Article on USAToday website.

Some people are allowed to get 50% of their pay at the end of their shift DAILY. No taxes are withheld until the normal payday. Article states that within 5 years they expect all major payroll providers to offer this option. The are only allowed to take 50% to "encourage saving".

Seems like this is asking for more trouble for those who spend all their pay the day they get it.

Looks like we'll be taking rent by the day in the near future.

This has to lead to an even worse state of affairs.

It'll do the exact opposite of encouraging savings. It'll cause the paycheck to paycheck folks to have a difficult time to make it through the day without a handout. Which is all it'll end up being. $100 a day allowance or whatever it works out to be. Just enough for gas, McD's and some gas.

Fueling short sightedness.

Fueling more dependence.

Fueling more entitlement.

And with internet gambling this will be a big win for the companies that provide online gambling.

State Law dictates how often you must be paid at

Waiting 2-3 weeks for the first paycheck puts low wage earners behind, and they don’t likely get caught up.

I think this is in response to employers like Uber who allow drivers to withdraw their pay daily. It may be the wave of the future to retain people. I don't think it encourages savings at all. It encourages spending. I agree, it means daily or weekly rent.

I pay my help daily. Been doing it for more years than I remember at this point.

I like the instant world. Don't like bills coming telling me about what happened five weeks ago. I like it for accounting reasons.

I only see the "problem" with daily pay being bills aren't billed out daily. So you are asking for MORE budgeting not less with daily pay. A skill many people lack.

How does a person pay rent monthly (assuming not on a more frequent plan). Utilities monthly, car payment monthly, car insurance quarterly, etc. when they are spending half of their pay as soon as they get it?

Many people do NOT budget well. I think the most appropriate instance is that no matter the pay period, to align bills with that frequency. So "no saving is necessary" from a current bill/debt standpoint, never mind for retirement or anything else at the moment.

For people who can/do budget, the pay/bill frequency is irrelevant. The more frequent the pay/bills the more bookkeeping is all that results from that. So, in my mind, the question becomes what arrangement best serves those who fail at budgeting? I think the answer is to match bill frequency with pay frequency.

I should add the difference between "back in the day" and now, is people's debt load and comfortability of carrying said debt.

"Paid daily" is a throw back to OT times....1500 or so years before Christ.

"You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns. You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the LORD and it become sin in you." - Deuteronomy 24:14-15

I find a lot of interesting thing in this discussion:

1) ..."who is POOR and NEEDY..." This passage is clear that daily pay is for the lower end of the economic spectrum. Presumably, they needed the money to meet daily living expenses.

2) ..."countryman or one of your aliens..." applies to both citizens and non-citizens, which is even more interesting that such a concern existed at a time when the kingdom/nation of Israel hadn't been established yet.

3) While not expressed, it is strongly implied that a strong cash economy existed among employers of day laborers.

4) Employers were delaying wage payments, possibly suggesting they wanted interest on "float" or perhaps with the intent of defrauding someone at a later time.

5) "...sets his heart on it..." Motivating for some to see instant reward for labor.

What about today? I think the facts of the situations have not changed much, if any. We're talking about the poorest folks general who need/desire daily pay. Yes, they lack budgeting skills. 50% of pay is not 100% of pay, though. So there is still some built-in "saving" mechanism for things like rents, utility bills, etc.

We're kidding ourselves if we think paying every week or two weeks encourages saving. They spend it all at the rent-a-center before the pay shows up, and rack up late fees/bounced debit charges on credit cards and at their banks. A story on this morning's news said the average low-income family spends $31 per month on late fees, bounced check charges and ATM fees vs. $9 for middle-income. Cash in the bank could solve the bounced check part at least. Maybe. Maybe not.

In my younger, poorer days there are some times I wouldn't mind getting paid daily vs. waiting 2 weeks. We had sufficient income for our monthly expenses, but all the pesky bills showed up on the 1st and I had to wait another 2 weeks until the rest of payday showed up. It wasn't until after the first year or so that we built up a thick cash cushion in our account to cover the lag time between work days and pay days.

Think too, how many evictions could have been avoided if the excuse "I don't get paid until NEXT week Friday" (when it's THIS week Monday) was gone!

My flooring guys are great but this is how they get paid.

They cash the check, buy gas and smokes, than head to their favorite local bar after work to play kino. When its all gone they go home and repeat the next day.