this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024

206 points (97.2% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

11200 readers

355 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

givesomefucks@lemmy.world

206

56% of Americans can't afford a $1,000 emergency expense: We are 'living in a paycheck-to-paycheck nation,' money expert says (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 11 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 54 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

That's by design. It's the natural end result of trying to maximize exploitation.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Yay Capitalism!

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

"By design" and "natural end result" aren't the same thing, but it's a little from both columns anyways

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Fair enough

[–] rothaine@lemm.ee 25 points 11 months ago

Aka wage slavery.

If you can't afford to miss a paycheck, you can't afford to say no to your boss.

And if you can't afford to miss a paycheck, you don't have time to prep a resume, go out for interviews, or other activities that would allow you to find a new job.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How does this compare to typical? Haven't Americans generally had a significant portion of the population living paycheck to paycheck?

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 15 points 11 months ago

This number has been steadily increasing over time. It was 30% in the 90s, 40% in the 2000s. Then with the ‘08 recession and onslaught of shit since then, it spiked up into the 60s for a while around ‘21. I am surprised it’s back down into the 50s again, but maybe that speaks to just how little $1k can buy you after the exploitative price gouging of the past few years.

[–] some_guy 10 points 11 months ago

We’re fucked. But Lonnie can still buy a company and run it into the ground, so the system works!

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

[+] metaStatic@kbin.social -19 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Yeah, it says in the article you venerate consumerism

With a percentage that high I can imagine there is a good chunk of people who don't really need to live pay to pay.

When I was young I spent every dollar on partying and no matter how much I made I found a way to spend it.

and when I finally decided to save I went all in on cutting expenses, the vast vast majority of people never interrogate their expenses.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

the vast vast majority of people never interrogate their expenses.

Source: the Association for Rectally Sourced Estimates

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

While most people can cut out some expenses, they should not have to in order to be able to afford a decent lifestyle with productivity at the highest point in history.

[–] scoobford@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I agree, but we live under the system that we live under.

Me and my friends are broke. We all live in similar places with similar rents, but the differences are that they make a moderate bit more than I do, and that I spend around $700/month on healthcare because fuck this system.

I'm very, very, very slowly saving money. They are all food insecure. One spends hundreds on amazon clothes every pay day, then can't afford groceries for at least a few days before their next check. Another only eats takeout for every meal, and inevitably runs out the day before they get paid. The last one spends it all going to the club once a week.

Otherwise our lifestyles are very similar, but each has convinced themselves their habit isn't very expensive and they wouldn't save much if they stopped, and yet they should have more money than me and just...don't.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Those are real problems, yes, but ones that can be alleviated at a systemic level. A consumerist system itself is also to blame.

Within the current system, you're correct, but blaming personal choices over the faulty system, which does far greater damage, is misplaced.

[–] scoobford@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I disagree, I think an entirely planned economy is impractical, and if people with no financial education have to exist in a market economy, they're going to do things like this.

To me, the solution here is to fix our education system, make home economics mandatory for all pupils, AND pursue systemic reform to halt the war on the middle class.

I'll be honest, unless they literally had so much money they didn't know what to do with it all, I think they'd engage in the same patterns. And no matter how fair we make our system, normal people will never live like Saudi princes.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

I didn't mention a planned economy, just not a consumerist one. Still, why would a planned economy not be practical?

The issue with just making home econ mandatory is that you see it as an educational problem. The thing is, even if you taught your friends everything, would they suddenly be "enlightened?" Maybe one or two, but not everyone, and that's due to rampant consumerism brought on by large Capitalists.

Side note: "middle class" doesn't exist, that's just the upper end of working class or the lower end of Petite Bourgousie or perhaps the Labor Aristocracy. Class isn't determined by income, but by relation to production, because the common thread of class is class interest.

I'm not advocating for obscene wealth for everyone, but a restructuring along worker-centric lines, rather than owner-centric like it currently is.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You can take that opinion and put it right back in your ass. We're done blaming the employees for not getting paid enough to keep up with inflation their bosses created.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

When were you in your 20s? Times change.