40-year-old homeowner says economy doesn’t add up: ‘I’m making the most money I’ve ever made, and I’m still living paycheck to paycheck’
3 years ago by return2ozma to c/news
“There's this wild disconnect between what people are experiencing and what economists are experiencing,” says Nikki Cimino, a recruiter in Denver.
Important to note:
Companies aren't just raising prices enough to cover costs, they're padding their margins on top.
Just saying that their profit is higher means nothing because of inflation. Inflation will mean that their profits are more often than not the highest they have ever been every year. But the highest margins? That shows they are price gouging.
If you want to know how bad we're being fucked, search for the PPI, the producer price index. CPI, the one we always hear about, is the measure of inflation to us, the consumer. The PPI is the measure of inflation to producers, what they pay for goods and services to produce the goods and services we buy.
The PPI has been back to "normal" for a while now. Pretty much as soon as the post COVID logistics issues were mostly ironed out. The difference between PPI and CPI changes is almost all profit.
We don't get daily articles on the PPI though, I wonder why.
Tell people about PPI whenever you can, online or off, the more people know, the better. It's easy enough to say inflation is just down to greed but being able to back it up by comparing two simple charts will help people really understand.
I couldn't find a comparable historical CPI chart on the BLS website, just a 12 month average and historical data by region. Are you able to find something to compare that chart to? It's kind of difficult to grasp intuitively (without a comparison, that is).
I edited the links to try to get more apples to apples. For the PPI just deselect the blue line and compare red lines between the two. Those should give 12 month change numbers for all goods and services unless I screwed it up.
Edit: I edited the links again, I accidentally used final demand instead of intermediate demand for PPI. No need to deselect anything now. I linked the chart for processed goods, other categories are available in the drop-down list.
My favorite part was how PPI reversed inflation every month from Feb 2023 onward, but CPI only continued to show positive inflation. 😃
Exactly that. On average the economy is doing fine but it's skewed very heavily towards the top and nothing much for the 90%. The median income is actually decreasing.
Would you prefer the Economic Policy Institute, Politico, or CNBC?
Yes, bottom 10% are doing better and the top 10%. That means the middle is getting hollowed out and the whole thing turns into a very divided society. That's not a good thing.
It's not a good thing, but it's better than the blatant "rich get richer, everyone else gets fucked" economy we've had for the past few decades.
And doesn't it make sense that we improve the situation of the poorest first?
There's a term for this, HENRY. High Earner, Not Rich Yet. The lie is the "Yet". Millennials and Gen Xers have been struggling to reach the middle class that is kept perpetually out of reach. They have given up on the idea of financial solvency and are going into debt to indulge in luxuries like having children, going on vacations, and living somewhere that isn't a complete shithole. Saving for retirement is as realistic as training to live on Mars, so why bother? Keep digging a financial hole and then lie down and die in it.
Yep. Same. I do pretty good for myself and I'm more fortunate than most, but I had to borrow money from my dad recently for a series of expenses I couldn't absorb in real time. I got the "you don't know how to budget" sermon. It felt as fun as you'd expect
I said fuck it and gave him a list of earnings and expenses (I'm pretty frugal) and he was like, "oh..."
Oh hey, this is what my partner and I have been experiencing for the last year or so.
Gen Millennial here. I can assist you on your suicide that day for a hot meal so I can at least eat on that day. Maybe someone from Gen Z can assist my suicide if I leave him my blanket then.
Sounds like a modest proposal
On the bright side, 9mm is cheaper than a retirement home. Somebody's getting a blowjob on my 60th birthday, and it ain't gonna be me!
Assisted suicide vs... illegal suicide? What's the difference?
I might be "rich" when my parents die, depending on how much elder care they need.
I'm actually kind of looking forward to the day I look my kids in the eye and say "I'm going out to look for firewood" and just walk out into the snow and die.
But there won't be any snow anymore so I'll just wander off into a slightly chilly night.
What if we just financed all our kids advantages on our own credit for them and then promptly died?
What would happen to the debt?
Say I max out my credit card for their down payment on a house and then go "get firewood".
So I buy a bunch of gold and leave a map and then bury it in the woods and when I "get firewood."
As if regular people can afford whatever improvements happen
Except that's not at all what OP said or was implying. Nice way of pushing the blame on the people affected rather than the broken system we live in.
Both can be true. There are many people who barely (or don't) make enough to survive. There are also many people who spend money frivolously and then complain that they're broke because of the economy.
I don't make 200k, but together with my wife, we make a little under that. We both have cars, and both are paid off. I still have the first car I ever brought, which is a Nissan Sentra 2006 basic model. So, 17 years on the same car and hers is a 2015 Toyota. We do have 2 kids and brought a house in 2015. The last 4 years have been almost impossible to make ends meet, and all we try to do is survive with the very occasional do something for the kids. I have tons of housework I can't do but also can't pay for either. Because of this, we also can't move until it's taken care of, so we're kind of stuck here as well. We have no money to save or invest. Did we make some bad decisions? Sure, probably shouldn't have had kids for starters. They cost a fortune. But my point is we aren't doing anything crazy here, it's just that more and more things are taking our money and prices also went up. It sucks because all I want to do is live and get by, I don't really have any grandiose dreams of doing crazy things or buying tons of stuff. I just want to get by as my parents did, which seems impossible today.
I gotta back your position here, especially because I think you're being downvoted unfairly. There is a lot of unfairness in this economy for sure but on this thread that started with HENRY and literally "They have given up on the idea of financial solvency and are going into debt to indulge in luxuries" your comments are totally in line and fair.
Want to add too, that even the first subject in the article 'Making the most I've ever made' isn't the best example of a tough economy. She went through a divorce and then bought a house in one of the most competitive housing markets in the US. The high interest rates certainly make that tougher but that'd be hard to afford even before without it.
