>

First of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to "cash" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.
Know why?
Because it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.
And your proposed "less misleading" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.

"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts"

The original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.

"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card"

Show me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.
The point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.
The key phrase is "in cash." Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing. >

It's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading. >

I mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of "can't afford it" >

If you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?
If you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it? >


If you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?

If you can't pay it off right away, yes. 

If you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?

Did you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference. >


If you can't pay it off right away, yes.

Ok, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?

Did you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?

This is not relevant. "If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't," isn't logic. >

The statement is clear and your view is confused. 
The suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. 

put on a credit card

This means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). 

sell something of value

This means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.

get money from friends/family

This means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. 

"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts" or "50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card"

These phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem "50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts" >


You could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.

A line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.

They literally just asked "how would you pay it".

You're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.
If someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the "researcher" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.
But, we can't deny that there are many in this "study" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions. >

It's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.
No where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.
This is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement. >

Most of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood. >

The bill could go unpaid though?
Within that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.
So it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries. >


The Statement "50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.

How is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.