Here is what the thread is about, taking the first line I wrote:
I'm maybe paid like what in USA would be around $90k, like top 25% salary and I've no idea how people making that amount or more should struggle, assuming living alone and having normal expenditure, living in an average cost of living area.
My assumptions is an average cost of living area with normal, not excessive expenditures and live alone, which mean no childrens. Obviously also high salary and in a situation without serious healthcare needs, getting fired or other bad situations.
Average USA rent - $1700 per month
Average USA vehicle payment - $600 per month
Average USA student loan repayment - $250 per month
Average USA health insurance payment - $500 per month
Average USA vehicle insurance payment - $130 per month
Average USA food bill - $390 per month
$3570 is a lot less than $4800, so there should be no struggling.
Seems resonable, sure it may not fit into the 50-30-20 rule perfectly which assumed $3000 and not $3500 spent on needs, the difference between having $1800 or $1300 to spend on wants don't seems to be a big deal to me and you still manage to save like $1200 each month which take care of retirement. A $300 000 house with 20% downpayment should be reachable in about 4 years assuming saving all wants money or using the savings part which sounds rather good.
Under this definition both American conservatives and liberals would be liberals, in contrast to traditional conservatives (who believe in the necessity of some permanent priveliged, titled noble class) or socialists or communists, who strive for an elimination of all existing hierarchies and forms of domination.
Both parties in USA would be considered very economically right wing in Sweden from my knowledge. I think the social views between the parties are far more visible than the difference between economic policies.
I mean lib in the traditional sense of the word, i.e. an emphasis on individual liberty and identity over a sense of the collective, a fetishizing of utilitarian moral philosophy, an understanding of world history as a one of unidirectional stagial progress, a conviction both that capitalism is fundamentally good, inevitable, and eternal, etc.
USA don't seems like a particular free country, especially when consider how the economy is setup to really limit a large part of the population.
Huh. Interesting. I've always understood that to be a classic American conservative position.
I get the feeling it is more built into USA society than being something outlining stuff. Like I've even heard poor people think that they are poor due to their own fault.
Bunch folks doing that in this thread I wouldn't describe as US (or even US-style) conservatives. Centrist / liberal tracks.
Political ideologies seems rather pointless to think about, trying to group together people will fail to get the whole picture of stuff.
Like, what do these anecdotes even mean? This is your thread!
Well everything you say seems to be anecdotes. Atleast I can provide links to various stuff such as productivity, real wages and so on. I've also been to UK and did not find it to be anything like a poverty dystopia.
Can you actually provide a serious claim for statements like this:
We're working more, and working harder
Number of average hours worked according to OCED
This seems to point towards people worked more hours in 1950 than they did in the last few years and there seems to been a trend towards working fewer hours on average, not more hours.
I've yet to find anything that actually showcase like 1970s or before being better of than today, like all videos and what I read seems to give a picture of people being significantly worse off compared to what I see today. Also those times was also very unequal. Life expectency for countries like USA and UK was low 70s in year 1970.
It's been true for a long while that many Americans, perhaps even most, have no financial 'padding' to absorb a shock of some kind, such as repair bill for a home or a car, or a small healthcare bill that isn't covered by insurance. Of course the numbers must look ever worse for larger shocks, such as suddenly losing a job or an apartment, a large healthcare bill or having to buy a new car. I'd always heard that the rule of thumb was to have 90 days' expenses in savings, but if only 43% of Americans could afford a sudden $1,000 expense, how many could afford to pay the equivalent of a single month's bills? How many Americans could post bail for a loved one or replace a car that's been 'totaled'?
Fortune, 23 January 2023 -
"57% of Americans can’t afford a $1,000 emergency expense, says new report. A look at why Americans are saving less and how you can boost your emergency fund"
That do sound like living paycheck to paycheck but I also assume they have no option but to live like, that saving is like impossible or close to it, like if you can only save something like $200 per month keeping expenditure low, you probably not going to have like $1000 saved up. But if you make enough money that you can easily afford to save $1000 each month, at like a minimal inconvienace it is a whole different ballpark.