I think there's a difference between High Earner and High Income that is causing a discrepancy here. Somebody making six figures is a High Earner, but isn't really a High Income anymore. In 2020, I made about $40k, which was more than about 55-60% of Americans made that year. That puts anybody making $100k or more in the top 25%, at least, of incomes in the country. And yet the prices of things mean that more and more of them are living paycheck to paycheck, regardless of their financial planning.
In a lot of ways, what's in the market dictates what people can buy more than what they can afford does. I had to buy an SUV the last time I bought a car because I need the 4 wheel drive for the winters here. I had a front wheel drive car once, and couldn't get it out of my neighborhood when there was more than a half inch of snow on the road. That same SUV today is at least 25% larger than the model I bought, because "that's what the market wants", according to Toyota.
When I was first looking for apartments in 2010, studio apartments in my town started at the $1,500 to $1,700 per month range. The lowest rent I could find was a single room in somebody's house with "occasional kitchen access" for $1,000 a month. And now there are cities where landlords are telling people making $100k that they need to find roommates to afford rent. A 2 bedroom house on a tiny plot of land that's falling apart just down the street from my parent's house got bought last week for $1.2 million. 10 years ago that house was probably worth $500k at best. The new owners intend to tear it down and replace it with an Air BnB, taking it off the housing market and further driving up housing prices in town. Builders are making luxury apartments and condos, and single family suburbs, instead of medium density multi-family housing because "that's what the market wants" and definitely not because that's what has the highest profit margins. I think there's been 1 new mixed-use development built in my hometown since I was living there as a kid, but the number of condo developments has increased from 1 to 17 in that same time frame. Every year more kids leave because it's simply unaffordable to live there. It was even when I was trying to live there, and it's only gotten worse.
There's people living above their means, and then there's people making a six figure salary who just had to replace a car in a market where car prices spiked 30% in the last 3 months of 2023 alone. Personally, I probably wouldn't even own a car if our country wasn't built for cars instead of people. They're priced as a luxury but considered a necessity by the powers that be. Even if you do a lot of the routine maintenance yourself, like me, it's still prohibitively expensive for the majority of people. Even those we could consider High Earners.
Dude, i pay near $400 a month in just student loan payments. I had to buy a "new" car last year and this 8 year old Subaru cost me $360 a month. I could have bought another $4000 beater, but that's a hole you never get out of because you are constantly having to replace cars that aren't worth the scrap they are made of. Everyone has been on a knifes edge for the past 16 years and now everything costs double from them but wages have been the same. No amount of budgeting is gonna fix that.
No, they said that their choice was either an extra expense of $360 a month for the car that they bought, or $4,000 for a cheap beater that's guaranteed to die on you at some point and be a hole that you perpetually shovel money into if you keep replacing it with more junkers.
That doesn't mean that they can afford the extra $360 a month. Just that it was the cheaper option.
If you’re always struggling to pay your bills, you need to increase your income.
"just make more money" lmaooooo
If you don’t save and invest it, you’ll be living paycheck to paycheck for the rest of your life.
I don't think you really know what "living paycheck to paycheck" actually means if you think it, in any way, involves investing.
I think his point is people are only living paycheck to paycheck out of choice when they could save and invest if they tightened their belts.
Not saying I agree, just explaining his perspective.
There are peple who are genuinly struggling.
Then there are those who choose to spend 10-20K on vacations every year and 'feel' they are struggling.
And these latter people will forever tell you how they are living 'paycheck to paycheck' and talk your ear off about how theri struggles are more genuine and 'real' than people who are actually poor.
Maybe if they ate less avocado toast right!
"living paycheck to paycheck" generally means that all money is spent on living expenses and there is very little, if anything, left over. If you have any appreciable discretionary income, you are not living paycheck to paycheck.
Every time ive tried investing, i had to take it out after a few months to pay for something thats popped up in life after other things have raided my savings.
Investing is for people with a lot of excess cash.
I don't know your situation, but investing is riskier than a savings account, that currently yeilds a high interest rate.
If you need an emergency fund, make one in a high yield savings account first. My rough number is $10,000. "You're missing out on the gains" is an incredibly shortsighted view people have in the stock market. "Gains" are made over 20 year periods.
That's what living pay check to pay check is though...
Broken phone, hot water heater, HVAC, fridge, washer, dryer, toilet, stove, oven, microwave, tv, personal computer, new shoes, new clothes, friend is getting married, friend is having a baby, the car needs a new set of tires, the car was rear ended, windshield was shattered by a rock that kicked up off the road on my way to work, need a new lawnmower cause the second hand Toro mower's gas powered engine is shot, property taxes went up because home values went up, kids got sick and went to the doctor, dentist appointment found a cavity, accidentally sat on your glasses, suit doesn't fit anymore and you have a funeral to attend, older windows on your house built in the 90's are starting to go bad, storm damage to your out of warranty roof, deck needs to be rebuilt because the old wood is starting to dry rot, time to replace the bed(I know you're supposed to replace them every 8 years, but you went ahead and stretched 15 out of this one because you're frugal).....must I continue?
This is really stupid.
You're basically telling people "just be rich" like it's that simple.
People living paycheck-to-paycheck are not able to invest money because they don't have excess income, they get to decide if they want to pay for rent or want to pay for food. Combine that with astonishing inflation rates and salary raises that don't match cost of living increases or simply layoffs, and we have one fucked up situation.
This is a systemic problem. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Billionaires are a societal problem.
edit: Oh, I see your comment isn't directed at people living paycheck-to-paycheck, that's a bit more reasonable then but I still think you're missing the mark. It's not as simple as "just increase your income" like you seem to be thinking it is.
The problem in this thread is that there are people - such as the one mentioned in the title of this article - that are living paycheck-to-paycheck by choice. They choose to spend their entire paycheck on stuff. They don't need to spend it all, they could save some, but instead they buy the biggest houses they can afford or build a deck they don't actually need.
