I think wealthier people tend to land at this conclusion but is this true for middle class?
Discussion
Why would it be any different? I’m a far way away from “wealthy”.
Because if you have no assets or low assets then credit is a last resort and you may not have a way to pay it back with the rates you get offered.
If you have assets and access to cheap credit then you can grow your assets while being able to use a line that you can pay back without financially drowning
Sorry, I guess we have different definitions of middle class.
Someone who is poor and doesn’t have any assets will not have any option for an emergency fund. Won’t they be living paycheque to paycheque?
I thought your original query was regarding someone who has funds to leave in cash for an emergency, or have it invested? This person should have access to a line of credit, or have some form of liquid asset that can be converted Ina n emergency. Many in the “middle class” have this option.
I mean it across the spectrum. You can make the case that the person living paycheck to paycheck would have benefited greatly from having more in sats than emergency fund from 2015 to 2020. Even if it was just a few dollars from odd jobs etc
I don't know but I think ultimately the net worth of the individual influences the emergency fund question a lot
At the extremes, of course, but I think the advice of not have any “money” in cash holds true for a lot of people. I’m not arguing for having everything in sats either. It’s too volatile to have emergency funds in. For now.