low income

[shortnlovabl3]

i guess you could consider my family low income.  But we also don't have everything everybody else has.  I cut expenses so we have money for other stuff.  Like we don't have cable instead we have netflix.  Little things like that help and i try and coupon when i can which will help a lot too.

[KSimonetti92]

My husband is disabled, so I work THREE jobs to keep us goin'! Anybody notice how expensive diapers have gotten?   

[ktheodos]

Yes, times are tough, but I often see people who say this spend money on things/activities that are more wants than needs.  Create multiple streams of income, use resources to save money and find less expensive alternatives, and try to reduce the amount of money you already spend.  Hope this helps!

This bugs me too....glad to know I'm not alone!

[Flackle]

My father is NOT irresponsible. The reason for not having a lot saved up is because his family grew but his paycheck didn't, at least not a lot. He had a secure job working for the governemnt, and no car payments. If most people waited until they were finacially secure to have kids, there would practically be no kids today! And regardless of what some people think, not having enough kids to replace the population is not good for the long term economy of a nation. Just look at China, where they limited families to only 1 kid. Now they are beginning to realize that  there are not enough workers to support all the old people. And it will only get worse as the generations go on.

I’m not sure how anyone can believe in job security anymore, but the reason people seek job security is that they see it as a way to help them be financial secure. The value of job security mean less and less when your expenses approach your income. That also doesn’t even begin to consider the risk that one’s health may limit their ability to work or any other risk that may cause ones expenses to go up. From the sound of it, your father was fortunate not to experience some of those things, but there are many families who have not been so fortunate. The future is unknown so not striving for financial security is gamble. A gamble that I believe is irresponsible when it involves the well being of my family.

As for your views on the economy, they are a little misguided as you are way too concerned about its size. Long term, the size of the economy adjusts to its population. That’s why things like unemployment are measured in terms of percentages because it gives a better view of the actual state of the economy. As for China, their economy has greatly improved over the last 30 year since the 1 child law was passed. The issue you are concerned with is not the economy but rather the flaw in the pyramid structure for things like social security. The same person that waits to be financially secure or at least closer to it before having kids, would also be likely be the one  to maintain that level of financial security by putting back for retirement and therefore not dependent on government aid or need their children to support them financially. If more people did that, things would be better overall.

This is basically what I said, but you put it way better than I ever could.

[africanclaudie]

I agree with "plennis".....getting old is not for sissies! I am doing 8 part time jobs per week and that just barely gets us by. It's literally a case of living "from hand to mouth". Despite an excellent background in education and loads of experience, once the prospective employer sees my age, I'm heading straight out the door...... 

[southernhorizons]

My father is NOT irresponsible. The reason for not having a lot saved up is because his family grew but his paycheck didn't, at least not a lot. He had a secure job working for the governemnt, and no car payments. If most people waited until they were finacially secure to have kids, there would practically be no kids today! And regardless of what some people think, not having enough kids to replace the population is not good for the long term economy of a nation. Just look at China, where they limited families to only 1 kid. Now they are beginning to realize that  there are not enough workers to support all the old people. And it will only get worse as the generations go on.

I’m not sure how anyone can believe in job security anymore, but the reason people seek job security is that they see it as a way to help them be financial secure. The value of job security mean less and less when your expenses approach your income. That also doesn’t even begin to consider the risk that one’s health may limit their ability to work or any other risk that may cause ones expenses to go up. From the sound of it, your father was fortunate not to experience some of those things, but there are many families who have not been so fortunate. The future is unknown so not striving for financial security is gamble. A gamble that I believe is irresponsible when it involves the well being of my family.

As for your views on the economy, they are a little misguided as you are way too concerned about its size. Long term, the size of the economy adjusts to its population. That’s why things like unemployment are measured in terms of percentages because it gives a better view of the actual state of the economy. As for China, their economy has greatly improved over the last 30 year since the 1 child law was passed. The issue you are concerned with is not the economy but rather the flaw in the pyramid structure for things like social security. The same person that waits to be financially secure or at least closer to it before having kids, would also be likely be the one  to maintain that level of financial security by putting back for retirement and therefore not dependent on government aid or need their children to support them financially. If more people did that, things would be better overall.

This is basically what I said, but you put it way better than I ever could.

You don't even know my views on the economy, if you think I am for Social Security. But I do know that a nation is not sustainable long term and will eventually become extinct if the population does not get replaced at at least an even rate.

Like I said earlier, people have different priorities and values. Who's to say that your priorities are right and mine are wrong? We're comparing apples and oranges, since we're looking at things from a totally different point of view.

