thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 23, 2020 18:01:28 GMT -5
What kind of cultural shift will it take in our community to have it be normal that people have a small emergency fund? I'm not talking about months here - maybe just a single weeks worth of money. I remember someone telling people they should have a jar of change that they feed all year so if they are evacuated for a hurricane, they will have money to put gas in their car.
I can't think of it changing without closing the gap between the rich and the workers. I also am not sure our continuous advertising will ever let people release their desires and save a little money.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Mar 23, 2020 18:19:10 GMT -5
Yes. A living wage and universal access to health care will surely be a must. If you barely make enough to pay for the essentials today, it's hard to save for an emergency "some day".
And do some of these people with no savings piss money away on frivolous items? Perhaps. But they are people, not machines. I think it's a bit much to ask people to sacrifice, and sacrifice, and sacrifice to merely exist. Especially when they are surrounded by extreme wealth and privilege.
I'm wondering if this will be the Waterloo event for universal health care in this country. Much like I think Sandy Hook was a defining moment in the gun debate, I think this is that moment for health care coverage. If we don't do it here, we aren't going to do it.
|
|
plugginaway22
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 10:18:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,650
|
Post by plugginaway22 on Mar 23, 2020 18:25:51 GMT -5
Our lowest paid employees make $15-16/hour. They get their nails done, buy scratch off lottery tickets, buy cigarettes, have the latest phones, eat out frequently. Before this crisis they complained constantly about being broke, so NO they have zero money saved. It is very sad to think about what will happen down the road if we need to downsize the staff or if the office is asked to close due to an exposure.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Mar 23, 2020 18:34:12 GMT -5
Our lowest paid employees make $15-16/hour. They get their nails done, buy scratch off lottery tickets, buy cigarettes, have the latest phones, eat out frequently. Before this crisis they complained constantly about being broke, so NO they have zero money saved. It is very sad to think about what will happen down the road if we need to downsize the staff or if the office is asked to close due to an exposure. Not necessarily. I used to bitch about being "broke" all the time too. I was still saving for retirement and had an EF. Because I was saving, my available cash to "spend" was not as much as I may have liked.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,148
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 23, 2020 18:35:54 GMT -5
I dunno.
I think it will be hard for us, as a society, to agree on when/where/how personal and social responsibility is balanced.
I do think it's partly a generational thing. I think my husband and I model a balance of personal/social responsibility. My kids...it's really amazing what comes out of my 15 year olds mouth sometimes. I have no idea where he gets it from.
I can assure you, though, the minute he starts spouting off about how he's not succeeding because everyone else is doing this that and the other to him....I will remind him that ultimately, he's not succeeding because he's choosing to not show up and do the bare minimum.
When I was growing up, living within your means, to including saving something, was not a sacrifice. It was simply what you did. It was not a sacrifice to drive older cars. It was not a sacrifice to have a black and white tv while the rest of the world had moved on to color tvs. It was not a sacrifice to eat your meals at home. It was not a sacrifice to have the same set of furniture for 30 years...It was not a sacrifice to have your heat set at 55 degrees at night, in the wintertime.
I don't know. We don't have a very fancy life. I work two jobs. I'll also be the first to admit that I do more than exist, even if I vent about it here.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Mar 23, 2020 18:48:34 GMT -5
Education will play a big part. You have to find a way to education without making people feel condescended to, or like they are a worthless POS if they don't have a savings account. This is also generational in some places and will take time. And persistence.
I grew up pretty poor. My mother was (and still is) fairly terrible with money. That definitely shaped my view. Having a stash of cash relieves my stress level. I don't want to live like how I grew up where worrying about where the money was going to come from was constant.
