of society that isn't their reality. When all of these economic-hardship stores emerge I wish I could know i) how many months total these people had been employed and ii) what percentage of those months they had managed to save at least 5% of their paycheck.  From what I know of savings rates in this country and employment data the answers all too often seem to be 'a long history of working while saving very little'.

@nereo - Not a jerk at all! I think the point of my post is that I don't think we are a 10% exception. While I don't think it is 80% of young families that are strained through no fault of their own, I'd say it is more than 10%.

And my suspicion is that it is having children that puts most people in a precarious position, no matter how decent their prior planning. Also, doesn't it feel like sh*t sandwiches are happening more and more? Maybe it just happens to be where my friends are geographically, but I've had multiple friends lose homes to "thousand year" floods in the last couple of years, everyone's kids seem to have medical issues, everyone seems to hit their max out of pocket insurance, or have to move across the country for a job and can't find new childcare, etc.

I suspect I am looking more anecdotally, because your numbers are right, Americans aren't savers. But I see a ton of people I know who are savers, and they are strained too (they actually appear more strained than non-savers, because they don't put things on credit). I think that is where I get into it being more of a structural problem. Sure - the people doing it wrong aren't going to make it if something goes wrong, but if the people doing it right also have problems - then there is an issue.

As I'm thinking about this, I also think it might be a bit of a "donut hole" situation for middle class families.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
Quote
I think that is where I get into it being more of a structural problem.
The richer getting rich, the poorer more poor.

Yes, the poor are getting richer absolutely. But relativly they have less than 100 years ago, because the poorer are getting less from the production increase than before (but of course they still all try to keep up with the Joneses.)
Thank the neoliberal economics (I think you call them Chicago School - you know, trickle down, austerity and all that insanity.) Waren Buffet paying less taxes than his secretary isn't an anecdote of a strange single incident, that is normal. And the money that is no longer payed by the rich has to be cut somewhere - and it is cut by the services for the poor (poor here increasingly includes middle class, see public schools). 

And the sh*t sandwiches, as you called it, are getting more in a sense. But the main problem here is that there is far less social net now than a century ago and what is there is more strained. People are getting older, but not necessarily more healthy. You no longer have 3 families in walking distance that can care for you. And and and...

Worsening age structure, worsening personal social net, worsening public services, increased pressure from ads etc. makes it a lot harder to get your life together (not to mention FI) than before.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
A great deal of the "paycheck to paycheck" mentality comes from magical thinking about money, which is something I've discussed in my journal on this forum. Many low-income people believe that money magically appears and disappears so you have to spend it when you have it because -- poof -- it could be gone in a bank fee or an emergency or an overdue bill before you know it. The idea that money could be used to make more money is a foreign concept to people like this. And the idea of an emergency fund is completely alien. In their minds, an emergency fund is one's weekly paycheck.

As a poster above noted, a huge chunk of the American economy depends on tricking people into this kind of thinking, so it is very difficult to get folks to see things differently. The key is to completely eradicate advertising from one's life, but that's become increasingly difficult now that advertisers are using "influencers" -- social media wannabe celebrities who pitch their products as part of their vlogs and instagram posts. I've even seen blatant product placement advertising in the Big Four's broadcast TV episodes. (A while back, the NBC TV show "Chuck" was notorious for doing that.)

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6263
Quote
I think that is where I get into it being more of a structural problem.
The richer getting rich, the poorer more poor.

Yes, the poor are getting richer absolutely. But relativly they have less than 100 years ago, because the poorer are getting less from the production increase than before (but of course they still all try to keep up with the Joneses.)
Thank the neoliberal economics (I think you call them Chicago School - you know, trickle down, austerity and all that insanity.) Waren Buffet paying less taxes than his secretary isn't an anecdote of a strange single incident, that is normal. And the money that is no longer payed by the rich has to be cut somewhere - and it is cut by the services for the poor (poor here increasingly includes middle class, see public schools). 

And the sh*t sandwiches, as you called it, are getting more in a sense. But the main problem here is that there is far less social net now than a century ago and what is there is more strained. People are getting older, but not necessarily more healthy. You no longer have 3 families in walking distance that can care for you. And and and...

Worsening age structure, worsening personal social net, worsening public services, increased pressure from ads etc. makes it a lot harder to get your life together (not to mention FI) than before.
This is fascinating.  I am currently reading The End of Poverty by Jeff Sachs. It came out in the early 2000's and is about global poverty, (abject poverty), not US poverty.  But I am finding parallels considering the changes in the economy since about 2004.

