How long before you're homeless?

[ejpint]

If we sold our house, liquidated all retirement and investments, lived in the cheapest place possible, sold off all valuables, lived like we had to make that money last for the rest of our lives?
Maybe 10-15 years? I mean, people make it on minimum wage.

I feel like the reality is, though, that we would be in denial, think something would come up, like a new job, and we'd try to hold on to the house for too long. Then we'd be foreclosed on, and we would have exhausted too many resources in trying to stay afloat.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2012 11:08:24 GMT -5 auberge said:

I was thinking no retirement, no assets. (its sad but many americans have neither)

If someone has no assets, they'll need public assistance the next day. But it is untrue that many Americans have no assets. The clothes on your back are an asset. The homeless person who lives on my street has a radio -- that's an asset. Everyone has some sort of asset. The amount of course varies widely, but the hypothetical of a naked person with literally not a penny is kind of a silly one. And in the case of no assets/no retirement, we'd all have the same answer.

[rex]

A very long time. H's family would let us live with them (for free) in a heartbeat.

[lys]

a LONG time before we would be homeless. We own our home mortgage free and have a very large e-fund, a substantial amount in investments and retirement funds that could be tapped.

[auberge]

Oct 31, 2012 11:24:17 GMT -5 v said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:08:24 GMT -5 auberge said:

I was thinking no retirement, no assets. (its sad but many americans have neither)

If someone has no assets, they'll need public assistance the next day. But it is untrue that many Americans have no assets. The clothes on your back are an asset. The homeless person who lives on my street has a radio -- that's an asset. Everyone has some sort of asset. The amount of course varies widely, but the hypothetical of a naked person with literally not a penny is kind of a silly one. And in the case of no assets/no retirement, we'd all have the same answer.

When you look at assets like clothes of course. Many americans don't have retirement, own houses to sell, don't have family. We are all blessed we do.

I would never become truly homeless because I have family that would help in a minute. This is really just to take a look at your own life and see how very different it could be.

Public assistance takes times, most of us couldn't live on that alone, etc......

[hocus]

A year maybe before we hit our retirement accounts. We'd probably down size in the event of a very dire situation. By in the end the scenario is unlikely because we DO have family who would take us in for a long long time.

[h]

What does "no assets" mean? Cash is an asset. If the question is "how long until you are homeless without touching the cash you have in the bank or selling anything," then not long.

[Deleted]

If we can't touch retirement, 6 months.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2012 11:24:17 GMT -5 v said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:08:24 GMT -5 auberge said:

I was thinking no retirement, no assets. (its sad but many americans have neither)

If someone has no assets, they'll need public assistance the next day. But it is untrue that many Americans have no assets. The clothes on your back are an asset. The homeless person who lives on my street has a radio -- that's an asset. Everyone has some sort of asset. The amount of course varies widely, but the hypothetical of a naked person with literally not a penny is kind of a silly one. And in the case of no assets/no retirement, we'd all have the same answer.

They may be assets but you're not going to get very much from it. The clothes on your back, unless already super duper nice aren't going to get you money for food/housing. The radio, the homeless person has, likely won't be traded for food or money.

So yes, many many Americans don't have assets. They don't have cars, they don't have houses they own, they don't have anything to liquidate for funds.

This board lives in such a freaking bubble it's not even funny.

Signed,
The girl who sold her DVD collection this summer to pay bills but couldn't get a dime for my ink jet printer/scanner, digital camera or 1st generation kindle.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2012 11:27:44 GMT -5 auberge said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:24:17 GMT -5 v said:

If someone has no assets, they'll need public assistance the next day. But it is untrue that many Americans have no assets. The clothes on your back are an asset. The homeless person who lives on my street has a radio -- that's an asset. Everyone has some sort of asset. The amount of course varies widely, but the hypothetical of a naked person with literally not a penny is kind of a silly one. And in the case of no assets/no retirement, we'd all have the same answer.

When you look at assets like clothes of course. Many americans don't have retirement, own houses to sell, don't have family. We are all blessed we do.

I would never become truly homeless because I have family that would help in a minute. This is really just to take a look at your own life and see how very different it could be.

Public assistance takes times, most of us couldn't live on that alone, etc......

Homeless shelters would take you.

I guess I'm just confused about what you're asking. You seem to have some threshold that you consider having assets, and it is somewhere between only the clothes on my back and having a house and car and such. Until you define that threshold though, it is hard to get to that answer. (And once you do, the answer become a duh).

