Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmatt | Hacker News Reader

According to surveys most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, including most making over $100k/year [1][2]

So...yeah saving is a nice idea when rents don't increase in 40% in the past couple of year. Low income households also have a much harder time buying their own housing.

People won't work if it won't pay their rent or food, thats the only reason wages have gone up. It's just impossible to pay minimum wage anymore because itll get your employees evicted

[1] https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/more-americans-live-paychec...

[2] https://fortune.com/2023/01/30/more-high-earning-americans-s...

View on HN

All of these reports are based on a single junk survey by Lending Club which is sort of a cut rate online lender. It just doesn't pass the smell test, the median savings account balance is around $6k and the average is around 7x that. Since there's no good reason to have super large balances in a savings account, this is telling. The median 401k balance across all age groups is $33K, which also shows us that a lot of workers are putting some money into their 401k. Both of these things point to most Americans not living pay check to pay check, which generally means one is not saving any money but it's a really squishy term.

> According to surveys most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, including most making over $100k/year [1][2]

You can safely ignore those surveys. They all produce wildly different results for the number of people living "paycheck to paycheck" because they use intentionally vague definitions of "paycheck to paycheck".

But even if we ignore that and assume that most people are living paycheck to paycheck whether they make $50K or $100+K per year, how would you explain that? If you survey people making $50K and people make over $100K and they're both spending the same percentage of their paycheck, what is causing the expenses to grow so rapidly between the two vastly different income levels?

If you want further proof that these numbers are basically made up, check the "Related" column for the Fortune article. They recommend a second article that says 41% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, right underneath the big headline that over half of Americans earning >$100K are living Paycheck to Paycheck.

If >50% of Americans earning >$100K are living paycheck-to-paycheck, while only 41% of all Americans of any income level are living paycheck-to-paycheck, that would imply that people earning >$100K are more likely to be living paycheck to paycheck.

Or it would imply that these surveys are useless. They're designed to generate clickbait headlines.

How would you explain that? Most people I know (NYC Metro Area low 6 figure earners) who aren't, are getting a monthly stipend from their parents

People get high paying jobs then rent a 1br for $4,000 (at that price its not even that nice a 1 br)

Yes they could make $120k and live with room-mates, but how many Americans do something like that?

I would attempt to explain the "living paycheck to paycheck" issue for higher earners by saying that many of them are putting most of their excess monthly pay into retirement savings. If they had instead put that excess monthly pay into a regular savings account that they could easily withdraw from without penalty, they'd have a lot less paper wealth, but would also technically no longer be "living paycheck to paycheck".

To avoid this distortion voluntary retirement savings should be treated as regular savings in the "paycheck to paycheck" calculation.

As an aside: $100k+ has been used as a benchmark for higher earners for years now. It's probably time to bump it to $150k or so.

You're talking about one of the 5 highest cost of living cities in the WORLD, that goes out of it's way to make housing more scarce and more expensive. This doesn't generalize to the rest of the country.

In San Francisco, roommates are expected, and many even actually like it, with community events and such.

And you can still get a 1 bedroom within commuting distance for less than $2k.

That most Americans can live paycheck to paycheck makes me feel better about the post AGI full UBI era. I’ve been thinking about this a lot.

Does it really matter if everyone is living paycheck to paycheck? They aren’t starving to death. They have access to bread and circuses. If we all go on a $1000/month UBI, we’ll still have a decent standard of living. We’re in for a phase transition in the global economy and the relation of the poor to the rich, but it won’t be as bad as the doomsayers on HN are claiming.

Can you explain what the "the post AGI full UBI era" means?

I assume AGI refers to the company that got bailed out in 2008.

I'm less clear on who is getting full UBI?

I have yet to find a person or company that is getting full UBI.

You would do well to browse the threads discussing advanced forms of artificial intelligence.

Artificial General Intelligence, AGI, is artificial intelligence that can perform any cognitive task that humans can perform at a human level or higher.

It’s commonly predicted by people like Robin Hanson and Elon Musk that such intelligences would dominate the workforce. Most people will eventually become unemployable as it is always possible for a machine to perform their job cheaper.

I’ve predicted that the State and private entities will build welfare programs or UBI. This will be done for political reasons, as the most probable alternative would be civilization scale chaos on par with any Communist revolution of the last century.

Such programs will also allow those with power to cement their power further, as the recipients of welfare could not afford to bite the hand that feeds them.

> always possible for a machine to perform their job cheaper.

> the State and private entities will build welfare programs or UBI.

These two things don't seem to add up. If you're paying the person anyway why not have them do a job? It's not as if the labor of the AGI is free. The only way this would make any kind of economic sense is if the labor of the AGI is so superior to the human that it effectively creates additional value that compensates for the friction of having both the working AGI and the compensated, but non-working human. And in that case you need to start factoring in all of the externalities (including psychological welfare of the jobless human).

Edit to add: If an AGI is so good, can't it come up with productive jobs that are better done by humans than by it? Or is this kind of like the "can god make a mountain that he can't lift?" question?

To beat an old drum: the highest good of human life isn't to work like a slave until you die.

Fiction used to write about how robots would lift the yoke of labor from our shoulders, so we could all live our better lives.

Now that it's happening, all folks can think of is how to make sure everybody is still slaving away somehow. Because the alternative - most of us don't have to do that - is unthinkable to the older generation.

Ennui has been a historical problem for the wealthy (and the retired). If we make it so no one has to work to earn a living we still need to address the problem of ennui.

