3 out of 4 Americans have no personal financial safety net

[DC Al Fine]

I would really like for someone to emerge from the Republican Party that has something substantive to contribute to this problem.

Not sure about politicians, but Ross Douthat has written some impressive stuff in this regard. Pat Buchanan has also talked about this issue a bit.

Here are some of the reasons why people don't save:

1) Low income
2) Low interests rates disincentivize saving
3) Overspending
4) Increased atomization (ie. $50k for a married couple is comfortable, $50k for two divorcees is scraping by)

The first two are relatively easy to fix, but for a lasting solution, the cultural issues that make up #'s 3 & 4 need to be addressed as well.

Here's my conservative/christian democratic solution(s)

1) Import tarrifs to disincentivize offshoring
2) Eliminate tax incentives for companies that move jobs overseas/give incentives to firms that create jobs in the USA
3) Wage subsidies for lower income workers
4) Education about personal finances, credit cards etc.
5) Educate people about the fiscal dangers of divorce/single motherhood and the poverty it brings.
EDIT: 6) Reduce unskilled immigration, both legal and illegal to reduce the depressing effect immigrants have on wages

[DC Al Fine]

Of course, bear in mind that policies to raise wages and end debt serfdom are policies that will not have an iota of support from the established political forces, because they profit from debt serfdom and mass consumption alike.

No one ever wants to play policy wonk on these threads

[DC Al Fine]

Hockeydude's America: Where CEO's deliberately increase the cost of labour for 30 years in hopes of increasing the firms profits long after they're dead.

Yet another thread destroyed by complaineypants who do nothing but whine about the GOP being evil while never bothering to actually debate the issue at hand. (IndyTX & TNF exempted)

[DC Al Fine]

Probably 2 out those 3 who  have no safety net are under-employed.  A horrible situation that doesn't hit you in the face because there's not a monthly stat that's covered heavily by the media, like the unemployment rate.

Unfortunately underemployment is a far more nebulous concept than unemployment, so it's more difficult to measure.

To answer Hockeydude:

1) Re: Overtime: You really need to retake grade 7 math. Compound interest (or profits) is key here. Reducing profits 30 years ago takes a heavy toll on future growth, one that won't be made up by suddenly reducing overtime pay for most firms 30-50 years down the line. Even if it was a good business decision, executives aren't incentivized to make decisions that long term.

2) Re: Savings: Assuming the working dude is within the middle more or less, here's how he or she could save...

1) Avoid living alone until there is you've saved the safety net.
2) If married, try your best to stay married.
3) Get a 2nd job or side hustle until debt is paid down/savings accumulated
4) Don't drive or only have 1 car if possible
5) Get rid of cable
6) Eat cheap bulk staples and other inexpensive food.
7) Try for cheaper health insurance if possible.

[DC Al Fine]

Probably 2 out those 3 who  have no safety net are under-employed.  A horrible situation that doesn't hit you in the face because there's not a monthly stat that's covered heavily by the media, like the unemployment rate.

Unfortunately underemployment is a far more nebulous concept than unemployment, so it's more difficult to measure.

To answer Hockeydude:

1) Re: Overtime: You really need to retake grade 7 math. Compound interest (or profits) is key here. Reducing profits 30 years ago takes a heavy toll on future growth, one that won't be made up by suddenly reducing overtime pay for most firms 30-50 years down the line. Even if it was a good business decision, executives aren't incentivized to make decisions that long term.

2) Re: Savings: Assuming the working dude is within the middle more or less, here's how he or she could save...

1) Avoid living alone until there is you've saved the safety net.
2) If married, try your best to stay married.
3) Get a 2nd job or side hustle until debt is paid down/savings accumulated
4) Don't drive or only have 1 car if possible
5) Get rid of cable
6) Eat cheap bulk staples and other inexpensive food.
7) Try for cheaper health insurance if possible.

When did I say companies/agencies (because my example specifically affects them) are reducing profits, anyway.  The "incentive for overtime" comment?  Maybe I should've used a different word, and I take back trying to completely defend the comment, but do I think a good chunk of the so called 1% have been ****ing the rest of us over for years?  Do I think squeezing the middle class into long hours and then cutting their overtime pay is typical of the ownership class as a way to completely shatter the spirit of the working class?  Of course.  I'm not going to go back on that.   

And "guy in the middle" these days isn't do so hot despite cutting corners.  Mean income and median income in America are wildly out of whack. 

I agree that the working class and guy in the middle are being squeezed, but that is not what you originally postulated. As is your habit, you made an inflammatory, poorly thought out statement, and when cornered, redefined your argument beyond recognition.

[DC Al Fine]

You know why most terrible marriages stay intact? money.

Forcing people to stay in bad relationships for the sake of finances? Yikes.

I also love the lack of nuance to forget that not everyone becomes a single-parent by choice.

Actually, most unhappy marriages turn out happy a few years later, while people who divorce do not tend to be any happier during the same time frame. From a long term happiness point of view, yes most of these couples should stay together.

Single motherhood poses financial problems that need to be dealt with, but we should consider the cultural changes that have made it a significant problem in the first place. Single motherhood indicates a cultural shift. In earlier eras, marriage was considered an end game, and social pressure could be applied if someone got pregnant. This enforced a much lower rate of single motherhood and increased household savings.

[DC Al Fine]

You know why most terrible marriages stay intact? money.

Forcing people to stay in bad relationships for the sake of finances? Yikes.

I also love the lack of nuance to forget that not everyone becomes a single-parent by choice.

Actually, most unhappy marriages turn out happy a few years later, while people who divorce do not tend to be any happier during the same time frame. From a long term happiness point of view, yes most of these couples should stay together.

Single motherhood poses financial problems that need to be dealt with, but we should consider the cultural changes that have made it a significant problem in the first place. Single motherhood indicates a cultural shift. In earlier eras, marriage was considered an end game, and social pressure could be applied if someone got pregnant. This enforced a much lower rate of single motherhood and increased household savings.

Got any numerical data, as opposed to anecdotal evidence, for the bolded bit - and in particular the word "most?" 

http://www.americanvalues.org/UnhappyMarriages.pdf

[quote]Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended up happily married five years later.

snip

One might assume, for example, that unhappy spouses who divorce and those who stay married are fundamentally two different groups; i.e., that the marriages that ended in divorce were much worse than those that survived.

snip

On the other hand, if only the worst marriages end in divorce, one would expect greater psychological benefits from divorce. Instead, looking only at changes in emotional and psychological well-being, we found that unhappily married adults who divorced were no more likely to report emotional and psychological improvements than those who stayed married. In addition, the most unhappy marriages reported the most dramatic turnarounds. Among those who rated their marriages as very unhappy, almost eight out of ten who avoided divorce were happily married five years later.

[DC Al Fine]

Hardly an impartial group...

Hardly pointing out where they might be wrong.