Holms Writes: "In a recent survey, 56 percent of Americans said they have less than $1,000 in their checking and savings accounts combined, Forbes reports. Nearly a quarter (24.8 percent) have less than $100 to their name."
More than 45 million Americans are still stuck below the poverty line. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
More Than Half of Americans Reportedly Have Less Than $1,000 to Their Name
16 January 16
According to a new survey.
n a recent survey, 56 percent of Americans said they have less than $1,000 in their checking and savings accounts combined, Forbes reports. Nearly a quarter (24.8 percent) have less than $100 to their name. Meanwhile, 38 percent said they would pay less than their full credit card balance this month, and 11 percent said they would make the minimum payment�meaning they would likely be mired in debt for years and pay more in interest than they originally borrowed. It paints a daunting picture of the average American coming out of the spend-heavy holiday season: steeped in credit card debt, living paycheck-to-paycheck, at serious risk of financial ruin if the slightest thing goes wrong.
It's a reminder that, while the larger economy has steadily recovered from the Great Recession, the gains have not yet surfaced at the local level. Another study reports that just 65 of the 3,069 counties in the U.S. have fully recovered from the near-collapse in 2008. But it also speaks to the enduring effect of decades of wage stagnation, when many Americans' pay has not kept up with inflation and they have been left further and further behind.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
1. Her campaign officially launched in February of 2015 and this dinner occurred in December of that year. She's prohibited by law from interacting with a foreign govt. official. I don't care if she said one word to Putin or talked to him for an hour.
2. Laying out foreign affairs proposals? Wait until you're elected, THEN you contact foreign leaders
3. Based off the photo, she seems quite comfortable sitting at the same table as a despotic tyrant who's imprisoned dissidents, quashed free speech, nullified an independent media, and more transgressions. That doesn't sound like someone "concerned by belligerence".
4. Liberals are justified maligning her. She served as a vote diluting candidate because, in many states Trump barely won (Wisconsin, Michigan for example), Stein's total eclipsed his margin of victory. There's no doubt that, had she not been the female Ralph Nader, HRC would've snagged enough of her votes and thus earn a victory
5. Stein is overrated and unqualified for any office. On a YT link where she discusses Hillary, much of her criticisms either were lies (i.e. that HRC lowered Haiti's minimum wage. Independent fact checking sites classified said claim as "false"), oversimplified and flat out ignorant. She shouldn't be entrusted to be dog catcher. Others on the left might excuse her for dining with a 21st Century Mussolini incarnate: this left wing guy will not.
My two cents.
ensuing nonsense would have been of a higher caliber than what we are
now getting with Trump!
MUST BE BECAUSE SHE WAS A RUSSIAN PLANT.
SO WHAT !
GIVEN WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE FULL SPECTRUM ANTI-RUSSIA PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN, THIS IS REALLY GARBAGE.
I voted for Stein and her trip to Russia, like Tulsi's to Syria, were the responsible acts of future national leaders.
Jill Stein should be president. She didn't put Trump* in office* - Hillary did and you did by voting for her. I voted for Jill, as any person with a conscience and a heart did, but we coulda' written in Bernie.
But who were the other "peace advocates" she alludes to?
And Democrats have to wonder further whether Stein's entry as a 3rd party candidate into the 2016 election - not her first foray - did not cost Hillary Clinton the election. I believe Clinton herself said as much - had something to do with Wisconsin in particular, as I recall.
- still beating dead horse jillie?
pray that hillary is as dead as jillie in 2016 and 2020
folks got over ralph by 2004 - after 8 years of bush2cheney and now at least 4 years of rump, have we learned nothing? do we elect repukes every 16 years, just to see if dead horses, like spoilt milk, still stink?
Dr Stein couldn't be elected alderman in any Lakefront ward in Chicago, and she wouldn't earn a ballot slot in most of the others. And with very good reason. Politics ain't beanbag and she's a dilettante par excellence.