When you're living paycheck to paycheck your IQ and decision-making ability is effectively handicapped from having to constantly worry about eating and security. Combine that with a system that can be brutal if you don't have the means, this stat is not at all surprising.
> Combine that with a system that can be brutal if you don't have the means
And there's the crux of it. "The system", when it's working towards a sustainable civilisation, must provide some level of protection for those who don't have the ability to make good decisions. Scammers and advertising as one example. Regulation and fines that are enforced and sufficiently discouraging.
It's too easy to profit off the bottom end.
Finding where protections intersect with personal freedoms / responsibility is the perpetual impossibility.
Your own link (from the summary) states that it's a mixed bag at best:
> The relationship between obesity and socioeconomic status differs by sex and race and ethnicity group. Among women, and specifically non-Hispanic white women, obesity prevalence increases as income (PIR) decreases, while among non-Hispanic black and Mexican-American men obesity prevalence decreases as income (PIR) decreases. Although the prevalence of obesity among women with income below 130% of the poverty level is higher than among those with higher incomes, most obese women do not have incomes below 130% of the poverty level.
And considering education tends to (roughly) map to income, the most damning sentence is the last:
> Among men and women with a college degree, the prevalence of obesity is lower than among those with some college education. Moreover, college educated women are less likely to be obese compared with those with less than a high school diploma.
While OP may be incorrect in claiming most poor Americans are overweight, it doesn't look like they're too far off claiming those in poverty tend to be heavier. Doubly so considering this evidence is pulled solely from the link you're trying to use to refute their claim.
Most Americans (2 in 3) are overweight or obese. I only found this on the first link of Google so it's not stratified by wealth, but do you really disbelieve that most poor Americans are overweight?
I thought it was common knowledge that poor and/or uneducated people, at least in the West, tend to be more obese, and overall tend to live a less healthy lifestyle. But I'm happy to be wrong.
What has usually been the topic of discussion between people with differing political views is 1) whether this can be reduced to a personal choice (ability), and consequently 2) where the responsibilities lie to improve the situation.
At least observationally, having lived in both richer and poorer areas of cities around the world, in the poor areas people smoked more, drank more (whether sugary drinks or alcohol), were more obese, had worse teeth, and I saw fewer joggers or other people working out.
Because of my political views I tend to feel that many of these poorer/uneducated people both lack the ability and the environment to do 'better', and regardless of whether that is true, I believe societal/collective initiatives would be helpful in changing the situation (whether state- or community-led).
I think there are plenty of initiatives to support improvements (church, grassroots movements, non-profits, state-initiatives; pick your poison).
The one thing I have trouble with is the, IMO, often self-serving and incredibly myopic view that all these people are just inferior and entirely willingly choosing to live often unhealthy and unhappy lives. When I see a severely obese person, I see someone with problems, not someone who's just a happy, lazy glutton. I've never personally met a fat person who was unapologetically happy with their situation. Far from it.
Fat doesn’t mean they’re healthy. People who are obese can only stop eating if they’re still getting vitamins and minerals through some other mechanism. If you just stop eating completely, you could actually kill yourself.
You are correct, it's not the food deserts, redlining, institutional and systemic factors, widespread government corruption spearheaded by Coke and McDonalds lobbyists promoting unhealthy products, that led to poor nutritional attainment among poor Americans.
Someone with unemployment insurance is classed as going to starve in a few months without a job. Except they paid into that. For the purposes of unemployment, insurance is saving.
Someone without retirement savings is declared to be unable to retire. Except for Social Security and Medicare. They paid into those. Those are saving.
What these miss is that plenty of saving is being done by people, but it is done through government programs so it does not get classified as saving.
This is a misinterpretation of what the survey data says. It's a widespread one, and worth correcting.
A large fraction of people have debt, such as student loans, mortgages, car loans, etc. If they have a significant amount of extra cash, they'll use it to reduce their debt, because money sitting in a bank account makes less interest than the interest on a mortgage or any other sort of loan. So if you look at these peoples' bank accounts, they don't have any savings. Scary, right? But most of them do have lines of credit, so if they have a financial setback, they won't lose the ability to buy groceries, they'll just take on additional debt.
