My point is that people's non-discretionary spending can grow to meet income, rendering "paycheck to paycheck" kind of meaningless.
The family of 4 making $150k and spending not-cheapest-option $40k on childcare and not-cheapest-option $40k on groceries from Whole Foods (or wherever), while paying $30k annually in not-cheapest-option rent, may also believe they have no discretionary income. But that doesn't mean the same thing.
Sure, but most families don’t make that much money so it’s kind of a false dilemma and so I disagree that “paycheck to paycheck” is rendered meaningless because in many cases discretionary spending simply can’t just increase because there is little left after the nondiscretionary money is spent.
I think you missed my point, as it’s not about the amount of money. Unless your claim is that 61% of Americans simply cannot move to a location with cheaper rent, or eat less expensive food, my point is that nondiscretionary spending also captures fluctuates with discretion, and that’s not captured here.
The family of 4 making $150k and spending not-cheapest-option $40k on childcare and not-cheapest-option $40k on groceries from Whole Foods (or wherever), while paying $30k annually in not-cheapest-option rent, may also believe they have no discretionary income. But that doesn't mean the same thing.