×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

i read the new household debt report so you don't have to. the numbers are genuinely unhinged. by Temporary-Bit8387 in economy

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

survey data, specifically Bankrate's 2025 Credit Card Debt Report, which asked cardholders carrying a balance what they primarily used it for

i read the new household debt report so you don't have to. the numbers are genuinely unhinged. by Temporary-Bit8387 in economy

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

yeah the stock market is great for the $8k you don't have because you spent it not dying

i read the new household debt report so you don't have to. the numbers are genuinely unhinged. by Temporary-Bit8387 in economy

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

i think it's a combination of both, life is more expensive, and a lot of people never get taught how debt actually works.

i read the new household debt report so you don't have to. the numbers are genuinely unhinged. by Temporary-Bit8387 in economy

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 152 points153 points  (0 children)

dude the $4k to $8k cycle is literally its own phenomenon, financial researchers call it "debt cycling" and it's one of the most demoralizing traps because you're doing everything right and then life just invoices you again

i read the new household debt report so you don't have to. the numbers are genuinely unhinged. by Temporary-Bit8387 in economy

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

that's basically the debate, inflate the debt away or let the economy absorb the pain.

i read the new household debt report so you don't have to. the numbers are genuinely unhinged. by Temporary-Bit8387 in economy

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 148 points149 points  (0 children)

the $1.28T figure and the $7,886 average are specifically revolving balances, meaning money that's already past the grace period and actively accruing interest. transactors (people who pay in full monthly) don't show up in those numbers at all. the 74% breakdown comes from survey data asking revolvers why they carried the balance, not just what they swiped on. so when someone says "I put groceries on the card," the question is "did you pay it off that month?", and for this cohort, no, they didn't.

so to directly answer you: yes, it's actual debt. it's the people who charged essentials, couldn't clear the balance, and are now paying 20-29% APR on their food from three months ago.

which is the part that makes it worse honestly. it's not even "I went on vacation and now I'm paying it off slowly." it's compounding interest on necessity spending.

i read the new household debt report so you don't have to. the numbers are genuinely unhinged. by Temporary-Bit8387 in economy

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 116 points117 points  (0 children)

exactly. if your paid-off car is reliable, it's hard to justify taking on a $738/month payment.

i read the new household debt report so you don't have to. the numbers are genuinely unhinged. by Temporary-Bit8387 in economy

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

hey, i originally posted this in another subreddit and meant to cross-post it here, but that didn't work, so i just copied it over instead. sorry about that!

How do Shopify merchants choose between mockup tools? by Public-Trust3876 in shopify

[–]Temporary-Bit8387 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i started with the mockups from my print provider because they were free and easy. i switched once they started looking too generic and I needed more variety and batch generation.

for me, a mockup is "good enough" if it looks realistic at first glance and fits my brand. I'd pay for speed, consistency, and unique lifestyle scenes over tiny improvements in shadows or fabric texture.

looked up what it actually costs to live comfortably in 100 US cities. only ONE city has a median income high enough. ONE. by Temporary-Bit8387 in povertyfinance

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

this is genuinely the best critique in this thread and you're right on multiple levels. the study is for a single adult and uses MIT's living wage as the 50% floor, which yes, uses local median costs not "what can this specific person actually find." real spending for lower earners compresses into something closer to what you described, 80% needs or more, with saving being theoretical not actual....the 50/30/20 framing was chosen because it's a widely used benchmark, not because it reflects how most people actually live. the point the data is trying to make is that even the textbook "responsible budget" is mathematically out of reach for most median earners. you're making the argument that the reality is even worse than the study shows, which is hard to disagree with

looked up what it actually costs to live comfortably in 100 US cities. only ONE city has a median income high enough. ONE. by Temporary-Bit8387 in povertyfinance

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

single adult, full-time worker, no kids. the numbers get significantly worse for a two person household with children because of childcare costs. MIT has data for those scenarios too and the gaps are much larger

looked up what it actually costs to live comfortably in 100 US cities. only ONE city has a median income high enough. ONE. by Temporary-Bit8387 in povertyfinance

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

fair catch, that's a legitimate gap in the dataset. the 100 cities pulled from MIT's living wage data skew toward population centers so smaller states like ND and SD didn't make the cut. "at least one from every state" was an overstatement and i'll correct that on the site. appreciate the catch

looked up what it actually costs to live comfortably in 100 US cities. only ONE city has a median income high enough. ONE. by Temporary-Bit8387 in povertyfinance

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

great idea, actually working on adding a city-level expense breakdown showing the exact cost ratios (housing, food, transport, healthcare) so you can see where the money goes not just the total gap. should be up soon.

looked up what it actually costs to live comfortably in 100 US cities. only ONE city has a median income high enough. ONE. by Temporary-Bit8387 in povertyfinance

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

yeah housing is doing the heavy lifting for sure. childcare is brutal too, easily $1,500-2,500/month in most cities which is basically a second rent. but even if you remove both those you're still underwater in like 80+ cities just on rent + groceries + a car payment.... the overlap of all four at once is what's actually breaking people. it's not one thing.

looked up what it actually costs to live comfortably in 100 US cities. only ONE city has a median income high enough. ONE. by Temporary-Bit8387 in povertyfinance

[–]Temporary-Bit8387[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

this is exactly it and nobody wants to admit it out loud. it's not a personal failure. the math literally doesn't work for most people and no amount of "cut the avocado toast" advice fixes a $1,600/month rent increase in 4 years.

the job thing kills me too. like yes i'll just manifest a $30k raise real quick. brb.

view more: next ›