Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KaelGotDwarves]

You did not pay attention to the second number, which was 40% of Americans spending over half their paycheck just to pay back into their debt, that is not mentioning new spending.

40% is not most, and whether spending over half your income on debt would constitute "drowning" would depend upon how much they make and what their cost of living is.

It says 40% of them are racking up new debt faster than they're paying off old debt - if they are maintaining the same spending habits. Hopefully not, since that would mean accruing more debt. If someone is sinking faster than they are rising, and they're already below water, that's drowning.

And while 40% isn't most, that's just those that are sinking further into debt- with as I said, 70% are below water.

While some may say that debt is good, we know that 25% of Americans have no savings. You might say that percentage isn't high. But this says that these people have absolutely nothing in the bank. And they're most likely in debt. So not counting credit, they have absolutely no physical, liquid assets should things go south besides pawning off their belongings.

I never stated that Americans are financially secure. I am asking you to support your assertion that they are not.

70% are in debt. You might say some own a house, but they don't even own it. The banks own them and people need to pay the banks off - or you lose your house. They're in debt and working off those debts.

To me, 70% of people being in debt qualifies as most are in trouble.

I'm in the positive, and I don't have a mortgage, while I have paid off my loans and have no debt. I am in the 30%.

@Montague: I agree with everything you said minus the last line.

The thing is though, you're talking about people having monetary assets of $500-1000 to help themselves back on their feet. Well, at this point homeless people have nothing. So speculating what'd they'd be able to do with $500 to help themselves is pointless philosophical mind-masturbation.

[GlyphGryph]

Montague,
I've got to be honest, I've got no idea what this "readi-labor" and "day-labor" is that a person can find work at. Having been homeless, this sounds like a very useful bit of knowledge should it ever happen again, so further information is much desired.

[SalmonGod]

I own one vehicle - a 25 year old motorcycle that my parents found for dirt cheap and gave me as a gift.  I also have access to a car that is actually my parent's.  Never had my own.

I pay $900 a month in rent, which is almost half of my income on its own.  We scoured for months to find a cheaper place for rent, but couldn't find any other place that wasn't a total shithole.  We had to nearly beg the landlord of this place to rent instead of sell.

I have a bachelor's degree and useful talents that might eventually improve my situation.

I can think of two people under the age of 35 who are doing better than me.

I don't care that it's anecdote.  This is the situation I know and can verify, and it's bad.

[Fenrir]

It says 40% of them are racking up new debt faster than they're paying off old debt - if they are maintaining the same spending habits.
Hopefully not, since that would mean accruing more debt. If someone is sinking faster than they are rising, and they're already below water, that's drowning.

Yes, if they are getting new debt faster than they are paying off old debt, then they are indeed sinking into more debt, but your source does not say that. It simply states that 40% are spending more than half of their income to pay off debt.

And while 40% isn't most, that's just those that are sinking further into debt- with as I said, 70% are below water.

Now you are asserting your baseless speculations as fact.

While some may say that debt is good, we know that 25% of Americans have no savings. You might say that percentage isn't high. But this says that these people have absolutely nothing in the bank. And they're most likely in debt. So not counting credit, they have absolutely no physical, liquid assets should things go south besides pawning off their belongings.

Yes, there are some people that are drowning. Still not most.

70% are in debt. You might say some own a house, but they don't even own it. The banks own them and people need to pay the banks off - or you lose your house. They're in debt and working off those debts.

Yes, if they do not pay the mortgage, the bank will take the house. That still does not mean that they are unable to pay off the mortgage, and that does not mean that they are financially drowning.

To me, 70% of people being in debt qualifies as most are in trouble.

Well, you certainly have yet to provide a reason to suppose the same. Being in debt is not equal to trouble.

I don't care that it's anecdote.  This is the situation I know and can verify, and it's bad.

I see no problem with sharing that, as long as you do not think that your tale is evidence of general financial distress.

[MaximumZero]

Montague,
I've got to be honest, I've got no idea what this "readi-labor" and "day-labor" is that a person can find work at. Having been homeless, this sounds like a very useful bit of knowledge should it ever happen again, so further information is much desired.