I'm lucky in that I have a job that pays me enough to do that without pain. I was not nearly as responsible as I should have been in my early 20s. I often wish I could go back and scold 20 year old me and start saving more and earlier.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 23, 2020 19:41:46 GMT -5
Does the loan and rent-to-own industries need regulation? People pay 5x for cheap shit.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,357
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 23, 2020 19:47:52 GMT -5
I don't think there's a one size fits all answer. And it's a combination of behaviors/circumstances and not just a "do X everyday and you'll have an emergency fund" There's the mindset part - the ability to: 1.) being able to say "no" to some things 2.) being able to pay yourself first (save for some long term something) even if it's $1.00 a week) 3.) looking to the future (not being in the mode where "I should do X now because who knows what the future hold!) Then there's the income part: 1.) being able to actually go to a job you don't like consistently so you get paid 2.) being able to plan some way to earn more income (not thinking you will always work low wage retail jobs so why bother trying something else) 3.) finding some way to temper family money issues (as in if you always have to share your income with your loser relatives you will never get ahead or make enough money). Which brings us to your family/friends sometimes you have to make hard choices. Maybe you will have to move to a new place to find better employment or you may have to give up some "friendships" because you can't keep spending money on them.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 24, 2020 9:15:41 GMT -5
I don't think we will ever see a significant change in the curve. There will always be a certain percent at the bottom and a certain percent at the top of the financial world. There were people hundreds of years ago that couldn't save enough earnings to be able to handle a bad spot. There will be hundreds of people in coming years who are in the same situation. It's really difficult to get a group moving in a different direction. It's like trying to get a cruise ship to change direction versus a speed boat changing direction. A single person can make the change and do it effectively. The whole group though? Not gonna happen.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 24, 2020 12:17:59 GMT -5
Not that it would happen but some controls on advertising pushing psychological buttons would be helpful.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Mar 24, 2020 13:47:37 GMT -5
What kind of cultural shift will it take in our community to have it be normal that people have a small emergency fund? I'm not talking about months here - maybe just a single weeks worth of money. I remember someone telling people they should have a jar of change that they feed all year so if they are evacuated for a hurricane, they will have money to put gas in their car. I can't think of it changing without closing the gap between the rich and the workers. I also am not sure our continuous advertising will ever let people release their desires and save a little money. I know a lot of people making over 200K a year that seem to live paycheck to paycheck. I'm not sure ANYTHING will work. With current events, I am hearing people say they are worried they won't make it just a couple of months. These are far from low income or middle of the road people. They are upper middle class with big homes, BMW's and kids in private schools.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Mar 24, 2020 14:16:00 GMT -5
It's not always an issue of income it's keeping up with the Joneses, instant gratification, easy credit, poor money management and ultimately poor decision making. Sometimes there's nothing you can do to protect people from themselves. You can't force people to save for a rainy day and even if you auto enroll people in a company's 401K plan some percentage are always going to opt out. I spend money on things I don't need but not at the expense of saving for retirement or having an emergency fund and that was the case when I was making much less than I do now right out of college while living with roommates. There's some things you can't control - health issues, job loss, accidents, etc. but you can try to reduce the risk or impact of those situations while too many people choose not to.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,887
|
Post by bean29 on Mar 24, 2020 14:17:28 GMT -5
I don't know. I would say I don't have an emergency fund, but I do have $8,000 in an HSA, a heft current balance in my bank account (Which I normally use for Mortgage, CC, Parent Plus, Utilities, car payments and other living expenses). I guess it depends if I don't have to pay the mortgage this month. If I don't need to make any payments - I have a decent amount of $$. If they tell me I don't have to pay my monthly payments, I probably will still make my payments - I am going to continue to get paid whether or not I come in. I expect to work reduced hours and come in to do a bit of work like payroll.
DH will also continue to get paid, but he works on commission, and the shut down will undoubtedly affect our future income.
I think my kids live in la-la land. I guess we have treated them too well, but a lot of it is their culture too. DD and the neighbor girl have still been making runs to Starbucks and other fast food places for food runs. I was kind of PO'd at DD last night because I think her friend works in a hospital or nursing home - not sure b/c I think she is graduating this spring and her job may have changed.
My DD volunteered for 90 days off from her airline job. I am kind of mad at her b/c I am afraid she will lose out on Shut down benefits from the bailout package - but she is thinking if she doesn't do that - she might have schedule conflict to completing the 18 credits she has this semester. Hopefully they will actually make everyone finish the semester. If they just call the semester done, and she gave up potential income it will be frustrating. She is not lazy though. She says she is trying to figure out how to get hired on at Costco.
My Boss told us we were shutting down, then figured out that many of us can still work. I think our entire construction crew is coming to work, even though they would still get paid If they chose to stay home. We have one retiree that works just to get out of the house, but he has emphysema and diabetes. He told me not to pay him 18.5 hours b/c he would feel like he needed to make up the hours in the summer. My boss said, that guy asked him to give him an empty building to work in so he is not exposed to anyone else. He said he would prefer that that guy stay home, but he will not listen, and indicated to the boss that he needs something to do or he will go stir crazy. We are a property management and construction company, so we can assign him to work in an empty building. We have at least one other high risk person, and I fully expect to see her here this next week if she thinks she can get away with working vs. staying home. So you either have people with complete work ethics, or people with no work ethic.
I think we have a few people that live close to the edge, but we also have a lot of people that are saving and investing.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 24, 2020 14:37:52 GMT -5
The cultural shift would have to be away from consumerism. Closing any gap between high and low earners is irrelevant...plenty of high earners have nothing saved and plenty of low earners do. I'm not sure a cultural change is likely to change people's impulse control or ego in wanting things they can't really afford. The only way to stop people from spending all their money is to force them into savings with things like SS...so until we have a forced savings plan for emergency funds...it doesn't seem super likely to happen.
You can talk about universal healthcare and the like...those things offer benefits, but they ultimately do nothing to develop an emergency fund of saved cash for people without the mental mindset to not spend all the money they have access to. It's like asking why people have kids they can't afford. They feel entitled to it even though their income doesn't actually support the expense...no different with consumer spending or anything else. People feel entitled to spend their money and entitled to do whatever they want that they can make happen in pretty much any way...regardless of how bad of a decision it is.
The honest, real way to change that mindset is probably untenable for most people to deal with. Probably the only way to convince people to save up a small amount of money is to do away with all the safety nets people figure they can always fall back on. If people thought their lives depended on being responsible...they'd probably do so to some extent. But again, that's probably an untenable public policy.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,357
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 24, 2020 18:23:41 GMT -5
The cultural shift would have to be away from consumerism. Closing any gap between high and low earners is irrelevant...plenty of high earners have nothing saved and plenty of low earners do. I'm not sure a cultural change is likely to change people's impulse control or ego in wanting things they can't really afford. The only way to stop people from spending all their money is to force them into savings with things like SS...so until we have a forced savings plan for emergency funds...it doesn't seem super likely to happen. You can talk about universal healthcare and the like...those things offer benefits, but they ultimately do nothing to develop an emergency fund of saved cash for people without the mental mindset to not spend all the money they have access to. It's like asking why people have kids they can't afford. They feel entitled to it even though their income doesn't actually support the expense...no different with consumer spending or anything else. People feel entitled to spend their money and entitled to do whatever they want that they can make happen in pretty much any way...regardless of how bad of a decision it is. The honest, real way to change that mindset is probably untenable for most people to deal with. Probably the only way to convince people to save up a small amount of money is to do away with all the safety nets people figure they can always fall back on. If people thought their lives depended on being responsible...they'd probably do so to some extent. But again, that's probably an untenable public policy. I don't think that would work. I've been around quite a few people who blame other people/the government/anything but their own behavior for the quality (or lack of) of their lives. When they were younger it was easy to brush off - cause just about everybody vents or 'blames' someone else for something bad that happens - especially if everyone else is complaining the complaint. But as they got older and more 'broken record-y' it kind of became self fulfilling prophesy for them - a new job and the 2nd the day the 'boss hates them' - which of course leads to worse work behaviour (they need to get back at the asshat boss) and a lost job. They WANT to be responsible but no one will let them. Of course, if you do give them the authority and the responsibility - they take a break because they deserve it and will get started on the responsibility/authority thing next week (or the week after) they deserve a breather! they should celebrate their good fortune... and fail again. ! At some point it truly is their mindset/behaviour that holds them back and no amount of help or good will will fix it. They need to make a connection and make a change. I'm not saying just give up on helping them... just realize you do the best you can and it might not result in a good outcome. The thing is - before there were governmental public safety nets - the same problems existed. The governmental safety nets benefit the people who actually need it and use the safety net to get themselves to a better "place" (a new more secure job, recovered from illness without their family starving or losing their home, etc...) Punishing everyone for the failure of the few isn't a good strategy. Nearly everyone fails or does without under such a plan/rule. Everything stagnates. and only a few will get ahead.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 24, 2020 18:27:02 GMT -5
The cultural shift would have to be away from consumerism. Closing any gap between high and low earners is irrelevant...plenty of high earners have nothing saved and plenty of low earners do. I'm not sure a cultural change is likely to change people's impulse control or ego in wanting things they can't really afford. The only way to stop people from spending all their money is to force them into savings with things like SS...so until we have a forced savings plan for emergency funds...it doesn't seem super likely to happen. You can talk about universal healthcare and the like...those things offer benefits, but they ultimately do nothing to develop an emergency fund of saved cash for people without the mental mindset to not spend all the money they have access to. It's like asking why people have kids they can't afford. They feel entitled to it even though their income doesn't actually support the expense...no different with consumer spending or anything else. People feel entitled to spend their money and entitled to do whatever they want that they can make happen in pretty much any way...regardless of how bad of a decision it is. The honest, real way to change that mindset is probably untenable for most people to deal with. Probably the only way to convince people to save up a small amount of money is to do away with all the safety nets people figure they can always fall back on. If people thought their lives depended on being responsible...they'd probably do so to some extent. But again, that's probably an untenable public policy. Or, you could actually have real safety nets instead of the holey patchwork that barely saves anyone that we have now.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 25, 2020 7:56:32 GMT -5
The cultural shift would have to be away from consumerism. Closing any gap between high and low earners is irrelevant...plenty of high earners have nothing saved and plenty of low earners do. I'm not sure a cultural change is likely to change people's impulse control or ego in wanting things they can't really afford. The only way to stop people from spending all their money is to force them into savings with things like SS...so until we have a forced savings plan for emergency funds...it doesn't seem super likely to happen. You can talk about universal healthcare and the like...those things offer benefits, but they ultimately do nothing to develop an emergency fund of saved cash for people without the mental mindset to not spend all the money they have access to. It's like asking why people have kids they can't afford. They feel entitled to it even though their income doesn't actually support the expense...no different with consumer spending or anything else. People feel entitled to spend their money and entitled to do whatever they want that they can make happen in pretty much any way...regardless of how bad of a decision it is. The honest, real way to change that mindset is probably untenable for most people to deal with. Probably the only way to convince people to save up a small amount of money is to do away with all the safety nets people figure they can always fall back on. If people thought their lives depended on being responsible...they'd probably do so to some extent. But again, that's probably an untenable public policy. Or, you could actually have real safety nets instead of the holey patchwork that barely saves anyone that we have now. The question posed was what it would take to get people to save up money. More safety nets isn't going to cause more people to save money. I didn't post that as a good solution for safety nets (and noted a few times it's an untenable "solution"), but it does reflect my belief that to even come close to getting people to save money rather than indulge their desire to spend, it would have to be something dramatic and force them to think it is "critical" to do so. I'm honestly not even sure if you put people's lives on the line they'd make good money decisions...but I do think it would have to be dramatically different in terms of the situation that exists now. Whatever you think would convince people that not saving a few bucks was somewhat likely to end in their death...that's the extreme I think it would take to get people to deny their baser instincts. That doesn't make it a good solution, it simply highlights how intrinsic I think people's desires to consume and feed their impulses is.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,148
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 25, 2020 8:29:53 GMT -5
Or, you could actually have real safety nets instead of the holey patchwork that barely saves anyone that we have now. At the lower incomes, yes, agree. But what about folks in high(er) incomes? I think it's a reasonable expectation for folks to be able to weather a job loss for two months without having to worry about how they will feed their family and pay their mortgage and needing to rely on food pantries and the grace of the bank to give them a break on a mortgage payment or two. Our family is closer to grossing 6 figures than not. If I came on here and said "We couldn't save a dime because we value vacations, private school, and of COURSE we have to have newer cars, our closets stuffed with clothes, and our kids get carnival christmas, and it's simply not human to live in a house that isn't heated to 72 degrees in the winter, and of course, we have a busy schedule with four kids and multiple jobs...so eating out is completely a need..." Would you respond and say "Well, thank goodness for the safety nets. That's what they are there for, is people like you!"
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,148
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 25, 2020 8:34:06 GMT -5
I also don't buy that folks are under unique financial pressures these days.
The gig economy? Musicians have been doing it forever. We've managed to figure it out...
High student loan payments? I could have walked away with 60K in undergrad debt 25 years ago. Grad school on top would have gotten me to 100K.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 25, 2020 8:35:24 GMT -5
Or, you could actually have real safety nets instead of the holey patchwork that barely saves anyone that we have now. At the lower incomes, yes, agree. But what about folks in high(er) incomes? I think it's a reasonable expectation for folks to be able to weather a job loss for two months without having to worry about how they will feed their family and pay their mortgage and needing to rely on food pantries and the grace of the bank to give them a break on a mortgage payment or two. Our family is closer to grossing 6 figures than not. If I came on here and said "We couldn't save a dime because we value vacations, private school, and of COURSE we have to have newer cars, our closets stuffed with clothes, and our kids get carnival christmas, and it's simply not human to live in a house that isn't heated to 72 degrees in the winter, and of course, we have a busy schedule with four kids and multiple jobs...so eating out is completely a need..." Would you respond and say "Well, thank goodness for the safety nets. That's what they are there for, is people like you!" Income is almost irrelevant when it comes to people just feeling entitled to spend everything they have and live the life they feel they deserve. The only real difference is how much that spending will get you. How many people in the country do you think live in a LCOL area, have no kids, have roommates, no smartphone, etc...and still can't save up a WEEK'S worth of pay? It's not an income issue, it's a mindset issue. ANYONE who has chosen to live responsibly can save a week's-worth. Heck, pretty much anyone who lives IRRESPONSIBLY could save a week's worth of pay if they really wanted to...that's not a very high bar.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 25, 2020 8:35:25 GMT -5
Or, you could actually have real safety nets instead of the holey patchwork that barely saves anyone that we have now. At the lower incomes, yes, agree. But what about folks in high(er) incomes? I think it's a reasonable expectation for folks to be able to weather a job loss for two months without having to worry about how they will feed their family and pay their mortgage and needing to rely on food pantries and the grace of the bank to give them a break on a mortgage payment or two. Our family is closer to grossing 6 figures than not. If I came on here and said "We couldn't save a dime because we value vacations, private school, and of COURSE we have to have newer cars, our closets stuffed with clothes, and our kids get carnival christmas, and it's simply not human to live in a house that isn't heated to 72 degrees in the winter, and of course, we have a busy schedule with four kids and multiple jobs...so eating out is completely a need..." Would you respond and say "Well, thank goodness for the safety nets. That's what they are there for, is people like you!" I'm not as worried for people that have assets that live too close to the edge. Yes, things can suck for them, but they have stuff they could sell (usually). Also, there's always the healthcare portion of that. Having truly affordable healthcare would help everyone when the SHTF. Having to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills just as your income is cut due to the need for those medical bills is a recipe for disaster for most of us, except the truly wealthy. Other countries don't have that kind of crunch built into their health system.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 25, 2020 8:37:46 GMT -5
Or, you could actually have real safety nets instead of the holey patchwork that barely saves anyone that we have now. The question posed was what it would take to get people to save up money. More safety nets isn't going to cause more people to save money. I didn't post that as a good solution for safety nets (and noted a few times it's an untenable "solution"), but it does reflect my belief that to even come close to getting people to save money rather than indulge their desire to spend, it would have to be something dramatic and force them to think it is "critical" to do so. I'm honestly not even sure if you put people's lives on the line they'd make good money decisions...but I do think it would have to be dramatically different in terms of the situation that exists now. Whatever you think would convince people that not saving a few bucks was somewhat likely to end in their death...that's the extreme I think it would take to get people to deny their baser instincts. That doesn't make it a good solution, it simply highlights how intrinsic I think people's desires to consume and feed their impulses is. The thing is, there will always be those people who don't save. Is it better to wring our hands trying to change their nature, or just design system to work with that. I mean, people hate social security, until they need it. Lots of people need it.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,148
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 25, 2020 8:45:06 GMT -5
So, on a mommy board I'm on, there's people complaining about the income limits for the check the gov't is handing out to others. Meaning, the income limits aren't high enough.
They also are upset that they aren't going off 2019 taxes instead of 2018 taxes...because their situation has changed...more kids.
And folks are posting..Blah blah, I know we should have savings....but how are we supposed actually predict that we'd need to use it.
That's how short sighted we've become, as a nation. Or oblivious. Or self-centered. That people cannot legit pause and say, Oooh, that's bad in China, and it could it be us in a few months. Maybe I should squirrel something away just incase over the next few months.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 25, 2020 8:51:09 GMT -5
The question posed was what it would take to get people to save up money. More safety nets isn't going to cause more people to save money. I didn't post that as a good solution for safety nets (and noted a few times it's an untenable "solution"), but it does reflect my belief that to even come close to getting people to save money rather than indulge their desire to spend, it would have to be something dramatic and force them to think it is "critical" to do so. I'm honestly not even sure if you put people's lives on the line they'd make good money decisions...but I do think it would have to be dramatically different in terms of the situation that exists now. Whatever you think would convince people that not saving a few bucks was somewhat likely to end in their death...that's the extreme I think it would take to get people to deny their baser instincts. That doesn't make it a good solution, it simply highlights how intrinsic I think people's desires to consume and feed their impulses is. The thing is, there will always be those people who don't save. Is it better to wring our hands trying to change their nature, or just design system to work with that. I mean, people hate social security, until they need it. Lots of people need it. My point is, that wasn't the question posed. The question asked (that I was responding to) was what it would take to get people to save a week's worth of money. It was a hypothetical question about what kind of shift would be necessary to have a specific action happen. It was not a question of how to best set up a social safety net (because frankly a week's worth of pay is not the kind of thing social safety nets are set up for either). There's also a big difference between setting up a system to work with people's nature, and setting up a system that allows people to be irresponsible and have others pay for it. If we were to actually set up a system that took people's nature into account, but left them responsible for their own actions...we'd have a revolt because it would likely mean taking their paycheck by force and providing them government-issued housing, food, an emergency fund controlled by the government, etc. The problem is that the people who most need the help of a system designed for their poor impulses, are the same people who would likely revolt at a system that functioned to take it into account...because people don't simply stop feeling entitled to things they can't afford just because you're now prohibiting those things by force.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 25, 2020 9:30:44 GMT -5
The thing is, there will always be those people who don't save. Is it better to wring our hands trying to change their nature, or just design system to work with that. I mean, people hate social security, until they need it. Lots of people need it. My point is, that wasn't the question posed. The question asked (that I was responding to) was what it would take to get people to save a week's worth of money. It was a hypothetical question about what kind of shift would be necessary to have a specific action happen. It was not a question of how to best set up a social safety net (because frankly a week's worth of pay is not the kind of thing social safety nets are set up for either). There's also a big difference between setting up a system to work with people's nature, and setting up a system that allows people to be irresponsible and have others pay for it. If we were to actually set up a system that took people's nature into account, but left them responsible for their own actions...we'd have a revolt because it would likely mean taking their paycheck by force and providing them government-issued housing, food, an emergency fund controlled by the government, etc. The problem is that the people who most need the help of a system designed for their poor impulses, are the same people who would likely revolt at a system that functioned to take it into account...because people don't simply stop feeling entitled to things they can't afford just because you're now prohibiting those things by force. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to come back later for a more in depth discussion. I'm trying to work while I have a nerf-gun warzone behind my back. I'll tell you where I'm coming from for now, in case others want to carry on the discussion. Someone upthread mentioned that Sandy Hook was the turning point for the gun control debate. Nothing has changed as a result since Sandy Hook, as far as gun control is concerned, unless you count it being easier to obtain them. Gun rights advocates have dug in their heels so hard, and pulled on the rope, so that even the Brady bill was abandoned. So, not much is going to change with this issue, either. People will still want to spend as much as they can get away with. The only hope is the younger generations learn to live more cautiously, but that will likely go away with the following generations unless they encounter economic disasters of their own. Us older folks don't tend to change, or it's too late for the oldest of us. (Also, coming from a strong personal financial position-- I don't need the stimulus coming to my family, despite our lowish income--plan to pay some it forward. The rest in college funds for my kids.). I just want my fellow Americans to be ok!
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,148
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 25, 2020 10:43:26 GMT -5
(Also, coming from a strong personal financial position-- I don't need the stimulus coming to my family, despite our lowish income--plan to pay some it forward. The rest in college funds for my kids.). I just want my fellow Americans to be ok! I want my fellow Americans to be ok, too. We've already donated to a food pantry. With some of the stimulus, we're going to pre-pay some fees for the kids activities in hopes to help keep those businesses stay open. It's a risk because if they close, we won't see that money. But, at least we will have tried. The rest is going to braces for DD1 and likely some will be saved for future donations. I also think this is going to take a huge toll..there's the immediate issues of being out of a job..but then there's the long term issue of catching up. When we had our financial hit worth 25% of a years' gross income, it took us four years to get back to a decent steady state where I am feeling good. I'm also betting that there's going to be a big baby boom in less than a year. In my area, I'm figuring out what I can do starting in Sept/October. People likely won't be caught up. There's going to be the huge expenses of school supplies coupled with getting ready for winter. Because there will be more numbers of people hurting, there's going to be less opportunities to buy things for pennies-at garage sales, off whatever facebook groups exist, or at the second hand stores. There's going to be huge strains on non-profits for a good long while. The effect is going to ripple. Because folks are going to need to be working all the time to catch up, they won't have the bandwidth to volunteer in the school, as expected. Which means we'll have to step up there, too.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Mar 25, 2020 11:59:52 GMT -5
It's not an income issue, it's a mindset issue.
I have to agree with this. Just received a phone call from DS#2 (age 53) in Michigan worried about losing his home. He is self employed, and if he has a nickle in his pocket he spends a dime. Always made decent money but always flat broke. He always found funds for pot and smokes, but not for utilities and mortgage.
He runs a duct cleaning truck, and with all of this no one wants him in their home.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 25, 2020 21:37:21 GMT -5
The thing is, there will always be those people who don't save. Is it better to wring our hands trying to change their nature, or just design system to work with that. I mean, people hate social security, until they need it. Lots of people need it. My point is, that wasn't the question posed. The question asked (that I was responding to) was what it would take to get people to save a week's worth of money. It was a hypothetical question about what kind of shift would be necessary to have a specific action happen. It was not a question of how to best set up a social safety net (because frankly a week's worth of pay is not the kind of thing social safety nets are set up for either). There's also a big difference between setting up a system to work with people's nature, and setting up a system that allows people to be irresponsible and have others pay for it. If we were to actually set up a system that took people's nature into account, but left them responsible for their own actions...we'd have a revolt because it would likely mean taking their paycheck by force and providing them government-issued housing, food, an emergency fund controlled by the government, etc. The problem is that the people who most need the help of a system designed for their poor impulses, are the same people who would likely revolt at a system that functioned to take it into account...because people don't simply stop feeling entitled to things they can't afford just because you're now prohibiting those things by force. Okay, I'm back, though I sort of answered you already, I guess. Older people don't tend to change their ways. Even young children exhibit tendencies toward or away instant gratification for a greater reward later. I suppose there can be hard lessons taught, if it's done early enough, but many times people just learn to beg/borrow/steal from others instead of planning ahead for a rainy day. I mean, you can try to get schools to teach this early and often, and you can provide decent unemployment insurance payments for a safety net, but people really tend to be set in their ways.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Mar 25, 2020 23:55:30 GMT -5
I don't know. I would say I don't have an emergency fund, but I do have $8,000 in an HSA, a heft current balance in my bank account (Which I normally use for Mortgage, CC, Parent Plus, Utilities, car payments and other living expenses). I guess it depends if I don't have to pay the mortgage this month. If I don't need to make any payments - I have a decent amount of $$. If they tell me I don't have to pay my monthly payments, I probably will still make my payments - I am going to continue to get paid whether or not I come in. I expect to work reduced hours and come in to do a bit of work like payroll.
DH will also continue to get paid, but he works on commission, and the shut down will undoubtedly affect our future income.
I think my kids live in la-la land. I guess we have treated them too well, but a lot of it is their culture too. DD and the neighbor girl have still been making runs to Starbucks and other fast food places for food runs. I was kind of PO'd at DD last night because I think her friend works in a hospital or nursing home - not sure b/c I think she is graduating this spring and her job may have changed.