There are people who would literally die if they tried to significantly reduce their spending. Those are the people who don't have a choice, and I sympathize with them and want solutions for this because it's a serious problem. The others I have somewhat less sympathy for.
because it is that simple.
be rich or forever be poor.
this is the system we have setup and the system that we worship.
I try to save whatever extra I have, because everyone says I need to have six months of expenses saved.
The problem is that before I can save up enough to cover that there's some huge expense that I need to cover that empties it out and puts me even more into debt.
If I could manage to save up a year of expenses, I could probably start my own consulting agency and start making a lot of money, but I just can't get there.
The problem is that for many folks the amount they are making isn't enough for them to live a very reasonable life AND they have nothing to invest in the first place. Suppose a household in a given area needs $100,000 to afford a VERY modest house in that area, health insurance, savings, healthy food etc. Now suppose the house has one disabled breadwinner and one fellow working for $40,000.
Because of this they live in shit town in a tiny apartment a building full of drug addicts in a not so great part of the state wherein the average life expectancy is about 10 years less than one of the good parts of the country.
The first 40k of "excess" would be spent on having a decent life, working a sane number of hours, moving into an actual home. For fully half the country the idea of having excess is laughable. It's a crass joke.
Lets define "most". Herein I define most as the area immediately surrounding the majority of people. 70% of people live in urban areas not out in bum fuck.
I live in a small city of 50,000 in Washington. A house around here starts at about 400k. I would have to pay about 3100 per month including taxes and insurance. I would take home about 6500 per month after taxes if I made 100k. At current interest rates I would need to spend 3100 per month to service such a loan.or about 47% of my take home pay. It is difficult to see how I could afford a home with a household not individual of less than 100,000.
Adjacent to me is a much bigger city with about 20x the jobs and opportunities. I would need more like 900k to buy into there. Realistically to afford a home there we are talking about my household making more than 200k. Why so much? Because housing has got very expensive and interest is very high.
the areas where most people live, however, do.
nobody wants to live in trailer park in Mobile, AL.
OP is like: Even if you have highly-valuable skills, you can't get ahead, because the game is stacked in favor of renting out your assets instead of delivering valuable labor.
Reply is like: Yeah, but have you considered renting out your assets though?
The funny thing is: You're not wrong, you're just talking about it at the wrong level.
Individually, if you don't save and invest, you're gonna be screwed due to unpredictable expenses, inflation, and lack of runway for retirement.
But if you zoom out and look at a whole population, it's also true that tons of people are in such severe financial conditions that they can't save and invest, so your advice is something like "buy a life jacket" to someone who's already 10 feet underwater.
And if you zoom out even further, there's no way that we're going to solve severe wealth inequality through individual action. And especially not through investing, which helps you as an individual relative to other individuals, but also provides more options to the wealthy recipients/managers of the funds to extract wealth at a rate higher than your ROI, which accelerates the concentration of assets in the hands of people who already own a disproportionate amount of them.
what the heck's a rimjob?
Honestly, same boat. Our power bill has gone up over 20% this past year like it's insane. Our grocery costs have easily doubled in that time, too. Like I'm doing the math and seeing the numbers like I'm making more than I was 3 years ago, but I wasn't living paycheck to paycheck then, and I'm rationing food today.
I also can't count the number of times prices have gone up on common groceries in the last year. Every time I go in I'm spending more than I did the previous time. And the grocery stores around here have started phasing out their cost saving brands. More and more lately what used to be the expensive brand is the only one left, and I'm paying twice as much for half as much compared to what I was getting before. They're not even trying to hide what they're doing.
I'm in this same boat. I get letters from the power company all the time about how I'm using more power than anyone around me. The heat in my place has been kept around 62 all winter, occasionally allowed to get colder. It's a pretty modern build for a house too. I actually used my PC to heat just my bedroom over winter which should be far more power efficient the heating every room. The letters I get try selling me how I need to or could be more efficient like genius ideas like "turn down the thermostat"... its already nearly almost off, just enough to make sure pipes don't freeze.
Only thing that really changed was they installed a new smart meter last fall, of which I had no say.
In Canada those so-called smart meters turned out to be sending incorrect data (or no data at all) AND causing fires.
Best of luck in getting the powers that be to check them tho. :/
Maybe you're getting incorrectly billed, have you checked the meter readings? Smart meters don't have a great reputation.
My bill also shows I use way more electricity than similar houses. My best guess is they have a heat pump or gas heat/water heater. Whereas I have forced air electric.
I recently installed an emporia energy monitor. It's basically a kill-a-watt meter that you connect to the circuit breakers for full house monitoring. And while I see some areas that I could improve to cut my bill, no where near enough to get to what the power company is saying similar houses are using. Saving up for a heat pump now as I think that's the best thing I can do to get my bill down. And as a plus I'd have central AC instead of having to use window units in the heat.
I'm convinced those statements are wrong in some way. Either not comparing houses of similar size or unoccupied units are skewing the numbers. Or they just tell everyone they're doing horrible to try and sell energy efficiency stuff.
When I compare using figures from my thermostat via beestat.io my house is in the top 40% (uses less energy than 60% of similar homes in my area).
Yes that actually makes sense. Gas is used in most homes, and is considerably cheaper than resistive electric heating. Probably you can get a subsidy for the heat pump.
I went grocery shopping Saturday. Grapes were $6/pound. It's getting so we can't afford produce anymore.
Grapes were $6/pound. It’s getting so we can’t afford produce anymore.
Are we talking regular red/black/green non-organic grapes or some of the more exotic varieties? I track grape prices myself and $2.99/lbs mark for out-of-season-domestic grapes. This is the current price a regular grocery stores right now here with the exception of warehouse clubs which have them at $2.29/lbs. The normal in-season non-warehouse price can be as low as 89c/lbs, but is usually $1.25/lbs.
Is there something special about your geography that makes it more expensive?
Is there really some kind of nation wide grape price standard?
Not to my knowledge, no.
Don’t they have to add costs for transportation to places where they do not grow grapes?
Certainly, but with economies of scale and good logistics, the prices across the country aren't that much different. There are some exceptions, such as pockets of the continental USA that are under served, or states like Alaska and Hawaii which don't benefit from the continental USA logistics. That was the "geography" question I had to the poster.
The prices of grapes at my grocery stores right now are $2.99/lbs and they are imported from Chile or Argentina usually because grapes are out-of-season for the USA right now.
They're just regular red table grapes. I have no idea what's going on with fruit prices near me but they're nauseating. I'm in the northeast; we should still have some late apple varieties left from fall but those are getting outrageous too.
Now I'm really curious. After reading your post, I happened to be at the grocery story this evening and our (Midwest) price for regular red grapes is $2.69/lbs. Down from the high of $2.99/lbs I saw last week.
I'm in the southern emisphere and just started eating grapes. Assuming you are in the US, consider looking for produce that is in season. Besides helping with your budget, it contributes to addressa number of other issues around shops and producers trying to focus on growing stuff that doesn't want to grow at a particular time of the year.
I usually try to but here in the Northeast USA almost nothing is in season except mushrooms.
Ordinarily I'd totally agree. But they've been going up in price constantly for the last 2 years and never come down.
I had dinner with my mom last night. She told me she made $2.20/hr as a waitress in 1972. Not including tips.
That's the equivalent of over $16/hr now.
The boomers have no idea how lucky they were. And they fucking wasted it.
They weren't lucky. They voted for people that removed all the guardrails that enabled their success.
This is the important detail. Europe was destroyed and the USA was able to flourish. Opportunities existed that will likely never exist again. Capitalism has never been as great as it was in the USA post-WWII.
America was basically the only industrialized country that hadn't been bombed to fuck. You had to be a clown to not succeed in that environment (or systemically oppressed, since opportunity in the US is always only for white people). Boomers took quality jobs making reliable products and moved those to low wage jobs making disposable products in China.
They had too. They couldn't get rich if they had to pay workers what they were paid when they were starting out.
Not mutually exclusive.
Waiters today make $2.13 an hour in my state.
As more time has passed and I continually re-assess my Boomer parents, I am struck more and more that they truly were a propagandized generation who was never given the tools to properly think through what they were seeing. It was always just "here, more, buy this, this technology is new and amazing". Everything was new year after year until the late 80s/early 90s, when technology evened out. Even then people had cell phones and such. Once met with the Internet, especially through Facebook, we could see all of their problems flourish.
Not to say that any generation is better than any other or not, but I do believe that each generation after Boomers is actually much better than the previous one at critical thinking--probably because society had no choice but to and the fact that more people have at least a bachelors degree now.
Median waiter salary in USA seems to be $15/hr currently. Did you think it was significantly less? There are large differences in the median between states. Where did she work?
Reminder that 15/hr was the goal about ten years ago and inflation spiked hard between 2020-2023. 15/hr is no longer a "generous" wage.
Couple of my friends were servers at their family's resturaunt growing up (early 2000s) and I think they only made about 2 and some change before tips. 30 year difference from your example and their wages were roughly the same amount. It's ridiculous.
I don't think tips are included in official salary figures? Are they?
You may need to look up the meaning of the word "median".
Servers in most of America make $2.13 an hour plus tips. Id say depending on COL, anywhere from $12/hr at shitholes to $30+/hr at nice spots or high COL
$15/hr seems like a decent number, considering most servers will not claim cash tips. considering lack of cash these days compared to credit usage, id say $20-25/hr is a decent average.
But again, the other commenter said that $2.20 was WITHOUT tips, so certainly the 1972 waittress made more still
I'm seeing multiple numbers
$10 here https://www.salary.com/...
$14 here, but also some are paid just $2/h and are expected to make the rest they need from tips: https://en.as.com/...
Yeah, I agree. There are no clear figures on this.
Sure. But was ~$3/hr a livable wage in 1976?
Definitely was. Inflation has been ridiculous over the years. My father pumped gas part time at Sears and was able to have an apartment with roommates as well as pay all of his tuition for college.
As much as you complain about the boomers, the current generation(s) are the ones you need to pay attention when it comes to who’s caused the house shortage because of unchecked capitalism. There’s more than enough houses that should house everyone for cheap.
You cannot blame boomers for the smouldering wreck that Airbnb left behind. That was the work of a millennial. Take some responsibility for yourselves and your own actions that have attributed to the current state of society that you live in.
My guy, air bnb didn't cause the shortage or even significantly make it worse. It's the mega corps that literally own hundreds of thousands of homes across the US and just rent them out. I'm not even upset at boomers who own 3 or 4 rental properties and I work with a lot of them. It's always mega corps fucking it up for the rest of us.
Housing was wildly expensive and rising incredibly fast before Airbnb was invented (company started in 2008, which you might recognize as an important year for the real estate market). After 2008, tons of investors came in to buy up the depressed value properties to either flip or rent out or just hold onto until the value returned. People buying houses with cash isn't something Airbnb caused. Corporations buying up houses to rent isn't something Airbnb caused. Foreign investors buying up houses to get their money out of their country isn't something Airbnb caused.
Airbnb invented a way to make money off of housing by taking houses away from people. Entire blocks will be bought by a company just to use as an Airbnb hence why a lot of stipulations have been recently coming in to prevent a ‘housing shortage’ while there’s enough housing.
So yes, Airbnb did a lot of damage there when it comes to ‘who can we pin ideas on’ blame which we love to do so much to boomers.
As is blaming boomers when the world is not run by just that one generation. The most successful billionaires today are made up from genx and millennials.
So making it a generation war just when it’s pointed at boomers is just stupid and incompetent for an argument.
Nikki Cimino, a 40-year-old recruiter living in Denver, said she finally saved up enough to buy a condo last year, but missed out on the ultra-low interest rates that had made homeownership more affordable in the early days of the pandemic. Her 5.25% interest rate pushed her monthly payments to $1,650. After a divorce in 2020, she’s shouldering $4,000 in credit card debt.
