Jump to content

61% Of Americans Living Paycheck-To-Paycheck


SackMan518
 Share

Recommended Posts

SackMan518

This is bad. It notes that spending habits have not decreased but didn't specify if it was because of added fuel, energy, and food prices though I suspect they may be a part of the equation.

 

61% Of Americans Living Paycheck-To-Paycheck

 

Bidenflation is hitting Americans across the board, according to a new study.

 

On Monday, CNBC reported that recent data from LendingClub indicates that in June 2022, 61% of all Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck — including 36% of those earning more than $200,000. That figure is up from 55% from the year before for all Americans.

 

“What a difference a year makes. Last summer we were all worried about how quickly the economy would recover,” Anuj Nayar, LendingClub’s Financial Health Officer, said in a press release issued Monday. “Now, as inflation continues its upwards swing, consumers are finding it more difficult to manage spending and are eating into their savings as financial pressures mount.”

 

Nayar predicted that Americans would soon have difficulties handling unexpected costs.

 

“That said, consumers are not yet slowing down their spending habits, despite the rise in the cost of living,” she added. “Not only is it going to be difficult for them to handle future emergency expenses, but even foreseen payments like education, student loans, or housing expenses may be harder to balance for the everyday American consumer.”

LendingClub’s press release also noted, “An estimated 33.5 million — or 13% — of U.S. consumers spent more than they earned in the past six months.”

 

MORE AT THE LINK

 

5gpoLdRkNpBT.jpeg

Edited by SackMan518
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SackMan518 said:

including 36% of those earning more than $200,000.

 

If you're making $200,000 or more, and live paycheck to paycheck, you're a &#%$ing idiot. Stupid should be painful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Koko said:

 

If you're making $200,000 or more, and live paycheck to paycheck, you're a &#%$ing idiot. Stupid should be painful.


In NYC, Chicago, parts of California, $200K isn't that much, especially after taxes. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ann said:


In NYC, Chicago, parts of California, $200K isn't that much, especially after taxes. 

 

I get that, but if struggle to afford it, that's still on the idiots who choose to live there, rather than trying to find a more affordable area and commuting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nouseforaname
13 hours ago, Ann said:


In NYC, Chicago, parts of California, $200K isn't that much, especially after taxes. 


If someone makes that kind of money then it’s not recent changes to the economy that will have an impact, they’ve always been underwater.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SackMan518

The map that reveals the American dream is over? Salary needed to buy the median US home is now $76K - and the typical family cannot afford a house in 35 of country's 50 biggest cities

  • Nationwide, a salary of $76,000 is needed to afford the median home, $8,500 more than the median income
  • A family making the typical salary of $67,500 can't afford homes in 35 of the 50 largest US cities
  • San Jose leads the nation in home prices, with a median price of $1,875,000 requiring a salary of $330,758 
  • Pittsburgh is most affordable of the top 50, with a salary of $42,858 affording the median home at $185,700

 

A family making the median national income can no longer afford the typical house in 35 of the country's 50 biggest cities, according to a new study.

Based on home price data from the first quarter of the year, the salary needed to afford the median US home stood at almost $76,000 - roughly $8,500 more than the typical household actually makes, according to an analysis from Visual Capitalism. 

The study found that San Jose leads the nation in unaffordable homes, with the median home priced at $1,875,000, requiring a salary of at least $330,758 to afford the expected monthly payments of $7,718. 

The top four markets for median home prices were all in California, with San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles following San Jose. 

New York City ranked seventh on the list with a median home price of $578,100 requiring an annual salary of $129,458. The Big Apple ranked slightly below Boston, where an income of $130,203 is needed to afford the typical home price of $639,000.

Meanwhile, the median household income across the country stood at just $67,500, which would be enough to afford the typical home in only 15 of the cities on the list.

Many of the more affordable cities were located in the Midwest. Pittsburgh ranked the most affordable, with a median home price of just $185,700, requiring a salary of just $42,858 to afford monthly payments of $1,000.

In addition to Pittsburgh, a family making $50,000 a year or less could afford the median home payment in St. Louis, Louisville, Cleveland, and Oklahoma City, the study found.

 

61067101-11080955-image-a-16_16596259053

 

MORE AT THE LINK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KD in CA

While the current situation isn't helping, I bet this number has never been lower than 50%.  It has a lot more to do with individuals being unable to act responsibility in the face of incessant advertising than anything else.

 

I wonder what % of those 61%:

-drive a car < 3 years old or use private car service (Uber) to get around

-have a $500+ supercomputer (also < 3 years old) for a mobile phone.

-flew on an airplane for a leisure trip in the past year

-eat out 2+ times per week

-watch cable/satellite TV and/or subscribe to premium pay TV services

-get coffee at Starbucks several times per week

 

Our economy is based on over consumption so this really shouldn't be very surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nouseforaname
On 8/4/2022 at 7:52 PM, KD in CA said:

While the current situation isn't helping, I bet this number has never been lower than 50%.  It has a lot more to do with individuals being unable to act responsibility in the face of incessant advertising than anything else.

 

I wonder what % of those 61%:

-drive a car < 3 years old or use private car service (Uber) to get around

-have a $500+ supercomputer (also < 3 years old) for a mobile phone.

-flew on an airplane for a leisure trip in the past year

-eat out 2+ times per week

-watch cable/satellite TV and/or subscribe to premium pay TV services

-get coffee at Starbucks several times per week

 

Our economy is based on over consumption so this really shouldn't be very surprising.


3 & 4 are necessities 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Fansince88
On 8/4/2022 at 7:52 PM, KD in CA said:

While the current situation isn't helping, I bet this number has never been lower than 50%.  It has a lot more to do with individuals being unable to act responsibility in the face of incessant advertising than anything else.

 

I wonder what % of those 61%:

-drive a car < 3 years old or use private car service (Uber) to get around

-have a $500+ supercomputer (also < 3 years old) for a mobile phone.

-flew on an airplane for a leisure trip in the past year

-eat out 2+ times per week

-watch cable/satellite TV and/or subscribe to premium pay TV services

-get coffee at Starbucks several times per week

 

Our economy is based on over consumption so this really shouldn't be very surprising.

In other words, how many are being irresponsible with their finances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KD in CA
6 hours ago, Fansince88 said:

In other words, how many are being irresponsible with their finances?

 

Yup.  But it's somewhat futile to chalk it up entirely to individual irresponsibility when our system offers no incentive to educate anyone on how to be fiscally intelligent.  Like most education, it doesn't just come into being on its own, it needs to be taught.

 

As much as I despise most of the progressive platform, they are not entirely wrong about predatory capitalism.  It's just a shame that liberals are too stupid to understand that the government is far more responsible for that than are Fortune 500 CEOs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fansince88
1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

 

Yup.  But it's somewhat futile to chalk it up entirely to individual irresponsibility when our system offers no incentive to educate anyone on how to be fiscally intelligent.  Like most education, it doesn't just come into being on its own, it needs to be taught.

 

As much as I despise most of the progressive platform, they are not entirely wrong about predatory capitalism.  It's just a shame that liberals are too stupid to understand that the government is far more responsible for that than are Fortune 500 CEOs.

Believe it or not our local school has a Dave Ramsey financial class. While he may seem a little extreme (hih system got my wife and I out of our hole 25yrs ago) if you stick with what he teaches you will be in real good shape economically. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Guidelines