What's new

In America, a cancer is eating democracy from the inside, and China has clocked the weakness

40% of Americans don’t have $400 in the bank for emergency expenses: Federal Reserve


Not a $400 expense away from disaster. Sens. Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all made the claim that a large portion of Americans are unable to pay a $400 emergency expense. That’s just not true, writes Michael Strain:

It turns out the claim that nearly half of Americans are a flat tire away from financial crisis is largely based on an inaccurate reading of one survey question.
The question comes from the annual “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households” by the Federal Reserve. The report finds, in 2018, that 61% of adults would cover a $400 unexpected expense using cash (or its equivalent). Politicians and many in the media seem to be subtracting 61 from 100, and concluding that 39% of people, to use Warren’s phrase, “can’t come up with” the money they’d need to handle this situation.

Instead, as the Fed report makes clear, though “the remaining 4 in 10 adults” “would have more difficulty covering such an expense,” many of them would be able to make it work by carrying a credit card balance or borrowing from friends and family. (Presumably some of these adults are 18-year-olds borrowing from their parents, but I’m not sure about that.)

The report states: “Twelve percent of adults would be unable to pay the expense by any means.” I’m dubious about that as well. In any event, 12% is a lot less than 39%.

The report also goes out of its way to make clear that some of the 39% who wouldn’t use cash might still have $400 in the bank: “It is possible that some would choose to borrow even if they had $400 available, preserving their cash as a buffer for other expenses.” In a footnote, the report even cites a 2016 study finding that 76 percent of households had $400 in liquid assets, even after taking into account monthly expenses. [...]

The common misinterpretation of this finding in the study is particularly strange in light of two other questions on the same survey. The Fed asks respondents whether they are able to pay all of their bills in full. Only 17% say they can’t pay some bills. Again, 17%, not 39%.

The Fed also asks respondents how a $400 emergency expense that they had to pay would affect their ability to pay their other bills. Eighty-five percent report that they would still be able to pay all their bills. Only 14% say that the emergency expense would result in their not being able to pay some bills.
 
.
Because they probably choose to live in the most expensive areas of the US where the cost of living is substantially higher than elsewhere.

San Francisco/NYC have HUGE problems...and they are the most expensive places in the US to live. People who have little money are stupid to stay there.

About our data

Top 10 most expensive cities in America
1. San Francisco, CA
2. New York, NY

3. Oakland, CA
4. Boston, MA
5. Washington, D.C.
6. San Jose, CA
7. Seattle, WA
8. Honolulu, HI
9. Los Angeles, CA
10. San Diego, CA

If you have no money avoid the above 10 unless you want to live on the street.

Great explanations, now I understand. These people prefer living homeless, picking trashes for foods and no medical care at all in rich cities rather than living a decent life of American standard in poorer areas, and it is their ultimate choice.

Am I understanding your point correctly?
 
.
Great explanations, now I understand. These people prefer living homeless, picking trashes for foods and no medical care at all in rich cities rather than living a decent life of American standard in poorer areas, and it is their ultimate choice.

Am I understanding your point correctly?

Ignore him. No one takes that guy seriously on this forum.
 
. .
Great explanations, now I understand. These people prefer living homeless, picking trashes for foods and no medical care at all in rich cities rather than living a decent life of American standard in poorer areas, and it is their ultimate choice.

Am I understanding your point correctly?

Dude, the average rent in San Francisco is
"The average rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in San Francisco, CA is currently $2,600. "


That's $2,600x12= $31,000/yr
That in itself is well above the poverty line.

Meanwhile the average rent in California
"The average rent for an apartment in California is $1,409,"

That's $1,409x12= $16,908/yr

If you are a low-income person you are going to be living on the streets if you don't have subsidized/free government housing in San Francisco. It's as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
.
Great explanations, now I understand. These people prefer living homeless, picking trashes for foods and no medical care at all in rich cities rather than living a decent life of American standard in poorer areas, and it is their ultimate choice.

Am I understanding your point correctly?

I'm sure @GumNaam can easily explain to you that many (not all) of these homeless people grew up as kids in these very cities probably living in Section 8 housing or public housing with their parents. They didn't go to college and didn't think of their future because their parents didn't. When they turned 21 they ended up without a good job and all the Section 8/public housing was taken by other people (or lately sheltered illegal aliens). With regular rental housing in these areas incredibly expensive they ended up on the streets. They aren't moving elsewhere because they have never been elsewhere or known elsewhere.

So in San Francisco's notorious homelessness situation you probably are asking. "Why not build more public housing". The answer is the Liberals want the Federal government to pay for it. The Federal Government says "Sure we'll pay if you boot the illegal aliens you are illegally sheltering in the housing we already paid millions to build...which was supposed to house only poor US citizens/nationals". San Francisco won't budge and now you have tent cities with the mayor having press conferences saying basically "we welcome these tents with open arms..."

As @GumNaam alluded to there are just people who feel entitled to having a life of not being a producer. They say it is unfair that people who went to college and worked so hard are increasing the wealth gap between the "Haves" and the "Have nots". It's so terrible!

I think we'd both laugh at this argument of a wealth gap. Hmm two people at minimum wage is about $40K a year. Two people with white collar jobs is like $160K. 4 times the money. Somehow the people who worked hard to have a nice future are ontributing to a negative situation? How wacky is that logic? Maybe to cut the wealth gap we should ban marriages between people with successful careers...


Oh and ignore Beidou2020 he's just the usual Chinese troll who never adds any facts to a discussion...just antagonism.
 
Last edited:
.
I'm sure @GumNaam can easily explain to you that many (not all) of these homeless people grew up as kids in these very cities probably living in Section 8 housing or public housing with their parents. They didn't go to college and didn't think of their future because their parents didn't. When they turned 21 they ended up without a good job and all the Section 8/public housing was taken by other people (or lately sheltered illegal aliens). With regular rental housing in these areas incredibly expensive they ended up on the streets. They aren't moving elsewhere because they have never been elsewhere or known elsewhere.

So in San Francisco's notorious homelessness situation you probably are asking. "Why not build more public housing". The answer is the Liberals want the Federal government to pay for it. The Federal Government says "Sure we'll pay if you boot the illegal aliens you are illegally sheltering out of the housing we already paid millions to build which was supposed to house only poor US citizens/nationals". San Francisco won't budge and now you have tent cities with the mayor having press conferences saying basically "we welcome these tents with open arms..."

As @GumNaam alluded to there are just people who feel entitled to having a life of not being a producer. They say it is unfair that people who went to college and worked so hard are increasing the wealth gap between the "Haves" and the "Have nots". It's so terrible!

I think we'd both laugh at this argument of a wealth gap. Hmm two people at minimum wage is about $40K a year. Two people with white collar jobs is like $160K. 4 times the money.
the dirty little secret is that most of these homeless people are veterans who came back and turned to hard drugs.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom