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.
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
64 points (91.0% liked)
News
31568 readers
3216 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
.
I probably saw the 2022 figure. Thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.