[Flackle]

My father is NOT irresponsible. The reason for not having a lot saved up is because his family grew but his paycheck didn't, at least not a lot. He had a secure job working for the governemnt, and no car payments. If most people waited until they were finacially secure to have kids, there would practically be no kids today! And regardless of what some people think, not having enough kids to replace the population is not good for the long term economy of a nation. Just look at China, where they limited families to only 1 kid. Now they are beginning to realize that  there are not enough workers to support all the old people. And it will only get worse as the generations go on.

I’m not sure how anyone can believe in job security anymore, but the reason people seek job security is that they see it as a way to help them be financial secure. The value of job security mean less and less when your expenses approach your income. That also doesn’t even begin to consider the risk that one’s health may limit their ability to work or any other risk that may cause ones expenses to go up. From the sound of it, your father was fortunate not to experience some of those things, but there are many families who have not been so fortunate. The future is unknown so not striving for financial security is gamble. A gamble that I believe is irresponsible when it involves the well being of my family.

As for your views on the economy, they are a little misguided as you are way too concerned about its size. Long term, the size of the economy adjusts to its population. That’s why things like unemployment are measured in terms of percentages because it gives a better view of the actual state of the economy. As for China, their economy has greatly improved over the last 30 year since the 1 child law was passed. The issue you are concerned with is not the economy but rather the flaw in the pyramid structure for things like social security. The same person that waits to be financially secure or at least closer to it before having kids, would also be likely be the one  to maintain that level of financial security by putting back for retirement and therefore not dependent on government aid or need their children to support them financially. If more people did that, things would be better overall.

This is basically what I said, but you put it way better than I ever could.

You don't even know my views on the economy, if you think I am for Social Security. But I do know that a nation is not sustainable long term and will eventually become extinct if the population does not get replaced at at least an even rate.

Like I said earlier, people have different priorities and values. Who's to say that your priorities are right and mine are wrong? We're comparing apples and oranges, since we're looking at things from a totally different point of view.

If you honestly believe that a nation will become extinct simply because there are less young people then old people then you really need to study on the REAL reasons a nation becomes extinct. As hawkeye said, the economy will adjust to its population. If it doesn't, its a fault of the economy itself and not a general rule.

So you're telling me family is more important than financial security. I happen to agree to some extent, because family is very important. I think financial security is important because you need it just in case something bad happens. Financial security is important, and to go without it will lead to a disaster. It doesn't matter WHAT you believe, you need security for yourself, family, and those you care for. It is important to have as a protection in case things go wrong. The reason our economy will go to ruin isn't because there's less young people. Its because people decided to have big family's with a mortgage supported by one source of income and so they depend on the government for help. It doesn't matter if your father supported your whole family on one job. There are countless other cases where mom and dad couldn't feed the kids because they had a run of bad luck and didn't plan properly. If you plan properly it wouldn't matter if the whole economy exploded, it wouldn't matter if your whole house was destroyed by a tornado. Financial security means less time worrying about your money and more time worrying about your family. That's why I say you should worry about getting financially secure before having a family, so you set it as your priority first and then when you have kids your priorities change to your them. I'm not talking about a point of view, I'm talking about the cold hard truth.

[lackeyk]

Yes it is hard with kids with low income, to me kids are another bill to pay. You can save alot of money by going to www.afullcup.com
If you shop alot this will be good for you because everyone wants to get things 10 percent off. I have one child and I have a job but only part time, 850 every 2 weeks  with taxes taking out. I work 20 hours a week. last month I saved $240 with www.afullcup.com.

[hawkeye3210]

My father is NOT irresponsible. The reason for not having a lot saved up is because his family grew but his paycheck didn't, at least not a lot. He had a secure job working for the governemnt, and no car payments. If most people waited until they were finacially secure to have kids, there would practically be no kids today! And regardless of what some people think, not having enough kids to replace the population is not good for the long term economy of a nation. Just look at China, where they limited families to only 1 kid. Now they are beginning to realize that  there are not enough workers to support all the old people. And it will only get worse as the generations go on.

I’m not sure how anyone can believe in job security anymore, but the reason people seek job security is that they see it as a way to help them be financial secure. The value of job security mean less and less when your expenses approach your income. That also doesn’t even begin to consider the risk that one’s health may limit their ability to work or any other risk that may cause ones expenses to go up. From the sound of it, your father was fortunate not to experience some of those things, but there are many families who have not been so fortunate. The future is unknown so not striving for financial security is gamble. A gamble that I believe is irresponsible when it involves the well being of my family.

As for your views on the economy, they are a little misguided as you are way too concerned about its size. Long term, the size of the economy adjusts to its population. That’s why things like unemployment are measured in terms of percentages because it gives a better view of the actual state of the economy. As for China, their economy has greatly improved over the last 30 year since the 1 child law was passed. The issue you are concerned with is not the economy but rather the flaw in the pyramid structure for things like social security. The same person that waits to be financially secure or at least closer to it before having kids, would also be likely be the one  to maintain that level of financial security by putting back for retirement and therefore not dependent on government aid or need their children to support them financially. If more people did that, things would be better overall.

