I don't disagree, but one cannot say "i want gobs of money in the future - but I'm not willing to sacrifice my lifestyle down a notch or two today to get it".
Can you show that American households are, for some reason, spending outside of their ability for non life-sustaining reasons? When we look at increasing rents, stagnant wages, and rising healthcare costs, then I don't know why what you're saying is even relevant.
I could use charts of new car loans and prices over previous 15 years, new home starts, home mortgages values, and for some, high education loans, subscription to cable, restaurant dining.
If wealth preservation were a priority - it would be: inexpensive cars, inexpensive houses, inexpensive schooling until a goal is reached.
Paycheck to paycheck is not a function of 'too little money' - but materialism and consumerism and sometimes ego (eg: I want to appear successful, I want to keep up with the Joneses)
This means that for those increasingly few home owners out there, they actually are living within their means.
> home mortgages values
How are you going to wield the personal responsibility battering ram against people then blame them for grasping one of the one levers available that yield actual material wealth. Rising home values + lower delinquency rates = good for them for growing their wealth
You're wrong on this one.
> subscription to cable
You're really reaching for threads if you're going to bust someone's balls for wanting Netflix.
> Paycheck to paycheck is not a function of 'too little money' - but materialism and consumerism and ego.
Be kind, friend. There's no reason to hate the poor just because they're poor.
I should have qualified (the materialism statement as pertaining to 'middle class'). 100% those below poverty are fighting and need as much help as they can get. I may sound harsh, but I'm really just trying to address that materialism and consumerism ARE a huge contributor to wealth inequality. My words tends to be more matter of fact than I really feel.
Cable reference was really to infer a way to save $50-100/mo for many.
That says nothing because the US has forced investment schemes (401k, HSA, etc). You may be saving substantial amounts of capital and yet still live paycheck to paycheck.
> You may be saving substantial amounts of capital and yet still live paycheck to paycheck.
I agree.
> That says nothing
I disagree.
It says a ton. We can look at stagnant wages, we can look at rising rent costs, we can look at increasing student debt, we can look at increasing consumer debt, we can look at low money velocity, we can look at rising healthcare costs, and we can look at a 20% unemployment rate.
All those things plus the 3/4 number I gave paints a grim picture.
Roughly 3/4 of the country lives paycheck-to-paycheck.