> Around 76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

Not for any meaningful definition of "living paycheck to paycheck". Per Federal Reserve studies, the percentage of the population with no excess income after paying for necessary expenses is 10-15%. That's still a lot of people but it isn't 76%.

For everyone else, it is a lifestyle choice.

Per the BLS, the median household has ~$1,000 leftover every month after all ordinary (not necessary) expenses. That includes rent, car payments, healthcare, etc.

Americans have a crazy amount of discretionary income compared to the rest of the world.

> living paycheck to paycheck.

This phrase is used so often, but I don't know how meaningful it is supposed to be

A family might make $300,000 a year and be living "paycheck-to-paycheck" while also maxing out 401k contributions, paying a mortgage on a $2 million home, and paying $80,000 a year in private school tuition.

Are we supposed to think that such a family is in worse financial shape than a family making $40,000 a year but with minimal expenses and a few months of living costs in a savings account?

Fun fact, that's also untrue or at least dubious.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/16/facebook-p...

> Around 76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

A lot of people are "see money spend money". Regardless of their paycheck amount, they find ways to spend it all. This does not mean they are poor.

Pro football players, for example, are famous for quickly spending their $millions into bankruptcy.

You are responding to data about the median American.

Most people in America don't live paycheck to paycheck or rack up massive debt because they're poor. They do it because they're financially illiterate, over-consume, or both. A few watch-through's of Caleb Hammer's financial audit show will disabuse you of this belief.

America is very very rich, the average person is much wealthier than the average European. 76% of Americans do not live paycheck to paycheck. That is a self reported stat and not reliable. It's a media sensationalist headline grabber which virtually every economist ignores.

People don't like saying America is rich because it defies their beliefs, but the actual stats don't lie. Every American I know that has moved to Europe (and I have lived there as well, in Munich) moved there with, shock...American money and savings. So they don't actually get the initial start many Europeans do and it clouds their view to think that's just how all Europeans live.

That doesn't guarantee that this will always be true, but given Europe's current trajectory, even with the US's many shortcomings...it's hard to say Europe will catch up anytime soon.

Yeah I totally agree that income and happiness are not interchangeable, I'm just really tired of people lying about objective facts.

The comment I am responding to is "because America's not rich; like 100 people here just have more money than most countries" not whatever you think I am responding to.

If only the US was a petrostate, that would solve all our problems.

The wealth of the top 100 individuals is not the claim, the claim is that the rest of the nation is actually poor if you don't include them, which is total nonsense.

That's not weird at all it's the difference in most cases between products and services produced by local labor vs products and services produced by more abundant, cheaper labor elsewhere. I don't complain about $20 meals because I think inequality is bad enough.

The only thing in your list that could be cheaper without underpaying local workers are pharmaceuticals.

The health insurance is the part that just is hard to relate to much of the world which is where the fear/sadness comes from. It is the undertone in any wealth discussion. So many people in the US see their family and friends get medically bankrupted for one reason or another and insurance being tied to employment makes everything awful.

The fact that you simply can't save enough to get medical care is foundationally depressing.

so you think restaurants are the most important indicator of wealth? Americans are rich in land and cars. Whether thats important to you is a different question.

But I think the average resident of Taipei would trade their street food for a 3000 sqft house with a yard and a pool and a quiet neighborhood and 2 large luxury vehicles.

Rich is relative, it's always somewhere around "makes twice what I do" and poor is "makes half what I do" - and I'm, of course, solidly middle class.

This seems to be true if I'm flipping burgers at McDs or if I'm on a first-name basis with Warren Buffett.

There's a point somewhere where the money becomes a scorecard - once you can afford the best room at the Kinshasa luxury hotel, you can't really "go higher" on that axis, you need something else.

> That is it is illiquid wealth they cannot use.

Housing is actually quite liquid as it is incredibly easy to mortgage. More likely you are overestimating how much housing value is actually there. The majority of American homeowners have already tapped into that liquidity. Owning a house that is worth, say, $1MM on the open market doesn't necessarily mean that your net worth is $1MM.

Don't they usually take out the primary residence when doing the calculation? It still doesn't mean someone is completely liquid as I'm guessing many people have their money in tax deferred accounts they can't access until old age.

I'm sorry a million dollars is still a huge amount of money for normal people, whether it comes from their home or otherwise.