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.
Exactly this. If you are talking no assets, no liquidating retirement (or other) funds, then isn't the answer the same for us all? If you are asking how far would what is in my checking account today get me, I am in trouble b/c payday is tomorrow for DH and me and I have already "paid" ING. I could not pay mortgage if I don't get paid tomorrow and can't dip into ING.
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.
That's not the impression I get from having been on this board for many years. I think most people here are aware that living paycheck to paycheck is far more prevalent than being MM. There have been many, many posts and discussions about this exact issue.
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.
Not always. A radio that the homeless man you stated has probably isn't worth a penny. He's not going to get money for that or I'm sure he would have tried. As for clothes, that's tricky too. Most places that buy clothes want nice, in good condition clothes, not WalMart clothes that someone might have.
And cans, like soda cans? You realize that you get maybe .5/can? 8-D
Look, I'm not trying to argue just point out that not every.single person has an asset. Someone who is already on the poverty level will not have assets to sell. Unless, they start selling themselves which happens.
Oh if we can't cash anything in, then a month? But that is pretty unrealistic, no? Most of our retirement is actually in cash, but we would need to pay taxes on it if we took it out now.
We would have to sell our commuter cars and just use the truck and probably move to a tiny apartment, rent out our house until we could sell it, liquidate our 401k's and we could be completely jobless for 5 years, but I know DH & I would take any job we could get just to bring in income.
In reality we have plenty of family that would take us in so we will never be homeless, thank goodness.
Sorry, but this is a dumb question given the recent stipulations. Why would you ever go homeless if you had assets such as retirement accounts just sitting there? I don't get the point.
Sorry, but this is a dumb question given the recent stipulations. Why would you ever go homeless if you had assets such as retirement accounts just sitting there? I don't get the point.
It was question coming from many American perspective. It is true that we have many assets/families etc, in our power to use. Stripping that away (which makes homelessness a real possibility), how long?
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.
That's not the impression I get from having been on this board for many years. I think most people here are aware that living paycheck to paycheck is far more prevalent than being MM. There have been many, many posts and discussions about this exact issue.
I've been here for many years also. Just because it's discussed and people know about it doesn't mean that people know about it. Ya know. LOL.
I mean, I know about China but I know nothing about actually living in China.
You're right bliss, just because I have assets now I just can't remember 7 short years ago when I had a mortgage, 1000 in my bank account and no income in sight. The difference is that memory has caused me to be the hoarder I am now.
You're right bliss, just because I have assets now I just can't remember 7 short years ago when I had a mortgage, 1000 in my bank account and no income in sight. The difference is that memory has caused me to be the hoarder I am now.
Sorry, but this is a dumb question given the recent stipulations. Why would you ever go homeless if you had assets such as retirement accounts just sitting there? I don't get the point.
It was question coming from many American perspective. It is true that we have many assets/families etc, in our power to use. Stripping that away (which makes homelessness a real possibility), how long?
I don't think its dumb. So there.
Ok, but in that case, pretty much everyone's answer will be the same so i still don't get the point.
I mean, I know about China but I know nothing about actually living in China.
Not everyone has experienced living paycheck to paycheck, no, but that wasn't what you said. You said this board (the entire board no less!) doesn't know how common it is, and that's not true. You can argue against it all you want but it won't make it so.
Sorry, but this is a dumb question given the recent stipulations. Why would you ever go homeless if you had assets such as retirement accounts just sitting there? I don't get the point.
It was question coming from many American perspective. It is true that we have many assets/families etc, in our power to use. Stripping that away (which makes homelessness a real possibility), how long?
I don't think its dumb. So there.
The thing that confuses me about the question is that I don't understand how anyone could avoid homelessness for any length of time without using assets or help from family. I mean wouldn't everyone's answer just be however long the eviction or foreclosure process takes? How is it ever possible to avoid homelessness without using income, assets, or assistance from loved ones? I am not trying to be dense, I just don't get it. Unless the question is really about how long you could go based on emergency cash reserves that aren't invested in the market?
It was question coming from many American perspective. It is true that we have many assets/families etc, in our power to use. Stripping that away (which makes homelessness a real possibility), how long?
I don't think its dumb. So there.
Ok, but in that case, pretty much everyone's answer will be the same so i still don't get the point.
This was my point above. If no one has anything, then we'll all be homeless pretty quickly. It essentially reduces your question to "how long does it take to be evicted / foreclosed upon?" and I know that's not the question you wanted to ask.
