Ask HN: Aside from the stock market, where would you invest excess cash? - <AUTHOR> I've decided that the stock market, as a long-term investment strategy, isn't something appealing to me.  While I'm not adverse to risk, I feel that trading in a marketplace controlled by professional investors with access to research and high-frequency trading tools is a losing proposition.<p>With that said, leaving excess income sitting in cash will just result in dipping below the rate of inflation.  How else do you apply your savings if you're unwilling to invest in the stock market? <comment><USER2> > I've decided that the stock market, as a long-term investment strategy, > isn't something appealing to me ...

Why? It's one of the few sound long-term investments.

> While I'm not adverse to risk, I feel that trading in a marketplace > controlled by professional investors with access to research and high- > frequency trading tools is a losing proposition.

If that were true, businesses would refuse to raise capital using equities -- businessmen aren't fools, but they regard the equities market as a legitimate source of operating capital. There's a reason for that trust.

> How else do you apply your savings if you're unwilling to invest in the > stock market?

My advice to you is to abandon your present thinking process, reconsider the value of equities, but don't hire a broker or invest in individual stocks, instead establish a long-term buy and hold position in an index fund -- a fund that tracks a market indicator like the DJIA. No stockbroker, no one selling you useless investment advice, no portfolio churning, just long-term growth.

More here: [http://arachnoid.com/equities_myths](http://arachnoid.com/equities_myths)

</comment><comment><USER3> The best advice I can give you is to ignore everything in this thread, and talk to a financial advisor that you trust who understands your goals and risk profile.

To answer your question: Besides the stock market, some other asset classes that you can invest your cash include collectibles (art, coins, stamps), commodities (metals, agriculture), currency (EUR, RMB), bond market, and real estate. A newer asset class is peer to peer lending platforms like Lending Club and Prosper. Like with any type of investing, study the risks associated with the asset class before investing.

For anybody interested in alternative asset classes, I recommended reading up on Modern Portfolio Theory.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory)

<comment><USER4> Finding a financial advisor you can trust is about as hard as doing the portfolio research yourself. It always helps to have more and more sources of data about opportunities. Even if many are outdated, too new or outright scams, it's better to know about them rather than "ignore everything in this thread".

<comment><USER5> Start by avoiding anyone who gets a commission on anything they sell you, or a flat percent off the top of your investments. Find someone you pay by the hour.

<comment><USER6> Why is a percentage bad? If it doesn't take from the principal, wouldn't a percentage of profit be the best incentive for performance?

<comment><USER2> > Why is a percentage bad?

Because undesirable investments are frequently offered with enticing deals, and good investments aren't. It seems consumers aren't aware of this, only investment counselors.

<comment><USER6> How does that make a difference? If I give a financial advisor 10% of all profit I make, and make no profit, he gets nothing. So, he has an incentive to make me money.

Why would a deal on the investment make a difference there, and how would paying him by the hour solve this?

<comment><USER2> > If I give a financial advisor 10% of all profit I make, and make no profit, > he gets nothing. So, he has an incentive to make me money.

You're missing the point. Your financial situation is not the same as that of your advisor. If you make 8% per annum on a very safe investment, and your advisor makes 1% of your 8%, that might be a good deal for you. If you make 8% on a very unsafe investment and your advisor gets 1% of your 8% plus 10% of the transaction fees under the table, then you and he are no longer on the same page.

> Why would a deal on the investment make a difference there, and how would > paying him by the hour solve this?

See above. And:

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-credit-card-pitchman- yo...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-credit-card-pitchman-your- adviser-2013-02-26)

Quote: "The strategy, known on Wall Street as "cross-selling," helps boost profits by steering customers from a firm's brokerage operations to its retail and investment banks, and vice versa. Financial advisers benefit by earning bonuses for marketing loan products."

The financial advisor gets the bonus, not the investor. The reason the bonus is offered is because the touted transactions are unattractive to anyone who understands the markets, so there has to be an added incentive. In this way, a financial advisor feathers his own nest at your risk and expense.

The idea that a financial advisor has only your interests in mind is a myth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I see a comment here about MPT, modern portfolio theory, with the idea you can balance risk and reward with math. Yes, but if you don't want to have to learn stocks, perhaps you also don't want to learn asset classes.

If you're willing to park your money, check out the efficient market hypothesis ("EMH") which tries to explain why in the long run, most financial advisers and stock pickers and even hedge fund managers have their asses handed to them by a straight up stock index:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient- market_hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis)

Think of EMH as "how I learned to stop worrying and just buy an index". What you can use an advisor for is learning which indexes may reflect any appetite for risk you have, or perhaps altruistic or diversification goals you have. (For example, I'm working in growth technologies, so over the past decade I've liked to diversify by storing value in timber land.)

<comment><USER8> "Think of EMH as 'how I learned to stop worrying and just buy an index.'"

Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffett both advocate this method for the majority of people. In Graham's day it was Mutual Funds -- these days it's Index Funds/ETF's. If you're interested in some grounding, humbling, & timeless reading on it, read stuff by the aforementioned, such as [http://www.amazon.com/The-Intelligent-Investor-Rev- ebook/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Intelligent-Investor-Rev- ebook/dp/B000FC12C8/ref=tmm_kin_title_0) (no referral).

It sounds like the only reason OP doesn't want to invest is because of high- speed trading and tricky professional investors. But, Graham and Buffett both suggest, with a long enough runway, you aren't even playing the same game as them. It doesn't matter whether you saved a couple bucks on a stock today and if some day trader profited off your millisecond slowness -- if you trust your own decision making skills, you'll own the stock for years and will save gray hairs with their mantra "I don't know and I don't care" (as a response to the question, "What happened in the stock market today?").

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've worked in the hedge fund business for 5 years. My single best piece of advice if you are serious about investing and willing to spend a decent amount of time learning how to do it properly is to apply for membership to the Value Investors Club website ([http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/](http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/)). This is a free website that requires you to submit a compelling write-up describing an actionable investment opportunity on the long or short side. It was founded years ago by a hedge fund legend (Joel Greenblatt) and is populated by some of the most sophisticated investors in the world. You can still read all the write-ups without being a member, but there is a significant time delay if you are a guest. The message boards on the site are also at an extremely high level, and people spouting nonsense are challenged pretty quickly. Best of all, if the site admins pick your idea as the best of the month, you get a $5,000 check! (I've won two of them in the past year, so I can vouch that it's real). In any case, stick to uncontroversial ideas (i.e., don't short TSLA) that have a high rating on the site and that have a reasonably active message board, and you will generally do very well. You can even go back and look at all of the submitter's past ideas and see how well they would have worked out if you want to be more careful.

</comment><comment><USER10> Safest,Best investment bets: 1\. College 2\. Stock Market(index fund)(10 investment horizon) 3\. Home(w/home loan) \---- Everything else is hands on and will consume your life(already mentioned): 4\. Real estate,your own business, angel invester, collectibles, commodities, currency,bonds,junk(think ebay craigslist) etc.

</comment><comment><USER11> > I feel that trading in a marketplace controlled by professional investors > with access to research and high-frequency trading tools is a losing > proposition.

That is probably true, but you shouldn't let that keep you out of the stock market. You just shouldn't try to beat the professionals at their own game.