It's the credit card debt...
Instead of paying that off since 2020, she saved a down payment and bought an expensive condo. She's wasting a shit ton of money on interest because credit cards are all like 20-30%
Credit cards are predatory, if you ever carry a balance to the next month, that needs to be your highest priority.
Do a transfer to get 0% each year if you have to when recovering from emergencies. But paying credit interest for years is insane.
Holy crap! She was "saving up" to buy a condo instead of using that money to pay off the credit cards? That's absolutely insane. I really feel like society would benefit immensely if there were mandatory financial literacy courses every 4 years, or at least before any major purchases (house, car, etc).
Or just common sense laws against predatory lending by capping interest rates.
Most people don't have a safety net and live paycheck to paycheck.
A huge expense comes up, and rather than get a bank loan at even 8-10%, it goes on a credit card
Companies have a tiny "minimum payment" because they don't want you to pay it off. They want that balance to grow while people ignore it. They don't want it back now, they want thousands more later.
I'm all for interest caps but if the highest they could charge was say 9% they'd just deny credit to tons of people, not give them lower interest debt. I'm okay with that though.
Pretty sure every cc has the minimum payment higher than the interest. If you just stop buying shit you'll pay it off eventually, even if you can only afford the minimum payment. The balance can't grow unless you're still buying shit.
They codified that so yes you will pay it off eventually. It will no longer continue to grow forever. However it will take an excessively long amount of time. Like taking a 30-year mortgage to buy a bag of fuckin McDonalds.
For example the couple above, 62 and 65, will almost assuredly be dead by the time they pay it off at minimum payment.
Also she was apparently planning on low interest rates, but when the rates went up she shrugged and didn't adjust her plans. It's kind of hard feeling sympathy for her. If she'd been hit with an unexpected but unavoidable expense that would be a different matter.
For Denise and Paul Nierzwicki, credit cards are the only way to make ends meet. The couple, ages 69 and 72, respectively, have about $20,000 in debt spread across multiple cards, all with interest rates above 20%.
The trouble started during the pandemic, when Denise lost her job and a business deal for a bar that they owned in their hometown of Lexington, Kentucky, went bad.
They applied for Social Security, which helped, and Denise now works 50 hours a week at a restaurant. Still, they’re barely scraping together the minimum payments for their credit card debt.
Jesus. I don’t see how this gets un-fucked without a massive wave of defaults. And that’ll just lead to a different kind of fucked.
Someone page Caleb Hammer!
Spot on if you ask me.
Her mortgage is $1650/mo, which is incredibly reasonable in Denver. I think this specific person's problems have more to do with her recent divorce. She was used to splitting costs, and probably spent quite a bit on the divorce itself
She's paying $1650 for a house? You'd pay more for a house in a neighborhood where every night is the purge here.
That's supply and demand, for you.
...that's more than I'd make with minimum wage in my state, which I don't think is that far behind colorado. Yikes.
ETA: ok nvm I did math and if you make a little over $10/hr 40 hrs a week, your entire paycheck would go just toward that.
You're still off unfortunately.
Full time at $10/hr is $1600/month before income tax. For simplicity, we'll say federal+state tax is 15% so now we're at $1360. Social security is 6.2% so take away another $100.
Then, of course, this is the United States where most people have to rely on their employees for "affordable" health insurance - and often still have money taken out of their check for it.
So now we're at $1000-1260 monthly take home pay for a full time job at $10/hr
The standard deduction is $13850 so there's no way you're paying 15% tax on an income of $20,000
You're paying about a little over $600 federal plus whatever state tax and usually state tax is less than federal, but depends on the state. In some states you don't pay state income taxes.
So best case scenario you pay a little over 3% federal and no state.
$1650/mo for a mortgage in Denver, CO at 5.25% interest is a fantastic price. You're going to find it can be a lot less in a lot of places in the US, but not in highly desirable major metropolitan areas
lol i'm looking at paying ~4500/mo for a 3br 2ba ~1300sqft.
You must be in an area like SF or NYC. Or this is a luxury space.
Greater boston area, not inside boston. Malden/Medford/Everett/Chelsea area. Everett and Chelsea are NOT desirable.
The smallest of places are 650k+ here for 2br minimum. You can find 1br condos for 500-600k sometimes.
We're talking about 20-100yo+ homes. Not new construction. There's no "luxury" involved. No yard or acreage. Often no parking included.
At a certain point - isn't it just cheaper to move to a cheaper area?
Not that it's easy. It's what I had to do. 6 hours away from friends/family.
Wages took a 25% hit. Bills took a >50% hit so came up on top.
Wife refuses.
You're calculating it based on take home pay or something? because 1/3rd of 700,000 / 12 = $19,250/mo
Household income is about 230k. Mortgage comes out to less than 50% of take home pay. 230k/12 = 19166/mo (gross) 4500 is 23% of gross income.
Afaik every couple around here by 30 with professional experience and a degree is making over 200k (so 100k per person.) I've seen IT support roles for 100k+ (example from the highest paying company i've ever seen, liberty mutual insurance: https://searchjobs.libertymutualgroup.com/careers?location=Boston%2C%20Massachusetts%2C%20United%20States&department=Technology&pid=618496295577&domain=libertymutual.com&sort_by=relevance )
As someone with mortage of 520€/month there's nothing reasonable in what she's paying. I don't care if it comes with 6 bedrooms, a maid, cook, gardener and a chauffeur - I'm not paying that. I'm more than fine in my tiny granny cottage on the outskirts of a middle sized city.
The floor is rising! But, the floor is lava.
But you need an attorney to claim the deduction
To anyone struggling in the USA and wondering how to possibly get out, just live like Congress and become rich. Then, money problems are way easier to handle. If you have as much money as a Congressman, you will be equally as unconcerned with them as to the state of our union and you will be able to say things are great with a straight face.
Not even.