This is well known. The income inequality is high as is, but the number of below middle class to poor is also increased. Unfortunately there is no political will to help the situation. We are more than happy to provide trillions to wasteful spending but severely against spending on people. Decades of such behavior will of course hurt the country. The sad part is we stopped caring about fixing our house in prosperous times as well.
1. Although I agree it’s a problem, this isn’t new news I don’t believe. I don’t have good references to point to right this second, but I swear I hear almost monthly if not more often that most people couldn’t come up with $500-1k in an emergency, much less multiple months of expenses.
2. The article points to COVID-19 exacerbating these findings, but on top of the cash every US tax payer received who made under the defined threshold, there were a ton of things put in place or implemented like aid, loan forbearance plans, rent extensions etc. as apart of COVID-19. It seems a little (but I guess not totally) surprising that this crisis is what brought to light this issue.
Dave Ramsey can say whatever he likes, he's the head of a massive personal finance brand. Having listened to a fair bit of him, and Mister Money Mustache, I can say it's a mix of decent advice and completely oblivious out of touch-ness, as well as a complete unwillingness to face how incentives actually work in the real world, despite an insistence, contrary to all evidence, that they are somehow hard-nosed realists dispensing truth.
As in, their advice is worthwhile, in as much as it helps you live your life in a way that makes you happier. Beyond that, they're just as stupid as everyone else.
> A new study from Oregon State University found that 77% of low- to moderate-income American households fall below the asset poverty threshold, meaning that if their income were cut off they would not have the financial assets to maintain at least poverty-level status for three months.
Low-to-Moderate income, if defined by the median being moderate, would count up to 50% as a whole group.
77% of 50% of the population is NOT "Most Americans", another deceitful headline not supported by data.
How many members does a household have above 50% and below 50%? Further, the study is paywalled but some percent of the 50% above the median likely also fall below the asset poverty threshold.
The headline may be wrong, I'm unsure, but you aren't even looking at the data.
Even in the middle class people live unsustainable lifestyles above their means. We need to bring back a culture of living below means and self-reliance.
No one likes being poor, and most people learn to live as well as they can with the income they have. Our society encourages this because it makes workers happy with less pay.
Banks and businesses prefer consumers this way, and any attempt to get people to live "within their means" will fail because of the push back from that side as well as the general discomfort and distaste for living less well (and less healthily, at least in the US - quality food is expensive).
A far better solution is to address income inequality and to bring equity to the results of everyone's work. Wage growth has been too low for decades which has been great for corporate owners and investors, but bad for society.
The problem is that "living below your means" continues to decrease over time. Once you take housing, healthcare and college into account, inflation-adjusted wages have decreased over time, and more and more jobs are moving to a precarious "gig economy" model with no benefits.
And, what is worse, Americans have lost most of their non-monetary social capital: large extended families, neighborhood churches, civic groups, mutual aid associations, etc.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the material conditions aren’t great for starting a family right now. Just look at the 2008 housing crisis, when a large portion of the population can’t afford housing, there’s certainly no family development.
> There has been a continual anti-natalist push in the West for many years, from the propaganda side convincing people it's too much work to have kids, or that it will be way more fun to drink and party through your 30s than it will be to watch your family grow up and eventually have grandchildren. Combined with the easy access to abortion and birth control, and the removal of all fertility-retaining social and religious structures around reproduction, the result has been a precipitous drop in the birth rate.
This ain't it, chief. How many people in their 30s are still living with roommates because cities don't build enough housing close to jobs? What about lack of affordable childcare? Or the poor social safety net in general? I guarantee this kind of thing has a lot more bearing on people's decisions to have children or not than "anti-natalist propaganda".
I won't pretend that it's especially easy to do this today, considering that most families have an implicit expectation of both parents working; and it's certainly something I am in favour of further subsidization, including subsidizing would-be stay-at-home-parents enough to make it make sense to have a large family (i.e. off the top of my head, it seems reasonable that a SAHP should be able to make nearly as much gov't subsidy if they have 5 kids of their own as they worked as a childcare provider for that many).