Also, I doubt that any of us *don't* realize that life could be different in that way?

[ondaflipside]

This reminds me of a story in 2009 about a homeless couple who lived on beach parking lots. 2 years prior they were living the life. I believe he was a salesman of some sort. She was SAHM. They were active at church, and generous at that. They had a nice house, nice cars, etc. They used to travel to great places annually or more.

After the economy hit, their 2 high-school age kids ended up living with friends' families. Their church only helped them for so long, and then no more. So they turned to living in their car. I read it in a local paper, but I can't find the article anymore.

[auberge]

Oct 31, 2012 11:30:56 GMT -5 h said:

What does "no assets" mean? Cash is an asset. If the question is "how long until you are homeless without touching the cash you have in the bank or selling anything," then not long.

I guess I meant no large assets (house, retirement, investments, etc).

[bunch]

If we sold our house, moved into our rental and liquidated our retirement, a long time. Probably 10 to 15 years.

[CallingAllAngels]

If we don't have any income or assets, we won't be able to pay our next mortgage payment. So...however long it takes the bank to foreclose on us.

[bunch]

Well, if I can't touch my investments and savings accounts its just as long as it takes the bank to foreclose.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2012 11:31:42 GMT -5 blissanity said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:24:17 GMT -5 v said:

If someone has no assets, they'll need public assistance the next day. But it is untrue that many Americans have no assets. The clothes on your back are an asset. The homeless person who lives on my street has a radio -- that's an asset. Everyone has some sort of asset. The amount of course varies widely, but the hypothetical of a naked person with literally not a penny is kind of a silly one. And in the case of no assets/no retirement, we'd all have the same answer.

They may be assets but you're not going to get very much from it. The clothes on your back, unless already super duper nice aren't going to get you money for food/housing. The radio, the homeless person has, likely won't be traded for food or money.

So yes, many many Americans don't have assets. They don't have cars, they don't have houses they own, they don't have anything to liquidate for funds.

This board lives in such a freaking bubble it's not even funny.

Signed,
The girl who sold her DVD collection this summer to pay bills but couldn't get a dime for my ink jet printer/scanner, digital camera or 1st generation kindle.

Duh, but my point is that asking this question and then saying "assuming you have no assets" when everyone has SOME asset, makes no sense. She's defining the parameters of her question poorly which makes it impossible to answer.

[dexteroni]

Oct 31, 2012 11:31:42 GMT -5 blissanity said:

This board lives in such a freaking bubble it's not even funny.

That's neither true nor really a fair assessment based on these answers. There was a time in our 20s when our answer to this post would have been "two weeks." One missed paycheck and we would have been on our asses. Nothing remarkable has happened to us since then except that we learned how to use our money wisely. You don't have to have a super high income to build security.

But I remember what it was like to be in that precarious of a situation - that's partly what helps us stay on track, because we never want to live like that again if we can help it. And I didn't see that kind of ignorance displayed in most of the other replies either. Just because we're no longer in that position doesn't mean we aren't aware it exists.

[auberge]

V- This was a random thought. Work with me here LOL

[ondaflipside]

Oct 31, 2012 11:35:35 GMT -5 @peggyolson said:

Is drug dealing an allowable form of income in this scenario? I'd probably consider it before I was completely homeless if I'm being honest.

Drug dealing is a job. And it's highly competitive. You'll need an edge

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2012 11:36:00 GMT -5 v said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:31:42 GMT -5 blissanity said:

They may be assets but you're not going to get very much from it. The clothes on your back, unless already super duper nice aren't going to get you money for food/housing. The radio, the homeless person has, likely won't be traded for food or money.

So yes, many many Americans don't have assets. They don't have cars, they don't have houses they own, they don't have anything to liquidate for funds.

This board lives in such a freaking bubble it's not even funny.

Signed,
The girl who sold her DVD collection this summer to pay bills but couldn't get a dime for my ink jet printer/scanner, digital camera or 1st generation kindle.

Duh, but my point is that asking this question and then saying "assuming you have no assets" when everyone has SOME asset, makes no sense. She's defining the parameters of her question poorly which makes it impossible to answer.

I disagree. Not everyone has SOME asset. I define "asset" in this question as something that can be sold/liquidated for cash.