Instead of picking individual stocks and trying to beat the market, invest in an index fund that will buy stocks to approximate the whole market. This means that your gain will be roughly equal to the average gain across the whole market. This means that you won't get the huge gains that you could have if you had chosen the right individual stocks, but you also will avoid the huge losses that would have happened if you chose the wrong stocks.

You may lose money in some years where the whole market does poorly, but over the long term, you should see consistent gains.

</comment><comment><USER12> Diversify, depending on your age. Put a percentage into stock index funds, bonds, reits, metals, etc.

I've had a great experience with Schwab... they are dependable, customer- focused, and always helpful. They have a number of no-load mutual funds which you can take advantage of and a zero-pressure atmosphere.

</comment><comment><USER13> To me one of the best things about this sort of investing is a report from Credit Suisse over long term equity return as opposed to bonds and cash.

[https://www.credit- suisse.com/investment_banking/doc/cs_glob...](https://www.credit- suisse.com/investment_banking/doc/cs_global_investment_returns_yearbook.pdf)

It really gets interesting on page 37, if you want a read.

It is of course, backwards looking, over the last hundred years, so it's (as with most macroeconomic stuff) not really scientific, but it at least gives a explanation of the relative power of long-term economic growth over short-term speculation.

tldr; I think stocks are more powerful than you think.

</comment><comment><USER14> You should check out [http://www.bogleheads.org/](http://www.bogleheads.org/) and post a question to the crowd over there. Review the forum and you'll find quite a bit of general information.

</comment><comment><USER15> I feel the same way as you OP. It feels like it's something that there's too many big players and too many external forces.

I always thought real estate seems more my style. You have control over your investment. But it's more work.

<comment><USER16> Me too, and I work for a damn financial-services company!

It just feels like a mug's game. There are players in the market way bigger than you, way faster than you, way smarter than you (in this sense), and with more powerful friends than you. I understand index funds, and if I were to invest in the stock market that is probably how I would do it. But still, it just feels like a way to get fucked that looks super-responsible on its face.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Municipal bonds can be good. They have a historical track record of being pretty low-risk. Detroit being a glaring exception, however. If you want something more high-risk, high-potential upside, might not be for you. But if you want something with a greater return than a savings account, might be worth investigating.

</comment><comment><USER18> If you had invested in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index fund in January, you'd already have seen a 13.5% return so far this year.

</comment><comment><USER19> Good Art and classic cars do way way better than the stock market, long term.

<comment><USER2> > Good Art and classic cars do way way better than the stock market, long > term.

Hindsight. You don't want to rely on hindsight to guide your investment choices. Also, if the claim was actually true and exploitable, everyone would get into art and classic cars, and these niche markets would collapse.</comment></comment>


New Google Web Fonts Interface - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/webfonts/v2 <comment><USER3> Wow - I've never seen a cleaner font browsing interface, and they make using the fonts you look at so easy I didn't even realize I was doing it.

Let's hope the Web Fonts API doesn't go the way of the Translate API, or many webpages will be rendered in incorrect fonts. Horror!!

<comment><USER4> Not quite the same load. Google fonts is more like Google Libraries than translate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How many awesome things can Google roll out in a day?

<comment><USER6> I'm blown away. Happy Tau Day!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great interface, but the number of fonts is a bit overwhelming to browse through. It would be awesome if you could sort by "most downloaded" or "most used" -- just to get some ideas.

<comment><USER8> Strange, the old interface had a sort by "trending" which is sort of what you're looking for. Not sure why it was removed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Shoot right after I wrote this too... <https://github.com/thedjpetersen/Google-Font-Api-Scraper>

<comment><USER10> At least you probably learned something while making it so it wasn't time wasted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice improvement to the interface. I've just recently started using these fonts a bit and I really like the service. The collection is growing too so there's a good variety there. Nice job, Google.

<comment><USER12> I went to Google fonts yesterday for a design project for the first time in at least a year and was very happy to see how much the collection has grown. This new interface is icing on the cake. Making these fonts so easy to use really opens the doors to much more creative and effective use of type on the web.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Super like! Can't wait to try it. Looks much easier than tinkering with raw CSS.

Edit: 2 lines of code were all I needed to add. Ridiculously easy.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is fantastic! I've been waiting and waiting for Web Fonts to expand, and now I have a lot more choices than Syncopate and Raleway.

<comment><USER15> Don't pop the champagne just yet.

Virtually all fonts listed in Google's directory render poorly on Windows in larger pixel sizes. This is caused by the lack of ClearType-specific hinting in these fonts, and it leads to the appearance of so-called "nipples" - <USER2> pixels sticking out at the top and the bottom of glyphs and from thin horizontal strokes.

More bad news is that properly hinting fonts for ClearType is a relatively expensive process, and very few foundries do it even for commercial fonts. Unless Google goes beyond simply listing fonts and starts cutting cheques to polish them, these fonts will remain largely unusable for Windows' audiences.

<comment><USER14> Interesting! Too bad Google doesn't list that limitation, eh?

Since I don't have a Windows machine to access right now, what size is "larger pixel sizes?" I'd like to know what I'm working with.

<comment><USER16> It is already clearly recognizable at the default font size.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This has several flaws.

For it's not consistent. I filtered for Serif and got sans serif in the mix.

But even worse. You can't specify very precisely. For instance if I need a slab serif how do I filter that?

</comment><comment><USER18> Judging by the other comments, it's just me, but the fonts look worse now. They aren't smooth at all.

Why?

<comment><USER19> Cleartype wreaks havoc on webfonts. Turning it off gives you smooth fonts, but jaggy regular text >:|

Strangely IE6 (and 7? i think) are OK even with cleartype on.

There is a css hack to get font smoothing on windows:

h1{ text-shadow: 0 0 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.0001); /* Transparent Shadow make some kind of webkit font smoothing kick in */ }

<comment><USER18> I turned Cleartype off and that helped. The text shadow trick helped as well. I would have thought that using Chrome would mean that Google's fonts would have displayed correctly, but I guess Cleartype overrides that. I miss the day when testing a website meant using just IE and Netscape -- now I have to turn Cleartype on and off ... ugh

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I like this a lot. I'd love to see a monospace fonts filter. Although, saying that, it looks to my eye like the only monospace font on there is Inconsolata.

</comment><comment><USER21> I still don't see the point of a service like this. With a tiny bit more work you have them on your own server, and you have all the control. If Google tomorrow decides to stop serving fonts, your design won't be broken.

With some services I understand people rather have it externally has it's a hassle to do it yourself, but @font-face is too easy to not do it.

<comment><USER22> Note they let you download the .ttf's... But the idea is the same as using google apis for things like jquery. It lets you prototype quickly without having to load a new font on your server every time you want to test something different, if this gets popular and you're using a popular font chances are it'll already be in the user's browser cache, and most importantly from my perspective there isn't any ambiguity with this list as to which fonts I can and can't legally redistribute.

Obviously don't count on Google to always be there for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Keeps getting better with each iteration! That said, I'd still like to see some pi fonts and printer's ornaments...

</comment><comment><USER24> This is a great update to their existing library. It reminds me a lot of Fontcase and similar font browsing apps. It's great to see that their library keeps growing. Definitely going to make this a first-stop before working on designs from here on out. Thanks, Google.

</comment><comment><USER25> They once had some Arabic fonts. Where did they go?

<http://i.imgur.com/L5hSF.png>

This is a snapshot of their IO's session video.