What I'm finding in reading this book is: don't shit on poor people.  This book doesn't get into the mental load that comes from being poor - it's more about international relations and the idea that if you have a country with a large % of truly abject poor - don't be a jerk and require the country to pay off all their debts.  You just make it worse.

Cassie

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4962
The book Squeezed was interesting. As a past social worker I have seen some really bad things happen to people that put them in debt.  It’s also mentally draining to be poor. So many choices to make and just one wrong one can sink someone.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
It’s also mentally draining to be poor. So many choices to make and just one wrong one can sink someone.

I can attest to this fact from personal experience. When any one bad decision -- or instance of bad luck -- can destroy months of saving, it's stressful beyond belief. This is why a lot of poor people turn to alcohol, tobacco, gambling or drugs; The "high" helps with the intense stress they feel at all times. And, of course, now state government are taking advantage of this phenomenon by increasingly legalizing all kinds of dangerous behavior to increase taxes without upsetting rich people and corporations. But that's another tangential topic.

dogboyslim

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
... On the flipside, if you live somewhere where there is inadequate employment, then move. The USA is awash with good-paying jobs right now. They just won't be found on Hillbilly Mountain or in the Inner City. Get the Hell out of Dodge and move on with your life. It's not your job to be the hero of the city. ...
You are assuming the person has the financial resources to move.  It costs money to get from one place to another.  Owning a car/bus fare...temporary housing in the new location until you find the new job etc.  If you are already unemployed and have nothing, suggesting to the person that they just move doesn't work.

MikeBT

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Let me be frank. Without stupid people, FIRE would be a lot harder.

I can only persuade my bank manager to slip me little incentives and give me a super-competitive home loan rate because ordinary people are incredibly bad at managing their finances/shopping around for deals.

When I was younger I made a few bucks off gambling sites by just doubling down on 'free promotions' and other exploits. Obviously, gambling sites only offer those super-good promo deals because most people sucked in by them are dumb enough to continue gambling, thereby generating profit for the house.

Most of the coupons, great deals, and other money-saving tips would never exist if more than about 5% of the population bothered to pursue them.

A lot of occupations wouldn't exist if people were smart enough to take care of their own health, finances, etc.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9665
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Let me be frank. Without stupid people, FIRE would be a lot harder.

I can only persuade my bank manager to slip me little incentives and give me a super-competitive home loan rate because ordinary people are incredibly bad at managing their finances/shopping around for deals.


Interesting hypothetical, but I'm not sure whether I agree or not. 
Let's suppose that everyone managed their money effectively and saved more than they earned, that the average savings rate was somewhere in the 25% range.  What would that world be like?

I agree that credit cards probably wouldn't offer such perks, since almost no one would keep a balance, and that would be unfortunate.  But with that would go the ~$200B that americans pay in credit card debt per year (sorry, I don't know the figure for Australia, but it's probably comparable on a per-capita basis).  Those fees could go elsewhere, and a lot of people currently in that industry would instead be employed in (hopefully) more constructive persuits.  Since nearly eveyrone would be a saver the need for entitlement programs would be drastically reduced for only the truly destitute and insanely unlucky.

The bigger quesiton might be what would happen if lots and lots of people became FIRE - and indeed this has been asked on this forum and elsewhere.  While doomsayers will point to a drastically smaller workforce and say it couldn't possibly function, I tend to think that young FIREes will continue to do things (by and large) even if tis harder to classify under a traditional economy.  But I'm not certain on that last point.

Regardless, it doesn't appear that the FIRE movement or the Great Recession or about anything else will keep the majority of society from doing dumb things with thier money, like consistently spending more than they earn.  I'd still rather live in a world where saving was the default.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Location: Canada
Let me be frank. Without stupid people, FIRE would be a lot harder.
...
A lot of occupations wouldn't exist if people were smart enough to take care of their own health, finances, etc.

A lot of things would be different if people were smarter, but it would work out generally better.

I mean, fine, a guy like me who earns a living engineering software?  We'd be a lot more common and I couldn't make as much money.  That's true.  But what if people were wiser with money (though not necessarily smarter, per se).  Let's assume we develop a cultural way of making everybody just want to save money, live well within their means etc.?

