Am I out of line by saying, that if anyone out here is having trouble coming up with 400 dollars then maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't be hanging out at a gambling forum site.
Good luck
Good luck
-
Comment -
Rich countries don't have a 19 trillion deficit.
The statistic is crazy, but true. You look at the US, and you see a candy in a fancy colorful wrapper, but on the inside it's nasty and rotten. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful country to live in and it gives everyone plenty of opportunities to succeed.
One of the big problems is that right from birth, many Americans get too comfortable and lazy. Many take for granted the things that they have in life. They learn how to abuse the system and milk government for donations. But the biggest problem is that government allows and supports that kind of behavior.
When you have a guy applying for unemployment/disability handouts support and gets denied, but the clerk gives him a paperwork on another 4-5 similar programs, that will pay for his phone, internet, food...etc. What do you think he's going to go look for work? Of course not.
Most Americans don't know what the hard live is all about. They simply never experienced anything remotely close to it and that's why they rather stand on the streets for days and yap at cops or each other about their skin color difference, than go to work.Comment -
you might have a point there brooksyComment -
63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency
<header class="article-header ng-scope" src="http://www.forbes.com/article_header_template"></header><section class="contrib-author-container">
</section>
The car brakes go on the fritz. The refrigerator stops refrigerating. The dog gets his paws on a batch of chocolate chip cookies and earns himself a trip to the vet ER.
These are just three of any number of things that could go wrong during the course of the year. Recovering from any one will set you back about $500, which means these scenarios fall closer to the “undesirable inconvenience” category than they do the “massive calamity” one. And yet, nearly two-thirds of Americans do not have enough money in savings to cover the cost of a single one of these unplanned expenses.
According to a brand new survey from Bankrate.com, just 37% of Americans have enough savings to pay for a $500 or $1,000 emergency. The other 63% would have to resort to measures like cutting back spending in other areas (23%), charging to a credit card (15%) or borrowing funds from friends and family (15%) in order to meet the cost of the unexpected event.
It’s not news that Americans are terrible savers. In November, Pew Charitable Trusts reported that one in three American families have no savings at all. In December, Magnify Money released the results of a study that found that 56.3% of people have less than $1,000 in their checking and savings accounts combined. Sensing a trend? You should: America’s saving struggle has been a problem year after year after year.
But this latest survey is particularly striking because of the implications it carries.
“Five-hundred dollars is enough money that it could be catastrophic if you’re really living on the edge and don’t have enough money” to cover that unplanned cost, Bankrate senior investing analyst Sheyna Steiner said in a phone interview. ”I did wonder what would happen if it was $10,000, what would the answer have been then?”
A $10,000 emergency is a somewhat rare occurrence for families of moderate income — but it’s hardly unheard of. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts analysis, the median size of a family’s most expensive financial “shock” (as they call it) in a year is $2,000. But Pew also found that the cost of emergencies actually varies by income: for households with an income of $25,000 or less, the median cost of the most expensive financial shock is $1,000, a figure that equates to 31 days’ worth of income. As you move up the income spectrum, the median cost of unplanned expenses goes up, but the days’ worth of income necessary to pay for that expense goes down. So for families making between $50,000 and $85,000, for instance, the median financial shock was $2,500 — or 13 days’ worth of income. Families who reported $85,000 or more in household income were the ones most likely to see that $10,000 emergency, 26 days’ worth of income:
Recommended by Forbes
Source: Survey of American Family Finances by Pew Charitable Trusts.
But that’s the median size of a household’s most expensive financial emergency. (How’s that for a brain twister? Not the median cost of a financial emergency, but the median size of the most expensive financial emergency in a year.) Zooming out and looking at the most typical types of unplanned expenses that a family can experience throughout a year, Pew found that the most common was a car repair — which puts us back in the $500 to $1,000 realm that Bankrate used in its queries. The one that just 37% of people said they’d pay for using savings.
