This is why Trump won IMO - 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck
Living Paycheck to Paycheck is a Way of Life for Majority of U.S. Workers
CHICAGO and ATLANTA, Aug. 24, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Do you countdown to payday? You're not alone. More than three-quarters of workers (78 percent) are living paycheck-to-paycheck to make ends meet — up from 75 percent last year and a trait more common in women than men — 81 vs. 75 percent, according to new CareerBuilder research. Thirty-eight percent of employees said they sometimes live paycheck-to-paycheck, 17 percent said they usually do and 23 percent said they always do.
The national survey, which was conducted online by Harris Poll on behalf of CareerBuilder from May 24 to June 16, 2017, included representative samples of 2,369 full-time employers and 3,462 full-time U.S. workers across industries and company sizes in the private sector.
More Money, Less Financial Headaches?
Having a higher salary doesn't necessarily mean money woes are behind you, with nearly one in 10 workers making $100,000 or more (9 percent) saying they usually or always live paycheck-to-paycheck and 59 percent in that income bracket in debt. Twenty-eight percent of workers making $50,000-$99,999 usually or always live paycheck to paycheck, 70 percent are in debt; and 51 percent of those making less than $50,000 usually or always live paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet, 73 percent are in debt.*
Survey Methodology
This survey was conducted online within the U.S. by Harris Poll on behalf of CareerBuilder among 2,369 hiring and human resource managers ages 18 and over (employed full-time, not self-employed, non-government) and 3,462 employees ages 18 and over (employed full-time, not self-employed, non-government) between May 24 and June 16, 2017 (percentages for some questions are based on a subset, based on their responses to certain questions). With pure probability samples of 2,369 and 3,462, one could say with a 95 percent probability that the overall results have sampling errors of +/- 2.01 and +/- 1.67 percentage points, respectively. Sampling error for data from sub-samples is higher and varies.http://press.careerbuilder.com/2017-08-24-Living-Paycheck-to-Paycheck-is...
While I am a little shocked (and doubtful) that such a high percentage of us are barely scraping by, I do know this is exactly why the people in the flyover states didn't want anything to do with Clinton. That the two or three states on the coasts that were either connected with the tech world or Wall Street voted for her is not at all surprising. Those people were her true 'constituency', the people she directed her entire campaign toward. They were people who could give her money for her 'support'. Lots of money. The little people who couldn't pay for a member of the Clinton family to give a speech or buy weapons than donate to their family slush fund - not so much.
The eight years of Obama's pandering to corporate America and Wall Street definitely left its mark. And all of those super-duper great paying speeches given by various and sundry members of the Clinton family didn't help.
Comments
They were both tone deaf to the concerns of Americans
who were struggling after the 2008 economic meltdown. Then they watched as the people who were responsible for it got off scot free.
Over 9 million people lost their homes and while they were trying to work with their banks, the banks were committing even more fraud to take their homes.
The HARP program that the Obama administration setup was more laizze fair BS with no set rules to make the banks actually help people.
Next they saw the bailed out banks give their CEOs record amounts of bonuses.
After the ACA was passed, people watched as their premiums and deductibles continued to climb while their wages stayed stagnant.
I mentioned earlier how after the democrats held they spent over a year working on it and people kept asking where the jobs bill was.
As Obama ignored mainstream Americans, income inequality continued to get worse.
So after 8 years of one of the most ineffective president's term came to an end, Hillary came in and offered us no plan to make our lives better. She said that she was going to continue Obama's policies, both economic and foreign policies.
Being as tone death as her Obama was she told us that universal health care would never ever happen.
And her supporters were okay with that.
So why wouldn't people take a chance on Trump who said that he was going to bring jobs back home?
ABSOLUTELY!
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
This is huge
Public finances are getting worse at "full employment".
What happens when the recession hits?
I been reading articles about the coming recession and how
It is unavoidable and they scare the shit out of me. Every man, woman in the country could have a job but it won't stop anything with the economy skewed so damn heavily toward the upper 5% or so. I'm no economics genius but even I understand that the country was in its best financial shape when the American workforce earned a livable wage and had money to spend.
I get sad chuckle out of the fact that this situation has gotten to the point where, given a choice between a guy who is a known greedy corrupt rich old sleaze and the Dimocrite who happens to have a pretty checkered history when it comes to how low she's willing to stoop for a donation to the now-defunct family slush fund, the one who gave 'hope' to millions circling the bowl of the financial poop chute was the rich corrupt old sleaze. Go figure.
Worst fucking election of my life, and I've been voting for over 40 years. Voting Democratic for over 40 years. And after all that time, and for the first time in my life, I did NOT vote for the supposed 'Democrat' for president because I knew she could finally put the stake in the country's heart (so to speak), whereas President One-Generation-from-being-a-Whore-House-Madame wouldn't be able to cause Clinton-l!evel damage because he'd be facing so much opposition on his 'agenda'.