The credit card and payday loans industries would just die.  Mortgages would exist, yes, but car loans would be statistically rare beasts.
Would this be bad?  Would all those people employed in those industries have nothing else to do?
Of course not.
All of the money that went to completely non-productive high-interest loan payment would be directed elsewhere.  All of the FI people would be free to start their own businesses, create new things and make society better.
Remember that, at one point, 90% of our society was subsistence farming.  When we shifted to using machines to save us a tonne of labour, did 85% of our society languish in unemployment?  Not at all.  Wealth is created by machinery and, with careful monitoring, ends up making society better.

So I don't worry about everyone learning to save money.  We'll consume less crap, pollute less, and have time to make our lives better.  I don't see any economic reason to believe this will cause some kind of collapse.

Toque.

HenryDavid

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
Back when I first lived on my own, I lived cheque to cheque for about 5-6 years.
The reason was simple: lack of income.
It was very, very difficult to get ahead of the cycle of saving up for first/last month's rent deposit, food costs, tuition costs (I was a full-time student), transit etc.
I found it hard to imagine what life would be like for someone who had $1000 they did not need immediately. It was like a fantasy of flying to the moon.
During all of this time I never had any debt or credit cards. The idea was terrifying, because where would I get the $ to pay them off?
Finally, full-time work and better pay made it possible to have a bit of savings, and that snowballed, and life was  . . . . more relaxed.
But I have a lot of respect for anyone who manages to fight through the lean years, one cheque at a time, without piling up debt. The odds are really stacked against you until you can get that little bit of surplus, and then the vicious cycle turns in your favour.

MikeBT

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Friends, I wasn't suggesting that if people were financially intelligent that our economy would crumble, or be objectively worse.

It would just be a lot harder for a given individual to achieve FIRE (I will define this as early retirement solely supported by passive income). Because all the inherent advantages we now enjoy, in terms of financial acumen and access to great deals, would be gone. Yes, they would be replaced by perhaps better deals 'on average' since everyone would be a discerning customer, but that still leaves you with less relative advantage in the game. And in my eyes, relative advantage is what you exploit in order to make a profit and FIRE.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
I'm all for taking responsibility for one's actions and I know plenty of Americans are living beyond their means, but really...the fact that so many people are like this makes me think we need to stop blaming individuals for buying too many lattes and start blaming entities
The nice thing about blaming large organisations, whether public or private, is that it removes responsibility from individuals and turns it to a large organisation, which from sheer inertia can't change much. Thus nothing changes and we can all continue with happy motoring.

I think it's more productive to think of it as culture, and consider how many minority groups carry on with values and a lifestyle which goes against that of the dominant culture. The Amish or Orthodox Jews come to mind, but of course there are also many migrant groups, too.

I think of it this way because of my work as a trainer: in working with obese people you find that it's very rare they're the only obese person in their family. Food is a very significant part of culture, so if you ask an obese person to eat less junk and more fresh fruit and vegetables, really it's like asking an Orthodox Jew to eat more bacon - they have a personal aversion to it, but less important than their personal aversion is the fact that if they're the only one at the table eating bacon, they are going to have some trouble with the rest of the people at the dinner table. An Amish guy with his mobile phone pinging Facebook updates in the quiet evening after dinner would probably have some difficulties, too.

Likewise an obese person eating a plate of vegetables at the table of KFC, or a frugal person saving money in a family of spendthrifts. Our society is a consumer society, and to go against the dominant culture requires some willpower - and it's much easier and simpler to do as part of a community than on your own.

DadJokes

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 183
I'm all for taking responsibility for one's actions and I know plenty of Americans are living beyond their means, but really...the fact that so many people are like this makes me think we need to stop blaming individuals for buying too many lattes and start blaming entities
The nice thing about blaming large organisations, whether public or private, is that it removes responsibility from individuals and turns it to a large organisation, which from sheer inertia can't change much. Thus nothing changes and we can all continue with happy motoring.

I think it's more productive to think of it as culture, and consider how many minority groups carry on with values and a lifestyle which goes against that of the dominant culture. The Amish or Orthodox Jews come to mind, but of course there are also many migrant groups, too.

I think of it this way because of my work as a trainer: in working with obese people you find that it's very rare they're the only obese person in their family. Food is a very significant part of culture, so if you ask an obese person to eat less junk and more fresh fruit and vegetables, really it's like asking an Orthodox Jew to eat more bacon - they have a personal aversion to it, but less important than their personal aversion is the fact that if they're the only one at the table eating bacon, they are going to have some trouble with the rest of the people at the dinner table. An Amish guy with his mobile phone pinging Facebook updates in the quiet evening after dinner would probably have some difficulties, too.

