When I was a child, there were certain people who were described as being “on a fixed income”. This meant a few things. First, that they were receiving some sort of government benefit such as welfare or Social Security. Second, that they were poor. Third, that they were bottom feeding scum sucking algae eaters that I shouldn’t be spending time with because hey, they are on a fixed income and therefore losers. People who were on a fixed income couldn’t go on vacations or have a nice car or maybe even go to the pool much because of how poor they were.
What’s the reality of this term? The ordinary definition of the word “fixed” basically means unvarying, so one might assume that being on a fixed income meant that you more or less earned the same amount over time rather than getting gobs of money in January followed by a few months of no income/living off savings, then from May to November you made a modest amount per month except for August where your income went through the roof again and then in December you made nothing. I was confused by this term as a child because many people, including my parents, were salaried and received a weekly, biweekly, monthly, or whatever check with a fixed rate of pay rather than receiving pay that could go up or down depending on how hard they worked, how much they sucked up to the boss that month, or how heavily it had rained in Spain in the past year. It was possible for this to be adjusted, but it wasn’t easy and always had to be approved by the employer. Likewise, a person on welfare couldn’t just up and demand a bigger check but they had to get the government to agree to give them more. Either of them could make more money by finding a new job, etc. So why was the welfare recipient who got $25k a year pursuant to local government policy considered to be “on a fixed income” but the guy who made $40k working for the city as a teacher whose salary was set by the School Board wasn’t?
The Wikipedia entry for fixed income seems to be describing investment securities that have nothing to do with being poor or being on welfare.
Before you say that the way in which the term was used by my parents was unusual, I found this thread right here on the Dope and the OP clearly associates being “on a fixed income” with being poor.
I never heard the term in reference to anyone except pensioners. When inflation began to run rampant in the late 1960s, it put quite a squeeze on Social Security recipients whose benefits were a fixed amount, until cost of living adjustments were introduced. I suppose those receiving disability, child support, welfare, or similar payments would also be hurt in an inflationary economy by being on a fixed income.
I still hear it today given as an excuse for senior citizen discounts—even though there’s pretty good evidence that COLA now overstates inflation and even though seniors as an age cohort actually have more personal wealth than any other group.
OTOH, there are many people living on a “fixed income” (welfare, social security, disability, SSI, etc.) who don’t have much in savings (or maybe none at all) and don’t have other income. These benefits typically are just barely enough to live on from month to month, or not even that.
Surely you’ve read the stories of people living (if you can call it that) on $700/month of social security (if you can call it that).
These benefits come with cost-of-living adjustments now, but I don’t think those adjustments realistically track these peoples’ actual expenses. Besides, if you’re trying to live on $700/month and you get increased to $715/month next year, how much better are you going to live on that?
People who do have some savings will gradually spend all of that, leaving them with only their benefits to live on.
I am a senior and on fixed income. What you’re ignoring is the fact that not being employed, that “personal wealth” has to last the rest of our lives . . . and of course, we have no idea how long that is.
This is my experience, as well: it’s a polite euphemism for “poor”, and suggests an oder person living off a “fixed” pension or income from savings. Before COLAs became widespread, that effectively meant a slowly declining income over your lifetime, and very elderly people on fixed incomes could be very poor indeed.
Uncle Leo on SEINFELD berates Jerry for failing to realize that his grandma is living “on a VERY fixed income,” implying that he (uncle Leo) thinks “Fixed” = “Small.”
Where I live it doesn’t mean poor, so much as ‘fixed’. Unlike the salaried worker whose wage could go up or down due to various factors, such as raises, bonuses, demotions etc. unlike those living on government assistance or pensions, (the disabled, seniors etc).
We’re not quite so into defining people as ‘poor’. Most people i know, while acknowledging there are no doubt some cheaters, understand that being on assistance is, in no way, a life of ease. And that most are ‘deserving’. Wealthy seniors, with assets are not considered to be living on a fixed income, as their government pension is mostly clawed back on their taxes, due to their assets.
