Submitted 6 months ago by LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
No man is an island. So nobody.
If you mean ‘having your own place’, maintaining an apartment on one person’s earnings? I am nearing 60, and have never lived alone. I don’t think it’s normal or usual to be able to support a household of 1 by yourself, there are economies of scale so roommates pretty much always make sense.
~0%. Everyone is reliant to some degree on others. Even if you grant a tropical paradise to somewhat ease the physical needs, even survival is a team activity, and no one thrives under forced solitude.
Not to diminish the question; I think it is an interesting thought experiment, but thr conditions set in this are immensely subjective.
Are we saying capable as in theoretically could have the ability to contribute workforce or are currently contributing workforce? How do we say what thriving means? I’m assuming when you say living you mean reach wome standard of living and not just exclusively surviving etc.
In a theoretical/fair world probably around 98% of people 30+ can support themselves, exclusing the few people who are sick or mentally disabled. In our current world that number is significantly lower, but that is a result of structural/political issues, not if the individual peoples capabilities.
Right, the question came from my own head and I didn’t put a whole lot of thought into it, but basically I want to know if there’s any statistic that can show us what percentage of humans over the age of 30 actually are self-sustaining? They have a job and pay for their own food and shelter and bills and take care of themselves and don’t need anyone else to sustain their basic survival?
Thriving is subjective but every single 30+ I know is able to financially support themselves in the common sense of the word so I’d say a quite high number. Probably around 80 to 90% if not higher.
Vanishingly close to 0%. People are social creatures and rely on each other to survive. Without the intricate web of interreliance that society relies on only a few extremely healthy and resourceful, profoundly insane people would survive as truly independent entities, a tiny number of these might “thrive.” Probably numbered in the hundreds or thousands worldwide.
If you remove thrive from the query I would say most of them.
However once you include thrive as a modifier I’d reckon under 5%.
[US Here]
Bruh, even assuming $15 an hour, 40 hour work week, that’s about $2600 per month on average, rent is $1500, which leave you with $1100 to cover EVERYTHING. So you’re gonna have to share that place with roomates (which are more often than not, random strangers, and good luck if they refuse to pay their share, the landlord will sue you all and your name gets on court dockets, so that), or have a romantic relationship, which could go downhill really fast. So your other option is stay with parents.
There is no “living independently” in the US lmfao, pick your poison: random roomates who might do drugs, bf/gf, stay with parents, or on the streets.
Or alternatively, be born to rich parents and they give you a mansion and a big spending budget.
The top ten percent. That’s it.
I’d like to pay rent and not be exploited.
Capable? Everyone who isn’t mentally handicapped or disabled.
If everyone 30+ got together and collectively decided what thriving meant, then worked to reach those goals, then I think we would all be thriving.
The majority isn’t hoping for a vacation home or to send their kids to Ivy League schools or to buy a bigger boat. The majority of middle class folk I talk to regard thriving as being comfortable enough to send the kids to some postsecondary school and take a few weeks vacation out of the country. They want to have enough to retire at 65 and live a modest life, be able to spoil their grandkids a little… nothing crazy.
The ability for all of us to thrive is already here. It is only the slight matter of systemic overhaul that prevents us.
Personally, I think very few people in life are truly independent and never need help or assistance with something. As far as thriving, I know few people that aren’t struggling with their finances, health, or something else.
As a child, I thought life would be hard but ultimately a good experience. The older I become, the more I believe my subjective experience is bleak but with good moments.
Agreed on the independence part. We are much more interdependent than we let on (in the US especially, but other places as well).
In my small group of old friends it’s 100% for 2/3 of that.
Thriving is hard to quantify.
I can’t imagine how that works across the globe.
Independently, as in not counting the income and support from a partner?
I’d say less than 5%.
Here in Canada I’d suspect the number is fairly quite low if we’re talking independently. Cost of everything is high and wages are comparatively low for the most part. Maybe once you look at ages 45 and up its less bad but 30-45 probably less than 50%
A lot of those 45+ are in two-earner households. They might be ok independent of each other, but not at the same level. Then the whole retiree population…is someone on social security ‘financially supporting themself?’
It’s a good, thought provoking, question but “thriving” is subjective. One of my besties is not wealthy and doesn’t want to be but he’s living the life he wants and very happy doing it so I’d consider that thriving.
Great point. I’m doing alright, but am I thriving? 🤷🏻♂️
Great point. I’m not doing alright, but am I living? (I don’t know how to do emojis)
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 6 months ago
Probably ~20%.
It would be higher if you removed “thriving” from the list.