Note: This essay gathers together several different periods of my life when money was tight and the margin for error was thin. Some of these moments go back many years, including a student exchange year in Dunedin, New Zealand, when a bureaucratic oversight left me without a meal plan for most of the academic year and forced me into a very basic daily routine of trail mix, apricot bars, and coffee. Others come from later phases of adulthood: early teaching years in Kumamoto, young family life in Kyoto’s Mukaijima district, the strange suspended months of COVID, and the present day.
I include these episodes not as a complaint but as a recognition of how common this experience actually is. Living paycheck to paycheck is often imagined as the result of bad choices or personal irresponsibility, yet in reality it is frequently the ordinary condition of people who are working hard, raising families, paying tuition bills, navigating institutional decisions, and simply trying to keep their lives moving forward.
The story of my friend Mandiola, included here with his blessing, illustrates another version of the same pattern. A long career in education, a series of institutional shifts, and one administrative decision were enough to push a once-stable life into years of financial improvisation before things slowly stabilized again.
What these experiences have taught me is less about money than about perspective. Hunger sharpens the mind, small kindnesses matter enormously, and the distance between stability and struggle is often much smaller than we imagine. For that reason, the real lesson of living paycheck to paycheck is not resentment but compassion.
Epigraph
Money won’t save your soul.
— Tim Burgess
A lot of people talk about living paycheck to paycheck as if it were a kind of personal failure. A budgeting problem. A lack of discipline. A mistake someone somewhere made.
In reality it is something far more ordinary than that. It is simply the condition in which millions of people live their lives. Often quietly, often competently, and often without anyone around them quite realizing how narrow the margin really is.
I first learned that margin in Dunedin.
I was on exchange at the University of Otago and through a small bureaucratic mix-up I was not on the meal plan. I had no work visa and no savings. My parents sent twenty dollars here and there, but it took months before anyone realized the full situation.
So for nearly the entire academic year I developed a system.
Breakfast and dinner came from a large white bucket in my room: trail mix, carob chips, raisins, peanuts. Lunch every day was the same: one yoghurt-covered apricot bar and one black coffee at the campus canteen. NZ $3.50.
Day after day after day.
My roommates didn’t know. They just thought I hated the mutton they cooked every night. And to be fair, I did hate the mutton.
Every once in a while a friend named Maren would buy me a Snickers and a Coke at the student club and we would sit there watching the O.J. Simpson chase and the trial coverage on television. Those snacks felt like luxury.
But even then I understood something important.
I wasn’t even the hungriest fellow.
After Dunedin, life improved but the margins never entirely disappeared.
In Kumamoto in 1997 I was earning about ¥250,000 a month teaching English at NOVA. It wasn’t a fortune but it was enough. I could go to the izakaya, drink Asahi, play pool, and date the woman who would later become my wife.
It wasn’t abundance, but it was livable.
A few years later, from 2002 to 2004, my wife and I were living in a subsidized apartment in Mukaijima on the Kintetsu Line outside Kyoto. I was working part-time as a social studies teacher and earning roughly the same ¥230,000–250,000 a month.
Our rent was only ¥40,000 thanks to her hospital job in Uji. The apartment had three large rooms, a kitchen, a genkan, and it was surprisingly well insulated.
Our son Hugh had just been born and wasn’t yet in daycare. My wife worked night shifts and often made more money than I did.
We weren’t rich, but we made it work. And we were happy.
Then years later came another version of the same story.
During COVID I took leave from work and drifted into a strange suspended routine. I spent most of my time in my room playing chess online, watching chess streamers, and talking on the phone.
My peak rating reached about 1200, which I was absurdly proud of.
My expenses were minimal because my life had contracted. I only went out drinking with a friend named Philip maybe three times a month, usually to places like Takimiya’s, Stones, or Rub-a-Dub.
Things were precarious, but manageable. Barely.
And then there is the present.
In January of 2024 I had roughly $60,000 in savings and no debt. My wife and I also had about $20,000 in gold and platinum and a couple of retirement plans. It looked, on paper at least, like stability.
But the final years of my son’s schooling at the University of Auckland slowly drained those savings.
As I write this in March of 2026, at age fifty-one going on fifty-two, I have about $3,000 in the bank and another $3,000 on a Kyoto Bank credit card. My ANA card covers most day-to-day expenses, but that line of credit has already been cut once and could disappear again at any time.
I am a professional educator with thirty-five years of experience. I am gainfully employed and reasonably skilled at what I do.
And yet the margin remains thin.
But my story is hardly unique.
My friend Mandiola is sixty-three years old and has spent most of his life in Los Angeles. He knows that city better than almost anyone I have ever met. His first job after high school was delivering maps for a map store, which meant driving all over the city and learning it street by street.
Later he earned a degree from a University of California campus and became a high school teacher in the Beverly Hills public school system.
For a while things were stable. Then life intervened.
Divorces, relocations, graduate school that never quite finished, and years of improvisation eventually brought him back to Los Angeles where he landed what he considered a dream job in an independent study program. He taught the children of show-business families and even got to know people like Larry King through the students he worked with.
He loved the work. He was his own boss and taught every subject except music. After school he played board games with the kids.
He was, in his words, in hog heaven.
Then a new administration arrived. He calls them the Chicago mafia.
They decided he was too expensive and too independent. He was replaced, after years of conflict and legal battles, by what he describes as three bureaucratic drones.
A $60,000 settlement kept him afloat for a while, but the money vanished quickly.
When I visited him in Los Angeles in March of 2024 he was essentially broke. He struggled to cover his mortgage, his association fees, his car insurance, and groceries at Trader Joe’s. He borrowed money from friends, from his mother, from anyone willing to help.
Eventually he pieced together work again through substitute teaching and tutoring. Today he earns about $4,100 a month and is just months away from retirement eligibility.
Even now he occasionally borrows money.
Not because he is irresponsible, but because life sometimes simply runs that way.
And that, in the end, is the point.
Living paycheck to paycheck is not a moral failure. It is a structural reality for a huge portion of the population. Careers falter. Administrators make decisions. Tuition bills arrive. Children grow up. Systems fail. Life shifts.
Hard times can strike almost anyone.
What those years taught me — from Dunedin to Kumamoto to Mukaijima to the strange suspended months of COVID and the present day — is how little we actually need to survive, how hunger sharpens the mind, and how enormously small acts of kindness can matter.
But most of all they taught me how close to the edge so many people really are.
Which is why compassion is not optional.
It is necessary. Now more than ever.
Dedication
For the middle and lower classes.
For now and eternity.
Note: