<prompt> Human: So I was wondering what the logic is behind the common advice - here and just about everywhere else on the internet - that about 6 months income is a good size for an emergency fund. I was surprised to not find an explanation when I searched for one.I realize this is a very rough number. Im sure 7 months vs 6 months isnt a source of fierce debate, and Im sure someone with serious health issues or 15 children or with a tenuous career would get a big thumbs up to saving more than 6 months income. But I guess I just wanted to understand why 6 months was the starting point. Is 6 months an average or a recommended minimum for typical circumstances? Is it just a case of yeah, that seems like a reasonable lump sum I guess? Or is 6 months statistically how long it takes people to find a new job? Or is there some special financialtax meaning to 6 months wages in the US? or did some famous financial person say 6 months one time and we just wrote it down? Why I ask specifically: Im pretty young, and have been fairly fortunate. I dont have all that much experience with disastrous financial circumstances. But I also grew up somewhat poor, and am instinctively very conservative with my money. My emergency fund aka my dumping ground for extra money is closer to a years wages than 6 months wages at this point and I make good money for where I live as it is - so it just seems like a lot of money. So Im deciding if I should half it and put the extra into my mid-term savings aka my optimistic mortgage fund bondsI also have a family I could easily live with very long term in tough circumstances, no debts, good credit, employable skills, a career I could continue paraplegic... Basically I would consider my self low risk if anything. But I was just curious about the 6 month rule and its logic before I decided.  <response>: If you end up disabled, you need to be out of work 6 months before you qualify for SSDI 