Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Well, this is a politics board, for one, and, for another, it was my impression that the statement was put forth in a manner designed to characterize the current state of the economy - in other words, my perception was that a partisan point was being asserted.
If Wonk was simply saying, we don't save enough, and we never have saved enough, well, then, . . .
|
(a) "It was a political argument" doesn't really help me make the logical jump you're describing.
(b) So what if it was a political point? Atticus paraphrased the statement this way (Wonk, speak now if this is wrong).
Quote:
|
Wonk's point was that the vast majority of American workers are living paycheck to paycheck, and fear job loss far more than they fear macroeconomic inefficiencies or suboptimal GDP growth. They will vote accordingly. Is that seriously in dispute?
|
Bilmore, if I understand your response it's something along the lines of:
(1) No, nowhere near the vast majority of American workers are living paycheck to paycheck. (This assertion does not accurately reflect the state of the economy.)
(2) No, surveys that mention that majorities of workers earning under $50k feel this way doesn't mean that they really *are* so living. (I am willing to concede that they might *feel* that way, though).
(3) No, the data on the savings rate being low doesn't count here because it's not historically too different from how we've saved in the past.
Look, I understand the sense of comfort derived from being able to trace a trend from 20 years ago (or so) to today to reflect how or why things are different*, and by extension how if we don't see that empirical data, then really all must be OK with the world, and people -- including those participating in the study -- are merely suffering from external, mass hallucinations perpetuated by partisan groups.
But I *still* don't understand how "I thought a partisan point was being asserted" explains the jump in logic that people who say they're living paycheck to paycheck must simply be mistaken about the true state of their personal finances. Because it signifies only what they "feel" about their finances and not something objective, once something bad happens, they'll be fine, right?
Gattigap
*Maybe this could be found through an analysis of increasing levels of consumer debt in recent years, but I'm afraid I'm done researching for the day.
