Instead of worrying about money all the time, people should probably just be saving and investing their money. Even on minimum wage it's possible to save a little bit every month provided you are willing to sacrifice other things for it.
When I was younger I had a lot of friends that were making minimum wage as cooks or whatever in Boston. They (and me) had plenty of money to spend on alcohol, weed, bars, pizza, etc. If anyone had wanted to, they could have made sacrifices and put away over $250 a month.
Of course, things are a little different when you have a family, but then again, in my opinion, you shouldn't have a family until you're financially stable.
I know live in Tanzania and the situation is so different that I find it ridiculous when people in America complain about income inequality or the lack of a "living wage."
Even the poorest employed people in America are far better off than most of the people here, and if you told them about how the so called "poorest" in America live, they would literally kill to switch places with them.
you can't compare your situation however many years ago to someone else's situation right now somewhere else. the job and housing markets are different, people have kids, family obligations (spouse, siblings, parents, relatives, ...), ongoing physical and mental health issues, and of course different levels of support and opportunity based on class, race, gender, papers, etc.
Immutable law of the internet--if you write a piece about financial hardship, you get out of touch scolds in the comments preaching frugality and self denial.
Take one single second to consider that maybe virtue alone isn't enough. The world has changed since you were young. Take some time to learn about it, and develop some empathy.
I have been teaching people how to save money and time, and I've yet to meet anyone to change my mind on this.
You either accept that people choose to live outside their means, or people have no control over their bodies and therefore should not be punished for crimes.
I don't expect people to share ideas about this topic, it's silly too. Most of us want to help people, but many hn voters would rather by publically empathetic than discuss.
A question for you folks: when you spend money on goods and services that you know represent conspicuous consumption, and on ones that represent luxury, and provide little practical utility, how does it make you feel?
Using a 3.5% safe withdrawal rate, I've recently crossed the threshold where I could retire indefinitely at my current spending rate. Each day I continue working is now essentially only so I can spend more on a more luxurious lifestyle in the future. I'm fairly frugal, and it's been changing my perspective on work a bit. The first place I've been loosening up on is food.
One of the important things I find to try and understand is what it means to not be in the financial situation I'm in right now. It means being stressed all the time, and therefore the stress would affect my capacity to make long term decisions. Also, lowering my current heightened stress would become a higher priority. Therefore I would assume that (due to a combination of lowered decision making and a need to reduce stress) the spending of money to consume would actually be a very reasonable decision to make- it reduces friction on decision making and also temporarily reduces stress.
only so I can spend more on a more luxurious lifestyle in the future
Or, you know, maybe allowing more philanthropy and leaving a charitable legacy for the future. There are many ways to utilize our high-tech ability to generate large incomes that don't involve spending every dime on ourselves.
Yeah, I think I will become more philanthropic soon, I can feel the limits of my hedonism kicking in, in a weird way. Currently my only philanthropy is volunteering at Habitat for Humanity every once in a blue moon.
The crossover point where I feel like I will actively enjoy giving to charity is once my portfolio reaches $2MM ($70k annual spend).
Yep, married now, probably 1 or 2 kids eventually. To add a bit of nuance to my first post, growth assumptions of 6% per year on the portfolio mean that the eventual expense associated with children is probably already baked into the plan, given how conservative a 3.5% withdrawal rate is. Not too bad to worry about financially.
Reasonable insurance means anticipated medical expenses are limited to out-of-pocket maximums per year, which is reasonable.
Edit: Yes I know US markets have done very well the last 100 years, but they were unusual circumstances. The next 100 are very likely to be different. Take a look Germany/France/Italy/UK/Japan, for more normal returns. Yes they are less capitalist - but US could be too given the way the main US parties are going.
Its just scary whenever I see people extrapolate recent returns. FIRE guys are generally dreaming -esp if they have no children.
U.S. stocks have appreciated at 7% (after inflation), on average, for over 100 years. And even if they don't, the 3.5% withdrawal rate has a 99% success rate if backtested on websites such as firecalc.com. Most of the time, this withdrawal rate leaves the investor with a portfolio worth several multiples of its starting value after 30 years.
