If you can’t bring the savings side of the equation up, then bring the salary side down. Easy.
Comment on I'm working on it, ok?
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
I bet less than 25% of people do this.
howrar@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
It’s like 50% that can’t afford 1k, let alone 6 months of expenses.
Bye@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I did it by living well below my means for my first job.
db2@lemmy.world 2 months ago
That’s all fine but at 16 you don’t really have expenses.
then_three_more@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I’d bet less than 5%.
Landless2029@lemmy.world 2 months ago
True. But the meme is wrong. It’s expenses not income.
The idea is you should be able to survive without working for 6 months.
This is to cover losing your job, injuries, illness, family emergencies.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Yeah, I get that, that’s why I meant I doubt that more than 25% of people can survive without working for 6 months.
KimjongTOOILL@lemmy.world 2 months ago
56% of Americans don’t have enough to cover a $1000 unexpected bill. So I’d guess less than 5% have 6 months of expenses saved.
Landless2029@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I agree. I think is a mix of people living check to check (no choice) and bad education.
I came from no money and learned financial planning skills from the internet.
Now I’m at the point where I got an emergency fund and savings, but it took me years to get here.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
I don’t think it’s fair to blame it on bad education. I’m pretty sure almost everybody is aware that having emergency savings is better than not having emergency savings. The cost of living keeps going up, inflation rate going way up, but salaries are just not increasing enough to keep up. Everything is becoming more expensive and people can’t afford it, let alone having enough money to set aside.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I am 46 years old. I have never had enough to be able to survive without working for 6 months. Thank god for unemployment payments.