This is basically what I said, but you put it way better than I ever could.

You don't even know my views on the economy, if you think I am for Social Security. But I do know that a nation is not sustainable long term and will eventually become extinct if the population does not get replaced at at least an even rate.

Like I said earlier, people have different priorities and values. Who's to say that your priorities are right and mine are wrong? We're comparing apples and oranges, since we're looking at things from a totally different point of view.

We both made the assumption that you were referring to programs like Social Security because it was the only context in which your notion of needing to replace the population to take care of the old people made any sense. Conversely, there is no logical premise to your idea that a nation is not sustainable long term or will become extinct if the population isn’t replaced by at least an even rate.

This isn’t a matter of a difference in priorities or values as these are not competing ideas. Nothing I have said in regards to financial security is a matter of opinion. There is an obvious benefit to being financially secure that exists whether one is single or married with 20 kids. Stating otherwise would be to live in a state of denial and not a sign of a difference in priorities or values.

[anthonym1000]

we supposed to be mid income but with three kids we qualify for no help and kids need alot!

[PGS28]

I suggest you read Rich Dad Poor Dad ASAP, your logics are alike.  I was already aware of the power of having financial intelligence before I read it but this book enlightened me to the importance of and how to make my money work for me.  The book dispells the myth that you have to have a lot of money to acquire wealth, which is what interested me in it. I'm reading 7 Habits of Highly Effective People right now, but as soon as I finish this I'm going to read Rich Dad's Guide to Investing.  I just added The Richest Man in Babylon to my self empowerment reading list.  I could see you being a millionaire one day; your mentality is already there.  I am doing for my kids what your parents did for you by showing them the fundamentals of proper finance management.  It's not how much you make it's what you do with it.

We think alike!! I'm very strict on weighing what is a want vs. need.  I had a friend to ask me for $20 and her nails were freshly done- that irritated me so much.  I'm huge on saving and after I buy my house paid in full in 4 months (the reward of long term sacrificing and saving) I'm going to start investing.  Have you ever read Rich Dad Poor Dad? Some of what you said reflects what he teaches in the book. 

It all depends on your lifestyle. Having a family and kids is of course a major responsibility (One that I would only consider once I am 100% financially secure). At the same time, there is personal responsibility (That has less to do with spending your money on "necessitates (there are those who live on less than 5000 dollars a year)" and more to do with keeping out of debt and only spending what you really need.) Creativity and imagination are extremely important assets to have when it comes to living within your needs. Someone can make 50k a year and spend all of it partying every weekend. Or someone can make 10k a year and spend all but 1k on what they need to survive. The difference? The second person saved that 100 dollars a month before ever even spending a dime. Who do you think will be better of in 50 years?

I dont think people realize their spending habits actually form around how much they make. You could make an extra 5,000 dollars a year, but what would the the point if you started spending 5000 dollars a year? Your needs didn't go up, but your WANTS did. We have way too many things we WANT. You know what I WANT? I want to be financially secure enough so that I don't have to work my entire life. I do this by only spending what I have too and not putting anymore responsibility on myself than needed. I could go buy a new house, a new car, get a job, get a family, buy everything with credit cards and live the American dream. But I choose not do put un-needed responsibility on myself and instead choose to save most of the money I make and reinvest it so that in the future I can be secure. Security is way more important than cars an material goods. I am lucky enough not to have a big family to support (only child, help my dad take care of the house.) and instead of taking advantage of the situation I am spending everyday learning how to make money so I that I don't have to depend on a job (which by my definition is the worst steam of income) in the future.

People do not realize that the traditional way of thinking in America (Go have kids, buy a house, get a car, pay for it with a job, live paycheck to paycheck, buy materialistic things because that is your duty.) is a TRAP. You don't have to do ANY of those things to survive. All you need to survive is clean water (found freely because we where lucky enough not to be born in a 3rd world country), Shelter (which is really cheap if you're creative and realize the big house with a big mortgage and a big yard with a big electric bill is more of a burden than an asset), and food. By food I mean what you need to survive. You don't need meat everyday. Rice, dried beans, pasta, eggs, and raw vegetables are very cheap. 30% of the food in this country is thrown away because we buy a lot more than we need. Our idea of "poverty" in this country is a joke. Homeless people in our countries live better than WORKING people in some other countries.

If you want things, learn to SAVE your money first then buy them later. If you cannot afford your wants then you need to take a look at your needs. Here is what you should use your money for:

Start by giving yourself 10% or more of what you make.
Pay your basic necessities for bare survival (this can vary depending on your needs but if you are creative you can find a way to live on 10% less income)
Pay your bills (Bills and necessities are NOT that same thing. Bills include debts, electricity, car, insurance, house)
Buy your wants.