<comment><USER26> I don't think those were ever publicly available -- probably an internal test. I still had a Google Web Fonts tab open from last night, and it only shows options for Cyrillic, Greek, Khmer, and Latin: <http://i.imgur.com/T3sh5.png>

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> anyone have experience using this after typekit? we've been somewhat disappointed with the inconsistency of typekit's rendering lately and are looking for another option...

</comment><comment><USER28> Didact Gothic is a nice one for headlines.

</comment><comment><USER29> I wish they would add Indic scripts too!

</comment><comment><USER30> How is this useful if everyone else hasn't already downloaded those fonts? Everyone has Ariel. That's why it is so popular.

<comment><USER31> You can embed font declarations in CSS (the @font-face declaration), specifying a path to a download. The browser will download the font and show it on web pages with the declaration.

Google offers an array of freely-available (open source, actually, I think, but I'm not 100% sure) fonts that are hosted on their servers that you can use.

<comment><USER32> > (open source, actually, I think, but I'm not 100% sure)

To quote from the "introduction" dialog [0]: "Hundreds of free, open-source fonts optimized for the web".

Looking further, the "about" page [1] provides a bit more information: "All the Google web fonts are open source. That means that you are free to to use them in any way you want, independent of whether you're working on a private or commercial project."

I'm not sure what license they're using, though . . . I can't find anything but Google's standard "terms of service" license anywhere on the site.

[0] <http://www.google.com/webfonts/v2#HomePlace:home>

[1] <http://www.google.com/webfonts/v2#AboutPlace:about>

<comment><USER33> The licenses are on the individual fonts' pages (try the "Pop Out" links.) Most of them are under the SIL Open Font License.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Many Americans who live paycheck to paycheck blame debt - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html <comment><USER2> I honestly must be missing something about both this article and this discussion thread.

> The Survey of Household Economics and Decision Making asks people how they > would pay for an unforeseen $400 expense. If a respondent said they simply > wouldn't be able to or would have to borrow money, sell something or neglect > other bills to do so, they were included in the share of people for whom > coming up with the money would be a challenge, which added up to that > alarming 40%. Yet the Survey of Consumer Finances, which asks respondents > for their bank account balance, found the share of households who have less > than $400 in their checking or savings accounts was closer to 20%.

> For some reason, many people who had $400 on hand still said they'd struggle > to come up with the money. "We were scratching our heads," Chen said.

What if that $400 (or even $1400) were for rent, or utility bills? Wouldn't it be obvious that you have to borrow money, sell something, or not pay a bill in order to use $400 of it? What's the confusing part? Also, I guess you could call your utility bills (but not your rent) debt, but that wouldn't be a normal usage.

This article, and the vast response to it (which I can't connect to the fairly empty content) is confusing to me. Are they saying something I'm not seeing?

edit: I mean, more than once in my life, I've had more than the money I've needed to cope with an unexpected event in the bank, and I sold something in order to pay for it, because no money fairy was coming before the end of the month to keep me off the street.

<comment><USER3> > What if that $400 (or even $1400) were for rent, or utility bills?

I guess the key word here is unexpected - as in, outside of what you've budgeted for.

<comment><USER4> I think parent was saying that the people who have over $400 in their account may already have it earmarked for rent or other bills.

If my monthly rent is $1200 and I have $600 in my account, it doesn't mean I have $400 I could spend in an emergency

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For some reason, I am reminded of the paradox of more hard disc space. Or more lanes on the highway. Any time to capacity is increased, it seems to get consumed and before long, you're out of space again.

This presents a difficulty that perhaps researchers and pollsters can tease out: How many of these cash-poor people genuinely are earning enough to live comfortably vs. don't know enough or don't care enough to build savings, and instead, spend up to their income? Increase their income and they'll just increase their spending and be back where they started.

It seems likely that we could take these numbers down substantially by improving financial management education. Or, simply accept that a large percentage of Americans want to live their life to the fullest that their income can allow.

<comment><USER6> I have been developing another mental model of this. I think that we naturally measure our own lifestyles by looking at the people around us. We want to feel like we're beating the average or at least not too far below average. People we encounter in our lives will try to present themselves as positively as possible, so we end up thinking that their lives are a bit more prosperous than they really are. I think this is where most of the pressure to increase our standard of living comes from.

Then you bring in competition for resources. If everyone makes similar amounts of money and everyone is trying to have a similar quality of life, we will tend to spend 100% of our incomes on our cost of living. Just like how perfectly competitive companies will naturally compete away all profits, competition for housing, education, healthcare, etc. will naturally compete away all personal savings until the average savings rate is near zero.

The only way out of this competition trap is to find some way to escape the average. Either find a way to make much more money than normal, be much more frugal than normal, or be much luckier than normal.

<comment><USER7> The average is not really that important. As long as your income is not at the lower end of the distribution it's a just a matter of choice to live as if your income was lower than it is (except in the cases where you would have access to subsidies if your income was actually lower).

<comment><USER8> I have found this to be distinctly not true. I don't know of many places were living a more modest life is a good choice. It seems like most people who says this have already benefited from cheaper education, real estate, their partner or career. In many countries average savings doesn't keep up with the increase in property values, especially not in attractive job markets. If you don't have wealth, or go into debt, you are falling behind. I really don't see it, maybe you have some example?

<comment><USER9> I think the kind of things you're talking about are more exceptions, and probably don't matter as much to a given family in the long run. For example, once I've managed to buy a house, that's a stake in the ground; it doesn't matter that property values continue to rise beyond that, since you've already got the housing you need.

But so many other things really are choices. I see lots of my colleagues replacing their new cars every 3 years; mine is five years old, having replaced the car I previously owned for 12 (and they were a Hyundai and Subaru, respectively, even if I could afford a Mercedes). Having cable TV with all the movie and sports channels is very much a decision that anyone can pass by. How often and where you eat out makes a big difference in expenses. Clothes, shoes, jewelry, furniture, matching stainless steel appliances with wifi, ... the list goes on and on.

<comment><USER8> Maybe a couple can survive changes in the housing and job market well enough that it they don't mind the changes to their quality of life. But it very likely will be noticeable to their kids when other families have stronger finances and better access to housing and job markets. If you can't save more than the difference to such markets what you get for the money is de facto less. It is sort of inflation by inequality. Then the theory doesn't really hold and the frugality has just been to try and keep up.

I am all for frugality but in many places it hasn't worked out in the last 10 years because you haven't had the same access to growth. Unless you already had assets in the first place.

<comment><USER9> Huh? I guess I'm really not following your reply. It seems like you're saying that my willingness to keep a car for a dozen years and to bring my lunch rather than buying, and my wife having a $30 purse rather than a designer one, hasn't actually helped my financial situation. That seems a rather silly claim.

<comment><USER10> You also close the door on opportunity. Your wife with a better purse could be making unboxing videos bring in thousands.

Bringing vs buying could be an opportunity cost. I've worked in places that provided food perhaps a job change could help pay fof the lunch.

<comment><USER9> Apparently I'm wrong, and there's no point in trying to be economical. The evidence is wrong, and people who spend wantonly actually end up with _more_ net available funds. Who woulda thunk it?

<comment><USER10> Life is not black and white and studies study only certain things. Don't consider yourself wrong because certain use-cases may lead to other outcomes.

Being economical will save you money. At some point being too economical will mean you have to accept lower quality/value. There is a tradeoff.

