[tristador]

> Diet without exercise however can work just fine.

I think that's the point. Earning more is hard, you need to get a raise or find a new job. That's "exercise". It's the obvious fix, but it doesn't really work.

Instead the workout makes you hungry. The raise in pay tempts you into buying a new car. So you stay over weight, or fail to save money.

Cutting your spending or going on a diet can work on their own.

I think the math works better for people earning lots of money and spending it all. Being poor is hard and unexpectedly expensive.

[jchw]

My point is that cutting spending alone does not do anything. You burn calories in idle. You do not make money the same way.

For most people you have pretty decent physical control over what goes down your throat. However you can’t just choose to not pay for things. You or your family get sick? Car accident? Want to have a child? Need to buy something expensive for your occupation?

Granted, with both money and calories compulsion can be a problem, but I’m kind of sick of the focus on this aspect because most poor people I know aren’t poor because they spent any more irresponsibly than me or anyone well off I know. And I don’t know anyone who makes less than I do that has more savings. People want to believe they have worked hard to get where they are and I understand that because I feel the same way. But not acknowledging that poverty is a wage/cost of living issue is not helping the world.

[tristador]

> However you can’t just choose to not pay for things.

Sure you can. The article even has examples.

> In the 1950s camping was an acceptable vacation. Hand-me-downs were acceptable clothes. A 983 square foot house was an acceptable size. Kids sharing a room was an acceptable arrangement. A tire swing was acceptable entertainment. Few of those things are acceptable baselines for most households today. The average new home now has more bathrooms than occupants.

> most poor people I know

I think this is the disconnect. The article is about the 50% of Americans that have nothing saved for retirement. Not Americans who are poor. It's specifically about how you can make lots of money but have nothing saved.

If we talk about poor people, then I agree with most of your comment. It's just not what the article is talking about.

[seem_2211]

I don't think the average American has any real sense of how much better off they are than even people in most of the Western World. People point to places in Europe with high tax rates as these absolute havens, when in reality you're probably not making much money (and that's assuming you're even employed!)

The birth rates in Europe are dire.

I'm from New Zealand, but live in America now. Average incomes are so much higher in America it's not even funny. The average American house is so cheap and you can fix a mortgage for 30 years.

> You or your family get sick

Most Americans get health insurance through their employers

> Car accident

Insurance is not that expensive

> Want to have a child

Also, not that expensive

> Need to buy something expensive for your occupation

Likely that your employer will cover this, or you're making enough for this to be worth your while.

In most of the world, people don't roll around with $500+/ month in car payments, as a birthright.

America is a terrible place to be on the bones of your ass poor. That's not true for someone making anything closer to the median income.

[jchw]

There’s a lot going on here, like assuming a $500/mo car payment (I feel like I have a good car and the payment is less than half) is necessary for it to impact ones budget. Car ownership is unfortunately necessary in most of the US, even nice areas, and the same cannot be said about many other places. There’s a lot more costs to it than the monthly payment. Insurance is mandatory so that’s one. Gas, maintenance like oil, tires, etc. also add up.

This is also devolving into whataboutism. It’s not like other places don’t have issues with income, in fact I bet it is worse in some places. But then you’re really comparing apples and oranges. My whole point is that life in America decades ago and life in America now are significantly different and its wholly unreasonable to compare incomes and make conclusions with a mere adjustment for inflation. If that’s true, then comparing the U.S. to other countries is even less reasonable.

I’m not going to dig into your assertions, it doesn’t sound like you have first hand experience with lower class American living and I’m not sure trying to explain the trouble in Hacker News comments will really work well. Needless to say it’s complicated.

I’ll dig into just one. “Car insurance is not that expensive.” Well that certainly depends.

I grew up in Michigan which admittedly is an absolute worst case for car insurance. My insurance costed about $100 a month, but only because I got it through my parents: had I tried to go it alone, I’d be above $200 a month.

This is all with a $1000 deductible. Well I had accidents and guess what, even though they weren’t my fault I had to pay basically the entire cost because the repairs came to around $1000.

There’s also different kinds of insurance. If you don’t have a new car, you may opt for cheaper insurance like PLPD, which basically covers nothing, but if you count your spare monthly income in the hundreds and have no substantial savings is probably not your worst choice.

Re: health care, If I am the first person that has to argue about health care costs to you I’d be shocked. I did have coverage through my employer and still have paid thousands in dental and hundreds in minor visits to the doctor. Health care in the US is incredibly complicated and knowing exactly what you’re going to pay in a given circumstance is probably not possible.

[nisse72]

> you can’t just choose to not pay for things.

> Want to have a child?

If you can't afford to have a child, then you can (and probably should) choose to not have a child.

If I need something for my occupation, then my employer will pay for it.

The other things you mention seem to be issues primarily in the US, as getting sick or having an accident won't leave you out of pocket in any other western countries that I am aware of.

[jchw]

I agree you shouldn’t have a child if you can’t afford one, but are you saying it would be OK if the median family income could not support a child?

> The other things you mention seem to be issues primarily in the US, as getting sick or having an accident won't leave you out of pocket in any other western countries that I am aware of.

Well that’s kind of important considering this article is about the U.S. and uses U.S. median income figures and U.S. inflation.

[rayiner]

The median family income is $80,000. That’s definitely enough to support two children in median parts of the country.

[seem_2211]

I think the amount you need to make to 'afford' to have a child is so small, that it's not really worth talking about for the average American family (NB: in this case I'm talking about a married couple).

If you want to drive 2 new cars, put your kids into a private school and have a 5,000 square foot home, yeah, you'll need a fairly large chunk of change. But none of those things are necessary to be a good parent.