Well that's what paycheck to paycheck means: you barely have the ends meet for essentials. Not that you're zero after topping 401(k) and your yoga classes.
Whether that is because you simply dont have much money, or you spent it all on something frivilous is immaterial.
I'm happy to say I wasn't privileged but fortunate if that satisfies you.
He didn't want to work on the building he was doing a lot of work for the Exploratorium. His idea was to put in the 4th floor and have me try to complete the building to get a certificate of occupancy. So that is where I lived.
Williamsburg at that time was very different. One could not park on the street with out a chain to hold your car hood shut. One's battery would be stolen otherwise. The office I worked in was full of people who were concerned that I lived in that neighborhood.
So I had a very good set-up and I felt a lot of gratitude for my situation but it didn't feel much like a privilege. Sweeping the floors of that apartment was almost pointless for the first year or two...
Your comment really brought it home for me.
Now imagine that, but no family support and one of you has cancer.
But living paycheck to paycheck to most people definitely does include spending one’s money on non-bill things like lotto tickets, consumer goods, restaurants, and things beyond their means.
Instead of Netjets you can own your own jet(s). Instead of restaurants you can buy them or have the chef come to your house. At the extreme end, you can start a space program.
The sky’s the limit!
The difference between $900 pants and $50 pants is more than lifestyle creep. I see it as indicative of a stratified society. Previous times had wealthy paying more for clothes but it showed in workmanship or materials.
In the words of Lucille Blutb:
How much could a banana cost, $10?
I see Lifestyle creep as an individual gradually spending more for meals and cloths
You might be able to make ends meet by cutting the 401K and yoga classes, but if that's what you need to cut to eat the next month, what do you cut to eat the month after that?
This guy was obviously not living anywhere near paycheck to paycheck.
By this definition I was not living paycheque to paycheque, but my situation was definitely not good, compared up someone who made better money but spent it each month on nonessential.
and inside that group - people who made one bad decision, and people who have neuro-divergent issues that make managing the budget more of chore than it is for someone without the issue.
Dictionary seems to agree, Merriam Webster says: "to spend all of the money from one paycheck before receiving the next paycheck", not specifying that you can't have spent the money on semi-essentials that could perhaps be moved by a few months but you'd need to catch up with sooner or later
There is also a way to borrow money short term from your 401k that turns into an unauthorized withdraw if you don't pay it back in a relatively short time (a year?)
These all seem reasonable.
[0] Yes, there are rules to prevent the worst abuse, mostly limiting you to doing so once every three years, the small total, and the need to fill out paperwork explaining the unexpected cost.
This exact debate showed up on another thread here the other day. While I agree with you, I was surprised to learn that many people view it to mean that tdon't have anything extra *after* they've done all of their socking away of money each money. Which is weird to me, but hey.