SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the there's-always-the-day-*after*-tomorrow dept.
Economists say this is the Minimum Amount of Money you Need in an Emergency Fund:
Money experts generally encourage you to set aside three to six months' worth of living expenses in an emergency fund. Some even want you to stash away a year's worth.
After all, life doesn't usually go as planned: There could be another recession, you could lose your job, have a medical emergency or have to deal with a car breaking down. That's why, when it comes to emergency savings, "more is always better," personal finance author David Bach says.
But economists Emily Gallagher and Jorge Sabat challenge the oft-cited savings rules in their 2019 report, "Rules of Thumb in Household Savings Decisions." "People are usually given really high savings thresholds, like you should be saving six months' worth of income or you should have $15,000 squirreled away," Gallagher tells CNBC Make It. But those numbers aren't "based on much," she adds.
After crunching the numbers, Gallagher and Sabat found a more realistic amount for low-income households, specifically, to aim for: $2,467. If you have that much saved, your probability of falling into financial hardship (not being able to pay rent, bills or medical care) is low.
To get to that number, Gallagher and Sabat, who are also assistant professors of finance, used data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to graph the relationship between falling into hardship in the next six months and how much you have saved as a buffer. They looked at financial information on more than 70,000 lower-income households, which the report defines as those earning under 200% of the poverty line. To put that into context, that's up to about $30,000 a year for a family of four, says Gallagher. This group represents "about 30% of the U.S. working-age population," she adds.
They found that if you have very little saved — say $200 to $500 — each additional dollar you set aside dramatically reduces your likelihood of falling into financial hardship. But once you have at least $2,467, "all of a sudden, saving an additional dollar didn't seem to be that helpful anymore," says Gallagher. "It still reduced your probability of falling into hardship a little bit, but it wasn't nearly as effective as when you were at low levels of savings."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:22PM (8 children)
That price is at Safeway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:25PM (7 children)
Also since when is a fucking green onion a “novelty food?”
Christ, just how poor are YOU?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Immerman on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:38PM (6 children)
Since you call it a scallion and charge more than 10x as much as for a normal an onion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:57PM (5 children)
No, something as basic as a green onion costs about $2.50/bunch in a major US city at a commodity grocer.
Whether I call it a green onion or a scallion, the irony of someone as evidently unfamiliar with cooking to the point of not knowing how to make nachos, yet imploring others to cook more, is fucking hilarious.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:11PM (4 children)
I'm not the one claiming a bunch of scallions cost $10 at Safeway...
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:17PM (1 child)
Wait, damn, misrecalled my first post early on and kept compounding the problem. Okay, $2 for a bunch of scallions is reasonable.
My orignal point remains though - you're probably not eating an entire bunch of scallions in one serving - such things are more seasoning than staple.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:25PM
All I had to do was call a green onion a “scallion” for you to determine it was a wasteful luxury the poor shouldn’t aspire to.
Thank god I didn’t lament the skyrocketing cost of brassica, aubergine and pommes de terre.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:15AM (1 child)
In my neck of the woods, the local Safeways sells scallions with a complimentary coating of fluoride from the local water municipality. At the checkout stand, they then receive a complimentary coating of conveyor belt cleaner. Gives salads an 'interesting' taste ... *thump*
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday October 25 2019, @02:28PM
You know - they put those produce bags in the produce section for a reason... And personally I find there's enough uses for clear, food-safe bags that they never just get thrown away.
Of course that does nothing to protect you from the mung on the hands of all the people that have handled that food before you - farmers, packers, stockers, and other shoppers. Nor from the pesticides those scallions are coated with in the field. Yes - even if they're organic. Organic doesn't mean no pesticides, it just means no synthetic pesticides. And organic pesticides can be every bit as dangerous to people (I like to remind people that cyanide poison is 100% organic)