Jesus Christ! :o
No wonder so many people are voting for Trump and Sanders.
Very log article on the economic decline of the bottom 60% of America, which began as far back as the 80s.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/
Hey, looks like the forecast is calling for mostly tough shit with an 80% chance of who gives a fuck.
We have no money, the top takes it all.
Romney cited the same statistic in 2012.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2016, 06:04:54 AM
Hey, looks like the forecast is calling for mostly tough shit with an 80% chance of who gives a fuck.
I bet a bunch of them would come up with $400 if there was a massively discounted bigscreen plasma TV selling for $400.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2016, 08:20:04 AM
I bet a bunch of them would come up with $400 if there was a massively discounted bigscreen plasma TV selling for $400.
The article is about the unexpected costs related to unforeseen emergencies. Everybody knows when Black Friday is.
You can put a TV on a credit card. Your average neighbourhood plumber called out in the middle of the night would not be so accommodating.
Interestingly UK debt adviser Martin Lewis* suggests paying debt off before anything else, whereas the US one Dave Ramsey suggests saving $1,000 first.
* He says "Those with debts AND savings are seriously overspending but the solution is simple. Pay the debts off before you save and maybe even your mortgage. Forget the old 'must have an emergency savings fund' logic as getting rid of debts beats that too." I can't help thinking that that might lead to going further in debt when said emergency hits.
The $1,000 emergency fund has kept the pressure off our credit cards more than once. I know Ramsey gets flak for his investment advice but his way of thinking is pretty important for establishing yourself economically in this country. Most of my financial success happened after I took a class based on his ideas.
Quote from: Brazen on April 20, 2016, 08:50:50 AM
I can't help thinking that that might lead to going further in debt when said emergency hits.
Yeah, having 1-2k as "just in case" savings keeps that same one or two K off the credit cards you've been working so hard to pay off.
Its a bit of an odd article. Its spends a great deal of time blaming Americans for not saving enough because of reliance on credit. The article blames easy access to credit, lack of interest rate regulation, and people being generally stupid. Income stagnation is mentioned but the article doesn't do a very good job making the link between the fact that people need to rely on credit because their incomes have not kept up with increases in expenses.
The drop in net worth, in just the last decade or so, is staggering.
Really depends if keeping the money in savings can psychologically push you into spending less. Otherwise, you're better off paying down the card and not adding as much interest.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2016, 09:17:48 AM
Really depends if keeping the money in savings can psychologically push you into spending less. Otherwise, you're better off paying down the card and not adding as much interest.
I think that is the point. When people start looking at credit as the equivalent of available savings the theory that one should pay down credit first results in never accumulating savings and always relying on credit.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2016, 09:17:48 AM
Really depends if keeping the money in savings can psychologically push you into spending less. Otherwise, you're better off paying down the card and not adding as much interest.
The psychological tool to push you into spending less is using cash for everything. Studies show you spend 18-20% less when you use dead Presidents...and Hamilton...to pay for stuff.
Neat! I always have about 100 bucks stashed away in case of emergencies.
EDIT: That was suppose to read "900 bucks"
Another problem is that 75% of Americans are impatient and inappropriately go to the ER for problems that are less expensively and more effectively handled as an outpatient with a primary care doctor or an urgent care center.
Go to the ER when you're about to die. Everything else is better treated elsewhere. ERs are the most expensive kind of medicine there is and is not necessary in the vast majority of cases.
Quote from: Fate on April 20, 2016, 09:50:53 AM
Another problem is that 75% of Americans are impatient and inappropriately go to the ER for problems that are less expensively and more effectively handled as an outpatient with a primary care doctor or an urgent care center.
Go to the ER when you're about to die. Everything else is better treated elsewhere. ERs are the most expensive kind of medicine there is and is not necessary in the vast majority of cases.
What % of Americans have a primary care doctor?
What is the difference between an urgent care center and an ER?
Urgent cares are an Americanism for smaller stand alone buildings that you can get same day appointments for acute problems like minor trauma, pneumonia, etc. They are much less expensive than a hospital based ER. You also get seen and out the door much faster than overly congested ERs.
Indeed a lot of Americans don't have a PCP but that number is decreasing as we come closer to universal health coverage. For the poor or mentally ill their emergency room doctor becomes the PCP. It's insanely expensive and a wasteful use of medical dollars.
