Most Americans mentally spend their paycheck before they get it: How to avoid paycheck stress
The survey polled 2,000 employed Americans who make less than $75,000 per year and found that the typical American spends about 43% of their paycheck within the first three days after receiving it, in addition to the roughly 51% that's pre-spent mentally.
Overdue bills are a big driver of this trend — this resonated with 38% of respondents. But large bills, like rent or mortgage payments, necessities like food and medication, and smaller utility bills are likely to be among the first expenses paid after receiving a paycheck.
Of course, that approach makes sense, since essential bills should be covered first. The problem, though, is that only 20% of Americans don't run out of money or otherwise have to live on a tight budget in the days leading up to their next check. Worse yet, 56% of respondents said that less than 10% of their pay goes into savings.
If you're not saving as much as you should or managing your paychecks as well as you feel you could be, it may be time for some changes. Here are a few to consider.
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10)
Americans with upside-down car loans owe more money than ever before — and drivers can't keep up. Here are 3 ways to cut your monthly costs ASAP
A recent survey found that 74% of Americans have a monthly budget. That's good news. But, of those with a monthly budget, 84% tend to exceed it. That's not so good.
This is why it's not enough to just have a budget. Rather, you need a realistic budget. If your budget leaves you relying on credit or with zero room to spend money on leisure and activities, it's probably not working and you need to assess if you're living within your means.
To guide you, consider the 50/30/20 budget rule, which recommends that no more than 50% of your pay goes to needs (like housing, utilities, taxes), 30% goes to wants, and 20% goes to your savings. Another rule is the 30% rule and that suggests that no more than 30% of your gross income should go to housing expenses such as rent or mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, and insurance (though some experts suggest that 40% is more realistic these days).
To start, start tracking each cent. There are helpful apps to help you do that.
If you're diligent about tracking your spending, you may be able to spot areas where you consistently overspend. This indicates your budget isn't realistic. That's why instead of cutting out all non-essential spending in your plan, you should prioritize what you spend on based on how much wiggle room you realistically have.
If you don't have $600 a month to blow on restaurant meals, concerts, and social events, but rather, are limited to $200, decide which few things are most important to you based on your values. Next month, you can prioritize something else. Or, if needed, pick up a side hustle to boost your income so there's more room to spend more.
The Federal Reserve reports that 37% of Americans do not have the savings to cover a surprise $400 expense. Similarly, in early 2025, a survey by U.S. News & World Report found that 42% of Americans don't have an emergency fund at all, and that 40% couldn't cover a $1,000 unexpected expense.
Without emergency savings, you risk falling behind on essential bills and having to resort to debt (possibly high interest debt) when unplanned expenses arise. So it's important to make room in your monthly budget for emergency fund contributions.
Read more: Gold just hit a historic high of $3,000/ounce on Trump's tariff moves — while US stocks got slaughtered. Here's 1 simple way to prevent more pain within minutes
Ideally, you should aim for enough savings to cover three months of essential bills at a bare minimum (though, if you can, try to stretch this to six months). That way, if you find yourself unemployed, you'll have funds to tap to cover your expenses instead of having to reach for a credit card.
Not only should you make room in your budget for savings, but you should also aim to pay yourself first. Given that so many Americans mentally spend their paychecks before they arrive, to stay on track, you may want to establish a monthly savings goal and then set up an automatic transfer from your checking account to your savings account. That way, the amount you want to save will leave your checking account before you get a chance to touch it. You may even want to consider a micro-investing app, such as Acorns.
In recent years, inflation has been a challenge for American workers and has monopolized more of their paychecks. But while you can't help the fact that living costs have been rising even as pay hasn't kept up pace, you can avoid spending more by pledging to steer clear of lifestyle creep (or lifestyle inflation as it's sometimes called).
Many people increase their spending as their income rises. And that's okay to some degree. But if you do so at a pace where there's no money left over for savings, you're going to end up in the same position you're in now, where you're dependent on each paycheck that arrives to cover your essential expenses.