However, that doesn't seem like it would really work as a natalist policy, because it would further incentivize existing cultures that already have the structures for having large numbers of families intact, whereas the money on its own isn't really quite sufficient to compete against that.
> How many people in their 30s are still living with roommates because cities don't build enough housing close to jobs?
I live in an extremely high cost-of-living city. Still, the people who I know who have been diligent, chose workable careers early and stuck with them, worked hard, saved, and put off creature comforts and luxury in exchange for long term essentials, have done just fine and are even thriving. The people in turn who I know who have no hope of ever buying real estate or building a family are those who never buckled down, never found their calling or settled for something un-glamorous that worked.
I strongly believe that individual choices lead to individual responsibility for these situations. Abdicating your own personal responsibility to make good choices in order to propagate your own genes successfully will only result in you excluding yourself from the gene pool, which is certainly a shame for the many people of good character whom I know who fall into this category.
> What about lack of affordable childcare? Or the poor social safety net in general?
What about those things a hundred or 200 year ago? Were they that much better, or were people simply more willing to sacrifice, save, and accept a lower quality of life than the absolute maximum?
> I guarantee this kind of thing has a lot more bearing on people's decisions to have children or not than "anti-natalist propaganda".
No. Your argument is actually just a restating of the propaganda.
"It's too hard because we can't get jobs that allow us to earn enough to pay other people to raise our kids, fail and bounce back with no consequences, and still lease a new car every few years while living in a top-class world city".
That's your argument in a nutshell. Yes, maybe that pipe dream is not affordable, but a reasonable life in a cheaper city where you work a job that is less lofty but more secure is still achievable.
It's so stupid. Spend less then you earn, save, don't buy the latest shit. So many people waste their money buying new toys like the latest iPhones or Androids, fancy ass cars and expensive vacations. All my neighbors make like blue collar salaries; $50k at the most, but they have the latest treager grills, fancy infinitis, audis in their driveways, new tvs every year; and guess what tens of thousands in credit card debt
It’s not about the iPhone (or coffees, avocado toast, etc.) It’s about the habit of unnecessary spending. Many people (obviously not all) could handle unexpected expenses if they had better financial habits.
> It’s about the habit of unnecessary spending. Many people (obviously not all) could handle unexpected expenses if they had better financial habits.
What you call unnecessary spending is what actually floats the entire economy. If everyday folks’ disposable income dries up, the whole country will suffer, even your bullshit startup in a converted loft in SOMA or whatever it is that you do that earns you a six figure living.
>> This logic breaks down when you get an unexpected medical bill, or the car you rely to get to your job breaks down and you get fired, etc
There seems to be some logical disconnect here.
Saving diligently will help you tide over the things you mention. How is this an argument against saving ?
Many medical bills will wipe out savings regardless of the amount.
NPR has a good series on medical bills that comes out pretty frequently. Here is one where the 14 weeks of dialysis for a new kidney cost about a half million dollars. The person's insurance is via the spouse who is also a MD. The family is likely going bankrupt :
Agreed. Monthly healthcare spend for my family is way more than a fresh iPhone. It's not even a particularly good plan. Good luck shopping around for insurance; It's a total nightmare.
The article is talking about three months living expenses at poverty level, not unexpected medical bills. The fact that medical procedures are ridiculously expensive if you don't have insurance should not be a reason not to save for emergencies, and it's definitely not related to the findings of the study.
> This logic breaks down when you get an unexpected medical bill, or the car you rely to get to your job breaks down and you get fired, etc.
How?
I have experienced all of those things -- except replace "getting fired" with "my business failed".
My "oh shit" fund -- six months' worth of expenses -- got me through every one of those personal disasters. It gave me peace of mind, and the financial space to take care of myself, recover, and get back on the horse.
It was empowering.
Anybody can do this, if they want. It isn't easy, mind you.
