Hacker News Reader

Comment by hungryforcodes | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

This highlights how out of touch HN people are. 37% of Americans can't afford a one time $400 expense. And $12k a year is just nothing, apparently.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed.htm

That $400 expense thing is a myth stemming from misleading framing (as is typical of most of these catchy doomer statistics). Mostly what it says is that 37% of people prefer to use their credit cards and just pay them off at the end of the cycle. Which makes sense given the enhanced protections credit cards typically have and the cashback, both of which would be significant for a $400 transaction.

https://www.cato.org/blog/it-true-40-americans-cant-handle-4...

Reminds me of another similar stat that was doing the rounds recently about automobile loans which had a similar issue.

Yes, there is another stat about black people in Boston having less than $200 of net worth which the authors of the study deny. I forget the exact stat. Looks like the source I cited that you responded to could be off. But I think the point stands that an incredible majority of Americans can't imagine spending $1000/mo on something frivolous

$12k is not nothing, but the title is "super wealthy".

If you make $1.2m a year, spending $12k on entertainment seems very reasonable. But making $1.2m/y alone doesn't make someone "super wealthy".

Perhaps we have different definitions of super wealthy but it is clear to me that being in the top 1% percentile is super wealthy.

There are 3 million people in "top 1%" bracket in the US. I think "super" becomes quite a cheap word if you use it to describe a group of millions.

Perhaps, but I would suspect a vast majority of Americans would perceive making more than they do in their lifetimes every year as living in a different caste

At the same time 25 million Americans are in the top 1%.

https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/g...

Yes, of course, but I think their lives are clearly "super" in comparison to the vast majority. I'm coming to understand that my perception of super appears to not be the norm!

... What? Spending 250 a week on a less interesting version of Instagram access is wild if you aren't "filthy rich". I'd argue it's wild either way but I'm not your parent.

Criticizing that is normal, your comment is very much not. Are you filthy rich and don't realize it?

But the original post was "personal entertainment". Between eating out and having a couple of beers (both of which are unneeded), it's easy to spend at least $35 a day ($250 a week).

Yeah. Would you browse HN if it cost you $36 a day?

If it was worth it, sure. If has the same content now, definitely not.

This app sounds stupid and I can’t imagine it has better content than Instagram or TikTok.

Country Clubs aren’t worth it just because they are only full of rich people. It collects golf, dining, space, etc. Few people would pay $50k to join a “virtual country club” that solely exists to filter rich people. I mean salespeople and scammers would, but what’s the value to rich people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com