All you really need is wealthy parents. That way you never have to have any debt and get exploited by the credit system and can live your life glib and clueless and wondering why other people are so lazy and poor and didn't work hard like you.
Exactly, just do a lot of insider trading and live the good life.
Hard part is being rich first. New money goes to jail before old money
Congress members don't make enough to be rich without taking bribes. They make $174k/year in 2024, which is equivalent to $75k/year in 1990. The only wages that haven't dropped due to inflation are CEO and other C-suites.
And some are rich because of government money through contracts or handouts.
I dunno. Congressional salary really is still in the rage of "Middle Class", though definitely at the higher end of that. These people were wealthy or connected, for the most part, before getting into office. People who are barely getting by don't quit their jobs for political campaigns.
Like Dubya said, you should get 2 or 3 more jobs so you can put more food on your family.
"You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it. That is fantastic that you're doing that. Get any sleep?" - President George Bush to a divorced mother of three. Omaha, Nebraska Feb. 4th 2005
Proof you can't die of cringe
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we.
It was funnier when it wasn't so blatant. A politician saying this today might mean it.
How else is she going to put food on her family?
Aahahaha Bush's malapropisms, a gift that never stops giving
I'm in this article and don't like it.
Gary Stevenson explains why this is, and why it's not gonna get better anytime soon.
This video is great. He put into words what I've been suspecting for a couple months now. He predicts asset/housing prices will continue increasing while living standards stay terrible and he thinks they'll get worse. I think he's absolutely correct. A better quality of life is being gatekept by the wealthy.
Great channel!
Consider the possibility that, first and given the political importance they have in the present day, the official numbers that the Economists are using are less than honest.
Also, I know that some countries don't include Housing Inflation - which is huge* - in their Official Inflation. Is that also the case in the US?
Last but not least, there is the whole difference between what is usually reported to us by Politicians, Economists and the Press, which is either country totals (which grow up merelly by the population growing) or the mean average (i.e. adding all values and dividing by the total number of points) which suffers from the "if a man has 10 chickens and 9 others have none, each has in average 1 chicken even though most have none" problem, and the mode (the value around which most cases are found) which is far more representative of most people's experiences: if for example the wealth increases from higher productivity are going entirelly to a few people who just get ever more filthy rich whilst the many have either stagnated or, worse, are getting a bit poorer due to inflation eating up the true value of their pay, the grand total will be growing, as will the average (if the population numbers are steady) but the mode will have stagnated or even be falling, matching the experience of most people - people get to hear about country GDP growing and even GPD-per-capita growing all the while the vast majority see not growth at all, maybe even a falling of their purchasing power (the latter for sure for any who don't already own their house).
Been arguing for years that the Mode is far more representative of the common person's experience than Mean or Median. Most ppl don't remember that Mode even exists.
Apparently inflation went down bigly in the 1980s when they decided to stop counting the cost of housing. NPR last week had a report about people advocating to put that back in so that we can have a better idea of what is going on.
Well, the official Inflation is used in the calculation of the official GDP were it acts as a deflator (i.e. the more the inflation the less the GDP) to correct the Nominal GDP (which is in present day currency terms) to make the Real GDP (which is supposedly free of Inflation and hence comparable between years) aka the Official GDP.
If the official Inflation understates the real Inflation, what happens is that the increase is the Nominal GDP that comes merelly from inflation rather than from any actual growth in wealth, is not fully offset when the Real/Official GDP is calculated, so the resulting "real" GDP number is bigger than reality and proud government politicians can come out, compare it to last years's GDP (which it should've been comparable with, if both were done properly) and claim that it was their steering of the Economy that made such a difference to last year's GDP, i.e such high GDP Growth.
Hence the is massive political pressure to understate Inflation, i.e. to lie, so that ultimatelly larger GDP Growth figures can be posted and boasted about.
Honest work: You make just enough to live on until its not enough and then you're homeless
Scams and grifting: You make possibly lots of money then maybe get sent to jail which is where the courts are gearing up to send homeless people anyway.
Money is for corporate people, not normal people! Silly goose
“We had more money when Trump was president,” she said, noting that three years ago her credit card debt was less than half of what it is now.
Oh boy, that's gonna upset some people.
Only people dumb enough not to connect the strong economy under Trump to Obama, or the current issues to Trump.
Too bad that's the majority of people.
"He's gonna come back and run the country like a business again!"
Yeah, his businesses that routinely fail and he bails out on.
Also, its a country, not a company, assholes. People matter more than our bottom line.
When Covid hit and lockdowns started, it was reasonable to think that the world as we know it might be ending. I was scared for sure and had started making contingency plans to flee to the mountains in a U-Haul full of canned foods and water.
Things are manageable now despite people still dying from Covid. Big corporate has been milking us since, as if their profits today are the last dollars they will ever make, and so it goes that they squeeze and squeeze and squeeze.
It takes a special kind of ignorance to ignore the impacts of Covid which were made worse by the inaction of trump, the fucking idiot, and say something as blitheringly stupid as ‘well I had more money when trump was president ahardy har har’
I'm just going to say it absolutely was not reasonable to believe the world was ending. It was bad, made far worse by people who thought it was reasonable to cough and sneeze and spit on others, on food, and mass purchase hundreds of dollars of toilet paper. However, "world ending" is a bit sensationalist and only the easily fooled and unreasonable people justified such viewpoints.
Putting aside the tragic losses caused by Covid, both directly and indirectly, those three years might be argued as having been a chance to shift climate talks and the more negative cultural expectations experienced in developed nations, and especially the U.S. Hell, even the air itself was clearly up.
I recognize this is a hot take and am not in any way attempting to downplay how damaging Covid was to many families. It's just such a damned shame a chance to change for the better ended up with where we are now. Further struggling, more homeless, greedflation, and an incessant need to argue amongst ourselves.
Agreed that it is a shame the world hasn’t changed for the better, but completely unrelated is the fact that there were a few months there where absolutely nobody knew just how bad it was going to get.