Once you have saved enough to pay for 6 months of living (This is why I say 10%, because in 5 years you should have this. The more you save the sooner you reach this point.) Take any extra and put it towards making money (don't spend it unwisely, use it to improve yourself or invest it into something.) You can pay for college if you think an education will get you the life you want, or invest it into something you have knowledge of. The internet is great because the earning potential with little investment.

I have not read that book but I know about it and I've been thinking about reading it it. I've watch a LOT of videos the author made. I am currently reading "The ritchest man in babylon." Which is a great, simple read that gets to the point while not being boring (It has this ancient story-telling feel to it that really shows how timeless the lessons in it are.) Right now I am without a job so its hard to raise capital. I do the majority of the chores, yardwork, and work on the farm in exchange for food and shelter. Luckily my dad was smart with his money, and although my mom made him spend most of it he kept a rental property and some of his investments. Right now I'm working on Paid to clicks (Getting a blog going soon.), a e-commerce site, selling things on ebay/amazon, and working on my skills (I play bass guitar, and I'm learning how to fish and hunt.) I have plans on converting the outside building into a bait/tackle store and I'm currently raising worms. So although I'm unemployed I am always very busy. The only reason I am even trying to make money (I could probably do nothing all day and be just fine in the future) is so I can have more security and I plan on building income so I could one day donate most of it to help 3rd world countries.

[pattersondebra]

When my children were young we struggled daily to keep bills paid and food on the table. Today I stopped at the store and was angered at the sight of a raggy looking lady using foodstamp card to buy pop,candy, and chips.

[PGS28]

"It just make sense to be secure FIRST and then regardless of what happens you are prepared to take on the responsibility of having a family. This isn't just some outlook on life, it's common sense."

I wasn't financially secure when I started my family and I wouldn't give my kids back for anything.  I used to say if I could do it all over again I'd wait a few years before having kids but I think if I'd changed that about my life then everything else would have changed and I wouldn't be where I am today.  The tools we have to self educate ourselves about investments and saving options weren't available years ago.  I'm enlightened about the need to BUY wants rather than renting them (as well as the difference between a want and need) and that material desires should only be purchased as a reward of acquiring an asset (something that makes money for you) or eliminating a liability but this kind of info has to be relentlessly sought out. 

Although I'm escaping the rat race I still deeply admire those that work hard to provide for their families b/c this kind of sacrifice speaks volumes about a person's character.  I don't think we should judge, I think we should pass along information on being financially savvy as much as we can.

tts

Flackle, you've got some great ideas! But everyone does have a different outlook, not just about material things. For example, my parents never had much money, but they raised a large family with no government assistance. So even though my father lived paycheck to paycheck, his well-fed and taken care of family is more important to him than money and security. He certainly had his priorities straight as far as wants versus needs. We always had the basic necessities, but not a lot of extras. Even as kids almost any toys we had were gifts from relatives or friends. I thing it was good to be brought up rather austerely. It gave us a good appreciation of the really necessary things in life, and taught us to be frugal.

Having a large family without financial security? What would have happened if he lost his job, car, house, and the rest of his possessions? He wouldn't have been able to take care of you then. I consider financial security a NEED in today's economy (its really difficult to go out in the woods and find food/drink able water now a days so having money/resources saved is necessary for survival.) and to raise a family without financial security is hazardous, irresponsible, and risky. I'm really glad it worked out though. If anyone is thinking of doing this (especially now that having a job is extremely risky and its very possible to get fired with little notice) they really need to rethink their priorities. I'm not saying don't have a family (a family is a wonderful thing.) It just make sense to be secure FIRST and then regardless of what happens you are prepared to take on the responsibility of having a family. This isn't just some outlook on life, it's common sense.

My father is NOT irresponsible. The reason for not having a lot saved up is because his family grew but his paycheck didn't, at least not a lot. He had a secure job working for the governemnt, and no car payments. If most people waited until they were finacially secure to have kids, there would practically be no kids today! And regardless of what some people think, not having enough kids to replace the population is not good for the long term economy of a nation. Just look at China, where they limited families to only 1 kid. Now they are beginning to realize that  there are not enough workers to support all the old people. And it will only get worse as the generations go on.

[PGS28]

You're not alone by a long shot lol.  Every year I see people take their tax returns and rent liabilities, liabilities being items that take money out of their pockets instead of investing and saving up to buy the things they want paid in full.  It's frustrating, but I think everyone will eventually get it. At some point you've got to get tired of having a closet full of nice clothes but a disconnection notice on the light bill lol

Yes, times are tough, but I often see people who say this spend money on things/activities that are more wants than needs.  Create multiple streams of income, use resources to save money and find less expensive alternatives, and try to reduce the amount of money you already spend.  Hope this helps!

This bugs me too....glad to know I'm not alone!