In my reading, this seems like a pretty common assumption for the average annual return (looking at a period of multiple years averaged together), used often by people in the FIRE community (places like /r/FinancialIndependence, or bloggers like MMM).
Is it? Obviously if the market crash right as you retire, you're a bit screwed, but my understanding is that if you invested in a "total market" type fund continually, including straight in the middle of the biggest market crashes in history, over time you'd still make up around that range. ON a shorter scale (let say if you started around the housing crash), you'd get several times more.
It matters a little no? Every pay check you take out is a bigger percentage of the whole while the market is down, and when it inevitably rebound, you have much less to grow back into.
With that said, while I make sure to have contingencies in the case I do end up living for longer than expected, given the average lifespan of an American and the a mid 60s retirement age, "living for 20-40 years after you retire" is not something everyone can count on.
The other poster has a valid point: as you get close to retirement you shouldn't own too much stocks, but then if the market crash around the time you start seriously converting to bonds and stuff, you have to delay that plan and manage things a lot more closely.
What are “unexpected medical expenses” if you have insurance? At most you would have to save the deductible/out of pocket max. But as quickly as medical expenses escalate when you don’t have insurance to cover it, it seems like most people would be screwed to a level that all of the savings they could accumulate would quickly disappear.
Once our house is paid off (about 8 more years), the same would be true for us and we are not living a Spartan lifestyle even now (I'm also using the 3.5% SWR for planning).
Even if I could shorten the time-to-full-retirement by a couple years, it wouldn't do me any particular good. I generally like my field and my job. I'm tied to the area (can't freely travel 25+% of the time) by virtue of having kids in 2nd and 4th grade. So, there's no mathematical/financial reason to pursue a more Spartan early-retirement-extreme or MMM-approved spending plan.
With that in mind, I find I'm able to enjoy the luxury expenditures, because they aren't taking us off our plan. We travel for a week each winter to "someplace warm". We travel to visit family quite freely. The kids engage in whatever activities they want to try, without worrying about the costs. We own an airplane. We have cleaners that come by every other week. We buy quality food. We give to charities that are meaningful to us (many with money, some with significant amounts of our time as well).
On the other hand, we cut our own grass, do 95+% of our own car maintenance, almost all of our home maintenance, and cook most of our own meals, because we value the savings and example it sets for our kids (especially around charity and talking through the value of money).
They're a lot less expensive than most people first think. (think "price of a fairly nice car" not "price of a nice house"; though obviously they go up in price to "whatever number you have in mind", most are in the 5-figure or just barely-6-figure range.)
I applaud your good fiscal management. At the same time, I hope you give serious consideration to treating home-brewed automobile maintenance differently than airplane maintenance.
How does owning an airplane change your personal travel?
Like, what kind of logistics go into travelling with a privately-owned plane? Or is it timeshare'd and someone else handles the stuff that has to do with getting a flight path, etc?
Or is it a recreational airplane and all my questions are missing the mark?
It's a recreational airplane, but we do use it for some purposeful travel. (A36-single engine piston [propeller], 2 crew seats and 4 passenger seats, ~200mph) My parents are about 700 miles away and my wife's parents are about 625 miles away, both of which are an easy non-stop flight, provided my kids can "hold it". ("Lavatories are located at either end of the flight.")
When you compare against super-discount airline airfares for 4 tickets, "our" airplane is slightly cheaper to decide to take it instead of airlines. There are many days when weather-wise it's safe to go by airline jet but unsafe by small airplane. (Of course, there's a massive overhead to that calculus, but day-of-travel is slightly cheaper.) Flight planning and pilot training is time-consuming, so it only makes sense if you already wanted to do that as your hobby. Absent a real desire to do it, it's not worth the time, cost, and risk. Take the airlines or drive.
I've never done the math prior to today. I'll make an honest attempt at it and post the answer I come up with, regardless of whether it makes me look good or bad. :)
For the trip to my parents, I have a choice to fly commercial into Myrtle Beach, to fly private into the small airport near their house, or to drive. I'll consider CO2e and a 4-passenger load.
