I bet paycheck to paycheck like most things has a range of meanings circling around the same essential thing, which is that if you do not get paid next month you cannot afford to live the same next month as you did this one.
You might be able to make ends meet by cutting the 401K and yoga classes, but if that's what you need to cut to eat the next month, what do you cut to eat the month after that?
This guy was obviously not living anywhere near paycheck to paycheck.
Mandatory spending isn't stable either. In my 20s I had low income, but at the end of the month I'd have a bit of money left over. Then the next month my car I needed to get to work would break down or I'd need to get a new shirt to look nice enough for the dress code rules or something. So over time I went slowly into debt.
By this definition I was not living paycheque to paycheque, but my situation was definitely not good, compared up someone who made better money but spent it each month on nonessential.
I think this nails the problem with using that phrase as a rallying cry. There is a difference between people whose problem is that their income is too low to be secure and people who could easily live a secure and comfortable lifestyle if they just managed their budget better.
>people who could easily live a secure and comfortable lifestyle if they just managed their budget better.
and inside that group - people who made one bad decision, and people who have neuro-divergent issues that make managing the budget more of chore than it is for someone without the issue.
You might be able to make ends meet by cutting the 401K and yoga classes, but if that's what you need to cut to eat the next month, what do you cut to eat the month after that?
This guy was obviously not living anywhere near paycheck to paycheck.