If your parents were being economical they might not have purchased a computer in the 80s.. It was seen as an expensive toy and not purchasing one would have saved them thousands. Long term the opportunity cost would outweigh the purchase cost.

Buying a cheap kettle it might last 6 months paying a little more and you don't need to replace it for 5 years.

There is an old British saying. Penny wise / pound foolish.

<comment><USER7> Sure, and you can also buy an expensive kettle today and replace it with an even more expensive Alexa-commanded kettle next-year.

It's silly to say that not going to Hawaii for a week or not buying a $1000 handbag is going to cost you more money down the road...

Where is the opportunity cost in bringing your own lunch to work? Would he increase his chances of getting a better job if he stopped doing that in his current job?

<comment><USER10> The person who throws out working stuff for something newer always has a pulse on what is hype and has the first mover's advantage. You can't be the first to write an amazon kettle app if you don't own the product.

The bringing a lunch eating alone vs eating with the group does matter. A lot of company information gets shared during lunches, friendships are made and sometimes you get to interact with people from other parts of the company. This does give you a leg up when promotions come and or layoffs.

Not going on vacation ever or not buying a purse doesn't seem like it would matter. It could if you are looking to join a social group where everyone goes and shares vacation photos or if the group goes purse hunting together.

The point is any path could save/cost you as long as it fits with your goals and your situation. Saving that college money instead of spending it and going could allow you to buy a home sooner but it also could limit your career growth. Everything is a tradeoff.

<comment><USER7> It also makes sense to buy lots of kettles and designer handbags when you're a merchant of kettles or luxury goods. You could make a case for anything, but some of those scenarios may be more relevant for the general population than others. I'm sure that for most people spending in real estate or education may be better than spending in fine wines, holidays or luxury cars.

> Everything is a tradeoff.

Absolutely. You trade work against money and money against stuff. You could have more money and less stuff. Which means having less stuff now and more stuff (or less need to work) in the future. Because money and debt are tools to move consumption between the present and the future. That's the point. It's a choice and nobody is limiting your capacity to consume in the future by forcing you to consume today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My father was career Air Force. Once he was ordered to help privates who were having trouble with their finances. They were paid every 2 weeks, and it was embarrassing to the AF for them not being able to pay their bills in the wider community.

My dad phrased it as half the privates had no trouble, the other half had steak and alcohol the first week, beans and begging for handouts the second. All the privates had the same pay, lived in the same base housing, etc.

He said the feast/famine group simply could not control their spending impulses.

<comment><USER12> While I'm sure some in the feast/famine group "just" need to get their act together. It's not always that's simple.

Most people have a limited number of good choices in a day: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue)

Maybe other concerns/issues were causing some of them to run out of good decision bandwidth.

Note. I'm not claiming that all poor decisions can be explained this way.

<comment><USER13> Ego depletion is questionable - [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2016/03/ego_depletion_an_influential_theory_in_psychology_may_have_just_been_debunked.html)

I think this meta-myth (that some people just can't make good decisions) is becoming a hysterical epidemic - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness)

I think there's a mass nocebo (evil placebo) effect. "I can't, because of ego depletion / decision fatigue / not enough spoons". This then becomes a kind of self fulfilling prophecy - people do give up more easily when they have an excuse, and don't have to admit they're just making a bad choice because they're (relatively) greedy and short-sighted.

<comment><USER12> > "I think..."

Yet, many studies show how poverty and decision fatigue (or some variant there of) goes hand in hand, often in a negative feedback loop.

_I think_ it's likely that poor people don't read these studies, and, thus, are not subject to your nocebo effect.

Note. I didn't say it explained all behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One perhaps not so hidden cost of American life that I wish someone prominent would seriously investigate is the cost associated with car ownership.

I suspect over the course of a lifetime car ownership could easily be the most ruinous financial baggage that a lot of people incur.

<comment><USER15> Doesn't America offer some of the most affordable car prices?

This might be a bad example, but I am pretty sure that luxury German cars like Mercedes/BMW are cheaper to purchase/register in America than Netherlands/Denmark due to taxes.

<comment><USER16> Yes, but cars are more of a necessity here than in Europe. No matter how poor you are, a 20 minute drive can still take over 2 hours by bus in some areas, and that's nearly impossible to work with.

<comment><USER17> Depends where in the US, and where in "Europe" (it's a pretty big place you know...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Two of my friends surprisingly told me they live paycheck to paycheck on salaries well into the six digit range. When I asked why, they both said "that's just how they've always lived." So having the discipline to save a little is clearly a challenge for them, despite having a very good income.

<comment><USER19> That blows my mind, actually, for two reasons:

1\. If you're a single person, even in the Bay Area, I have no idea what you're spending that money on; and

2\. In 10-20 years when those same people are no longer a "culture fit" I wonder if they'll rue their frrivolous ways.

So being poor or being close to it affects people in different ways IME. For some, this means spend as soon as you have it or it'll just go away (eg there is a noticeable uptick in large TV purchases around the EITC). Others will live ridiculously frugally. Some will be super-driven. Others almost defeatist.

In my case there was a time growing up when we were "poor". This is Australian "poor" not American "poor", which is a whole different thing. I don't mean homeless either. Just money was really really tight, as in baking bread because we couldn't afford to buy it, that sort of thing. This actually wasn't obvious to me at the time.

Many who have been "poor" IME never escape the feeling that even in times of bounty everything may still disappear tomorrow. There is much less sense of security. I really think this is one thing that many people who have always had money just don't understand. And I don't mean "wealthy". I just mean they never grew up in an environment where they had serious money worries.

Anyway, the income potential in Australia in software is substantially lower than the US. I was fortunate enough to get a job in Big Tech (NYC) some years ago. I noticed that I'd feel "bad" when I "wasted" $20 on something, like a shirt I didn't end up liking.

A few years ago I ran the numbers on how much I'd saved since coming to the US and honestly I was shocked, as in up until that point I had no idea just how little of my income I was actually spending. And this is a holdover from that psychological lack of financial security. To put this in perspective after paying all living and food expenses, my discretionary purchases and so on that I was still saving 30-40% of my gross income (including 401k). I'd say my income is pretty typical for Big Tech, nothing extraordinary.

Thing is, I actually have no idea what I'd the rest on if I decided to live paycheck to paycheck. So when I hear stories like yours I'm honestly befuddled.

<comment><USER20> Funnily enough I had the same thing thing moving from Bristol in the UK to Sydney in Australia. My salary jumped more than 2x, I've got no idea how to spend it all despite my best efforts to drag everyone to the pub, and so at current rate I'll be able to retire at 45 or sooner.

<comment><USER19> I'm honestly surprised to hear that about Sydney because the cost of housing in Sydney is insane. Or is it just the case that salaries in Bristol are horrible?

So if I were looking at how to maximize my take home income and retire in the shortest amount of time and I was just picking a place on the globe to do this, I'd pick Seattle, hands down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The definition of "couldn't handle" is wrong. Most people _could_ handle it, it just would mean extra debt - but so what? Average US credit card debit is _over $5000_. Who cares about savings when you can just get more debt?

The fact that credit card debt is at 18% during a historically low interest rate environment also implies that a lot of people simply don't pay back their debt.

The flip side of it is that people are willing to work for lower wages, because a steady income - even if it is low - means you can _get more debt_!

