That is not living paycheck to paycheck by any reasonable definition. If you could stop contributing to savings/retirement/investments and suddenly have a ton of additional disposable income, then it's not that.
>That is not living paycheck to paycheck by any reasonable definition
Well then now we know that the media will happily use unreasonable definitions to bolster stats for click bait stories and headlines.
People assume paycheck to paycheck means "Spending each paycheck entirely on absolute necessities to live" but the survey definition is "Do you save any money from your take home pay every pay period".
This is how you get people at every income level reporting they live paycheck to paycheck.
I think you really underestimate how much people spend on stuff that is a non-necessity. People at every income level fall prey to the “if I’ve got extra money in my account, guess that means I can spend it”. There are, 100%, people living paycheck to paycheck that make 200k because they’ve made some terrible life choices and have outrageous debt to service, essentially.
I know several people who spend 100% of their income, saving none of it. Not because they have poor saving habits but because they've already saved more than they'll likely ever need for a comfortable retirement.
At which point, it actually kind of makes sense to blow your entire income on lifestyle.