Only easily fooled unreasonable people were convinced one way or another when there was no scientific consensus on if the virus was going to kill 1 million or 1 billion, or somewhere in between.
It’s easy to look back and say ‘well it wasn’t world ending so it was irrational to have that fear’, but when millions are dying, you aren’t allowed to leave your house, and experts are saying that they don’t know how bad this is going to get, I would say that it was reasonable to be worried.
ended up with where we are now. Further struggling, more homeless, greedflation, and an incessant need to argue amongst ourselves.
Gotta hand it to the politicians, they played a master game of locking us against ourselves. Hard to meet the other side halfway when one of you is literally trying to strip the rights from... everybody??
That works the other way too. The second half of the Trump administration brought three separate events into my life that would each be financially devastating on their own. I went from debt free except mortgage and a proper emergency fund to now, even with a higher salary, I’m scraping by and have a bunch of debt to pay off.
But I’m one of those people that knows that the President doesn’t directly control my financial situation. Trump sure as shit didn’t improve anything he touched, and I could see things in my life being a bit different if he was remotely competent with Covid, sure. I had more money at the end of the Obama administration than the end of the Trump administration. But even if that were swapped I don’t see that as a compelling reason to vote for a corrupt narcissistic rapey wannabe dictator.
I’m going to start using this. Thanks!
Every year the value of our money goes down because the government keeps printing more of it like its a cocaine addiction (This is on top of prices going up for other reasons as well).
Unless you're getting huge raises every year you're never going to get ahead, and if you're getting nothing, you're actually losing money.
It's way worse than that.
I suggest you go read the paper entitled "Money making creation in the modern economy" from the Bank Of England, but I'll summarize it here:
- In the modern economy money is almost entirelly numbers in computers and most of it is created by banks when they extend loans (they literally create that money right then and there as two entries in two ledgers, one a credit on the account of the lendee an another a debit on a special account of the bank saying that they are missing that much money).
The "good" old days when all the money was created by governments has been gone since the 90s and the advent of digital account keeping and digital money transfers. A banking license is de facto a license to print money, though within certain conditions, with central banks somewhat limiting that money creation by imposing reserve ratios on banks (i.e. money that they do have to put aside against those outstanding loans) which can be as little as 2% of the outstanding amount.
Edit: the title of the paper was slightly wrong. Also, here is a link to it.
90s and the advent of digital account keeping and digital money transfers
Digital account keeping has been a thing since the 1950's. And doing it on a computer didn't change that all banks lent out more than they had. It's the premise of the movie It's a Wonderful Life. Bank runs were a thing for as long as banks have existed.
There's a lot more to it than just that (such as, how do banks settle interbank transfers or even things like how the end of the gold standard paved the way for it) but I didn't want to complicate the explanation with too much details, though the main difference is the widespread use of digital transfers, especially by consumers which actually dates back a bit further than the 90s but definitelly not all the way to the 50s.
If you really want to know it in depth, I recommend you read the paper I pointed which is here. (By the way, I got the name slightly wrong: it's "Money creation in the modern economy")
Digital transfers are not necessary for banks to loan money. As your link says, it's the loan, which gives money to a business or consumer that the bank doesn't physically have, that creates money.
Electronic fund transfers and ATM's started in the 1960's. Nasdaq the first completely computerized exchange (no people involved) started in 1971.
This is false and understanding why it's false is important in order for us to be able to do the right choices which allow us to both keep inflation in check and avoid pointless deep recessions or depressions. You can find a decent overview here. Creating money (multiple ways, check video) is required for a growing economy to keep prices stable (inflation close to 0). This isn't new either. It was done even in ancient Greece with silver as it is easy to see the need for it once you have all the variables in front of you. The problem isn't with money creation per se, it's with the amount but most importantly its distribution. Where does it go. Does it go towards the creation of an additional bag of chip which we have little real constraint to do, or does it go towards a house in an area where there's bidding wars for houses and no new houses can be built.
Unless you’re getting huge raises every year you’re never going to get ahead, and if you’re getting nothing, you’re actually losing money.
Also if you're getting raises below the cost of living increase (which most people are), you're losing money. If you get laid off, which hundreds of thousands of tech workers are, you're definitely losing money. It's not a great time right now.
Inflation is hitting people hard. And it's happening globally not just in the USA.
Last night I ordered some food and the delivery agent told me she is living in her car because people are not tipping well and she can't afford rent anymore. Paid for her stay in a motel for now.
So it isn't just me. My spouse and I bring in together $250000 (before taxes), we own a house and we are living paycheck to paycheck. One factor of many why I chose to move to another country. The only good thing is that once I sell the house I will be able to pay off all my debts because of how much the price of the house gone up.
I'm sorry, but if you're making $250,000 and you're living paycheck to paycheck, your consumption if just too high, and you need to make cuts. In most countries, including the United States, you can live very comfortably on a $250,000 salary and reasonable spending.
Most of my expense, other than taxes, are healthcare costs. I know of no way I can reduce how often my family needs healthcare, and I have thousands of dollars in healthcare debt still not paid. We rarely travel, rarely eat out, and rarely splurge. Maybe there is some way to squeeze our belts even tighter and make it work.
It is easier to just move to a country with more affordable healthcare. 12 years ago when I met Americans living and working in Japan I didn't believe them when they said they were better off in Japan making less money than in the US because of how expensive healthcare is in the US. Now I regret not believing them. My family's healthcare costs grew faster than our incomes.
I see. I'm sorry about the healthcare expenses. That makes more sense. The US healthcare system is truly predatory and awful in just about every way. Vote for people who want to change it.
I'm in the same boat, single income just under $200k, but my savings has stagnated the past three years due to medical bills (wife was hospitalized and is now disabled).
Debt is beginning to pile up and it seems like the only real option is to start cherry picking the more important medical expenses to keep up on and letting the others slide (like the $26k hospital bill).