My DD volunteered for 90 days off from her airline job. I am kind of mad at her b/c I am afraid she will lose out on Shut down benefits from the bailout package - but she is thinking if she doesn't do that - she might have schedule conflict to completing the 18 credits she has this semester. Hopefully they will actually make everyone finish the semester. If they just call the semester done, and she gave up potential income it will be frustrating. She is not lazy though. She says she is trying to figure out how to get hired on at Costco.
My Boss told us we were shutting down, then figured out that many of us can still work. I think our entire construction crew is coming to work, even though they would still get paid If they chose to stay home. We have one retiree that works just to get out of the house, but he has emphysema and diabetes. He told me not to pay him 18.5 hours b/c he would feel like he needed to make up the hours in the summer. My boss said, that guy asked him to give him an empty building to work in so he is not exposed to anyone else. He said he would prefer that that guy stay home, but he will not listen, and indicated to the boss that he needs something to do or he will go stir crazy. We are a property management and construction company, so we can assign him to work in an empty building. We have at least one other high risk person, and I fully expect to see her here this next week if she thinks she can get away with working vs. staying home. So you either have people with complete work ethics, or people with no work ethic.
I think we have a few people that live close to the edge, but we also have a lot of people that are saving and investing. Bean, if you have any influence, I encourage you to try to prevent having someone working alone. It’s incredibly dangerous. At one of the places I worked we had a painter doing some finishing up of a painting project after the end of the normal workday. He was working from a platform lift about 20 feet off the floor. As he stretched to reach part of the roof, he went to brace himself on a piece of angle iron attached to the bar joist supporting the roof. The angle iron wasn’t welded in place, it was just lightly tacked. The angle iron pulled free and the painter fell over the safety railing of the platform lift and into a piece of machinery below. He fell just right so that he missed the four foot long adjusting screws that stuck up from the machine. A few inches to the side and he would have been impaled. As it was, it took the painter about an hour to extricate himself from the machine and get to the room next door where one of our staff was working. While the painter was not killed, he spent a long time in the hospital and more than a year in recovery and physical rehabilitation. But he would never be able to do many of the things he took for granted before his accident. What makes working solo dangerous is that if something goes wrong, there isn’t anybody available to help. Try explaining to OSHA that in the construction business, accidents are so rare that you, as the employer, should not be expected to anticipate that an accident is possible and that you should take action to mitigate the risk.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 26, 2020 8:23:55 GMT -5
... Bean, if you have any influence, I encourage you to try to prevent having someone working alone. It’s incredibly dangerous. At one of the places I worked we had a painter doing some finishing up of a painting project after the end of the normal workday. He was working from a platform lift about 20 feet off the floor. As he stretched to reach part of the roof, he went to brace himself on a piece of angle iron attached to the bar joist supporting the roof. The angle iron wasn’t welded in place, it was just lightly tacked. The angle iron pulled free and the painter fell over the safety railing of the platform lift and into a piece of machinery below. He fell just right so that he missed the four foot long adjusting screws that stuck up from the machine. A few inches to the side and he would have been impaled. As it was, it took the painter about an hour to extricate himself from the machine and get to the room next door where one of our staff was working. While the painter was not killed, he spent a long time in the hospital and more than a year in recovery and physical rehabilitation. But he would never be able to do many of the things he took for granted before his accident. What makes working solo dangerous is that if something goes wrong, there isn’t anybody available to help. Try explaining to OSHA that in the construction business, accidents are so rare that you, as the employer, should not be expected to anticipate that an accident is possible and that you should take action to mitigate the risk. Ours was the maintenance guy who shows up early to snow plow. Slipped getting out of the plow. Not as dramatic a consequence but not good either. I am working basically alone these days. The maintenance guy (MG) and I have the faculty split into our isolated zones. Yesterday I went into an office and discovered it was very hot. I had to do a phone consult with MG. I ended up on a ladder poking around pipes in the overhead to find a heating valve which he thought was stuck. I have bad quad muscles and they started to cramp. Certainly got my attention. I also have to take readings from an outbuilding which is down an icy slope. Starting next week, MG won't even be on site - a site nine miles out in the middle of nowhere.
|
|