I don't know about elsewhere, but we in the States call it "Temp" work. Such work is provided on a temporary basis, most of which is manual labor. You can almost always find work in this area in the industrial sector with a rudimentary knowledge and evidence that you're working toward a GED if you didn't graduate high school. Most of the jobs are above minimum wage, but aren't really enough to live on unless you really save.

[Montague]

@Montague: I agree with everything you said minus the last line.

The thing is though, you're talking about people having monetary assets of $500-1000 to help themselves back on their feet. Well, at this point homeless people have nothing. So speculating what'd they'd be able to do with $500 to help themselves is pointless philosophical mind-masturbation.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking more like, if a typical Bay12 Forum member was to find themselves facing homelessness or poverty, not the dude on the corner begging for quarters, that guy needs more help then 500$ would provide, I think. Its certainly not "philosophical mind-masturbation" there are certainly things you can do to survive and live through bad-times and it doesn't take very helpful charities or generous relatives to do. I've done these things and I've survived, entirely through my own efforts. Enough to buy this lap-top even.

If you on your last leg, buy a gym membership, buy a Fed-Ex box and you have have a year's worth of security, such as it is, for very little expense, not even 500$.

I've posted this before and I will post it again since it's immensely rewired my idea of homelessness and was very reassuring to me when I faced homelessness and utter poverty myself.  http://guide2homelessness.blogspot.com/

Homelessness is better then prison. Digging through Burger King dumpsters and living in some polluted woodline is better then prison.

[KaelGotDwarves]

It says 40% of them are racking up new debt faster than they're paying off old debt - if they are maintaining the same spending habits.
Hopefully not, since that would mean accruing more debt. If someone is sinking faster than they are rising, and they're already below water, that's drowning.

Yes, if they are getting new debt faster than they are paying off old debt, then they are indeed sinking into more debt, but your source does not say that. It simply states that 40% are spending more than half of their income to pay off debt.

It does if as I said "they are maintaining the same spending habits."

Income = $2000 a month
Debt to pay off = $1100 a month based on past expenses
2000-1100=900
Leaves = $900
Past expenses = $1100 a month Slightly over half
900-1100=-200
Spending $1100 on the same expenses as past month = Current balance -$200
Then the next month you owe $1100 + the interest on the new $200.

Fucking math, how does it work? 

Now you are asserting your baseless speculations as fact.

Well, if 70% of people are forced to live their lives working until they can pay off a bank rather than live the way they want to live - I don't know if that's my definition of "success", but we all define it differently.

Look at your own financial situation, and that of those you know. I bet it'd be quite telling.

EDIT:
@Montague: I've spent time homeless as well, but only a short time. It was actually a choice of mine to be homeless in various locations, or travel without places to stay, and hitchhike. I was also able to get by but while I didn't have a plan at that moment, I always had backup plans. It sounds like you had a plan out as well.

The truly poor and homeless don't have that knowledge and skills, unfortunately.

[Montague]

Montague,
I've got to be honest, I've got no idea what this "readi-labor" and "day-labor" is that a person can find work at. Having been homeless, this sounds like a very useful bit of knowledge should it ever happen again, so further information is much desired.

Sorry.

Day-labor is like a temp organization. You sign up, register with them, ect, you show up there at like 6am or so and you wait for work, which is always manual-labor or construction labor, if you have the skills. Construction companies, moving companies, lots of different companies find themselves with a shortage of manual labor. You show up at 6am to the day-labor place, you sign in, you wait in a lobby, drink coffee, hang out untill the day-labor  company gets a job, which means they are contracted out to provide however many bodies for whatever/ however much work. Contractors, construction companies like to use day-labor for cleaning debris off construction sites, digging ditches, laying down sod, ect. Sometimes you help old ladies move their crap into the street where a moving company can pick them up. Day-laborers are people that do this sort of work for this sort of company. You are paid, minimum wage (usually) by the hour. The day-labor company charges its clients much, much more then the wages they pay their laborers.

"Readi-labor" is a local day-labor company in the city I worked in, sorry for being geo-specific.

Its a very easy way to work and get paid money, even if just for a day, it is hard manual labor, but there is always demand for it.

[Fenrir]

It does if as I said "they are maintaining the same spending habits."

Income = $2000 a month
Debt to pay off = $1100 a month based on past expenses
2000-1100=900
Leaves = $900
Past expenses = $1100 a month
900-1100=1800
Spend $1100 = Current balance -$200

You omitted the second month's income.