What I prefer, and what I think most people prefer, is a meaningful job that we enjoy doing. Sure, there will be times when the job sucks, but dealing with suckitude and adversity, if it isn't the majority of what you're doing, adds some positive feelings to life when after you've successfully dealt with it.

If we can all do this with hobbies that don't add to the common good, then okay, UBI FTW. I don't know that I could do this with the low income of a UBI though (biology is expensive, and needs others to implement parts of it).

Used to be you did three things: your vocation (made a living). Your avocation (what you'd rather be doing). And hobbies (not very good but dabble).

There's a long, long western tradition of doing things. Today we've forgotten there's more to life, than work and slacking. It'll be good if we could change that, to something more satisfying.

I don’t think that’s the highest good in life. I think it’s important that humans have access to well paying jobs because that gives them more agency. Money gives you options.

In a perfect world nobody would have to work.

> most of us don't have to do that

The big questions are who still does, and how do we persuade them?

By paying them.

This is an empty objection that keeps coming up.

People work for money, and will continue to do so.

I spent 10 minutes typing a response and then my browser lost it. The gist was that some industries could still employ humans where humans have a decisive comparative advantage, as the customer wants the job the done by a human. This includes social work and production of luxury goods. In industries in which there is no human comparative advantage, humans could still be given jobs for philanthropic reasons.

Charitable housing projects might also require tenants to work. A billionaire might buy an apartment complex, let you live there for free, pay you a few hundred dollars per month, but make you work because the billionaire thinks work is good for you.

Great news! In the future we can go back to the wonderful world of paternal feudalism! :(

I sympathize over the browser issue.

I don’t think it’s good news myself. I’m in sufficiently wealthy circles to just ask old friends for money. Most other people aren’t, and I’m sure all kinds of abusive cult dynamics will spring up.

On net it might be worse than the power dynamics between employee and employer, as employees have more freedom to just walk away.

The power dynamics may more closely resemble those between child and parent. Parents also provide their children with housing and money, and impose personal social norms on them.

Ha, as the other commenter pointed out, I was way off and misread the Acronym. I appreciate the time you took to educate me:)

You're thinking of AIG.

At least it’s not Artificially Intelligent Girl, which will be the name of my forthcoming Replika competitor.

Oh man I was:) Am I ever embarrassed:)

Whenever I see "AG" at the beginning of a three-letter acronym I think "Anthropogenic Global". So don't feel bad, I didn't get it either.

Extracting money violently from people to give it free to others creates a whole subculture of people who will do the very minimum and be totally dependent on the state. we saw it during the pandemic how many people refused to work. A bare bones safety net so people don't starve makes sense, but full lifestyle subcidies do not. It rots society and its theft from those who are productive.

There's no supporting evidence things like Superdole contributed to the COVID labor shortage. What actually happened was a ton of low-wage workers were laid-off, found jobs elsewhere, and their employers struggled to find people willing to work low-wage jobs when everyone else was paying more.

That would be correct if we lived in a twentieth century communist society in which the local spectrum of Mittelstand, to Petite Bourgeoisie to Bourgeoisie consisted of humans with moral rights. I would not advocate for this in a society with twentieth century conditions. I am advocating for this in a twenty-first century economy in which most wealth will be controlled by corporations and artificial intelligences.

In another comment in another thread I’ve also stated that private entities like Jeff Bezos would operate their own welfare programs. Black celebrities in particular are known to reinvest in the neighborhoods they grew up in.

I predict that the State will provide the basic necessities and that private entities will provide comparatively more luxurious goods to those willing to their loyal patrons. Should the investment portfolio which me and my girlfriend have been building from our salaries as elite embedded systems engineers grow as I think it will, I would provide such a welfare system to those close to my heart. As a good citizen I consider that a civic duty.

I believe that your libertarianism should be compatible with either of these forms of welfare.

If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck making around 100K it's not inflation's fault: it's lifestyle creep.

In a high cost-of-living place like greater Boston, that's just not true. For example, consider a family of 4 (2 adults and 2 young children), living in a 2-bedroom apartment in eastern Massachusetts:

- 100,000 household income, about 1/3 of that is going directly to income tax. Net is going to be maybe $70-78,000.

- average 2-bedroom apartment rent is around $2800-3200/month: call it $34,000/year. (Because they rent, they can't benefit from mortgage interest tax deduction.) This doesn't include utilities, which have gone bonkers in MA the past few years.

- Childcare/preschool for young kids in Massachusetts is between 15-20,000 PER CHILD PER YEAR. Our example family could be paying $30,000 a year for childcare so both parents can work.

- It's possible that one or both parents are still repaying student loans at 7% interest. Let's say only one parent has a student loan payment, $300/mo which is a little under the average for MA. $3,600/year.

- This example assumes that nobody in the family owns a car! While I know families with young children who get by on public transit only, it can be difficult even in the heart of a city.

> This example assumes that nobody in the family owns a car! While I know families with young children who get by on public transit only, it can be difficult even in the heart of a city.

Even public transport has a cost per use. $2 per trip, twice a day, around 260 days per year = $1040 for each of those parents.

And that theoretical family is gonna starve, you mentioned leaving out utilities but also forgot food and we're already down to like $300 per year left.

Living in an expensive city you cannot afford = lifestyle creep.

I recognize this isn't a popular view but we are living in a white-hot employment market with tons of employers offering remote work. You could move to Chicago, which has better public transit, pay nearly half that in rent and get free Pre-K.

Greater Boston does not mean Boston. These aren’t people living in cities.

Your estimate is off by half because you're conflating household income with individual income. The figures look way better if you assume that both adults are working, bringing the household income to $200k.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com