Quote from: Fate on April 20, 2016, 09:59:43 AM
Urgent cares are an Americanism for smaller stand alone buildings that you can get same day appointments for acute problems like minor trauma, pneumonia, etc. They are much less expensive than a hospital based ER.
A lot don't have a PCP but that number is decreasing as we come closer to universal health coverage. For the poor, a lot of the times their emergency room doctor becomes the PCP. It's insanely expensive and a wasteful use of medical dollars.
I suppose urgent care facilities are the same as our walk in clinics for people who don't have a primary care physician or who cannot get an appointment for an urgent matter. Before those were developed we had the same problem with our ERs. I suspect that people stopped going to ERs for things that could be dealt with at a walk in clinic because the walk ins were much more convenient (normally located in residential areas) and wait times were much less. If someone went to an ER here for a non emergency condition they would likely be told the wait would be x hours but that the patient could certainly go to the nearest walk in where the wait would be significantly less.
In America I would be in the top 53%. :cheers:
Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2016, 10:47:05 AM
In America I would be in the top 53%. :cheers:
So would most Americans. :)
How many Americans could not find their arse with their both hands?
:D
Quote from: Brazen on April 20, 2016, 08:50:50 AM
You can put a TV on a credit card. Your average neighbourhood plumber called out in the middle of the night would not be so accommodating.
Interestingly UK debt adviser Martin Lewis* suggests paying debt off before anything else, whereas the US one Dave Ramsey suggests saving $1,000 first.
* He says "Those with debts AND savings are seriously overspending but the solution is simple. Pay the debts off before you save and maybe even your mortgage. Forget the old 'must have an emergency savings fund' logic as getting rid of debts beats that too." I can't help thinking that that might lead to going further in debt when said emergency hits.
Well, in the UK if you have health emergency the state will cover you.
Quote from: Fate on April 20, 2016, 09:59:43 AM
Indeed a lot of Americans don't have a PCP but that number is decreasing
Is that true? When I was a little kid, we didn't know anyone, no matter how poor, who didn't have a family doctor. Now I know a lot of people who don't, some of them fairly well off.
Anyway, if 47% of Americans couldn't come up with $400 to cover an emergency, that means that 53% could. I'd bet 53% is the highest that figure has ever been.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2016, 09:15:19 AM
Its a bit of an odd article. Its spends a great deal of time blaming Americans for not saving enough because of reliance on credit. The article blames easy access to credit, lack of interest rate regulation, and people being generally stupid. Income stagnation is mentioned but the article doesn't do a very good job making the link between the fact that people need to rely on credit because their incomes have not kept up with increases in expenses.
The drop in net worth, in just the last decade or so, is staggering.
(reasonably) increased incomes might see some increase in percentage of people saving, but would it increase by a substantial amount? people today have the ability to save, but they aren't. saving for anything requires (1) the ability to consistently make personal sacrifices and (2) knowledge of what you can sacrifice. in other words,
actually cost cutting and effective ways you can cut costs. for the latter, some people just don't research, so they probably never find out the ways to maximize their saving ability. for the former, some people seem unable to delay gratification or generally commit to personal sacrifice (at least where budgeting is concerned)
Quote from: dps on April 20, 2016, 07:25:20 PM
I'd bet 53% is the highest that figure has ever been.
I sort of doubt it. Especially if talking in inflation adjusted terms.
The working and lower classes are not better off than they have been in the recent past, and the need for cash has decreased as credit has become easier to get, credit cards are accepted almost everywhere, and it has been easier to sell stuff such as through ebay or craigslist. Also, while the economic well being of the working classes is not at an all time high, the social safety net is relatively strong compared to the past.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2016, 10:05:45 AM
I suppose urgent care facilities are the same as our walk in clinics for people who don't have a primary care physician or who cannot get an appointment for an urgent matter. Before those were developed we had the same problem with our ERs. I suspect that people stopped going to ERs for things that could be dealt with at a walk in clinic because the walk ins were much more convenient (normally located in residential areas) and wait times were much less. If someone went to an ER here for a non emergency condition they would likely be told the wait would be x hours but that the patient could certainly go to the nearest walk in where the wait would be significantly less.