[RitzyHeifer]

Somewhat salient to this point, an old favorite on this board:

www.playspent.org/

[auberge]

Oct 31, 2012 11:37:40 GMT -5 @gypsy said:

If I can't touch retirement? A couple of years.
But I would probably panic and sell my car and start a shower webcam business.

(I) (I) (I)

I've proven my webcam abilities with our reenactment.

[ijack]

If we can't sell our house or liquidate assets, it would take however long foreclosing takes + about 6 months.
If we could sell our house and rent something less we could live for 5ish years.

[dexteroni]

Oct 31, 2012 11:33:41 GMT -5 auberge said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:30:56 GMT -5 h said:

What does "no assets" mean? Cash is an asset. If the question is "how long until you are homeless without touching the cash you have in the bank or selling anything," then not long.

I guess I meant no large assets (house, retirement, investments, etc).

No investments? So then what are we allowed to use in our calculations - regular bank savings? That's going to skew the answer for a lot of people, because someone who keeps most of their money in investments would otherwise keep that money in a regular savings account. And if regular savings isn't part of the equation, then everyone's answer is going to be pretty much the same. So now I'm not really sure what you're asking.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2012 11:37:14 GMT -5 dexteroni said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:31:42 GMT -5 blissanity said:

This board lives in such a freaking bubble it's not even funny.

That's neither true nor really a fair assessment based on these answers. There was a time in our 20s when our answer to this post would have been "two weeks." One missed paycheck and we would have been on our asses. Nothing remarkable has happened to us since then except that we learned how to use our money wisely. You don't have to have a super high income to build security.

But I remember what it was like to be in that precarious of a situation - that's partly what helps us stay on track, because we never want to live like that again if we can help it. And I didn't see that kind of ignorance displayed in most of the other replies either. Just because we're no longer in that position doesn't mean we aren't aware it exists.

I'm not talking about me personally and the fact that I'm "young and in my 20s making a decent salary." I'm talking about the FAMILIES I know, the ADULTS in their 40s I know who would end up homeless in a matter of week-months because they don't have assets.

That's how this board is in a bubble. People are in a paycheck to paycheck position their ENTIRE life. I don't think the board realizes how common this is.

[shaynaatl]

About 5 years if we used up our retirement and cut back on discretionary spending.

[dexteroni]

Oct 31, 2012 11:39:41 GMT -5 RitzyHeifer said:

Somewhat salient to this point, an old favorite on this board:

www.playspent.org/

I have taken this before and it stresses me out. Partly because it reminds me how much being poor sucked, but also partly because sometimes there are more solutions than the choices they give you.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2012 11:38:09 GMT -5 blissanity said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:36:00 GMT -5 v said:

Duh, but my point is that asking this question and then saying "assuming you have no assets" when everyone has SOME asset, makes no sense. She's defining the parameters of her question poorly which makes it impossible to answer.

I disagree. Not everyone has SOME asset. I define "asset" in this question as something that can be sold/liquidated for cash.

Clothes and a radio can be sold for cash.

So can cans that you take out of the garbage and return for a deposit. These are very small assets, but they are assets.

[RitzyHeifer]

Oct 31, 2012 11:42:32 GMT -5 dexteroni said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:39:41 GMT -5 RitzyHeifer said:

Somewhat salient to this point, an old favorite on this board:

www.playspent.org/

I have taken this before and it stresses me out. Partly because it reminds me how much being poor sucked, but also partly because sometimes there are more solutions than the choices they give you.

It just came up at work and I'm so competitive I was bragging about how I "won" because I ended up with money.

But I do get stressed playing it because I too feel like there are other solutions. Plus I live in a crazy LCOL area where some of the issues just aren't issues for most people (commuting, higher rent closer to downtown, etc.)

[auberge]

Oct 31, 2012 11:40:48 GMT -5 dexteroni said:

Oct 31, 2012 11:33:41 GMT -5 auberge said:

I guess I meant no large assets (house, retirement, investments, etc).

No investments? So then what are we allowed to use in our calculations - regular bank savings? That's going to skew the answer for a lot of people, because someone who keeps most of their money in investments would otherwise keep that money in a regular savings account. And if regular savings isn't part of the equation, then everyone's answer is going to be pretty much the same. So now I'm not really sure what you're asking.

OMG my life. I haven't had caffeine yet.

regular bank savings, under your mattress, in your kids piggy bank ok.