isurg

My point is that just because you are living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean you can't still save. It's a decision that you have to make but it is doable because no matter how bad you're situation is, there are other people getting by on 5%-10% less than you. By insisting that someone living paycheck to paycheck can't also have savings is what's doing a disservice to them.

I didn't say that the savings didn't make a difference, I said that having an additional small amount of money available to be each part period wouldn't have kept me from living paycheck to paycheck. Of course having the savings made a difference when something major happened, that was the whole point.

During the time I was getting paid around $25k a year I was bringing home around $700 a paycheck (every 2 weeks). Me putting aside 10% between my 401k and my savings meant that I had around $30 every 2 weeks going into savings. I often ran out of available money several days before my next check, and having an additional $30 would have been nice, but would have likely only given me another few days.

And yes, when I had unexpected bills, and later when I lost my job, I did dip into my savings because that's why I had it, but that 10% want going to be the difference between me living paycheck to paycheck, or not. In fact, the transition to not living that way was a very gradual process.

But I would exhaust the money from my paycheck that was in my checking account, and I had many times where I would also empty my savings when I'd get hit with an unexpected expense.

My point was that even though I was saving money, it wasn't ever money that I ever saw in my bank account. My 401k was taken from my paycheck and I couldn't even think about touching that with a lot of effort and expense. I had my direct deposit setup to send most of my check to my checking account, but I always had a small amount going to my savings at a different credit union. My toughest years I was making around $25k a year and I had 5% of my income going to my 401k and 5% going to my savings. My rent, car payment and car insurance would be the first things I paid each month and usually that meant my first 2 weeks of the month were sparse and if I had stopped putting aside that 10% it would have been a little help, but not enough to get through to my next check. So yes, I had access to money, but I was still living paycheck to paycheck because I had strict rules on when I could access that money - and I tried to pay back to my savings anything I took out, when possible.

Would you consider someone adding to their 401k each check to not be living paycheck to paycheck?

I am surprised and would have expected that number to be higher.

Oh, that isn't the definition I think most people use for the term "paycheck-to-paycheck".

I think you answered your own question because you're using a different definition than Bank of America. I have always been a saver, as a kid is squirrel money away in different places, and when I became an adult I kind of kept the same mentality, even when I considered myself as living paycheck to paycheck, I was still putting money aside in different places (401k, HSA, savings, Fidelity, etc). It wasn't a lot going to any place, but it was consistent at around 10% in total. The way I saw it was that there are plenty of people surviving while earning 10% less than I do, so I just had to make sure I never missed the money. So my definition of living paycheck to paycheck is likely different from yours, if you don't allow for saving.

Indulge me for the coming delusion, but if we ignore who this is, forget all the reasons we know that we can't trust him, and allow ourselves just a few moments to hope that we could live in such a world.

A world where manual labor is no longer needed, where people can just exist as large mammals are meant to exist. Robots will handle it all and we can just do as we please... and the robots are going to be plentiful because once enough of the process of making a robot becomes automated, the cost of it will go to zero. But to get there it is going to require a ton of money... these robots are going to be way too expensive for people to actually buy them, so investors and governments will help out. The investors will eventually lose everything, but that will put us on the way to having everything we need to be created through completely automated systems.

Of course, there will still be jobs for those who really want them - or more likely, who want them and are good at them - or even more likely, who knows the right people... but if we can get our basic needs taken care of it night not fully end poverty but it would be a step in the right direction.

But, alas... It's Musk saying it so it's only to further enrich himself and won't actually happen.