Around hear the phrase is mostly used when talking about the impact of reducing entitlements, or raising taxes. For people eking out a meagre life on a fixed income these things have enormous impact.
Those people SHOULD be at the top of the list whenever such cutbacks are proposed, in my opinion.
This is always the way I understood the term. While I may get a promotion, a new job, or otherwise through time learn more skills and increase my salary, a retired person’s income is “fixed.”
That has always been my problem with the term however. It implies that working people always have the option of making more money and can do that more or less at will. We all know the reasons that is not true in many cases. It may not even mean you are truly poor at all. A teacher with a master’s degree may max out their personal control over their income. Most teachers go into it for life and there aren’t any ways to advance after a certain point besides going into administration and only a few can do that even if they want to. The same can also apply to people in the military and lots of other perfectly respectable jobs.
Sure, some might eventually make more money but senior citizens on a ‘fixed income’ are going to get cost of living adjustments and may hit the lottery some time as well so it isn’t a completely accurate term. I think the colloquial use of the term has very limited value and is used mainly as an emotional ploy. Lots of working people these day would love to be on a fixed income themselves (long-term stable salary) rather than trying to piece together a living through temp assignments and short-term contracts.
SS cost of living adjustments aren’t guaranteed however, and can prove to be minuscule when they occur. In 2010 and 2011 there was no COLA at all. The COLA for 2012 was 3.6% and for 2013 it is 1.7%. I’ll tell you, I’m living large on my extra $15 per month. Oh, wait, my Medicare Part B went up $5 a month. As for the lottery, I try not to fritter away what little money I have so that I can keep my lights and gas on and my water running and so I have better things to eat than peanut butter sandwiches and crackers.
People with jobs sometimes go for years at a time with no raises as well. I understand that 3.6% and 1.7% don’t seem like much but they are in line with yearly raises among working people when they are given at all. Occasionally, working people even get pay cuts for doing the same job. I understand that your finances are tight but the same is true for many working people as well. I don’t think the term ‘fixed income’ differentiates people that well and doesn’t provide much information on its won. In your case, it sounds like you are low-income as well as fixed income. The ‘low-income’ part is where the problem really lies and that applies to all kinds of different groups trying to survive on little money.
I just had been taught it meant their income was unchanging; all those articles about “how to go in and ask your boss for a raise” would be useless for these people. Although it was often used for people who had a pension, it could also mean anyone working with a negotiated contract. For example, as a teacher, I can’t go to the Board and ask for a raise. The policeman down the street isn’t going to get more money for schmoozing the boss, and so on. I have never heard anyone use it in any way as a reflection of someone’s character.
I have never heard it used for a working person but that is part of the problem with the term. It applies equally well to your examples as it does to someone who depends on Social Security. They all get adjustments over time indexed for inflation.
A true definition of the term includes people that you wouldn’t expect. Someone who truly only get $5 million a year from an annuity for life and not a penny more is an example of someone who is truly on a ‘fixed-income’ but they certainly aren’t poor either and never will be.
It is a useless term that doesn’t that doesn’t provide any useful information. It just provides insinuations that may or may not be true for a particular case and most of those also apply to people who aren’t on any sort of (adjusted) fixed-income.
But you can quit and go work as a teacher for a higher-paying school board (outside of Wisconsin?) or change career and go work as a long-haul trucker. Or take a second job dealing fries at McD’s. Ditto for the policeman. There are options (they just aren’t that great the last few years.)
Fixed income, OTOH, implies that’s the person’s option for a fairly long time. It suggests to me that not only is the income “fixed” but so is the source. The person basically has no realistic options to change their income. A pensioner can’t “change pensions” and if you are collecting disability, there’s no competing plan offering better disability you can sign up for. Plus, for these people, often a second job at McD’s is not a realistic option (age and infirmity) or (in some cases) simply means that money is subtracted from their current income.