I don't have $500 in savings because my ex wife went crazy and took the kids. I've paid $30,000+ per year in child support for 15 years.
Not always. There isn't much left after my wife gets hold of my paycheck. My youngest is breaking me with high school band and baseball. I have more than $500 in savings, but I make a lot more than $30k/year. I've made over $2k in overtime in the last 2 weeks and it's gone. My in-laws are living with us because of health problems. That doesn't help either, but I have a family that loves me, nice cars and a nice house. What can you do?
Sadly too many people want to live a self sufficient life style, but without the intelligence, resources or ability to successfully manage one. Recent graduates want no debt, a BMW, their own beach front condo, an Xbox, 65" 4k tV, ect. How foolish and naive they are. WHat they should be doing is living 3 to an apt, sharing expenses, food, a single 40" TV and a Toyota Corolla.
Yep. Money doesn't come with an instruction manual, and government schools don't teach kids about how to manage it to their advantage.
So companies should not base labor policies on profitability, but rather on keeping people employed even if that reduces profitability?
To some extent. Certainly not to an extent of not being profitable. But to ride out short term cycles and remain profitable, why not. People on ue or welfare is worse to the economy, IMO. - - - Updated - - - I heard it was FDRs fault.
Wouldn't at least 2/10 Americans be unable to work because they are too young? And wouldn't a fair share of the other 2/10 have no money because of mortgages and student loans?
big news flash for you, being "allowed' to keep a LITTLE more of your own money is not "giving" you any money! First they have to make that money, before they can get a tax break on it! In the process if making that money, they typically have created/sustained a great many jobs.
if you had kids before you had 1/4 million $ (each) properly invested, you were stupid, dude. in fact, these days, if a man doesn't get a vasectomy when he turns 18, he's nuts. You can always adopt, up to age 50, and you can have your sperm frozen, if you're one of the selfish, arrogant types that think that their genes are "so" special.
I don't get why some people are so petty, but let's be petty. Young adults may not be saving, but neither are their parents. "according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the typical account for a worker nearing retirement is only $42,000. And 55 percent of current workers don't have any employment-based savings at all. AARP says that three-quarters of Americans between 55 and 64 have less than $30,000 socked away. It all adds up to a $6.6 trillion gap between what we have and what we need." http://www.aarp.org/work/retirement...-retirement-little-savings-means-working.html
Who do you think has more knowledge of the plight of the working man, a guy who has hired tens of thousands of them..............or some old bat who has been on the public payroll her entire career, and got rich of 30 minute speeches to Wall Street big wigs?
Isn't it amazing how many people don't have "a pot or a window", but so many of them are packing 'smart'phones that cost hundreds of dollars, and those function on "data plans" that cost a hell of a lot of money every month! But, you know the old saying about "a fool and his money...." You know what worries me the most? So many of these goofy bastards drive cars while pawing at their smartphones, and they're causing wrecks. So what happens when they're playing with their phones while they're driving, and they wreck your car and put you in the hospital? How do you sue them if they're flat-ass broke?!
I disagree here. While I do support your underlying argument that people shouldn't procreate unless they are financially able to take care of their children without government help, expecting people to have that much money invested prior to having children is unreasonable. I know the experts say that it costs approx a quarter million bucks to "properly" raise a child in the US, but actually expecting people to follow that trend is useless because the vast majority of people, even the financially responsible ones, are simply unable to save that kind of money before they reach their 50s at least. I believe it is selfish to have children when you know that you cannot support them without government aid, but as long as people can actually support their own children and give them a decent quality of life then I have no issue with them having kids without having a quarter million invested. A decent paying job that allows you to support your kids without taxpayer help is fine. I do believe that people should either have a nice savings cushion before having kids or at least have a decent paying job because once you have kids your ability to save money will decrease pretty dramatically.
Sorry you have trouble reading clear English then. It's a very clear question. Your statement I don't get why some people are so petty, but let's be petty. Young adults may not be saving, but neither are their parents. My answer Tell people don't worry we will take care of you and what do you expect?
I see now. I disagree. I don't think a bunch of people are expecting big brother to take care of them. Something like a fifth of people are on welfare? And a bunch of old people get SS and Medicaid? Not sure. All I know is that a lot of people are going to depend on those dang handouts, but there certainly wont be enough hand outs for them all. Some people understand this, some don't. Some sort of fix may come, but it'll never be adequate.
Now, here you see that our good friend Bluesguy thinks that half the country are lazy moochers who want free government checks. What disdain for the fellow citizens. And they talk about deplorables. In any case, he can't have it two ways: Either half the country is lazy and doesn't want to work, so jobs should be plentiful. Or jobs are actually not plentiful, which is the whole reason for protectionism, meaning that many of those on welfare are there because they have to be on it, not because they want to. Somehow, even after asking many times, conservatives have never been able to explain that contradiction to me.
I'm not sure, but I think you're using 'self-sufficient' in a different way than it's usually understood. Self-sufficient means living WITHOUT dependence on purchased foods, utilities, etc. It means living on little or no money. Very few young people want to do that. Most want to live in a highly dependent way, purchasing everything in their lives. They cannot survive 24 hours without vast and complex dependencies. Self-sufficient people can survive not only 24 hours 'off grid', but if they're good at it, an entire lifetime.