Finally, of this money that shouldn't even exist in the economy drives up prices for everything, the best example for this of course is student loans versus the cost of education.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think when people come across extra funds they just use it to upgrade their life. Maybe they buy the nicer soft drink and snack, they spend more time at the bar with friends, they decide to buy audio equipment or another computer monitor, or they incorporate an extra prepared meal into their regular routine. There are so many small ways to spend money that make us feel like we're living a better life, but when the dust settles the improvement was only temporary.

<comment><USER23> I knew someone like this. At the risk of being super rude, in a post bragging about their tax return and new Playstation, I asked why they weren't paying down the debt they were recently complaining about.

I forget the exact words but it was basically, "I'm paying down the debt on misery and depression."

It reminded me of some of the sadder parts of my time in university. Sometimes you need a little injection of joy and you try not to burst into tears as you type your debit PIN in, knowing this is basically all you've got left.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I am living in India now and I realize how many things are very hard to get here. If India had a market like America, I am pretty sure most people in India would love to go into debt to experience the products and service which market has to offer.

Here if I've to get something, either I've to import and pay import duties and IGST which effectively doubles the price of product and it's headache to deal with customs. Often it's not possible to find interesting products on local market as a techy.

<comment><USER25> > living in India now and I realize how many things are very hard to get here.

What are the things is hard to get in India?

There are tons of people in India spend/go into debt to buy a fancy motorcycle, card or cloths or house. Millions of people are in Debt. Thousands of farmers suicide every year because of debts. They may not buy the same thing as Americans, but a lot of people do live paycheck to paycheck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I would struggle to pay an unexpected 400 bill and would definitely put it on my credit card. This seems like a smart decision to me. When I put that bill on my credit card it affords me an extra 30-60 days to come up with the money. I am in the process of paying off debt, acquiring money generating assets. I would eventually like to be in situation to pay a bill like this, but it seems better pay off as much debt as possible. I guess if I lost my job I would be in bad situation, it is hard to start making money without taking some risks.

</comment><comment><USER27> I posted in a different thread on a similar topic the other day about how recent tax policy shifts helped me increase savings and pay less than 10% effective tax last year. My post was downvoted and flagged.

If you already have wealth, the economy is working pretty well for you. If you're in a low paying job, often times with irregular schedules and less than even 20 hours a week, you're in a world of pain.

I'm not sure what the solution to the problem is. Just discussing it at all has become so controversial.

<comment><USER15> > If you're in a low paying job, often times with irregular schedules and less > than even 20 hours a week, you're in a world of pain.

Who is to blame if you are only working a low paying job only 20 hours a week? By all means, it's not an easy world out there. But... wealth + opportunity isn't going to just fall from the sky?

Maybe I am guilty of looking at things the wrong way? Curious to hear your thoughts. Hope I don't get downvoted... :/

<comment><USER28> > Who is to blame if you are only working a low paying job

I'd argue that it doesn't matter. Whether you take the position that it's the fault of parents/colleges/the education system/predatory lenders/politicians, or the position that it's primarily the fault of the individual, the reality remains that most people are staggeringly unable to change their circumstances.

In general, income/class mobility in the US remains extremely low, especially when someone's first jobs are low income and they have no secondary assets. This is a life-long condition for many (and, arguably, often a multi- generational condition).

Anecdotes to the contrary are a favorite conversation topic, but the lack of mobility remains. What (precious little) applicable information is present in up-by-your-bootstraps stories is either not actionable or not acted upon.

I'd argue that "what if someone is to blame for their circumstances?" and "if I/$self_made_person_of_the_week got out of poverty, why can't you?" are both pointless questions. They attempt to find root causes for a symptom which, when addressed, makes discovery of the root cause a moot endeavor.

People overwhelmingly don't get out of poverty. With a very few ascetic exceptions, there is not an affirmative choice being made to be poor--even in the most conservative interpretation, people are "irresponsible" rather than pro-poverty. Poverty causes suffering (to poor people and to many other layers of the social fabric, including non-poor people). Alleviating or removing suffering is within the power of the state and affluent people as a whole (from donations to social welfare/education programs to moonshots like UBI and a million other proven or plausible strategies).

Who is _culpable_ is not pertinent to the removal of the proximate suffering of poverty, and I suspect that after removing that proximate suffering, the culpability question would no longer be as relevant/interesting (historically/sociologically, maybe, but not as an answer to a widespread social need).

To be clear, mobility (and the severity of poverty) used to be much, _much_ worse in the US (and is still quite bad in many places). But the suffering remains. "You make your own problems" is as useless to point out to financially suffering people as "you just eat too much" is to point out to someone who has been 100kg overweight for 30 years. Solving the immediate suffering has an effect.

<comment><USER15> If I was in poverty and I wanted to get out of it, I'd go get 2 jobs and make a lot of sacrifices. It wouldn't be pretty, it wouldn't be fair, it wouldn't be fun. But it's not impossible.

Not everybody gets to be healthy, naturally beautiful, natively speak English, work 40 hours a week with full benefits, and get paid thousands/tens of thousands/millions of dollars a month. I'm sorry that people dealt the worst card in life in terms of net worth (those in poverty) are staring up at a proverbial mountain to climb, but I don't really see another solution other than work + sacrifice. Wealth and opportunity aren't going to fall from the sky for them.

> "if I/$self_made_person_of_the_week got out of poverty, why can't you?" are > both pointless questions.

Are they though? There's a recipe to get out of poverty. Start exchanging as much of your time/mental health as you can for more money, and don't inflate your lifestyle. Why can't people in poverty be bothered to have to sacrifice more than those that are wealthy? I have no idea. Why do 18 year old supermodels get to date and live off of millionaires while I have to work for a living? Life isn't fair.

<comment><USER28> > If I was in poverty and I wanted to get out of it, I'd go get 2 jobs and > make a lot of sacrifices. It wouldn't be pretty, it wouldn't be fair, it > wouldn't be fun. But it's not impossible.

Overwhelmingly that seems not to be occurring. It either does not work as well as you think it does or is not undertaken. People, as I said, do not want to suffer economic hardships.

This isn't an appeal to fairness or egalitarianism, but to the reality that intense suffering is endured by the poor, and that it can be alleviated from the outside _regardless_ of whether or not you think they are responsible for their own suffering. This is an obvious thing to want if you don't like others suffering and acknowledge that most people, no matter how much they want to, do not leave poverty on their own.

> Why can't people in poverty be bothered to have to sacrifice more than those > that are wealthy?

That's . . . incredibly insensitive. I understand that ad-hominems are frowned upon here, but that statement is both callous and makes some _seriously_ flawed assumptions about who is sacrificing/suffering, and how much. It also reflects a very "fuck you, I've got mine" mentality, which is not conducive to the formation of functional, compassionate, good-to-inhabit communities at any scale.

<comment><USER29> One reason for why it does not happen is that two full time jobs are possible only if st least one of them allows you slacking. The issue is not just lack of fun, but being too tired to function properly. And also when you have no outside of job duties.

<comment> barry-cotter Jobs that don't allow slacking pay well because otherwise they have comically high turnover. I worked night shift in one service station and a day shift in another one for over six months and I've worker bar with a day job in a supermarket. Working 60 hours a week is easily within reach for any able bodied person under 40, even on a construction site. Over 60 hours or once your body starts to go you'll be more restricted but once you have a few years in any job you can do the average work that you do on autopilot basically in your sleep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Largely a result of NIMBYism keeping home construction figures near economic centers low, resulting in a huge demand-supply imbalance, forcing renters into a bidding war for access to those markets, causing much of the surplus to go to landlords.