If we kept our house and only paid for utilities, gas, and food, probably a little over a year. We would sell our car and only drive my H's work car (so no insurance or car payment). We would cancel Dish, internet, and cellphones. We could last longer if we needed to sell belongings or our house.
I mean, I know about China but I know nothing about actually living in China.
Not everyone has experienced living paycheck to paycheck, no, but that wasn't what you said. You said this board (the entire board no less!) doesn't know how common it is, and that's not true. You can argue against it all you want but it won't make it so.
Would have preferred me to say 60/40? 70/30? 80/20? 50/50? Jesus. Saying the "entire board" is a blanket statement that has some truth behind it. I'm sorry I was specific enough to please YOU!
I said, this board, doesn't know how common it is. I'm aware that there are people who do, people who have been there, etc. But on a bigger scale there are many who don't. It's much easier to say "this board". Much like when people say "you" it's a general you. Oh and not to mention that many people have use that phrase before.
But whatever. I'm in a mood today and this is just making it worse. So I'm done.
Post by Velvetshady on Oct 31, 2012 12:26:44 GMT -5
I'm really not sure how to answer this question--if we didn't have the mortgage, our rent could be 1/3 or less of what we have now and the rest of our expenses wouldn't be anywhere near what they are now--how do I figure out what our expenses would be? And anything beyond our short-term savings (like for known yearly expenses, car taxes, etc) is in investments. And we have 8 cars, four of which could be sold for a year's worth of income now (which would last much longer if we aren't including the house). I lived perfectly well on ~1/6 of what we make combined for years.
So, if we both lost our jobs right now and had to stay on this house (we are underwater, can't sell for a profit), we could last ~ 4 months before not being able to pay the mortgage and not touching retirement, investments, or other assets. With those items, ~15-20 years.
But, then again, if we both lost our jobs and didn't have health ins and prescription coverage, we'd be completely screwed since my regular meds would be close to what our mortgage payment is without those benefits.
Not everyone has experienced living paycheck to paycheck, no, but that wasn't what you said. You said this board (the entire board no less!) doesn't know how common it is, and that's not true. You can argue against it all you want but it won't make it so.
Would have preferred me to say 60/40? 70/30? 80/20? 50/50? Jesus. Saying the "entire board" is a blanket statement that has some truth behind it. I'm sorry I was specific enough to please YOU!
I said, this board, doesn't know how common it is. I'm aware that there are people who do, people who have been there, etc. But on a bigger scale there are many who don't. It's much easier to say "this board". Much like when people say "you" it's a general you. Oh and not to mention that many people have use that phrase before.
But whatever. I'm in a mood today and this is just making it worse. So I'm done.
I actually thought you were being fairly pleasant/rational today, which is the only reason I engaged you in the first place. I was conducting a calm conversation; you're the one who said things like "sorry I didn't please YOU" etc.. That was unnecessary and I didn't say anything to provoke it. Most people can disagree on a point without things getting unpleasant. But since you can't, then yeah, it is probably best for you to be "done." Hope your mood improves.
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.
As per usual, I think you're misreading people's responses.
The OP made it sound like the question was "considering what you currently have, how long would it take to be homeless?" and a lot of people answered that way. And since we were not asked "How long do you think it would take the typical American to become homeless?" or "How long do you think it would take the typical person living below the poverty line to become homeless?" of course our answers aren't reflective of those realities.
Then she clarified that she meant "assuming you have no assets" (which makes no sense because everyone has some sort of asset) and obviously changes the answer "this very second" for every single one of us. (Except that people could go to homeless shelters in which case they aren't on the streets).
So it is really kind of a meaningless discussion. And also, it says nothing about whether we think that many people are way worse off than us etc. That's a silly conclusion to jump to.
Also, I think you're in a bubble just as much as anyone here if you thought that your homelessness drama would actually make you homeless. Come visit me and I can show you what real homelessness looks like.
It would take a long time. We don't have a mortgage and we have a lot in savings. We also have a small income stream through some stock that we own which would be enough to meet our basic needs if we weren't able to find jobs for some reason.
Of course things like saving for college for the kids would be out of the question under that scenario but we'd have enough money to pay our property taxes and utilities and buy groceries.
Post by sillygoosegirl on Oct 31, 2012 12:33:53 GMT -5
In our current rental, probably 8+ years, though that would involve liquidating retirement and since those holdings are stocks, it would also depend on market performance during that time. We could make it longer if we moved somewhere cheaper and stopped going on vacations. (Or got rid of our apartment and went on vacation somewhere cheap--sometimes embracing homelessness is the way to go...)