If all of the above sounds like doom and gloom, there is a bit of a silver lining here: 23% of Bankrate respondents said they’d pay for a $500 or $1,000 emergency by cutting back on non-essential spending, like eating out at restaurants and buying coffee from a coffee shop rather than home brewing. This indicates that there’s a bit of elasticity in people’s budgets.
Steiner also noted that it is encouraging that people appear more likely to scrimp on other spending before resorting to the use of a credit card in the face of an unplanned event.
“It was striking that so few people would just immediately put it on their credit card,” she said. “But if you’ve got a little wiggle room, maybe [a $500 unplanned expense] is just low enough that you could maybe lower your spending.”Comment -
My country has an institutionalized welfare system. Not a single person is forced to go without food, shelter and Whatever level of healthcare they need. A homeless person can afford heart bypass surgery or a pacemaker if needed.
There are segments of the population where they live on it from one generation to the next but for more than 90% of the people it only brings benefits. Directly, but mostly indirectly.
Welfare does not equal disaster on it's own..Comment -
Thanks RR! Number blows my mind!
That's a very bad sign.Comment -
It's fine if your country has the funds to support these programs - US doesn't have this luxury. Every single assistance program gets abused in America. You have grown ass healthy adults living off of these programs their entire lives, without making any effort to find a job.
I understand the surgery, but why would a government pay for someone's phone or internet?
Look at BoobyWaves for example...the kid is living a normal life, claiming to be retired (even though I think he's more retarded, than retired), traveled to the bash to Punta Cana, physically fit to gamble, walk and talk...so why is Obama continuing to pay for his fkng cable bill?Comment -
That's what I don't get. Why the hell can't America of all countries afford it.
Well I kind of think part of the reason is that Americans have less tolerance for paying high prices for anything than just about anywhere else. But that's just a wild personal theory.
As far as I am aware we don't have subsidized luxuries like mobile phones. Internet might be subsidized in remote regions where it is extra expensive but in general the govt provide welfare for the vital three, or for things that benefit the wider economy, like child care for mothers to re-enter the workforce faster, or grants to incentivize people to buy houses outside the major cities. Up until recently we paid new mothers about $10,000 cash just for having a baby. As locals liked increasing the population and lowering the average age that way more than relying on immigration. Imagine trying to do something like that in America?? No matter how much fiscal sense it made
.Comment -
Yeah that would be the end of US right there.That's what I don't get. Why the hell can't America of all countries afford it.
Well I kind of think part of the reason is that Americans have less tolerance for paying high prices for anything than just about anywhere else. But that's just a wild personal theory.
As far as I am aware we don't have subsidized luxuries like mobile phones. Internet might be subsidized in remote regions where it is extra expensive but in general the govt provide welfare for the vital three, or for things that benefit the wider economy, like child care for mothers to re-enter the workforce faster, or grants to incentivize people to buy houses outside the major cities. Up until recently we paid new mothers about $10,000 cash just for having a baby. As locals liked increasing the population and lowering the average age that way more than relying on immigration. Imagine trying to do something like that in America?? No matter how much fiscal sense it made
Another funny program that America has is these EBT food stamps cards, that a lot of people exchange for drugs and alcohol.
I mean, if you wanna feed the people, organize a kitchen in every community and feed the people that way. Make them walk to get the food...hell they might even find a freaking job on the way there!Comment -
There's times I can't do it
If we hit losing streakComment -
people on drugs will find a way to put up that cash... believe me.. and they knew it..
Comment -
Thats a rough damn life.Comment -
60% here do not Have 400Comment -
Comment -
And 99% percent of illegal immigrants can come up with $400 at a moments notice. You know why? They work 3 jobs.Comment -
that's what pawnshops and craigslist is forComment -
Sometimes even Canadians have a tough time coming up with $400USD.
Remember that's like $4,800.00Can.
(Canadian Looney is slightly more valuable than a Peso.)
Well, I got the $400 Gold.....
[IMG]
[/IMG]
See you in Sin City!Comment