Also, the treatment and legislation of housing as an investment asset class rather than as a life necessity.

And then there's the healthcare industry, swallowing much of the real wage gains in recent decades in the form of rapidly rising insurance costs (cleverly decoupled from peoples' paycheck, so they feel like it doesn't cost them anything).

And, of course, designing most of our cities to require that people maintain enormously expensive personal cars, or waste hours per day navigating sub-par mass transit systems.

There are myriad other causes (advertising, consumer culture, extremely expensive infrastructure, government writing blank checks to universities, etc etc), but I think these are the majors.

</comment><comment><USER31> Looks like this article is trying to reconcile the multiple conflicting studies on this topic, especially around some of the wording of the questions. Here's the key takeaway:

"Many of the people who have $400 or more available to them likely have already earmarked that money for another obligation (and so, in other words, the cash isn't really available to them)."

So if you're not in a good position, what little money you have in savings is already going to go somewhere else by the end of the month, and adding an expense on top of that would require an additional debt of some kind. It's still not clear to me, though, how credit cards factor into this since many people put any significant expense on their credit card rather than writing checks/handing over cash.

</comment><comment><USER32> This research seems pretty obvious, or at least it doesn't tell me anything that's surprising.

All I get out of it is that if your policy is to ride really close to the edge (between income and spending), and if you have credit available to you, then there will be times when you take on debt.

OK, but what else would you expect? Some people are meticulous about finances, and some people aren't. Do you expect the people who aren't meticulous to constantly track both credit card balance and bank balance, then stop making credit purchases the moment they don't have the cash to back it? By definition, it's the sort of thing they don't typically do. With no process to prevent it, of course sometimes the credit card balance will grow larger.

In other words, this doesn't really show that debt is the cause of the inability to come up with $400. It might be, if someone _cannot_ reduce their expenses or increase their income, which of course is true for some people. But in general all it means is that they haven't, not that they can't.

</comment><comment><USER33> >For some reason, many people who had $400 on hand still said they'd struggle to come up with the money. "We were scratching our heads," Chen said.

What exactly made them scratch head? I mean if you have 400 in account, doesn't mean you can just willy nilly spend it on unexpected expense. Maybe this 400 have to last you till the end of month

</comment><comment><USER34> Americans are tremendous spenders. Pay someone 100k a year, they'll spend 101. Then complain it's their student loans that are weighing them down.

Seriously, since the great recession the American economy has absolutely boomed. If someone hasn't made money in these last few years, it's most likely going to be their own fault.

<comment><USER35> I find that the people who complain about the economy and how the rich are taking all the money while the poor get nothing, are the same people who don't bother to buy any stock.

If the rich are getting all the real gains in the market, do what they do. Which is buy into the stock market and make money off equity and not time.

<comment><USER36> Damn, if only I knew I just had to have 50k laying around to invest in stocks to not be poor...you figured it out! We have to let the world know about this.

<comment><USER37> TBH, 50k wouldn't help. It's a petty amount of money when it comes to investments. On average you can aim at 3% per year. That should be enough to support your lifestyle which is 30k if you are ok with being frugal. Would you live like a homeless if you had 1M in your investments accounts? No, you'd be paying off mortgage on a nice house while figuring out how to make more money, deal with inflation and rapidly rising property taxes, so you won't end up on streets when you retire. If 50k could solve your problems, I'd give it to you now because I believe that fixing someone's life is worth way more than 500 hundred dollar bills.

<comment><USER34> You don't need 50k all at once. You need a little bit of money from each paycheck, saved and invested for years.

Here's an example, a low-paid guy who ended up with a big pile using just that plan. It really works!

[https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/frugal-carpenter-cut- corners...](https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/frugal-carpenter-cut-corners-to- give-full-college-scholarships-to-33-strangers/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Debt literally is the problem. Specifically the creation of the money supply only by a select group of corporate banks. The practice of fractional reserve banking means they literally create money out of thin air as debt when they "give" out loans. This means that there will always be significantly more debt and money owed than money in circulation. And literally _all_ of the value of the newly created money goes to the corporate banks.

The problems in our society stem from this universal basic income for corporate bank persons.

</comment><comment><USER39> If you take a look at the top finance apps there's a disturbing number of "bridge loan" apps that are meant to front you money between paychecks.

</comment><comment><USER40> The article repeatedly mentions credit cards as debit but not mortgages (or rental expense). But it seems unlikely that credit cards are the biggest debt/financial-obligations people hold.

<comment><USER41> Mortgages tend to be equal to rent in the long run due to efficient market reasons. Credit card debt is especially ruinous because unlike mortgages and car loans, there's no asset for the bank to go after if you default. As a result the interest rates are naturally higher because the people who roll over their balance month to month have to pay for the people who go bankrupt at a casino.

<comment><USER40> I do not claim credit card debt is smarter than a mortgage. I claim it is a far smaller percentage of personal debt.

For example, reducing housing cost by a few percent would have a vastly greater effect than reducing any other source of debt by the same percent.

If a person is in debt, it's not primarily because they bought a latte, it's because housing cost are high.

So if we're looking at debt per se, then it's housing we should be looking look at.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Living paycheck to paycheck?

1\. Downgrade everything you own. Car and house are the main things. You don't need that BMW. Get a shitty Toyota.

2\. Sell the house and move back in with your parents. If you have too much pride, then downgrade to a smaller place. Pocket the savings.

3\. Pay off all your debt and student loans if you have any. Ask your parents to help you out. Swallow your pride.

4\. Work towards a better job. Go back to school if necessary. For example, you could get an MBA.

Laziness is your enemy. Take advantage of your resources and network. If I can do it, so can you.

<comment><USER21> > Pay off all your debt and student loans if you have any.

Paying back student loans seems like a bad idea, what if the Democrats win and forgive student loan debt?

You'll be left holding the bag.

> For example, you could get an MBA.

With _another_ student loan?

> If I can do it, so can you.

Perhaps, but if I was living paycheck to paycheck, I'd be in "good company" with the federal government, local governments, corporate America and the majority of the general population. That's a pretty big interest group. I have a feeling there's a big debt jubilee coming up...

<comment><USER43> > _Paying back student loans seems like a bad idea, what if the Democrats win > and forgive student loan debt?

You'll be left holding the bag...._

This is an extremely bad way to think about handling your financial future. I feel like too many people engage in these risky bets not only with student loans, but also with investments. But consider, what if student loans _are not_ forgiven? Here you would sit at, what? 40, or 45, not having paid anything on your loans. That's a horrible idea.

With all gambles like that, what's foremost in your mind should be:

"The market can stay irrational much longer than you can stay solvent."

<comment><USER44> At this point, I think the risk that the student loan giveaway will happen is quite low. Nevertheless, if my kids were older and in or done with college, I'd counsel them to pay the minimum on student loans and save the rest that they might otherwise pay in a taxable account just on the small chance the student loan forgiveness actually happens.

There's nothing inherently better about paying down student debt if the alternative is investing in a broad based equity fund (VTSAX, VTI, etc). There is something better about paying down debt if the alternative is consumption with that money.