It takes a big shift in mindset, time, and in my case, paying the price for a lot of poor decisions.
You aren't going to live in a trending part of town, or hit the bar every week. You'll cook at home a lot, probably live in a shared house, might even share a car or ride a bike to work. I've done all of those things.
And it is harder than it used to be.
Boomers don't get that.
Wages are lower.
Medical costs are insane -- and neither the establishment Republicans or Democrats have done anything to fix that, mind you.
Society encourages people to make horrible decisions, like borrowing insane amounts of money to buy the "college experience" and earn a worthless degree.
And the more of those traps you have fallen into, the harder climbing out of the hole will be.
Myself, I had to pay off a bunch of stupid debt.
But once you start to live below your means, and you experience that freedom, you never want to go back to the spend-everything-you-make lifestyle.
> I have experienced all of those things -- except replace "getting fired" with "my business failed".
If you’re in a position where you can easily start a (nonetheless failing) frivolous social app startup you’re already much more comfortable than most of the country.
> And it is harder than it used to be.
That’s the point. Certain individuals can still succeed today, but the fact that it is harder now than it was in the past is a point of concern.
> If you’re in a position where you can easily start a (nonetheless failing) frivolous social app startup you’re already much more comfortable than most of the country.
But then theres me and my wife, we bought the cheapest house in the neighborhood, we bought and paid off cheap cars, we designed our finances so we could easily life off my wife's teacher salary. Sure I take dev money and we buy more with it, but our total cost of living fits right around $2900 with half of that going to my mortgage.
We've added nice perks to the house: deck, redid the bathroom & kitchen etc... but those are for us and making us happy. We didn't do it to keep up with the jones
I live the same way, small house, cheap car. No debt. Then I see all the irresponsible people/biz/localgov getting bailed out and wonder why I bother.
It would have been smarter If i could have figured out how to work the (fractional reserve banking) system, instead I just avoided it as much as possible.
"Stupid poor people. They should learn to stay in their lane. Leave the good things in life to the folks who deserve it."
You have a point, but it comes across as insensitive when you fail to account for the uneven playing field most folks are struggling against. As a former "let them die" libertarian, I think I've come to the place where I realize it's not so clear cut. We have an economic system with non-linear results. Being wealthy usually makes you more wealthy with less effort than it takes to escape poverty.
After being financially devastated by a divorce, I am humbled and understand why people pursue short-term pleasure. Life is short and often brutal. I don't fully blame people who use whatever means available to find comfort, pleasure and happiness. Yes, I know wealth is not a sustainable path to those things, but it definitely works in the short term.
I have leaned libertarian (and still do to an extent) when it comes to many things, but I've never quite identified with the more right-wing 'individual responsibility' / 'poor people are a result of their own choices' perspective.
my personal experiences and having had many close friends who grew up poor or in otherwise very shitty situations make it so clear to me that a lot of the good choices I make are profoundly influenced by my direct surroundings (both physical and social), as well as an upbringing that, while poverty-line, was excellent.
My parents and extended family were great role models, and much as I might grumble about problems in our educational system, it was still pretty good. I was 'funneled' into having friends that also were more of a good than bad influence.
As I entered my twenties and explored the world, I met many people who weren't so fortunate. And as frustrating as it was at times to observe their 'bad choices', knowing the full and often painful story of all the stuff they didn't have growing up (role-models, time to just self-learn, a safe environment, etc.) made me more empathic than judgmental.
That's not to say that I believe nobody has their own responsibilities, or that bad behavior can just be excused by blaming parents or whatnot. Rather, it's complicated and I've been lucky enough to not be able to fully understand (many of the) the complications.
Yes, but the article is talking about homes earning under ~$63k. None of their neighbors are the ones being discussed, so the comment blaming individual misspending based on their actions is misplaced.
can someone please put a number on low-to-moderate-income? as in lower bound, upper bound. Couldn't find this in the article, and hence it makes less sense to me being a non-american.
I've always been amazed that basic money-handling skills are not the top of the curriculum starting in elementary schools. Everybody should know how to manage money, yet only a few people do-- and they are self-educated!