Commercial: 760nm->1300km(693 flight plan plus 10% uplift for ground ops and APU) => 328kg CO2e + 180 miles of airport transport by car => 32 kg CO2e => 360 kg total
Private car: 30mpg, 4 pax, 844 sm => 149 kg CO2e (burning ~28 gallons). (Also is a 14 hour drive, so miserable.)
Our airplane: 616nm => 1200km (including a 5% uplift for climb and ground ops), at 11nmpg, burning about 60 gallons, which matches our actual historical fuel purchases quite closely. Assuming same CO2e/gal as a car => 320 kg CO2e Add 100 miles or so of ground transport and that puts you around 18 kg for the cars and 338 kg total. (Distance is less because we go to an airport that is closer to my home airport and much closer to my parents' house.)
So it looks remarkably close on the airplane side, if the commercial airline figures below are accurate. I'm quite confident the car and our airplane figures are ballpark close enough (absent a math error). That also requires taking a direct flight, which is not always possible (the direct is seasonal). The emissions on connecting flights are much worse than the above with twice as many ground operations. (Jets can burn ~1/3 of their cruise fuel flow while idling on the ground. Pistons are more like 1/6th.)
I drive a used car. I cook my own food. I get my clothes from walmart. I make 40k a year. Most of it goes to rent (the cheapest 1 bedroom I could find in my area) and paying down my wife's student loans. She also works, but her degree is useless (museum studies?) so she works in retail.
College is the only conspicuous consumption she's done. She should have never went. But how can I blame her for making a dumb decision over a decade ago, when everyone from her family and friends to her teachers and counselors told her it was the right move?
I don't care fox luxury anyways. My hobbies are cheap. But I'd like to stop working some day. I've been putting whatever I can into an IRA since I graduated school. I have more retirement savings than others in my age group, but I'm still behind where I should be.
Food is a good place to start. I was once very frugal, doing things like adding a can of corn to a can of soup to lower it’s cost basis (later cooking the soup myself to get even lower cost basis). Good food doesn’t have to be expensive, but quality ingredients will cost more than most frozen food.
After food, spending money on communal activities is a good place to open your wallet. Being around good friends will really make you feel good about life.
I’m reluctant to suggest money on physical goods. But I’ve noticed for certain things, quality really makes a difference. I bought an REI backpack 10 years ago that to this day brings me joy just looking at it. Also a good bed made a ton of difference 5 years ago.
Word of warning though. It is really hard to go back once you raise the bar in a given area. I am currently hemorrhaging money due to children expenses, and going back to only drinking tap water sort of feels bad in ways that are hard to describe.
Also keep in mind that significant others can really change your spending habits. Most of my fire fantasies flew out the window when I moved in with my girlfriend. And again once I got married. And again once I had kids...
Me too pretty much, "currently hemorrhaging money due to children expenses, and going back to only drinking tap water sort of feels bad in ways that are hard to describe."
In my case, it will soon be 12 kids, and I hadn't personally purchased bottled water for normal home use.
The water situation is weird. I could never bring myself to buy bottled water, since it feels wasteful, but I got used to it being provided at work. This got me viewing the tap water as contaminated, but not having any alternate water at home. I end up dehydrated. I also drink lots of juice and milk, which isn't saving any money but it somehow feels less wasteful.
> when you spend money on goods and services that you know represent conspicuous consumption, and on ones that represent luxury, and provide little practical utility, how does it make you feel?
To be entirely honest, I don't really do this. I guy goods and services if they are fun or stimulating, make my life easier for me, or solve a problem that I have.
I can't remember ever buying something because it was luxurious, except for the occasional meal. If I did, then I think I'd feel like I was wasting my money.
I grew up dirt poor, and was heavily exposed to financial hardship.
I don't live frugally, but cheaply, and every single penny I spend on things that aren't "necessary" causes me mental anguish. Any purchase above 10-50 dollars requires actual effort to "psych" myself up for. I am underpaid for my industry and position. I have a years salary in the bank.