At the current rate things are going, I'll have no savings and no college fund for my kid along with a stack of unpaid medical bills and needing to downsize to a cheaper home in a worse neighborhood. At least our only car is paid off end of the year and should hold up as long as the last one (made it 12 years, 220k miles).
Living that American dream.
The person mentions medical bills, but I largely agree. If most people can live somewhere in the $50 - $75k range, than this person can live at $250k by making adjustments. A lot of this sort of trouble comes because of scale. You can't fathom making so much money or what that means and you are likely to spend it without knowing precisely how much or what it means.
Do you even know what exponential growth means? Because if you feel qualified to criticize capitalism you should know.
Isn't Denver an expensive city? Buying doesn't mean instant low monthly payments. You gotta sit on that crap for ten years.
I dunno but my buddy just moved from his apartment in Brooklyn to Omaha and he was shocked the prices there were way too close to NYC prices for rent. He did go from a 1BD to 2BD but the cost difference per ft² was almost the same. Like $200 difference.
I've heard similar stories all across Canada as well, I think landlords have unchecked greed these days because people will end up paying no matter what they have to sacrifice you have a roof over their head.
Yeah, I always laugh at those median house prices because it's impossible to find a house for that.
A former treasurer of Australia solved it. You just need to get a good job.
Treasurer of Australia sounds like a good job. Can I have that one?
I mean technically he's correct. There absolutely are jobs out there netting 150k+ a year. Even without any college education if you are not afraid to climb the corporate ladder.
Okay. If excuses make you feel better, sure.
Some months I struggle just to save $1000 and it's really starting to get to me
You can save $1000 a month? Damn!
Right???
I really don't get these humble brags. Or are they actually just that disconnected from reality? Or maybe trying to mock people?
No, they genuinely think they are struggling. Rich people don't think they are rich, because there is someone who makes more, and they are rich. The 10% thinks they are struggling because they aren't the 1%. The 1% thinks they are struggling because they aren't the .1% and so on and so on.
I met a doctor once who thought that she was being 'struggling' by only making 450K/yr and she thought she deserved 550k/yr. She was 100% genuine.
I make 3x median income. and all i ever hear is how 'poor' i am from my friends/peers. Because do then 'poor' is anything less than 250K/year w/ multiple family properties to vacation and stuff.
It's that they have ALL THESE GOALS and want to do ALL THE THINGS and may genuinely make a great deal of money. It doesn't mean that they don't need to budget and save, though. This person is definitely out of touch with reality or was brought up wealthy.
poor thing
Yep. That's the truth. I didn't even feel like I was treading water until my late 40s and we were making decent money by any standard. A mortgage, a single car payment, all the insurances (family health, dental, home, car) you need to pay for, data connections (we don't have cable tv), taxes (FSaLT), and skimming money off the top for a 401k and there's very little left. Especially with the all the rising prices of groceries (our bill feels like it's almost doubled) and being subscription-fee'd to death.
Something tells me they pay for a lot of things they don't need.
Also, it's not like she's paying for her mortgage in addition to whatever she was doing previously (presumably rent). The mortgage payment replaces your rent payment.
True but there is also the added expense of maintaining the property and having a rainy day fund for emergencies related to homeownership.
It kind of does, though. She look out a mortgage and those have a monthly cost.
What OP is probably saying is that if you have a certain income level and then you choose to take on a debt that you're going to have trouble paying back, that's mistake that you made and should have seen coming. This wasn't an unforseen medical bill, the person in the article could have chosen to buy a cheaper condo or rented until rates were more favorable.
She also really should have finished paying off that CC debt and delayed the down payment; that's just a killer and is almost certainly at 3 or 4 times the interest rate of her mortgage, which incidentally could have been a bit lower if her debt-to-income ratio were better. Shit sucks, but somebody who's doing okay and fucks it up gets less sympathy from me than people who would do anything to be living paycheck to paycheck with a steady income and home ownership.
Also gotta love how many of these people remember Trump fondly because he was president WHILE THE GOVERNMENT WAS CUTTING THEM CHECKS! That's absolutely not gonna be his plan in round two.
Yes it is. Higher home cost = higher monthly payment. Why would it not be related?
Probably because she bought more house than she could afford, and prioritized that over paying off get credit cards.
I don't understand the difference. It sounds like two ways of saying the same thing.
If I borrow a half million from the bank, I have to pay it back in monthly installments, commonly known as a mortage. Those costs are now added to your regular expenses.
Most rents are cheaper than mortages. So taking on a giant purchase + the cost of the mortage is a huge financial cost. Yes, she gets an asset (which she could sell at any point) but it's going to be more expensive.
A quick look at Denver apartments for rent confirms this, a lot of 1 bedrooms available for between $400 and $500 cheaper a month.
Most rents are cheaper than mortages.
Yeah because rental properties are often shitholes and it skews the numbers
For the same exact property, rent is absolutely more expensive than a mortgage. Rent is usually paying for someone's mortgage for them, why would they make it lower? Who are these generous landlords?
Yeah because rental properties are often shitholes and it skews the numbers
Sure but my point is that this lady has made an extremely expensive purchase and now continues to pay for it.
Most rents are cheaper than mortages.
Yeah because rental properties are often shitholes and it skews the numbers
Rent is usually paying for someone's mortgage for them, why would they make it lower? Who are these generous landlords?
Ahhh, there's the misunderstanding. Local/single owner rentals are actually a small proportion of tenancies. Most are large organizations which have purchased a large building etc. It's actually a kind of fascinating issue but worth reading about!
To be fair, they don't actually own their house if they're paying a mortgage.
It wouldn't be any different if she was renting.
I'm not sure why they call her a homeowner when the bank actually owns her house.
In theory, over time you own more and more of a share of the house while the bank owns less and less. That's different from renting.
Still, if you literally can't afford the mortgage payments then it's still a bad deal.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
Hey, somebody's gotta pay for the highest corporate profits in 70 years.
save