There will always be a tiny percentage of people who are in financial trouble because they had some catastrophic illness, or they got fired repeatedly through picking bad employers, or something else. But the vast majority of people could learn to spend less than they make and invest for the future. It's completely simple.
But it also requires discipline. I think therein lies the rub.
The study focused on low-moderate income households and whether they had any financial assets like stocks/bonds and mutual funds. That this segment has low representation in this respect doesn't surprise met at all, given the level of education / discretionary income needed to pursue such investments. Also, Western capitalist society saturates the populus with consumerism (which to be fair supports the economy), so there's that force at play as well.
> ... U.S. wealth inequality is more pronounced than income inequality.
This should be obvious? Wealth can grow exponentially and more or less indefinitely, but income does not. Since 1990, median hourly wages are beating inflation by a slim margin. An investment in the S&P 500 in 1990, adjusted for inflation, would be worth 7x. With 4 companies now in the Trillion Dollar Club, that inequality seems to be accelerating.
Does that imply that Americans are not wealthy because they don't plan their finances for the purpose of growing wealth? Andrew Yang wants to help with UBI, but I wonder if people would simply spend up to their new income and be in the same 3 month boat. They'd have more stuff and more fun and eat better and live in a better location. But many would still 3 months from insolvency.
Personal financial management should be taught as a life skill in high school.
American society is and has been one that favors self-reliance over community support. It’s probably religious in nature with the Puritans early on being a good example. Work hard, support your family and good things will come to you.
Just cause you may disagree with that general societal belief doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and definitely doesn’t make it a failed state. Many people do very well here, better than they possibly could do in Europe or Asia. Some people don’t do well and end up worse off than they would be in Europe. That’s what we as a society have chosen, as evidenced by our elections, with Republicans doing very well election after election.
When the country is struggling, it is not unpatriotic to look inward and wonder how we could do better. You seem to think that criticism of our cultural norms is beyond consideration. That lack of creativity is how we got here.
It’s not beyond consideration, but I find it tiring to read on HN over and over that the US has it all wrong and we should look to Europe as a model. Unemployment is much higher in Europe, economic growth is near non-existent, wages are much lower. Every system has pros and cons, but it’s time to stop acting like the American system is a failure.
(And for the record, I think a national health care system would improve this country tremendously. I’ve never understood why Republicans don’t embrace it as helping small businesses and entrepreneurs. Too many people are tied to a job simply for the health insurance. Imagine the potential in this country if everyone is free to pursue greater business ideas unburdened by the thought of “where’s our health care coming from?”
“Failed state” is a technical term that does not mean what you are using it to mean. Please don’t hijack the term as it is useful to describe entities like Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.
My wife’s business had to shut down due to COVID-19 in early April. We filed for unemployment through PUA at that time and have yet to hear ANYTHING other than “your claim was accepted and we are processing it”. On top of that, the phone lines are totally backed up.
We’re extremely fortunate because my income covers our monthly expenses, but it was a huge financial blow for us and we are conserving cash like crazy. I can’t even imagine someone who lost all their family income going through the same thing.
It is different from state to state, but when I found myself on unemployment many years ago, it was less than my already meager earnings. It helped float us, but each month was negative cash flow.
Isn’t unemployment less than earnings just about everywhere? I think the typical approach to unemployment isn’t really to make it like you never lost your job, but to provide just enough to get by temporarily.
Not less than their meager earnings. They were saying that they weren't making enough already and this was less, not that it being less than what some people make is bad. If you make the absolute minimum for survival, it shouldn't be less than that.
Negative cashflow doesn’t cause immediate death. Many (most?) people who suddenly lose income have a a negative cashflow in the immediate term (especially in consumerist societies) — many expenses take time to adjust. And people generally aren’t planning to be on unemployment for the long term anyway.
To not be catastrophic does not necessitate being good or even acceptable. Our systems of insurance can treat people better and we should want this because any of us can end up in that situation due to unforseen and even unforseeable events.