Rather than take on new expenses every time you get a raise, evaluate your savings and see if you can increase your contributions, whether it's to your emergency fund or your 401(k). And if you're getting your first raise in a long time and want to treat yourself, rather than spend the extra money on expenses you have to commit to on a recurring basis, spend it on one-off expenses here and there.
For example, with a $3,000 raise, you may be inclined to rent an apartment that costs $250 more per month. But once you sign that lease, you're locked into it so that if other bills get more expensive, you'll again have no wiggle room in your budget.
A better bet, if you really want to treat yourself after getting a raise, would be to buy a $250 pair of tickets to a concert or something similar as a one-time purchase. But from there, don't commit to other bills right away.
In fact, if you send more of your money into savings automatically as your paycheck increases, you won't miss the extra money, because you won't be used to having it to spend. So that could be the easiest way to meet major goals you have and get to a place where you're more financially secure.
Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
Protect your retirement savings with these 5 essential money moves — most of which you can complete in just minutes
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Wealthiest Suburb in Each of America's 50 Largest Metro Areas
Rocky89 / You might have some familiarity with the nation's 50 wealthiest suburbs, as ranked by GOBankingRates in July 2025. But what about the wealthiest suburbs in the 50 largest U.S. metros — such as Miami, Los Angeles and New York? Discover More: GOBankingRates Original Research Center View Next: Mark Cuban Says Trump's Executive Order To Lower Medication Costs Has a 'Real Shot' -- Here's Why For this study, GOBankingRates used the U.S. Census 2023 American Community Survey to find the 50 largest metropolitan areas by population and identify the cities with the highest average household incomes within each Metropolitan Statistical Area (as defined by the Census). Qualifying suburbs must have a minimum of 5,000 households and not be principal cities. Each suburb's 2022 and 2023 household mean incomes were sourced and the CPI inflation calculator was used to find the 2022 household mean income's value in 2023. The Zillow Home Value Index was referenced to source each suburb's average single-family home value in 2025. The one-year change in dollar amount and percent was calculated for the inflation-adjusted household mean income and the single-family home value. The rankings for each suburb are based on population, with the most populated MSA first. Alex Potemkin / Getty Images/iStockphoto Key Findings Scarsdale, which ranked as the wealthiest suburb in the nation, is obviously therefore the wealthiest suburb in New York City. Over the course of one year, the household mean income in Scarsdale increased by 2.45% while home values went up by 4.60%. The wealthiest suburbs in the five biggest cities are Scarsdale (New York City), Palos Verdes Estates (Los Angeles), Hinsdale (Chicago), University Park (Dallas) and West University Place (Houston). The wealthiest suburbs in the Midwest have average incomes of $161,000 on the low end (Mason, Ohio) and as high as $376,000 (Hinsdale). Four Florida suburbs ranked in the top 50 with average incomes above $180,000: Pinecrest (#9), Keystone (#18), Lake Butler (#22) and Nocatee (#39). Here are the wealthiest suburbs in the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, ranked by population. Find Out: I Asked ChatGPT If a Recession Is Coming Soon — Here's What It Said Learn More: Here's How Much Every Tax Bracket Would Gain — or Lose — Under Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Alex Potemkin / Getty Images/iStockphoto 1. Scarsdale, New York Suburb of: New York City (19.8 million) Household mean income 2023: $601,193 Household mean income 1-year growth change (%): 2.45% Average home value June 2025: $1,607,856 One-year home value change (%): 4.60% That's Interesting: J.P. Morgan Offers 3 Reasons the US Dollar Is Losing Value — and Why It Might Be Good for Your Wallet joebelanger / Getty Images/iStockphoto 2. Palos Verdes Estates, California


USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
These are the wealthiest suburbs of America's biggest cities
