Well paid government employees who can't afford a one or two week shutdown

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Americans live beyond their means. It’s the American nightmare.

This. Our standard of living is absurdly high.

I'm 50 and growing up, I didn't want for much. My kids, raised on middle income, maybe upper middle income, have REALLY never wanted for anything. Sometimes I feel like a failure in this regard. My kids are somewhat spoiled, but compared to other kids, they fall in the middle.

It's not a failure to want a better life for your kids in every way possible.

It's a failure if you spend on material things over saving more than a month's worth of living expenses, especially if you have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get what you are saying, OP. They say they have no money saved, but then spend on dinner and going out.

That defies logic.

I had a cousin like this. Her mom worked as a janitor, and she worked a menial PT job, but she would buy name brand bags and expensive cosmetics.

When I was not married and childless, getting paid $60K back in 1999, I still didn't buy those things, and I made sure I had 8 months of living expenses saved. I had already gone through one lay off. I never wanted to experience that pain of financial insecurity again.

Government workers should know that they can get furloughed. It's happened enough in the past 20+ years.

I feel bad for the young staff that doesn’t have that kind of nest egg yet as well as an awful entry level job market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Americans live beyond their means. It’s the American nightmare.

This. Our standard of living is absurdly high.

I'm 50 and growing up, I didn't want for much. My kids, raised on middle income, maybe upper middle income, have REALLY never wanted for anything. Sometimes I feel like a failure in this regard. My kids are somewhat spoiled, but compared to other kids, they fall in the middle.

It's not a failure to want a better life for your kids in every way possible.

It's a failure if you spend on material things over saving more than a month's worth of living expenses, especially if you have kids.

Yes, but pp didn’t say she was doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get what you are saying, OP. They say they have no money saved, but then spend on dinner and going out.

So how many dinners out add up to two months of living expenses? Several thousand?

Yes, people should live within their means and yes people should have savings. But this "if you didn't buy lunch once a week you'd have nothing to worry about" logic is completely disconnected from the cost of things. Real wages are falling relative to the cost of living. People make less, in adjusted dollars, than their parents did. Housing and food and childcare cost more than they did, and the minimum you feel you need to do for your kids (years of ECs leading up to college applications, for example) is higher. Maybe don't shake fingers at people who are getting squeezed by that, especially people who took jobs that serve their country.

- person who only has a house and savings because govt is my second career

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get what you are saying, OP. They say they have no money saved, but then spend on dinner and going out.

So how many dinners out add up to two months of living expenses? Several thousand?

Yes, people should live within their means and yes people should have savings. But this "if you didn't buy lunch once a week you'd have nothing to worry about" logic is completely disconnected from the cost of things. Real wages are falling relative to the cost of living. People make less, in adjusted dollars, than their parents did. Housing and food and childcare cost more than they did, and the minimum you feel you need to do for your kids (years of ECs leading up to college applications, for example) is higher. Maybe don't shake fingers at people who are getting squeezed by that, especially people who took jobs that serve their country.

- person who only has a house and savings because govt is my second career

It’s not just the twice a week lunch.
It’s the twice a week lunches, a few times a week drinks and dinner, coffee, treats, hair and nails, subscriptions. It adds up. And yes, it can add up to thousands of dollars.

Can’t put my finger on what I want to call it, but it’s like an entitlement of small luxuries.

[Anonymous]

The 2025 FINRA Foundation report indicates widespread financial insecurity and inadequate savings:
Emergency savings: Only 46% of U.S. adults have enough savings to cover three months of living expenses, a decrease from 53% in 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Americans live beyond their means. It’s the American nightmare.

This. Our standard of living is absurdly high.

I'm 50 and growing up, I didn't want for much. My kids, raised on middle income, maybe upper middle income, have REALLY never wanted for anything. Sometimes I feel like a failure in this regard. My kids are somewhat spoiled, but compared to other kids, they fall in the middle.

It's not a failure to want a better life for your kids in every way possible.

It's a failure if you spend on material things over saving more than a month's worth of living expenses, especially if you have kids.

Yes, but pp didn’t say she was doing that.

"better life in every possible way" probably includes material things.