This is what poverty does to a human. The destruction caused by such anxiety cannot truly be fixed. Every day we don't strive to help our fellow man is a day we condemn thousands to a life of anguish.
I'm probably one of those, despite making well over six figures.
On introspection, I realized that I was worried about money because the system is set up as a casino. You just HAVE to gamble to save the fruits of your labor. Every investment is more speculation than production. In addition, inflation is way way over what the fed thinks it is.
To add salt to the wound, I'm actually capable of understanding these problems mathematically. My friends/relatives who don't understand all this are blissfully unaware. They live out their lives until a crisis hits and need to beg for money.
I sometimes wonder if I should really take the blue pill and live with the mantra ignorance is bliss.
The actual findings are that Americans are feeling better about their finances than any time in recent memory. The headline seems to imply that there's an emerging crisis of confidence (there might be, but the data presented in the article certainly doesn't support it).
The article is fine! It's that the headline implies a different article that is frustrating. I know headline-writing and article-writing are often separate functions, but this is a headline for an entirely different article.
The Gallup article they link to (also the source) says...
"Overall, just 25% of Americans say they worry "all" or "most" of the time that their family income will not meet their expenses; 37% worry "some of the time"; and 37% "almost never" worry."
The source of this easily discoverable in the PDF Gallup links to on their article.
So 1/4 people worry about money constantly. My guess is you could ask that question about a great variety of topics and get a similar result. I think the thing we are testing here is the cross section of those who are by default fearful and their exposure to whichever topic is on offer.
I haven't had to worry about money so long as I've been in software development. It's a great feeling. I grew up in rural poverty and I live in fear of losing what I have. That's why I'm currently working more than one remote dev job concurrently and earning 2 fulltime salaries; to amass as much wealth as I can before the current bubble pops.
> I haven't had to worry about money so long as I've been in software development.
Wait until your kids get close to graduating high school... my oldest will be starting college in about 3 years and even though I've been saving since he was born, I still have no idea how I'm going to pay for all of it.
I was in the middle - my parents helped some - probably to the tune of maybe 20% total of my expenses. I worked multiple jobs, got some small scholarships, took out some loans. A mixed bag, but there was no question in my mind that somehow my parents "owed" me that luxury. they had 2 other kids to deal with as well after me.
I'm guessing you didn't go to college in the past 10 years. Things have changed. Nowadays it is impossible to pay for college with any kind of job you can get in college. And many internships are unpaid. So by not paying for college, they would be signing their kids up for $100k+ of debt to start off their lives.
I think maybe their kids should consider "not going to college" but that's a hard idea to sell, since it does have a measurable impact on the work and income a person can get.
> to amass as much wealth as I can before the current bubble pops.
Its definitely in a better place than it used to be, but the bubble popping is in the back of my mind too. Many of us have gone through the times when getting a tech job was insanely hard as everyone post crash was fighting for the same handful of open positions.
I remember the time when I quit my position as a software developer to go work as a sales clerk because that paid so much more than the near minimum wage I was making. We live in beautiful times and absolutely shouldn't take it for granted... (though working multiple jobs is probably a bit much, take care of your mental health)
That seems low if 40% of Americans can't find $400 for a surprise expense...or maybe the fact that it's so low is why they can't $400 if they needed it.
Because people like using credit cards for everyday spend, apparently?
"With cash or money currently in checking/savings" is at 45% but the next highest percent is "With a credit card, paid off in full at the next statement" at 33%. There's plenty of reason to use a credit card for a $400 expense even if you have $30,000 sitting in your checking account, so those who expect to pay off their credit card in full when the balance closes should be "counted" as having the emergency covered.
25% worry about money all the time and 33% can't cover an unexpected $400 expense. Yikes! Seems like the gap between those two should be a lot smaller.
Another recent study (I saw it on HN) said that the majority of people worried about finances spend every discretionary dollar on entertainment.