New York's wealthiest suburb is Scarsdale, a name long linked to affluence. Wellesley, the most well-heeled Boston suburb, is known for academia. McLean, a high-earner enclave outside the nation's capital, houses diplomats and spies. Fewer Americans might recognize the name of Hinsdale, Chicago's wealthiest suburb. And some non-Texans might struggle to differentiate between University Park and West University Place, the most affluent suburbs, respectively, of metropolitan Dallas and Houston. A new report from the personal finance site GOBankingRates identifies the wealthiest suburbs of America's 50 largest metropolitan areas in 2025. It's a spinoff from an earlier analysis, which listed the wealthiest suburbs in America. Some of the names are familiar. The nation's wealthiest suburb is Scarsdale, a storied suburb in New York's leafy Westchester County. New York state, California and Texas are home to eight of the 10 wealthiest suburbs in America, Census data show. Other affluent suburbs attract little attention outside their own regions. A 'Jeopardy!' contestant might be hard-pressed, for example, to identify Alamo as the wealthiest suburb of San Francisco. "I wasn't really familiar with Milton, Georgia, until the survey," said Rudri Patel, a senior financial expert at GOBankingRates, referring to the wealthiest Atlanta suburb. "I think affluence is moving beyond stereotyped geographic regions," such as Beverly Hills, she said. "It doesn't need to be 90210." To compile the report, researchers found the suburb with the highest mean household income for each of the 50 largest metropolitan areas. Communities of fewer than 5,000 households were omitted. Here are the wealthiest suburbs of the largest cities Here, then, are the wealthiest suburbs of the 20 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. New York: Scarsdale. This famous New York suburb boasts an average household income of $601,193, as of 2023. The average Scarsdale home is worth $1.6 million, as of June 2025. It's the wealthiest suburb in America. Los Angeles: Palos Verdes Estates. Forget Beverly Hills: Palos Verdes Estates, part of the tony Palos Verdes Peninsula, is the wealthiest L.A. suburb and the 11th wealthiest in the nation. Household incomes average $367,178. Home values average $2.8 million. Chicago: Hinsdale. Most people associate Chicago's North Shore with suburban wealth, but the city's wealthiest suburb (and the nation's eighth wealthiest) sits to the west. Hinsdale has an average household income of $376,366. Home values average $1.3 million. Dallas-Fort Worth: University Park. The nation's sixth-wealthiest suburb is named for Southern Methodist University. The average household income is $389,868, and home values average $2.4 million. Houston: West University Place. This unsung suburb of Houston, named for nearby Rice University, is the nation's third wealthiest. Average household income is $409,677. The average home value is $1.1 million. Washington, D.C.: McLean. The most affluent D.C. suburb ranks 12th nationally. The average household income is $364,591, and home prices average $1.7 million. Philadelphia: Ardmore. This Main Line Philly suburb does not rank among the nation's 50 wealthiest, but Ardmore residents are doing just fine. Average household income is $161,029, and home prices average $527,016. Atlanta: Milton. This suburb wasn't incorporated until 2006, although its namesake, John Milton, fought in the Revolutionary War. Milton does not rank among the nation's 50 wealthiest suburbs. Household income averages $225,532, and the average home is worth $976,830. Miami: Pinecrest. You don't hear much about the nation's 21st wealthiest suburb, which sits south of Miami. Household incomes average $312,591, and home values average $2.4 million. Phoenix: Scottsdale. Though technically a suburb, Scottsdale is larger than many central cities, with a population of 241,361 in 2020. Scottsdale does not rank among the nation's 50 wealthiest suburbs. Household income averages $168,679, and home values average $946,327. Boston: Wellesley. The nation's 10th wealthiest suburb is home to Wellesley and Babson colleges. Household incomes average $368,179, and home values average $2.1 million. San Francisco: Alamo. Technically a suburb of Oakland, Alamo sits in Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco. Household incomes average $403,334. Home values average $2.5 million. Alamo is the nation's fifth wealthiest suburb. Riverside-San Bernardino, California: Eastvale. Who knew the Inland Empire ranked as the 13th largest metro area in America? As for Eastvale, it's an enclave of former dairy farms, incorporated in 2010. Household income averages $177,404, and home prices average $965,438. Detroit: Birmingham. Grosse Pointe may be more famous, but Birmingham is Detroit's wealthiest suburb, with an average household income of $240,711 and an average home value of $822,581. Birmingham does not rank among the nation's 50 wealthiest suburbs. Seattle: Mercer Island. The wealthiest Seattle suburb is an actual island, east of the city. It ranks 29th nationally. Household incomes average $303,425, and home values average $2.5 million. Minneapolis-Saint Paul: Edina. One of the first Minneapolis suburbs, Edina was once reachable by streetcar. Household incomes average $205,682, and home values average $785,567. Like most of the remaining suburbs on this list, Edina does not rank among the 50 wealthiest U.S. suburbs. San Diego: Solana Beach. With average home values of $2.6 million, Solana Beach is one of the most expensive suburbs in America. The average household income is a more modest $216,465. Tampa-St. Petersburg: Keystone. This little-known suburb ranks as the wealthiest in Tampa-St. Pete, with an average household income of $199,755. The average home value is only $277,636. Denver: Greenwood Village. Denver's wealthiest suburb was settled, fittingly, by gold prospectors. Household incomes average $258,780, and home prices average a whopping $1.6 million. Baltimore: Annapolis Neck. This waterfront community is technically a suburb of Annapolis, the Maryland capital. The average household income is $240,059, and home values average $665,302. Beyond the top 20: Other wealthiest suburbs Didn't see your city in the top 20? Here are the wealthiest suburbs of some other large metros. St. Louis: Clayton. Average household income: $216,884. Average home value: $1.1 million. Portland, Oregon: Cedar Mill. Average household income: $223,012. Average home value: $796,226. Pittsburgh: Franklin Park. Average household income: $218,236. Average home value: $502,695. Cincinnati: Mason. Average household income: $161,798. Average home value: $565,612. Cleveland: Solon. Average household income: $186,260. Average home value: $461,665. Indianapolis: Zionsville. Average household income: $220,563. Average home value: $666,102. Nashville, Tennessee: Brentwood. Average household income: $261,248. Average home value: $1.4 million. Milwaukee: Mequon. Average household income: $209,904. Average home value: $669,603.


San Francisco Chronicle
44 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Trump administration wants to squash clean energy. How bad will it be for California?
Before President Donald Trump was elected for the second time, catastrophic wildfires sent electricity prices soaring and posed one of the biggest continuing threats to energy affordability in California. Today, there's another major factor. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has thrown up roadblocks for clean energy development at a time when electricity demand is rising. In nearly a dozen policy directives, the administration is ending subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar and adding regulatory hurdles that could slow new development. These actions, some renewable energy advocates say, could drive up electricity prices even more nationwide and especially in California, a state pushing new large-scale wind and solar projects in its race to ensure homes and businesses are powered solely by clean energy sources by 2045. 'It's going to hurt affordability for literally every person in this country," said Merrian Borgeson, California climate and energy policy director with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Trump has repeatedly complained that wind and solar farms are eyesores that take up too much space and are too reliant on government subsidies. His administration has quickly reversed policies promoting renewable energy, while clearing hurdles for gas- and coal-fired power sources. 'We will develop the liquid gold that is right under our feet, including American oil and natural gas,' Trump wrote on social media. 'And we will also embrace nuclear, clean coal, hydropower, which is fantastic, and every other form of affordable energy to get it done.' However, Trump's view of renewables overlooks how much less expensive experts say they are to develop compared to gas and coal. A June report from Lazard asset management firm found that 'utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation,' even with no government subsidies, and that the cost of building new gas turbines had reached a 10-year high. 