This is no way to run a country.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Hell, Calgary Cruze
could have beaten Her Highness. Okay, maybe not, but most of the other 12, 13 could have.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
rMoney would have won in a walkover
Still don't know how he was "persuaded" to stay out of it.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Why are you surprised (and doubtful)?
It is necessary for capitalism that someone's lifestyle matches - or preferably exceeds - his income. This goes all the way up. Patrick Ewing, a basketball player who made over ten million dollars a season (and admitted he was illiterate, btw) said, "We make a lot of money, but we spend a lot too." What he actually meant was that he had to spend a lot. He was vilified, but he was telling the truth.
The era 1946 - 1970 or so was unique in the history of capitalism. It is probably the only time when a significant percentage of a population was able to live other than paycheck to paycheck. (maybe the generation immediately following the Black Death)
On to Biden since 1973
It was sure a good time for us boomers.
With a HS diploma, two-incomes - one optional and mostly discretionary income, limited impulse buying, and a good tax accountant helping one to save and invest, people could indeed become the millionaire next door. You are right. It isn't even remotely possible anymore.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Lottery tickets!
Always play responsibly.
You mean for our parents.
For many of us Boomers, not as much. I was born in 1955 and turned 18 in 1973. Just in time for the oil crisis and the '73 to '75 recession. I joined the Army because it was one of the few opportunities available to blue collar workers in my neighborhood on the border of Detroit.
Then came the rest of the stagnant 1970s and the 1979 energy crisis, followed by the Reagan recession.
My father was able to support a family of 7 through the 1950s and part of the 1960s on one salary, but by the late '60s my mother was working, too. And we were still fairly poor. Until I joined the Army, I'd only ever had 2 pairs of shoes without holes in the soles. (Snow is cold, and it works it's way up through the holes.)
I was 45, on the cusp. Some charts say I'm a boomer,
some charts say not. Being on the leading edge, sometimes the trends crested on me, after me, but never before me. I think we got the best of it all.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Why am I surprised? Because (probably from never being
'well off' myself), it is hard to understand why so many who DO earn a more-than-livable wage (and more) can't manage to live within their means. And thank you for providing a perfect example of what I mean. You say they make a lot and have to spend lot. They don't have to spend it all. Making that much money a year means that you can invest or save. But not if you're spending your money like a sailor on shore leave after 6 months at sea. (Got that phrase from Dad. He was in the Navy.) That type of person is not who I mean by being doubtful. I mean, for example, the corporate execs with the good salaries and bonuses. I would have expected fewer of them to be so cash-strapped from payday to payday.
EDIT: fixed some Granny Clampett type grammar.
EDIT: again.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
doh1304, could you please explain to us,
here or in a separate essay, as you choose, how you became a Proud Hillary Hater as long ago as 1993.
What did you see that I did not? I confess to having for a time swallowed the spiked cool aide about hard working girl who always does her homework. Later I came to notice that herself is flat out incompetent. Give her an adult level responsible task, like design a healthcare reform, and she blows it every time.
The defining moment for me came when I read that she convinced the Clinton admin to change its' Balkan Policy on the strength of, count it, ONE book she had read, the one by Kagan, which is by no means the best on its subject. Breathtaking, colossal arrogance, and we are expected to give this idiot a whole country to run?? Then when she blew the 2008 campaign, I thought surely the Dems are too smart to let her try again.
Mary Bennett
The book by Kagan . . .
is among the worst. Some people may not know that he is married to Victoria Nuland, the brains behind the crisis in the Ukraine.
may be they saw this
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_mm_OwcX8k]
or this:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EGranwN_uk]
or this:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI]
I mean that's not compelling for the "little women" to like, no ?
I had some other "little woman" memory about Michelle Obama.
It was on a campaign ralley by the Michelle Obama in Bethesda, MD, at a highschool in 2008. It was something about woman and division of labor between women and men in a marriage with children. She said that she understands that women have to cook at times, but to cook every day for the family was stupid. Three times was acceptable... I just thought that my child was hungry seven days a week, how come that's not the case with other women's or mother's children. Not every one has the extra money or the inclination to let their family eat up on junk food outside. Strangely, it's those little remarks that make me aware of some "inconsistencies" among people, who are running for some sort of political positions.
https://www.euronews.com/live
The thumbnail was
the HillaryCare fiasco. I saw it as mandatory private insurance without price controls.
And as I've said before, (though noy here, at GOS) if the ACA (which at least has placebo price controls) had been in effect from 1982 (when I entered the workforce) I would not have saved enough to buy a condo in 1997, and would have become homeless in the 2000 recession. I think that people do not understand the damage that even a $50 a month expense can do. (after I retired I asked what my premium would have been under the ACA - $192 a month after subsidy, based on $45k income)
The failure of the ACA is well known now; I saw it in 1993because of my lifestyle.
On to Biden since 1973