• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    The article doesn’t say, unless I missed it… but isn’t that below what it was? I thought it was over 60 not long ago.

  • Today@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    They didn’t ask, “what percent of your paycheck goes to rent/mortgage?” or “How many weeks of your paycheck do you have in savings/retirement?”

    Don’t most people live paycheck to paycheck? I pay almost all of my bills on a credit card for the miles, and then i pay bill when i get paid.

    • bluGill@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Unless you are saving to something big in the near future it doesn’t make sense not to. I have known many peohle to die young. I have known misers who died with millions in the bank. There is no point to money after death (at least not most religions, I cannot comment on yours) earn it, save a little for a rainy day and spend the rest.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I want to retire. I’m “paycheck to paycheck” but maxing a few retirement accounts. I could easily not work for a year and survive. Depending on how the survey or whatever was phrased, I’d be included in that 58%. I should not be.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    There is an interesting cognitive dissonance around the economy.

    The tone, the memes, the lived experience are all: We’re struggling to barely survive. But when this gets brought up in the context of the current administration and their policies its: Its the best economy in a decade.

    When you look at polling data, its always the economy at first position in terms of how people are going to vote. I think the current congress and the administration really shot themselves in the foot with the what they approached as priority in current legislation. It was all “might make a difference to peoples lives in 5-10 years” and almost nothing that “makes a difference in peoples lives they can sense right now”. Its not like that bigger picture stuff didn’t need to be done, but convincing a few wonks on the edges doesn’t get you elected to a second term.

    Ultimately voting is transactional. If voters vote for you and you don’t provide the goods, they’ll move on.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The article is misleadingly framed by implying 58% being historically bad (though they avoid mentioning any historical comparisons in the article to avoid outright lying). Unfortunately 58% is a historically good number for this. It was as high as 78% in 2017. Also check out the very well sourced other comment on this article with this number for many more years. 58% seems historically one of the best results ever recorded.

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-living-paycheck-to-paycheck/

      Not that we shouldn’t push for it to be even better, 58% is still not a good number in absolute terms in my opinion, but the article is being very misleading when it portrays this as some unheard of worsening catastrophe.