One other thing I noted: when you earn $113k, $1k is not an emergency fund...an emergency fund should be minimum 3 months of after tax income...so like $18k for her. This is to cover unexpected large financial shocks, like losing a job or a car crash....$1k is a mechanics bill (says so in the article). If it takes a few years to build it up that is fine....but 3 months should be a minimum; preferably 6+. If she lost her job, she has less than a week of "emergency money".

I hate to sound like I'm "blaming the victim" here, but something doesn't add up.

Saving up for you kid, doesn't equal not living at all; because the kid is also living the same life.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I hate to sound like I'm "blaming the victim" here, but something doesn't add up

I completely believe that she could be struggling on that income. I'm not blaming her I'm blaming the journalist for not realising (or caring) the numbers in their article don't add up.

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation, but I feel like this hardly counts as journalism. They have failed at telling the story.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's not really an article is it? It looks like a questionnaire that someone has filled out and they've just published it?

There's no mention of healthcare expenses, child expenses (clothes/uniforms, activities, sports, music lessons etc.). Actually no details at all about what is spent on their kid.

Describe your financial low: Domestic violence and financial abuse, new baby, no job, huge debts, continued abuse and legal stress.

I give money away to: Saving for my child’s future. Occasional Givealittle causes or fund raisers that I empathise with.

I think there is a lot of context missing, and everyone getting hung up on the numbers is missing the point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I do wish journalists didn't do this.

I remember an article a while back with a beneficiary complaining about not getting to buy much icecream.

It makes it sound like spoilt people whining over nothing, whereas plenty of people's wish list is mostly just nutritious food, medicine, or being warm enough.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's just a fairly general questionnaire, it's not a budgeting document meant to account for every single dollar they spend.

I think it's more concerning that even people on $100K+ are feeling financial anxiety. I know there are those on less making it work, but if those on six figure incomes are feeling the pinch - imagine what a vast majority of kiwis are feeling right now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, I get the impression most people are worse off lately. Devil take the hindmost seems to be turning into devil take the entire bottom half.

I wonder what conclusions they will come to about what to do about it...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I agree, the whole thing makes no sense.

Saving up for you kid, doesn’t equal not living at all; because the kid is also living the same life.

Well yes but "being poor is expensive" and in my experience some low-income people try to cushion children from that by saving up so that there are always funds for things like emergency healthcare or even big ticket items like braces, rather than letting them do all the middle class stuff and have no safety net.

Edit, but thinking about it, that doesn't make any sense given her emergency fund thing (which as you say is weirdly low).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

“being poor is expensive”

The Boots Theory of Economic Unfairness; it is a little limited, but quite cool.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

I'm familiar with it; I think it's a really great illustration! I guess some of the low income parenting examples like boots would be things like dentistry.