I get it. I grew up poor myself, and that is why I never want to be in the situation where I can't pay my bills in case of a job loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get what you are saying, OP. They say they have no money saved, but then spend on dinner and going out.

So how many dinners out add up to two months of living expenses? Several thousand?

Yes, people should live within their means and yes people should have savings. But this "if you didn't buy lunch once a week you'd have nothing to worry about" logic is completely disconnected from the cost of things. Real wages are falling relative to the cost of living. People make less, in adjusted dollars, than their parents did. Housing and food and childcare cost more than they did, and the minimum you feel you need to do for your kids (years of ECs leading up to college applications, for example) is higher. Maybe don't shake fingers at people who are getting squeezed by that, especially people who took jobs that serve their country.

- person who only has a house and savings because govt is my second career

It’s not just the twice a week lunch.
It’s the twice a week lunches, a few times a week drinks and dinner, coffee, treats, hair and nails, subscriptions. It adds up. And yes, it can add up to thousands of dollars.

Can’t put my finger on what I want to call it, but it’s like an entitlement of small luxuries.

They don't see these as luxuries. That's the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get what you are saying, OP. They say they have no money saved, but then spend on dinner and going out.

So how many dinners out add up to two months of living expenses? Several thousand?

Yes, people should live within their means and yes people should have savings. But this "if you didn't buy lunch once a week you'd have nothing to worry about" logic is completely disconnected from the cost of things. Real wages are falling relative to the cost of living. People make less, in adjusted dollars, than their parents did. Housing and food and childcare cost more than they did, and the minimum you feel you need to do for your kids (years of ECs leading up to college applications, for example) is higher. Maybe don't shake fingers at people who are getting squeezed by that, especially people who took jobs that serve their country.

- person who only has a house and savings because govt is my second career

It’s not just the twice a week lunch.
It’s the twice a week lunches, a few times a week drinks and dinner, coffee, treats, hair and nails, subscriptions. It adds up. And yes, it can add up to thousands of dollars.

Can’t put my finger on what I want to call it, but it’s like an entitlement of small luxuries.

I'll put my finger on it: You have created a hypothetical person to judge - an imaginary person who has kids and a job but also somehow goes out a few times a week for drinks? and coffee and lunch? and hair and nails, is that weekly too? - so that you can feel better about yourself and safe from the misfortunes that have befallen others. If they are bad, then surely you are safe, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get what you are saying, OP. They say they have no money saved, but then spend on dinner and going out.

So how many dinners out add up to two months of living expenses? Several thousand?

Yes, people should live within their means and yes people should have savings. But this "if you didn't buy lunch once a week you'd have nothing to worry about" logic is completely disconnected from the cost of things. Real wages are falling relative to the cost of living. People make less, in adjusted dollars, than their parents did. Housing and food and childcare cost more than they did, and the minimum you feel you need to do for your kids (years of ECs leading up to college applications, for example) is higher. Maybe don't shake fingers at people who are getting squeezed by that, especially people who took jobs that serve their country.

- person who only has a house and savings because govt is my second career

+1 And some people have family members with medical conditions, or have exorbitant student loans because the Bank of Mommy and Daddy didn't pay for them to go to college. Some people on this site are so sanctimonious. Most people aren't struggling financially because they bought Starbucks 2x a week and got the occasional manicure.

[Anonymous]

People without adequate emergency funds simply spend too much relative to their incomes. Failing to constrain spending to an appropriate level is the problem. No matter how little you make, you have to spend less than that on housing, cars, vacations, kids' activities, recreation, etc. It's not complicated, but it requires discipline. And for those who argue they have uninsured medical expenses which excuse a lack of savings, no that is no excuse - you, too, can spend less on housing, on cars, etc. You may want a shorter commute, or a nicer place to live, or a nicer car, or a vacation, but you can only afford what your income allows relative to your expenses. Failing to save for your future and for emergencies is simply a choice, not something imposed on you by a cruel world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get what you are saying, OP. They say they have no money saved, but then spend on dinner and going out.

So how many dinners out add up to two months of living expenses? Several thousand?