This is nonsense. Financial education (from a young age) should be mandatory. The number of people in dire financial straights should be miniscule, if everybody acted with good financial sense consistently.
This is wholly a man-made crisis. Participation is completely voluntary.
66 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] threadWhen I was younger I had a lot of friends that were making minimum wage as cooks or whatever in Boston. They (and me) had plenty of money to spend on alcohol, weed, bars, pizza, etc. If anyone had wanted to, they could have made sacrifices and put away over $250 a month.
Of course, things are a little different when you have a family, but then again, in my opinion, you shouldn't have a family until you're financially stable.
I know live in Tanzania and the situation is so different that I find it ridiculous when people in America complain about income inequality or the lack of a "living wage."
Even the poorest employed people in America are far better off than most of the people here, and if you told them about how the so called "poorest" in America live, they would literally kill to switch places with them.
Any more insights? What's your take on depression? "Just get over it"?
Take one single second to consider that maybe virtue alone isn't enough. The world has changed since you were young. Take some time to learn about it, and develop some empathy.
You either accept that people choose to live outside their means, or people have no control over their bodies and therefore should not be punished for crimes.
I don't expect people to share ideas about this topic, it's silly too. Most of us want to help people, but many hn voters would rather by publically empathetic than discuss.
I reckon there is a middle ground, but what do I know.
Using a 3.5% safe withdrawal rate, I've recently crossed the threshold where I could retire indefinitely at my current spending rate. Each day I continue working is now essentially only so I can spend more on a more luxurious lifestyle in the future. I'm fairly frugal, and it's been changing my perspective on work a bit. The first place I've been loosening up on is food.
Or, you know, maybe allowing more philanthropy and leaving a charitable legacy for the future. There are many ways to utilize our high-tech ability to generate large incomes that don't involve spending every dime on ourselves.
The crossover point where I feel like I will actively enjoy giving to charity is once my portfolio reaches $2MM ($70k annual spend).
Reasonable insurance means anticipated medical expenses are limited to out-of-pocket maximums per year, which is reasonable.
Wow that is optimistic.
Edit: Yes I know US markets have done very well the last 100 years, but they were unusual circumstances. The next 100 are very likely to be different. Take a look Germany/France/Italy/UK/Japan, for more normal returns. Yes they are less capitalist - but US could be too given the way the main US parties are going.
Its just scary whenever I see people extrapolate recent returns. FIRE guys are generally dreaming -esp if they have no children.
Actually this doesn't really matter if you live for 20-40 years after you retire.
edit: (But also, you should probably not own a ton of stocks near your retirement date)
With that said, while I make sure to have contingencies in the case I do end up living for longer than expected, given the average lifespan of an American and the a mid 60s retirement age, "living for 20-40 years after you retire" is not something everyone can count on.
The other poster has a valid point: as you get close to retirement you shouldn't own too much stocks, but then if the market crash around the time you start seriously converting to bonds and stuff, you have to delay that plan and manage things a lot more closely.
Even if I could shorten the time-to-full-retirement by a couple years, it wouldn't do me any particular good. I generally like my field and my job. I'm tied to the area (can't freely travel 25+% of the time) by virtue of having kids in 2nd and 4th grade. So, there's no mathematical/financial reason to pursue a more Spartan early-retirement-extreme or MMM-approved spending plan.
With that in mind, I find I'm able to enjoy the luxury expenditures, because they aren't taking us off our plan. We travel for a week each winter to "someplace warm". We travel to visit family quite freely. The kids engage in whatever activities they want to try, without worrying about the costs. We own an airplane. We have cleaners that come by every other week. We buy quality food. We give to charities that are meaningful to us (many with money, some with significant amounts of our time as well).
On the other hand, we cut our own grass, do 95+% of our own car maintenance, almost all of our home maintenance, and cook most of our own meals, because we value the savings and example it sets for our kids (especially around charity and talking through the value of money).
That escalated quickly!
I applaud your good fiscal management. At the same time, I hope you give serious consideration to treating home-brewed automobile maintenance differently than airplane maintenance.