Fucking math, how does it work? 

You should probably learn how before you start getting snarky about it.

Well, if 70% of people are forced to live their lives working until they can pay off a bank rather than live the way they want to live - I don't know if that's my definition of "success", but we all define it differently.

Unless you think that mortgages involve slave labor camps, I do not see your point here. People need to secure housing for themselves, as that is generally a part of the life that they want to live. If they want to live without paying someone and still live in a house, well, I am afraid that the world just does not support that lifestyle.

STILL NOT DROWNING.

Look at your own financial situation, and that of those you know. I bet it'd be quite telling.

It is. My parents have a mortgage. They are part of the 70%. They are not drowning. They are living rather comfortably, in fact. Of course, my immediate surroundings do not imply what the general condition of the economy is.

[raalph]

This is the perfect america.

[Vector]

And my parents are on the verge of turning sixty.  They have no mortgage or debt.

On the other hand, they also can't afford a house.

This is also what part of the 30% looks like.

[KaelGotDwarves]

It does if as I said "they are maintaining the same spending habits."

Income = $2000 a month
Debt to pay off = $1100 a month based on past expenses
2000-1100=900
Leaves = $900
Past expenses = $1100 a month
900-1100=1800
Spend $1100 = Current balance -$200

You omitted the second month's income.

Fucking math, how does it work? 

You should probably learn how before you start getting snarky about it.

*royal facepalm*

My math is correct. That's all one month. You pay off the $1100 a month debt based on past expenses and then the same $1100 expense of that month. You make $2000 a month.

That's what it means when you're paying over half of your income into your debt, your debt keeps growing.

Nice fail.

EDIT: Way to justify my snark by failing at basic math.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking more like, if a typical Bay12 Forum member was to find themselves facing homelessness or poverty, not the dude on the corner begging for quarters, that guy needs more help then 500$ would provide, I think. Its certainly not "philosophical mind-masturbation" there are certainly things you can do to survive and live through bad-times and it doesn't take very helpful charities or generous relatives to do. I've done these things and I've survived, entirely through my own efforts. Enough to buy this lap-top even.

If you on your last leg, buy a gym membership, buy a Fed-Ex box and you have have a year's worth of security, such as it is, for very little expense, not even 500$.

If I were on the brink of homelessness, that 500 dollars would be fed into every last-ditch effort I could make toward not becoming homeless in the first place, because I would know full well that every dollar I don't spend now to fix the problem is going to cost me many, many dollars in the future. And, were it not for the fact that I live in a university town, I would have no internet access. Mercifully, I do know where a crapton of essentially free computer access can be found, as well as several buildings that are never locked, are kept heated, and have rarely-patrolled niches. But that's only a handy side-effect of spending several years paying tuition and exploring these buildings as a result.

In fact, this is a problem I'm starting to worry about, since my student loans are going to start coming due right around the time I move to a new city and start graduate school without being sure about having a job, and with little in the way of savings beforehand because I'm having to spend most of my money from my current job to make ends meet. Cripes. At least beans are cheap.

[Numufu]

It does if as I said "they are maintaining the same spending habits."

Income = $2000 a month
Debt to pay off = $1100 a month based on past expenses
2000-1100=900
Leaves = $900
Past expenses = $1100 a month
900-1100=1800
Spend $1100 = Current balance -$200

You omitted the second month's income.

Fucking math, how does it work? 

You should probably learn how before you start getting snarky about it.

*royal facepalm*

My math is correct. That's all one month. You pay off the $1100 a month debt based on past expenses and then the same $1100 expense of that month. You make $2000 a month.

That's what it means when you're paying over half of your income into your debt, your debt keeps growing.

Nice fail.

EDIT: Way to justify my snark by failing at basic math.

Income = $2000 a month
Debt = $1100 a month on expenses like food, etc

Month one: $900 (2000-1100)
Month two: $1800 (900+2000-1100)

"Fucking math, how does it work" indeed.

"That's what it means when you're paying over half of your income into your debt, your debt keeps growing."

What? You think paying over half of your income in debt means you pay it twice? I'm confused.
Debt grows because people don't pay it.

[Vector]

Debt is different from cost of living.