Yes, people should live within their means and yes people should have savings. But this "if you didn't buy lunch once a week you'd have nothing to worry about" logic is completely disconnected from the cost of things. Real wages are falling relative to the cost of living. People make less, in adjusted dollars, than their parents did. Housing and food and childcare cost more than they did, and the minimum you feel you need to do for your kids (years of ECs leading up to college applications, for example) is higher. Maybe don't shake fingers at people who are getting squeezed by that, especially people who took jobs that serve their country.

- person who only has a house and savings because govt is my second career

It’s not just the twice a week lunch.
It’s the twice a week lunches, a few times a week drinks and dinner, coffee, treats, hair and nails, subscriptions. It adds up. And yes, it can add up to thousands of dollars.

Can’t put my finger on what I want to call it, but it’s like an entitlement of small luxuries.

I'll put my finger on it: You have created a hypothetical person to judge - an imaginary person who has kids and a job but also somehow goes out a few times a week for drinks? and coffee and lunch? and hair and nails, is that weekly too? - so that you can feel better about yourself and safe from the misfortunes that have befallen others. If they are bad, then surely you are safe, right?

NAILED IT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People without adequate emergency funds simply spend too much relative to their incomes. Failing to constrain spending to an appropriate level is the problem. No matter how little you make, you have to spend less than that on housing, cars, vacations, kids' activities, recreation, etc. It's not complicated, but it requires discipline. And for those who argue they have uninsured medical expenses which excuse a lack of savings, no that is no excuse - you, too, can spend less on housing, on cars, etc. You may want a shorter commute, or a nicer place to live, or a nicer car, or a vacation, but you can only afford what your income allows relative to your expenses. Failing to save for your future and for emergencies is simply a choice, not something imposed on you by a cruel world.

Feel better? Hope you or your family don't get cancer and lose your health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People without adequate emergency funds simply spend too much relative to their incomes. Failing to constrain spending to an appropriate level is the problem. No matter how little you make, you have to spend less than that on housing, cars, vacations, kids' activities, recreation, etc. It's not complicated, but it requires discipline. And for those who argue they have uninsured medical expenses which excuse a lack of savings, no that is no excuse - you, too, can spend less on housing, on cars, etc. You may want a shorter commute, or a nicer place to live, or a nicer car, or a vacation, but you can only afford what your income allows relative to your expenses. Failing to save for your future and for emergencies is simply a choice, not something imposed on you by a cruel world.

Feel better? Hope you or your family don't get cancer and lose your health insurance.

There's ACA, although if it's up to the Rs, they would gut it. Then you'd really be up sh(t creek.

But, Op's scenario isn't this. They are talking about people being furloughed who are still living like they aren't furloughed even as they lament that they have no emergency savings.

Also, the majority of people don't have cancer early on in their careers. I told my kid to save a lot early on because you don't know what will happen in the future. I've been through two layoffs, once one year out of college. It sucked.

There is no such thing as job security these days, so yea, mot people with decent paying jobs should be saving at least 8 months of emergency living expenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People without adequate emergency funds simply spend too much relative to their incomes. Failing to constrain spending to an appropriate level is the problem. No matter how little you make, you have to spend less than that on housing, cars, vacations, kids' activities, recreation, etc. It's not complicated, but it requires discipline. And for those who argue they have uninsured medical expenses which excuse a lack of savings, no that is no excuse - you, too, can spend less on housing, on cars, etc. You may want a shorter commute, or a nicer place to live, or a nicer car, or a vacation, but you can only afford what your income allows relative to your expenses. Failing to save for your future and for emergencies is simply a choice, not something imposed on you by a cruel world.

Feel better? Hope you or your family don't get cancer and lose your health insurance.

There's ACA, although if it's up to the Rs, they would gut it. Then you'd really be up sh(t creek.

But, Op's scenario isn't this. They are talking about people being furloughed who are still living like they aren't furloughed even as they lament that they have no emergency savings.

Also, the majority of people don't have cancer early on in their careers. I told my kid to save a lot early on because you don't know what will happen in the future. I've been through two layoffs, once one year out of college. It sucked.

There is no such thing as job security these days, so yea, mot people with decent paying jobs should be saving at least 8 months of emergency living expenses.

They don't have to gut it. They can just take away the subsidies and make it unaffordable to many.