Urgent care clinics like Concentra and Patient First have only recently taken off within the last 20 years, and when it comes to densely populated urban--read: black--areas, they are still lagging behind in availability and are not always 24/7.
Older people do not trust them like they do hospitals, and ERs are always open.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2016, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: dps on April 20, 2016, 07:25:20 PM
I'd bet 53% is the highest that figure has ever been.
I sort of doubt it. Especially if talking in inflation adjusted terms.
The working and lower classes are not better off than they have been in the recent past, and the need for cash has decreased as credit has become easier to get, credit cards are accepted almost everywhere, and it has been easier to sell stuff such as through ebay or craigslist. Also, while the economic well being of the working classes is not at an all time high, the social safety net is relatively strong compared to the past.
It's not a cash versus credit issue. If you have a credit card with $400 available credit on it, you have $400 available to cover an emergency.
And yeah, I was cheating a bit by not adjusting the $400 for inflation.
Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2016, 10:47:05 AM
In America I would be in the top 53%. :cheers:
As long as you're not a fortyseven percenter.
Quote from: dps on April 20, 2016, 09:44:26 PM
It's not a cash versus credit issue. If you have a credit card with $400 available credit on it, you have $400 available to cover an emergency.
And yeah, I was cheating a bit by not adjusting the $400 for inflation.
The Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all.The original question was asking about cash and cash equivalents.
An IOU from me is as good as cash.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2016, 06:13:02 PM
Well, in the UK if you have health emergency the state will cover you.
I'm continually shocked by how much of the first world that doesn't apply to.
Quote from: Brazen on April 21, 2016, 07:21:12 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2016, 06:13:02 PM
Well, in the UK if you have health emergency the state will cover you.
I'm continually shocked by how much of the first world that doesn't apply to.
Where does that occur in the first world? Other than the US of course.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2016, 09:14:18 AM
Where does that occur in the first world? Other than the US of course.
There are different levels of insurance, see debate below, but... yeah pretty much nowhere, actually. What
do Americans spend all their massive amounts of taxes (including income tax that they have to calculate themselves) on?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/29/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-us-only-major-country-doesnt-guaran/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/29/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-us-only-major-country-doesnt-guaran/)
I think our taxes are fairly low, but what we pay gets spent on Social Security, Medicare, defense, and interest on the debt.
(https://static.nationalpriorities.org/images/charts/2015/total-desk.png)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2016, 11:23:47 AM
I think our taxes are fairly low, but what we pay gets spent on Social Security, Medicare, defense, and interest on the debt.
:yes: ~83% of our total spending are in the areas you listed.
Veterans is bigger than I expected.
So we spend about $3,240 per person on medical expenses per year...by the Feds alone. Holy shit. I wonder what the total of all other public expenditures plus private money that gets spent per person per year on top of that? Doctors must all be millionaires.
How much does the Canadian Federal government spend per person for their dirty red communist system?
Yeah, I don't think it an issue of a lack of expenditure. But rather how all that money is being spent.
Valmy,
Here are some older figures I found for 2014
In 2014, total health spending per person is expected to be highest in Newfoundland
and Labrador ($6,953) and Alberta ($6,783) and lowest in Quebec ($5,616) and
British Columbia ($5,865).
The Federal government does not spend much, rather it is the provinces that are responsible for health care funding.
The feds file expenses for their affairs? :blink:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2016, 11:48:15 AM
Veterans is bigger than I expected.
In all fairness, there are more than 2.5 million of them from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even with more than 10 years to try, couldn't get them all killed, you know.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2016, 12:10:03 PM
So we spend about $3,240 per person on medical expenses per year...by the Feds alone. Holy shit. I wonder what the total of all other public expenditures plus private money that gets spent per person per year on top of that? Doctors must all be millionaires.
How much does the Canadian Federal government spend per person for their dirty red communist system?
Spanish average (is up to the regions too) is a mere 1400€ and we get a pretty damn decent universal health care out of it. It's true that prices are highly regulated and kept low, though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2016, 12:11:03 PM
Yeah, I don't think it an issue of a lack of expenditure. But rather how all that money is being spent.
:yes:
The USA spends a huge portion of government spending on healthcare at all levels. More than many western countries (perhaps most, but I haven't checked the most recent figures). It's always been a matter of bang for our buck rather than simply throwing money at the problem--something we're good at, generally.