If their description of paycheck to paycheck is a tautology: nothing can be inferred from it.
Because you are either too stupid to infer, don't like the result, or both.
The main purpose of showing the video was to show that the vernacular paycheck to paycheck definition (taxes+spending+savings) ends up being tautological in many cases. If survey respondents’ definition of “paycheck to paycheck” is tautological (as seems to be the case), then there’s just nothing to be inferred outside of the fact that the phrase has no meaning.
No, your diareatic posts have no meaning. Everyone here knows it means financially strained. If someone asked any person if s/he wishes to be in a paycheck to paycheck situation or to not be dependent on the next paycheck, no one would pick the former. No amount of American politician/economist twisting will escape this fact.
The house is simultaneously an investment asset and a consumption item. Your savings were channelled into assets that appreciated in value much the same way, household savings invested in REIT shares appreciate
Nah. You live in a house. Other than more expensive houses costing more in tax and maintenance, they do not help you or your bills unless you sell your house and become homeless.
They can’t pay their bills for essential items doesn’t mean they will never pay, just that they won’t regularly pay.Economic cycles are correlated with each other so if many households have large cash flow increases, other households, should similarly have large cash flow increases (and the inverse is true). The lack of said variability on utility balance sheets suggests that there isn’t variability in cash flows and that households pay bills on time, consistently. Alternatively, the bad debt to revenue ratio is also quite low, which cuts even more against the hypothesis that households can’t pay.
It doesn't work that way with utilities. You don't pay, they get shut off. They need to get paid even if other things are strained. That's the difference between necessities and luxuries. People here accuse you of cherry-picking but this isn't even that; this is picking pebbles and pretending that they are cherries.
Imputed rent is something done by all countries and so are the accounting for NPISHs - these are the Systems of National Accounts standards. Regardless - there are detailed accounts excluding nonprofits to only have households - household assets are $154 trillion on liabilities of $20 trillion with a net worth of $134 trillion (
, lines 30 and 35)
Yeah, that's why I specifically said American imputed rent, which imagines a person paying himself rent at market price. Economies like China that don't puff ourselves up use imputed rent as the percentage of the building consumed every year as it has a certain number of years before it should be torn down and remade. This is realistic imputed rent.
No. Survey responses are biased downwards - survey respondents generally underestimate their own household income
No, that's you asking someone a question, not liking their answer and pulling some reason out of your ass for why it should be closer to what you want it to be.
(
), stock prices (
), among other readily verifiable data. If even, after said negativity bias, half can flip to the positive side of the dichotomy, it’s evidence for households not struggling, and readily verifiably not broke (since detailed balance sheet data exists for that).
There is no evidence for someone not struggling after they already said they are. You are using bullshit American politician/economist twisting to try to put words into other people's mouths when they have clearly indicated the opposite. And the saddest thing is, you are the one who originally thought that the source is trustworthy enough to cite.
No. You said households can’t pay credit card bills, yet 97% of credit card bills are being paid.
No. Debt is increasing to an all time high and the number of unpaid bills is increasing as well. Your sentence means nothing. 97% is meaningless in a vacuum without looking at the trends, (which I know you can't do because you can't read charts) and "can't pay bills" means nothing; it's the number of people who can and can't pay compared to before.
No. Not really. Elites aim to retire and are in such high-income brackets that they are uninsurable by life and disability insurers (they don’t want to write super large face value policies) so they’ll save for retirement and for the risks of premature death and disability.
Elites have enough money for premature death (which is free) or disability. Their savings are easily in the tens of millions. They keep saving and save more than the poor people who actually need to save for unforeseen circumstances because they know that money is useful no matter now rich or poor you are.
No. It was illustrative - if you can absolutely guarantee positive outcomes, you wouldn’t save. So inherent in that is that savings are about hedging against future uncertainly.
It's illustrative of how stupid and wrong you are all the time because you had to create an impossible situation to demonstrate your point and that means that your point only resides in the impossible.
So once again - it’s about uncertainty of future outcomes.
So once again, it's not. Your theory is stupid and lacks all common sense. You ask anyone in any situation if they'd prefer to have savings or no savings and the answer will always be the former. The only reason you're still here bullshitting is because you've read so much retarded Western economic theory that you've lost scope of common sense. Why do people want money? Only an imbecile would over-analyze this to the point of what you're saying.
Nope - as economic theory correctly predicts, people in China who have grown up in an economic boom would have lower savings rates than those that grew up in tougher economic times. And low and behold - that is indeed the case, with younger Chinese individuals saving less than older Chinese individuals (
.)
Nope, your economic theories are always stupid and wrong, which is why they've always predicted China's economic collapse amid the backdrop of it overtaking the US. Common sense always trumps Western economic theory. The more I think about this the stupider Western economists are.
No. Culture matters, but culture matters only insofar as it’s about shared historical memory passes through family structures; hence, savings rates of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants merging into their home country savings rates.
There is no "no," that's what I said. Your "no" is actually against Western traditional econ dogma, which is stated in the paper that culture does not influence saving patterns. (They debunked it.) Anyone with common sense knows they are entertwined. Second and thid generation start to pick up the culture of the land they live in and that may be the American culture that tells people to crank up the debt spending money they don't have for things they don't need.
People who are uncertain about the future will save more than people who are uncertain about the future because consumption today has value.
Households are able to save money during recessions (which cuts against the incompetence hypothesis) and don’t save money during economic booms. This suggests bounded rationality by the side of households.
Nope, rich people save more money than poor people in the same economy. This shows a failure of your theory. Rich people know that more is better. Poor people basically feel that they're so far behind the game, just spend the money and give up trying to save.
This whole conversation stems from the fact that Western economic theory is just brain rot, a perfect example of reading until you lose common sense and become stupider than when you never read anything. We call that a book fool in China. The question is why people want to save money. The common sense answer is because money always opens more doors in the future regardless of your situation. The brain rot dumbass answer is what you wrote along with the multitudes papers out there. If you were asked by your child whether s/he should build up a healthy savings account or spend everything s/he earns, you would know to advise the former, not the latter. But because you're a book fool, you cannot apply it to an actual economics debate.