Less after we tie up a lot of our money in a house and have a mortgage, as we hope to do very soon. I guess somewhere in between if we sold said future house, all depending on how long we would wait to take such a drastic step and how much of a loss we'd take on the sale.
Would have preferred me to say 60/40? 70/30? 80/20? 50/50? Jesus. Saying the "entire board" is a blanket statement that has some truth behind it. I'm sorry I was specific enough to please YOU!
I said, this board, doesn't know how common it is. I'm aware that there are people who do, people who have been there, etc. But on a bigger scale there are many who don't. It's much easier to say "this board". Much like when people say "you" it's a general you. Oh and not to mention that many people have use that phrase before.
But whatever. I'm in a mood today and this is just making it worse. So I'm done.
I actually thought you were being pretty pleasant today, which is the only reason I engaged you in the first place. I was conducting a calm conversation; you're the one who said things like "sorry I didn't please YOU" etc.. That was unnecessary and I didn't say anything to provoke it. Most people can disagree on a point without things getting unpleasant. But since you can't, then yeah, it is probably best for you to be "done." Hope your mood improves.
I am calm. I'm calm 99% of the time I'm posting. Even when I'm being called a whore/stupidest person on earth. Now *that's* unnecessary. (Referencing Monday's post here)
My statement wasn't rude. It wasn't even from my bitchy mood. So if you think that was me being unpleasant, well, I don't know what to tell you.
It's not our (me and you) convo that is making me ragey. I could keep talking with you calmly about this. I just don't want too because I'm in a mood and want to punch babies. Having a calm debate likely won't happen today.
And thank you. I hope my mood improves also. I hate feeling like a ragey bitch.
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.
Right, but if you don't consider assets, what is the point of this question? Unless you own your home outright, isn't everyone's answer the same? We'd be homeless once we are either evicted or foreclosed on.
Not everyone has experienced living paycheck to paycheck, no, but that wasn't what you said. You said this board (the entire board no less!) doesn't know how common it is, and that's not true. You can argue against it all you want but it won't make it so.
Would have preferred me to say 60/40? 70/30? 80/20? 50/50? Jesus. Saying the "entire board" is a blanket statement that has some truth behind it. I'm sorry I was specific enough to please YOU!
I said, this board, doesn't know how common it is. I'm aware that there are people who do, people who have been there, etc. But on a bigger scale there are many who don't. It's much easier to say "this board". Much like when people say "you" it's a general you. Oh and not to mention that many people have use that phrase before.
But whatever. I'm in a mood today and this is just making it worse. So I'm done.
I'm also not trying to be an ass, but I think that the reverse of your statement can also be true. That many people who live paycheck to paycheck don't always know how many people DON'T live like that. It's a cycle, and when you are in it, I think it's hard to see outside that until you get out of it. And then you are kind of slapped in the face by it and try to never go back there.
I grew up poor, my parents were always paycheck to paycheck or even worse, and I didn't know much better until I had worked my way out of that situation. Which took until I was about 26 or so. At that point, it was kind of surreal that people truly take money and save it every month and it's just sitting there until you need it. Until that point, I would have thought that the majority of "regular" people lived more like I always had.
*This in no way indicates that I don't believe there are huge numbers of people who have no assets or who live paycheck to paycheck.
Would have preferred me to say 60/40? 70/30? 80/20? 50/50? Jesus. Saying the "entire board" is a blanket statement that has some truth behind it. I'm sorry I was specific enough to please YOU!
I said, this board, doesn't know how common it is. I'm aware that there are people who do, people who have been there, etc. But on a bigger scale there are many who don't. It's much easier to say "this board". Much like when people say "you" it's a general you. Oh and not to mention that many people have use that phrase before.
But whatever. I'm in a mood today and this is just making it worse. So I'm done.
I'm also not trying to be an ass, but I think that the reverse of your statement can also be true. That many people who live paycheck to paycheck don't always know how many people DON'T live like that. It's a cycle, and when you are in it, I think it's hard to see outside that until you get out of it. And then you are kind of slapped in the face by it and try to never go back there.
I grew up poor, my parents were always paycheck to paycheck or even worse, and I didn't know much better until I had worked my way out of that situation. Which took until I was about 26 or so. At that point, it was kind of surreal that people truly take money and save it every month and it's just sitting there until you need it. Until that point, I would have thought that the majority of "regular" people lived more like I always had.
*This in no way indicates that I don't believe there are huge numbers of people who have no assets or who live paycheck to paycheck.
I totally agree with this.
It is a cycle, unfortunately not everyone is lucky (like you and I) to break the cycle. Trust me, it's taken me years (and I still struggle) to get out of the poor money habits I was raised with.