Living within your means........

I tried to read that "report". Can't...know why? It's a sales trick. You have to PAY for it....

And it STILL (from that article) showed showed a chart illustrating that people on the lower end of the economic scale are far more likely to run out of money than those making $100K

Oh and

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/1...-still-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-2020-02-11

This one says that only 18% live pay check to paycheck.

Newsflash...even THEY are "living within their means". They are not going into debt.

Again. It's far easier to "live within your means" if those means are substantial

 

Yes, but just 2.5% over the last three years. If not now at a time when workers have maximum leverage...?

 

The chart I included measured PPP. Did you read it.

 

Why not focus on the more common reality...?



We ran out of women family members going to work about 20 years ago. Family income stalled.

 

You're seeking to blame corporations for other people's bad choices.

Just because I put an ad on TV showcasing the new Corvette doesn't mean I'm to blame when some dumbass who makes $30k year and has 8 kids buys one.

No, I don't think I am.

You're trying to put a modicum of blame on people who didn't make the bad decision to do something stupid, such as in the above example.

 

If you support using PPP, then you'll agree Canadian median incomes have surpassed ours.

 

No actually I don't.

Your own source refutes the method in which Canada calculated their PPP for the "revised" numbers.

 

You're rather anal with moral judgments when I'm looking at cause-and-effect.

Are you stating categorically advertising has not impacted folks making poor spending choices?

 

No, the analysis that supported Canada having higher median wages was based on using PPP. The story is but one of many reporting on the milestone.

 

If you don't support PPP, what is the basis for your analysis?

 

Actually, from your source:

As I mentioned above, these results are dependent on how you convert Canadian dollars into U.S. dollars. If you used the average exchange rate for 2016, Canada’s median household income would be just US$53,336 in U.S. dollars, well short of the U.S. median of US$58,849. But because exchange rates jump around a lot, and don’t always reflect the relative purchasing power of people in different countries, those making international comparisons of incomes usually adjust for what’s called purchasing-power parity, or PPP.

 

I don't support the conclusion that their PPP has surpassed ours.

It is questionable that it's even passed our lowest 20% of income earners in the last 10 years.

This isn't a comparison of Canada Vs. the US.

This is a comparison of Canada Vs. the lowest 20% of income earners in the US.

 

Great.

Then please explain how the corporations make people make bad decisions.

Does advertising make ALL people make bad spending choices?

 

Maybe, maybe not. People who earn more tend to save more.

 

How many people who win over $1 million dollars in the lottery are broke again within 5 years.

 

Based on what?

Again, based on what?

Of course, it is, and it directly refutes your claim about American workers are the best off in the world.

Your comparison is out-of-date.

 

Based on the information I've provided and you've provided.

Again, based on the information presented.

No it doesn't. Your own source questions the narrative you're trying to pull out of it. You're completely ignoring the part of your own source you don't like.

Your comparison refutes itself.

 

They encourage people to make poor choices--spend more than they can afford, spend money to impress other people, spend on poorly made products, etc.

Of course not.

 

The comparison is based on PPP, not the simple exchange rate.

The analysis was widely reported:

"One of the earliest Upshot articles attracted a lot of attention in Canada. David Leonhardt (who has since joined Opinion and become one of the The Times’s columnists) and Kevin Quealy worked with a research group to analyze middle-class incomes around the world. Their finding: Sometime around 2010, Canada snatched from the United States the distinction of having the world’s most affluent middle class. Along with David, I spoke with Canadians about their economic hopes and disappointments.​

[…]​

It found that Canadians’ median wealth of $106,342 is significantly higher than the comparable figure of $61,670 for Americans. And it doesn’t stop there. Compared with the United States, Canada has a lower percentage of people with wealth below $10,000 and a higher percentage with more than $100,000."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/world/canada/middle-class-income-wealth.html​

Try harder.

 

Actually, you're the one who brought the article in that talked about median wages, not me.

You just did it again, lol.

What happened right before 2010. Might be a reason ours was lower in 2010.

 

I'll repeat ... People who earn more tend to save more.

 

Getting a better paying job is not the answer. Thats obvious based on that survey. People who make 25000 run out of money and people who make 100,000 dollars run out of money. NFL stars go broke and most lottery winners end up back in the trailer park. It's about managing the money you make. People can either manage their money or not.

 

Go buy a $200,000 car.

Did it work?

Your argument is ridiculous.

That's right. It doesn't work on everyone.

That's because the people who don't make bad decisions don't let other people tell them what to buy.

If you spend money on something that you can't afford, that's 100% YOUR fault and no one else's.

 

On average, sure. But if you have 4 people. Two make 100,000 dollars a year and two make 50,000 dollars a year. One each group saves half their money and the other spends everything each week.

You could then say the people who made 100,000 dollars saved 50,000 a year and the other 25000, so those who made more saved more, even though they saved the same percentage.

Nobody needs 100,000 dollars. Nobody even needs 20,000 dollars. We waste tremendous amounts of money on nonsense in the first world.