And yet “Fifty-seven percent of Americans don't have enough cash to cover a $500 unexpected expense”. We suck at saving as a country.

15% of those are in poverty. This doesn't let you save up money. One in two americans are low income. [1]. I'd not call these number exact, but close enough. Much of the group you describe only suck at saving because their income sucks. $50-$100 extra a month doesn't make it easy to save up $500 for an emergency. Literally months. Months with nothing happening. Not a flat tire, not a doctor's appointment. Nothing breaking.

This doesn't explain everyone in your category, though, so a portion suck at saving.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/16/well-of-...

There's a great reddit comment that explains this in a relatable way. It's very expensive to be poor:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1v4t18/it_is_ex...

As the linked article points out, we have defined terms like “poverty” and “low income” relatively, so telling us the percentage of people they cover doesn’t convey any information.

The 57% figure is much more illustrative, in large part because it conveys an absolute capability which people can lose or acquire.

15 percentage points, or 15 percent of the 57%?

The first. The percentage would be higher if taken from the 57%.

Most of the value contributing to millionaire net worth is going to be in 401ks and home equity, neither of which you could reasonably access to pay a $500 expense.

It would be pretty weird to have <$500 in checking at the same time as 5-6 figures in retirement + home equity, but possible. It helps that 401k is a payroll deduction and there's really no bargaining with yourself on whether to pay the mortgage this month (whereas it's easy to splurge instead of saving extra cash).

You can access 401k under "financial hardship", after paying taxes and 10% penalty. Of course, it's rarely worth it for $500 - it'd be better to find a credit card with 0% APR or other credit option, if you have access to those. I imagine most people with 401k's do have access to credit. Am I wrong?

You can also loan against 401k (though there are limits, but if you have it for a while loaning $500 would not be a problem, though again fees could make it a bad deal). Advantage is that while you lose the growth for the time of the loan, you are paying interest to yourself, not somebody else.

"I imagine most people with 401k's do have access to credit. Am I wrong?"

Yes. Low-paying jobs at Wal-mart and Lowes and some gas stations offer a 401k. The contributions are tiny because the checks are tiny but the company usually contributes as well. These folks aren't as likely to have access to credit.

I'll put this as well: If you are looking to take $500 from your 401k outside of those groups, I'm gonna guess things have gone horribly wrong. Getting a new credit card might be a bit tough because your credit is probably already showing the hurt.

Plus the fact that to a person with cash difficulties going to their 401k to get money wouldn’t be easy. Even if you can find someone to help you they’re going to mail you a cheque some time in the future. Hence the success of pay day loan operations that are more than happy to help you out with that immediate $500 emergency.

Hmm I didn't know Walmart offered company-matched 401k. In that case, if they have contributed there at least $100 (which I think should be possible with company match if you work fulltime) for a year, there should be enough money to take a loan of $500 AFAIK.

> If you are looking to take $500 from your 401k outside of those groups, I'm gonna guess things have gone horribly wrong

Yes, probably, but the question was is it possible, when the things go horribly wrong. I still think if you have 401k that should be possible.

They actually have the most generous 401k plan of any company I ever worked for- a dollar for dollar match up to 6% of pay, with no cap. It also vests immediately.

Cash and net worth are not the same thing.

I like to remind myself that being poor and being broke are not the same thing.

> A median-income household owning a median-priced house

A median-income household is unlikely to own a median-price house for a reason very similar to the reason they are unlikely to own a median priced jet, because home ownership isn't uniformly distributed across income levels, as low income households are more likely than high income households to be renters, and high income households more likely to be homeowners (and to own multiple homes.)

If a median-income household owns a home, it is likely to be a singificantly-below-median-value home.

your primary property isn't normaly counted in this case