Likewise an obese person eating a plate of vegetables at the table of KFC, or a frugal person saving money in a family of spendthrifts. Our society is a consumer society, and to go against the dominant culture requires some willpower - and it's much easier and simpler to do as part of a community than on your own.

Try suggesting even a 10% savings rate to the average person, and you will hear nothing but excuses. Even if you shoot down those excuses with logic and examples, they'll just counter with saying that it's easier for you than it is for them because of privilege or circumstances.

Even when faced with the truth, most people would prefer to blame others and take no personal responsibility. With that in mind, it's difficult to blame anyone other than individuals.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Well again, I do think this is cultural. Last night we were watching that Marie Kondo thing, and there was a couple who had accumulated vast amounts of stuff - the old guy was into baseball and its cards, the woman was into clothes and Christmas stuff. Her clothes filled the closets of 4-5 rooms, the Christmas stuff took up all the shelves and surfaces of the rumpus room.

This led to the house really being a fire hazard, drop a match or have a dodgy power point somewhere and you'd never find and put out the small fire until it'd become a house-consuming one and probably killed the inhabitants. When asked about it all, she talked about "retail therapy" and feeling calm and free of worries while shopping.

She's far from the only person I've heard speaking of shopping and cruising malls in religious tones. This is something on my mind recently, as it's been school holidays and there have been some really hot days - everyone takes their kids to shopping malls on these days, as they're airconditioned, have small play centres, cinemas and restaurants, and you can do lots of walking and tire the kids out. And "we'll go shopping" is often the answer to emotional crisis or ordinary everyday boredom.

In the past, people used to pray or attend religious services. I am not the first person to observe: the shopping mall is the church of consumerism. There is not a rational reason for each individual purchase than there is a rational reason for each "shema yisrael" or "hail Mary." It's just what you do.

So I think you cannot really put aside the consumerist mentality until you find a new thing which fulfils the human need for something to believe in, for ritual. This will be why people following traditional religions are better able to be frugal: you don't need consumerism when you already have a religion.

When talking to people about their consumerist behaviour, it makes more sense if you treat it as their making statements of faith. The trouble is that consumerism is such a ubiquitous religion in our culture that people aren't even aware of it. You couldn't discuss Sunni Islam rationally with a man on the streets of Riyadh, either. A fish can't see the water - but a frog can.

MikeBT

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
I agree it's cultural in the sense that many irrational things are cultural - religion; gender discrimination; trying to keep up with the Joneses.

At the end of the day, a small minority of us have been able to trump that culture, or at least subvert it.

Not all of us did so via privilege. I'm sure many if not most on this board came from ordinary means.

In other words, I think we can feel like we deserve to sow what we reap - and so can everyone else. The fact that there is an explicable reason (culture, herd mentality) behind their bad financial choices does not mean that the reason absolves them of moral failure.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
It's important to remember that purchasing Gazingus Pins and buying fast food are caused by the same goal: to produce pleasurable brain chemical rushes. People get addicted to the dopamine or whatever rush from getting those things. The key for myself was to replace those sources with something else like exercise, reading books, visiting museums for free, and building/making things.

The way to get to that place within yourself is to eliminate advertising, which is getting easier by the day. Hell, advertisers are getting so desperate that they are purposefully and flagrantly insulting their customers these days just to get attention.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 08:32:31 PM by WhiteTrashCash »

MikeBT

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Dopamine - so true, and well phrased.

We each choose our own 'highs' - and we are each responsible for our choices!

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
Dopamine - so true, and well phrased.

We each choose our own 'highs' - and we are each responsible for our choices!

That is the positive side of being a bibliophile - you can get your high literally just walking through your temple (bookstore). And even if you go berzerk, it is extremely hard (as long as you read them) to use up more than 100$ on books per week ;) (Not that I get to that amount in a month in reality.)

I want to add that in the financial sector there are "sects" like with diets, too. Mustachianism anyone? :D

The point is to find out what works for you. And I think here is the general problem of our society: The only "working way" that is presented to you is consumerism. Feel down? Buy a gown! Feel bad? Buy a bed!
The only real alternative is the opposite - may it be MMM, Marie Kondo or minimalism, which is for the average consumer as far away as the other side of the earth.