'It costs less to build a new clean energy power plant than to just operate an existing fossil fuel plant,' said Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at UC Berkeley. The actual impacts of Trump's policies to utility bills, if any, aren't yet known because most have yet to be implemented. One of the most impactful changes may be the abrupt end of tax credits that can save clean energy developers at least 30% on costs. That tax credit was slated to begin phasing out in 2032, but the Trump administration has changed the deadline to Dec. 31, 2025. The American Clean Power-California is urging state agencies to speed up approvals of projects currently under review so that they qualify for the federal tax credits before they sunset. Without the tax credits, developers could be paying between $400 million to $650 million more per gigawatt of large-scale solar or wind resources currently in the pipeline, according to an association memo submitted to the CPUC. That could boost costs by as much as 60% over the lifetime of a project, according to the association. These aren't direct costs to ratepayers but could eventually filter into utility bills. Utilities pass the costs of buying energy directly to customers. For example, roughly 38% of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. residential bills go toward power the company generates and power it buys from power producers. PG&E spokesperson Lynsey Paulo said that the company is currently not aware of any impacts to new power projects related to changes in federal policies. The company 'met our residential and small business customers' electricity use with 98% greenhouse-gas free electricity in 2024,' she said. PG&E will continue adding greenhouse gas-free sources of electricity 'to reduce emissions across our energy system and make progress toward our goal of net-zero emissions by 2040 at the lowest possible cost,' she said. Alex Jackson, executive director of the power association said there is now a race among developers to qualify for the subsidies and tax breaks before they expire. But he said the state has a lot of tools to push projects forward despite federal policies. 'California is a big state. It has a lot of influence,' Jackson said. 'It's not helpless in this fight.' State regulators this summer fast-tracked a massive new solar project in Fresno County slated to include more than 3 million solar panels and the largest solar energy battery storage system in the world. Called the Darden Clean Energy Project, it was the first project approved in a new process designed to reduce regulatory hurdles. The project developer, a subsidiary of San Francisco-based Intersect Power, didn't respond to a request for comment from the Chronicle. But Borgeson said that the project is unlikely to face federal pushback because it is on private land and primarily required state approval. A California Public Utilities Commission spokesperson said there are 'hundreds' of clean energy projects currently in the pipeline. 'We are actively assessing how recent changes in federal tax, tariff, and land use policy may impact the long-term prospect for projects planning to come online to serve California – but so far 2025 has continued to see robust development of new resources,' said Terrie Prosper, CPUC spokesperson. But it's not just heavily Democratic California that relies on clean energy sources. Wind is an important power source in states like Texas and Oklahoma, and solar power is critical in sunny states like Arizona and Nevada. In an Aug. 4 letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo warned that new federal policies toward clean energy had already stalled important solar energy projects for the state and would harm his state's 'business-friendly environment.' 'Solar energy development on federal land fuels Nevada's economy,' he wrote. Many energy experts are hopeful that California will continue using its economic clout to continue fueling the clean energy boom despite federal headwinds. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently reported that the state brought a record amount of clean energy online in 2024 – about 7,000 megawatts – boasting in a news release that the state 'has never added so much capacity to our grid in such a short amount of time.' The state must triple the amount of clean energy to meet its 2045 goal – and solar is a significant part of that. Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president for California at the Environmental Working Group, criticized California for slashing incentives for rooftop solar at a time when energy demand is rising and the federal government is hostile. 'We can't place all the blame on Trump. Newsom has unwisely engaged in a zero sum game of pitting one form of renewable energy against another (rooftop vs utility scale),' Del Chiaro said. With the many hurdles it is creating for large-scale projects, the federal government 'has a great deal of power to slow and delay clean energy projects, which results in higher costs,' Kammen said. Even so, Kammen said he doesn't expect it to impact utility bills in part because electricity prices are influenced by many other factors including natural gas markets. Plus, momentum for new clean energy projects is strong because 'it costs less to build a new clean energy power plant than to just operate an existing fossil fuel plant,' he said. 'The clean energy transition has left the station,' Kammen said.