<comment><USER45> > There's nothing inherently better about paying down student debt if the > alternative is investing in a broad based equity fund (VTSAX, VTI, etc).

it depends on whether you have a subsidized or unsubsidized loan. the interest rate on the unsubsidized stafford loans is only a little less than the average nominal return of the s&p500 over the last ~60 years [0]. the safe bet here is probably just to pay the loan off; you don't know if the next ten years will give above or below average returns.

on the other hand, the subsidized stafford loans have only about half the interest of the unsubsidized flavor. if this is you (and you aren't making enough money to lose the subsidy), it seems like there would be a perverse incentive to only pay the minimum and invest whatever is left over.

[0] [https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what- average...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average- annual-return-sp-500.asp)

<comment><USER44> If there's even a 5% chance that the Democrats will give you $50K if you wait, that juices the expected return of not paying off the loan significantly.

I agree with you in general that it's economically nearly a push to invest or pay off the loan under normal political conditions, and that the certainty of paying it off has positive value for most people. I also think there's significant psychological benefit to having no student loans hanging over your head, so absent the possible handout, I'd lean towards paying it off. Waiting two or three years to see if the promise evaporates seems reasonable, given the low average cost of waiting.

<comment><USER45> I see your point, although I don't think I would recommend this strategy to a good friend. there's also an emotional side to it. even if you made the "optimal" economic decision at the time, it would still feel pretty bad to pay off your loans in full over the first 5-10 years of your careeronly to see your peers' debt get wiped out at the end.

<comment><USER44> "You did such a good job paying off your own loans, we're sure you'll enjoy paying off everyone else's loans as well...!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Income tax makes it difficult to catch up once you get behind.

<comment><USER35> I never understood this mindset. All of my budgeting / financial calculations are based on the amount of money that shows up in my bank account each week. That number is significantly lower than what I"m "paid", but is the actual number that matters from a financial point of view.

I have friends who like to talk about how much they make per year and how that means they can afford x,y,z. But it's always the sticker price, not the in the bank amount after all the taxes and benefits are taken out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I sometimes wonder how easy it is for the average person to practice prudent financial management when the entire economy is geared towards getting you to spend what you can? The advertising sector and one-click buying works out how to isolate you from your herd and then hunt you down like a lion hunts down a sick gazelle, and you have little to no chance of hitting your monthly saving targets, with the big beasts of the digital economy after your last cent.

If this hypothesis is correct, is there a business here? Financial sergeant major - helping you hit your saving targets. Imagine: "GET THE FUCK OFF AMAZON, YOU SHAMBOLIC EXAMPLE OF AN OVERGROWN MAN BOY! AT THIS RATE YOU'LL DIE A POOR VIRGIN". Business model: pay my automated system a % of the money it saves you every month. "NOW DOWN AND GIVE ME TEN".

<comment><USER30> It's not that hard to escape the vast majority of advertising. But I think culture is a much bigger part of it. My friends tend to be fairly frugal/easily contented, and I find it pretty easy to be the same way, probably partly as a result. If we were competing with each other to have the coolest car/home/boat/whatever, I imagine it would be a lot harder. Fortunately, we're all pretty unimpressed with people who try to show off by being spendy, and so we're all pretty frugal, and invest our money in assets instead of buying nice things. I think if the broader US had a culture more like that, we'd have much more savings.

<comment><USER48> You made a great point. Though my friends are not like yours. However I consistently keep reminding myself that I can't and don't need to compare/compete with their expense level.

Other thing that keep me grounded is thinking about earning potential and not just total earnings. Things may be going good for now but it can stop sooner than I expect.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, I don't know how common my situation there is. Absent that, I think what you're doing (trying to keep mindful) is a good way to stay the course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Title appears to be "Many Americans who live paycheck to paycheck blame debt"

<comment><USER15> I think there is an order of "debt" that is acceptable:

1\. Unless you go out and buy a house way out of your budget, or you buy a house that was in your budget then lose some/all of the income you previously had, being in debt to a mortgage really shouldn't cripple you under normal circumstances.

1\. Having a car payment is pretty socially acceptable. Some people get the latest and greatest every 2-3 years either through leasing or trading in. Hopefully, there are not tons of people in crippling debt because they want the latest and greatest $40k-$60k SUV. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the "I have crippling debt" group who couldn't even afford a car payment.

1\. Medical bills. I'd imagine nobody is going to criticize you if you are genuinely in debt because you had to pay to stay alive/keep a sane quality of life that is free from disease/ailment.

1\. Student loans. You don't _have_ to go take out $60k-$80k in loans to get a degree to get a job, but a lot of people do. Some people take out loans, then go spend the money on Amazon/vacations/cars. They get to cry they have student loan debt, but did they do the most efficient things possible with the money?

1\. Credit card debt. On one hand, you have people who need to protect themselves from financial ruin. With inadequate savings, they turned to their line of credit. That's fine. Emergencies happen. But... what percentage of credit card debt holders (which I'd imagine is one of the most popular/crippling forms of debt in America) are solely in credit card debt because they only used it in an emergency? How many of those people are making day to day sacrifices to try to "get back above water"? How many people are in debt because... they just enjoy being a consumer and spending money.

<comment><USER35> Out of curiosity the other day, I picked up a magazine that said "How to get out of debt". But the entire contents were basically what you just wrote. Seems like a defeatist bate-and-switch to sell a magazine specifically on how to get out of debt and then have it actually say, "just kidding. you'll be in debt forever. There is no escape"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> You don't need debt to explain this:

* Median US home price, $227k

* Median US rent, $1400/month

* Median US household income, $61k

* Median US individual income, $31k

All these facts are one google search away, on the front page. No need for a study to explain it.

<comment><USER15> I'm confused. What picture does this paint?

20% of a $227k home is $45.4k down

Zillow estimates that mortgage (with insurance + taxes) to be $1,230. A $170 premium to rent versus own seems like a wonderful price to pay to not have to come up with a $45k down payment.

Are you saying houses are too expensive, or wages are too low?

<comment><USER51> > Are you saying houses are too expensive, or wages are too low?

Median housing cost is 54% of median income. That's.. high. The general recommendation is 30%.

> A $170 premium to rent versus own seems like a wonderful price to pay to not > have to come up with a $45k down payment.

On the other hand, you'll be building equity with a house instead of building someone else's equity with rent.

And housing prices don't always go up, but they mostly do.

11 years into a $210k house and I'm walking with nearly $100k after subtracting maintenance costs (carpeting, dishwasher, washer/dryer, water heater, roof, gutters, interior drywall repair, and exterior paint). Total mortgage payments have been about $190k. So I effectively paid $750/month to live in a 2000+ sq ft, 4 bedroom, 2 car attached garage house in a first-ring suburb of our state's metro area (renting it would be well over $2k/month) and I have a nice pile of cash I otherwise wouldn't have saved.

<comment><USER52> That's nice, but it's important to remember that (regardless of your living situation) you are really just benefiting from an increase in the price of a leveraged asset, where the interest is backstopped and subsidized by the Federal government.

If you had taken your down payment, and all subsequent principle payments, and invested them at 5x-10x leverage in a stock portfolio over the same time period, how would the returns compare?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Many millionaires I know would struggle to come up with $400, too, if I passed them through a strong magnetic field outside of business hours.

<comment><USER54> The article has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of coming up with $400 in hard currency on-demand.