Or is it a recreational airplane and all my questions are missing the mark?
When you compare against super-discount airline airfares for 4 tickets, "our" airplane is slightly cheaper to decide to take it instead of airlines. There are many days when weather-wise it's safe to go by airline jet but unsafe by small airplane. (Of course, there's a massive overhead to that calculus, but day-of-travel is slightly cheaper.) Flight planning and pilot training is time-consuming, so it only makes sense if you already wanted to do that as your hobby. Absent a real desire to do it, it's not worth the time, cost, and risk. Take the airlines or drive.
Do you know much about the environmental/carbon cost comparison between your plane and an airline jet?
I am guessing the smaller plane is better, consumption-wise with gas used per person, than an airline jet?
For the trip to my parents, I have a choice to fly commercial into Myrtle Beach, to fly private into the small airport near their house, or to drive. I'll consider CO2e and a 4-passenger load.
Commercial: 760nm->1300km(693 flight plan plus 10% uplift for ground ops and APU) => 328kg CO2e + 180 miles of airport transport by car => 32 kg CO2e => 360 kg total
Private car: 30mpg, 4 pax, 844 sm => 149 kg CO2e (burning ~28 gallons). (Also is a 14 hour drive, so miserable.)
Our airplane: 616nm => 1200km (including a 5% uplift for climb and ground ops), at 11nmpg, burning about 60 gallons, which matches our actual historical fuel purchases quite closely. Assuming same CO2e/gal as a car => 320 kg CO2e Add 100 miles or so of ground transport and that puts you around 18 kg for the cars and 338 kg total. (Distance is less because we go to an airport that is closer to my home airport and much closer to my parents' house.)
So it looks remarkably close on the airplane side, if the commercial airline figures below are accurate. I'm quite confident the car and our airplane figures are ballpark close enough (absent a math error). That also requires taking a direct flight, which is not always possible (the direct is seasonal). The emissions on connecting flights are much worse than the above with twice as many ground operations. (Jets can burn ~1/3 of their cruise fuel flow while idling on the ground. Pistons are more like 1/6th.)
Refs: http://lipasto.vtt.fi/yksikkopaastot/henkiloliikennee/ilmali... http://lipasto.vtt.fi/yksikkopaastot/henkiloliikennee/tielii...
I drive a used car. I cook my own food. I get my clothes from walmart. I make 40k a year. Most of it goes to rent (the cheapest 1 bedroom I could find in my area) and paying down my wife's student loans. She also works, but her degree is useless (museum studies?) so she works in retail.
College is the only conspicuous consumption she's done. She should have never went. But how can I blame her for making a dumb decision over a decade ago, when everyone from her family and friends to her teachers and counselors told her it was the right move?
I don't care fox luxury anyways. My hobbies are cheap. But I'd like to stop working some day. I've been putting whatever I can into an IRA since I graduated school. I have more retirement savings than others in my age group, but I'm still behind where I should be.
I'm guessing you're not married, then...?
After food, spending money on communal activities is a good place to open your wallet. Being around good friends will really make you feel good about life.
I’m reluctant to suggest money on physical goods. But I’ve noticed for certain things, quality really makes a difference. I bought an REI backpack 10 years ago that to this day brings me joy just looking at it. Also a good bed made a ton of difference 5 years ago.
Word of warning though. It is really hard to go back once you raise the bar in a given area. I am currently hemorrhaging money due to children expenses, and going back to only drinking tap water sort of feels bad in ways that are hard to describe.
Also keep in mind that significant others can really change your spending habits. Most of my fire fantasies flew out the window when I moved in with my girlfriend. And again once I got married. And again once I had kids...
In my case, it will soon be 12 kids, and I hadn't personally purchased bottled water for normal home use.
The water situation is weird. I could never bring myself to buy bottled water, since it feels wasteful, but I got used to it being provided at work. This got me viewing the tap water as contaminated, but not having any alternate water at home. I end up dehydrated. I also drink lots of juice and milk, which isn't saving any money but it somehow feels less wasteful.