<comment><USER55> If a millionaire has a $400 unexpected expense, then they'd most likely pull out a credit card to pay it. Which is additional debt, and according to the article's definition it'd mean that they're "living paycheck-to-paycheck" since they'd take up additional debt for that expense. Heck, I have reasonable savings but I'd not touch them for an unexpected large expense because it's a hassle to touch any long term savings and using short-term credit for that is simpler, faster and cheaper than breaking a deposit or selling stock or whatever.

It has everything to do with that notion - the definition used in this research is ridiculous; having $2000 of unused, readily available credit limit is the functional equivalent of having $2000 cash under your mattress. A $400 expense is going to reduce your net wealth/increase debt by definition, so if the answer to "what would you do for a $400 expense" is "duh, I'd borrow 400 because _for me_ being able to borrow 400 on a short notice is simple and certain to succeed" then that's a quite reasonable answer that doesn't imply any financial problems whatsoever.</comment></comment></comment>


The Right Way to Regulate Prostitution - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-08/the-right-way-to-regulate-prostitution <comment><USER2> I still think that it's absolutely STUPID that sex can be given away freely (legally), but it is illegal to charge for it.

Simply idiotic.</comment>


Apple's secrecy doesn't work for Apple TV+ - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/the-current-heads-of-apple-tv-should-be-terrified-1840792682 <comment><USER2> Apple TV+ is so locked down with DRM that you can't even easily take a screenshot from a show and share it on social media. Shows on Netflix, Disney+, etc have huge traction because people have got excited about them and talked about them online.

I've really enjoyed For All Mankind, but looking on twitter there's almost no fan base talking about it. Contrast with Ronald D. Moore's previous sci fi hit: the 2000s reboot of Battlestar Galactica. There were free to watch webisodes, a lot was done to encourage and enable a fan community.

It does feel like Apple are so obsessed with the IP that they're missing that having fans and the constellation of content that people will just go off and make because they're excited about a show is crucial to their success.

<comment><USER3> You can take screenshots of Netflix shows? Which platform?

<comment><USER4> I just tried it on every platform I have access to; Android, Linux, Macos, Windows and Chromebook. I was able to take a screenshot of a show playing on Netflix on every one.

<comment><USER5> Doesn't work on iOS 13.3. Just get a black screen with the CC text.

Doesn't this fly in the face of the fair use doctrine?

<comment><USER6> Fair use is not a right; it's a _defense._ You don't have a right to use materials for educational purposes. What happens is: you're sued and you argue that your usage was fair use.

Because of that distinction, you _technically_ have no right to take screenshots of copyrighted media.

Side note: the reason for this distinction is that there's no set criteria for fair use. Some people say there's the "10 second rule" or whatever, but they're wrong.

<comment><USER7> Your distinction is tortured. You absolutely have a right to do things there is a defense for.

<comment><USER8> It's not tortured. You may have the right under the law, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the private service needs to make it easy for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "And there were issues early on, like axing a show based on Dr. Dre's life because it was too violent, and canceling one about Richard Gere on a shooting spree because it wasn't friendly enough."

Is this 'wholesome-only' stuff from Apple in apps, tv, etc starting to get old and annoying for anyone else?

<comment><USER10> _See_ is pretty violent (and I like it) so this Apple being wholesome-only cliche is starting to get old and annoying for me.

<comment><USER11> But if the article is to believed, they _are_ canceling shows because they're too violent.

Can you call something a cliche when it's happening in front of you? Is the assumption that because See got released, that Apple didn't actually censor the other shows mentioned here, and Gizmodo is lying?

<comment><USER12> The reality is that there's clearly no mandate that all content on Apple TV+ needs to be family friendly, and we know that from what they _have_ released. Dr. Dre's show and the Richard Gere project may have been canceled because the violence or sex was gratuitous, or because it was just bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't really get the point of tv+ for Apple. They didn't start their own record company for iTunes. Apple's natural position seems like it should be a middle man between content producers and Apple TV owners.

<comment><USER14> that didn't work so well for netflix.

<comment><USER13> Netflix doesn't sell hardware.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if there are any family with kids on content subscription service decide not to get Disney+ and instead get Apple TV+ if they were to choose between one of the two. I just dont see this happening now, in three years time, or even in 5 years.

And if they were to get another Content Subscription Service, would they choose Apple TV+ at half the cost of Netflix, or Netflix with hundred if not thousand times more content from Originals, Movies to Anime?

Then there is the Amazon Prime, which means it is Free for the 100 million subscribers in US.

Even The Grand Tour wasn't good enough for me to stick with Amazon Prime Video, and I have been watching Jeremy Clarkson shouting _POWER_ for nearly two decades. At this rate I see majority of people subscribing to two streaming services at best and just go back to pirate other shows they like. And even if that was the case, there doesn't seems to be any show worth pirating from Apple TV + now, or in the near future.

<comment><USER16> > _I wonder if there are any family with kids on content subscription service > decide not to get Disney+ and instead get Apple TV+ if they were to choose > between one of the two._

Often they won't have to choose (we didn't, for example) because they get Apple TV+ for a year with device purchases. Although this offer _could_ end at any time, Apple will subsidize TV+ for several years until they have subscription numbers they can brag about.

Additionally, the TV app[1] is a significant home-field advantage for TV+. It's an app store for content from which I can buy, rent, and subscribe to about anything from anyone, and everybody using it will hear about Apple TV+ on a regular basis.

> _Then there is the Amazon Prime, which means it is Free for the 100 million > subscribers in US._

I use this service occasionally, suffering through the slow and janky app that somehow makes my Apple TV feel like a $20 USB stick. Personally, if it disappeared tomorrow I can't say that I'd miss it.

<comment><USER17> The TV app seems to be the worse part of it reading the reviews like this one: [https://9to5mac.com/2019/11/05/opinion-worst-part-apple- tv-i...](https://9to5mac.com/2019/11/05/opinion-worst-part-apple-tv-is-tv- app/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The only reason why I had my HBO subscription was for Game of Thrones. Now that is over, I'm keeping it around for WestWorld season 3, but may axe it completely if it sucks.

I have AppleTV+ (worst name ever, it is so utterly confusing) from my phone and there is nothing I want to watch. Nothing. The shows may be okay, but from my initial viewing, they are nowhere near as good as Game of Thrones. Unless they pick up the quality very soon, it's going to be a complete failure.

The only one worth keeping is Netflix and only because my kids watch some TV shows, and there are a lot of good standup comics on Netflix that I can watch.

But mostly these days I will BT movies or buy them on iTunes, which is by far the most convenient way to watch movies. I have bought about 100 movies on iTunes so far. If they sold their movies for $5 each, I would buy them constantly.

</comment><comment><USER19> So Plepler leaves HBO because of their new Netflix "flood 'em with content of widely varying quality, and let God^H^H^Hviewers sort it out". Then moves to AppleTV+, where they claim they are trying to be the "antithesis of Netflix".

Maybe it will work for AppleTV+, maybe it won't, but the only reason we subscribe to HBO is because if it's on HBO, it stands a chance being, at a minimum, watchable. When the free year of ATV+ runs out, we will see who is the better HBO.

</comment><comment><USER20> "When you have kids, you'll understand"

—Steve Jobs on why there is no adult content in the App Store</comment>


Sad Server :( - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/sadserver <comment><USER2> "I also like to do nothing on the weekends" \- This just made my day</comment>