To be entirely honest, I don't really do this. I guy goods and services if they are fun or stimulating, make my life easier for me, or solve a problem that I have.
I can't remember ever buying something because it was luxurious, except for the occasional meal. If I did, then I think I'd feel like I was wasting my money.
I don't live frugally, but cheaply, and every single penny I spend on things that aren't "necessary" causes me mental anguish. Any purchase above 10-50 dollars requires actual effort to "psych" myself up for. I am underpaid for my industry and position. I have a years salary in the bank.
This is what poverty does to a human. The destruction caused by such anxiety cannot truly be fixed. Every day we don't strive to help our fellow man is a day we condemn thousands to a life of anguish.
Remember that next time you vote
Like part of the problem.
On introspection, I realized that I was worried about money because the system is set up as a casino. You just HAVE to gamble to save the fruits of your labor. Every investment is more speculation than production. In addition, inflation is way way over what the fed thinks it is.
To add salt to the wound, I'm actually capable of understanding these problems mathematically. My friends/relatives who don't understand all this are blissfully unaware. They live out their lives until a crisis hits and need to beg for money.
I sometimes wonder if I should really take the blue pill and live with the mantra ignorance is bliss.
Banking cash feels irresponsible.
But they aren't talking about us who are aware of the looming USD crisis and invest money. They are talking about those who don't invest.
Is a savings/checking account a "gamble"? Is a money market?
I'm surprised they are considered mainstream media. Is that only because they have a TV channel?
Headline: 25% of Americans say they worry about money 'all the time'
Body: 25% worry 'all' or 'most' of the time that their household income won’t be enough to cover their expenses.
Link to 25% worry 'all or 'most' of the time: Leads to unrelated article about New Yorkers.
Underlying poll: "11% of Americans say they worry about money 'all the time.'
"Overall, just 25% of Americans say they worry "all" or "most" of the time that their family income will not meet their expenses; 37% worry "some of the time"; and 37% "almost never" worry."
The source of this easily discoverable in the PDF Gallup links to on their article.
https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/249191/190429PersonalFinan...
They don't seem to do investigations, but rather reporting stories with buzz producing titles.
https://www.people-press.org/2010/12/02/despite-years-of-ter...
I think this means you worry about money.
Wait until your kids get close to graduating high school... my oldest will be starting college in about 3 years and even though I've been saving since he was born, I still have no idea how I'm going to pay for all of it.
My parents never paid for my college and I Graduated debt free with an engineering degree.
Maybe having to pay for college will cause them to take internships to pay for college.
I was in the middle - my parents helped some - probably to the tune of maybe 20% total of my expenses. I worked multiple jobs, got some small scholarships, took out some loans. A mixed bag, but there was no question in my mind that somehow my parents "owed" me that luxury. they had 2 other kids to deal with as well after me.
I think maybe their kids should consider "not going to college" but that's a hard idea to sell, since it does have a measurable impact on the work and income a person can get.
My total bill was 30,000 USD for my bachelor's degree.
Its definitely in a better place than it used to be, but the bubble popping is in the back of my mind too. Many of us have gone through the times when getting a tech job was insanely hard as everyone post crash was fighting for the same handful of open positions.
I remember the time when I quit my position as a software developer to go work as a sales clerk because that paid so much more than the near minimum wage I was making. We live in beautiful times and absolutely shouldn't take it for granted... (though working multiple jobs is probably a bit much, take care of your mental health)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nearly-40-of-americans-cant-cov...
"With cash or money currently in checking/savings" is at 45% but the next highest percent is "With a credit card, paid off in full at the next statement" at 33%. There's plenty of reason to use a credit card for a $400 expense even if you have $30,000 sitting in your checking account, so those who expect to pay off their credit card in full when the balance closes should be "counted" as having the emergency covered.
This is nonsense. Financial education (from a young age) should be mandatory. The number of people in dire financial straights should be miniscule, if everybody acted with good financial sense consistently.
This is wholly a man-made crisis. Participation is completely voluntary.