Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I've never been there, and don't know anything about this blogger, so I have no idea how credible this is.

That's from "Ex Pats Against Bush", so it's reassuring that you're posting commentary from both ends of the left, at least.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
We sort of live paycheck to paycheck and don't save enough.

Kind of a subjective test, I think.

Yet a large majority of people have cable/satellite.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Does your chart include retirement savings? Clinton tech bubble busting/ clinton stock scandal bursting?

Are you under the impression that people don't spend their employer retirement account money when they leave their jobs? If your balance is under $5k, you get a check if you don't roll it over fast enough. Yeah, you can still roll it over, but . . . And the less money you make, the more likely you are to have less than $5k even if you have a fairly generous match or other employer contribution. 6% of 20k is only $1,200, and that's really a very very generous contribution. Also, lower wage jobs have higher turnover so people with lower wages are less likely to be vested in employer contributions.

Anyway. Thanks once again for the funny! People retaining retirement money, hah. Good one.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
We sort of live paycheck to paycheck and don't save enough.

Kind of a subjective test, I think.

Very easy objective test, Bilmore. If you were to be out of a job tomorrow, would your mortgage get paid before foreclosure proceedings started, assuming you were unable to obtain new employment? Now, take the cae of a renter. Would said renter be evicted withing 30 days of the first missed rental payment?

Would you be able to buy groceries next month without a paycheck coming in?

Not terribly subjective at all. Take the word of someone who was there several years ago.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
That's from "Ex Pats Against Bush", so it's reassuring that you're posting commentary from both ends of the left, at least.

As long as we all take into account the credibility difference between people who hate Bush so much they leave the country and people who really hate Bush, but are trying to stick it out here.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you realize this is a sales pitch to sell financial products, don't you?
Fringe you've got to start reading more carefully- wife #6 is hot/smart in my game plan- she can't just take people's word for shit.

I thought I was #5? God, I'm confused. Or are you confirming that you know I'm not hot because it is #6 who is hot?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are you under the impression that people don't spend their employer retirement account money when they leave their jobs? If your balance is under $5k, you get a check if you don't roll it over fast enough. Yeah, you can still roll it over, but . . . And the less money you make, the more likely you are to have less than $5k even if you have a fairly generous match or other employer contribution. 6% of 20k is only $1,200, and that's really a very very generous contribution. Also, lower wage jobs have higher turnover so people with lower wages are less likely to be vested in employer contributions.

Anyway. Thanks once again for the funny! People retaining retirement money, hah. Good one.

Atticus was making the point that savings are down under Bush. I was asking if the numbers incluse retirement because alot of retirement money went down with the stock market, and that woould explain Atticus' chart drop. so my point wasn't that people retain it, my point was that people lost it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, tell me what you're looking for. You asked for foundation for the statement. I think that provides at least some foundation for it, no?

AG's graph - at least, that type of quantitative analysis - is probably close to what I would have to see to think that Wonk's statement was being supported.

But I don't think that the graph does support it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I thought I was #5?

Goodness no. #5 is a very hot woman with implants. I know she's hot because she gets hit on in grocery stores. I think she's available because she posts on internet forums late into the night.

If all goes well the two of you will be sharing a dorm room.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Very easy objective test, Bilmore. If you were to be out of a job tomorrow, would your mortgage get paid before foreclosure proceedings started, assuming you were unable to obtain new employment? Now, take the cae of a renter. Would said renter be evicted withing 30 days of the first missed rental payment?

I understand all of that. I'm merely looking for support for your assertion that the "vast majority" of american workers now face such fates. Frankly, I don't think that's a supportable assertion.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Goodness no. #5 is a very hot woman with implants. I know she's hot because she gets hit on in grocery stores. I think she's available because she posts on internet forums late into the night.

If all goes well the two of you will be sharing a dorm room.

Which one am I? And I am cheered to learn that bilmore and Ty are both available.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yet a large majority of people have cable/satellite.

And cell phones.

I know people, they are in their 20's, who have cable and cell phones and brand new cars but say they cannot afford health insurance. They can afford it if they would drive a used car and not spend money on cell phones and cable. It really isn't expensive to buy health insurance if you are healthy and in your 20's.

I know the working poor make up the largest percentage of the uninsured, but the working not poor make up a surprisingly high percentage. Many are childless, healthy young adults who say they cannot afford health insurance, but the reason that they cannot afford it is because they spend their money on other things and since they are healthy, don't feel they need health insurance.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Atticus was making the point that savings are down under Bush. I was asking if the numbers incluse retirement because alot of retirement money went down with the stock market, and that woould explain Atticus' chart drop. so my point wasn't that people retain it, my point was that people lost it.

It's a rate, not an amount. In other words, of each pay check, what percent are people saving today. Under the lifecycle wealth hypothesis, savings rates should be going up, not down, after the stock market crash. They're not, because teh bloated marke got people used to a higher standard of living than they could/should afford, and now are dissaving by drawing down investments and/or refinancing and taking on more debt to support that increasedly spendy lifestyle.

But WTF are we blaming any president for it? The incentives to save remain, and, if anything, have become more attractive. People don't save for the same reason they overeat--they're part of the me, now, generation.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Many are childless, healthy young adults who say they cannot afford health insurance, but the reason that they cannot afford it is because they spend their money on other things and since they are healthy, don't feel they need health insurance.

For most of them, aren't they right? If you're young and healthy, why should you pay a lot for health insurance, if all you're getting/using is one checkup a year? (Put aside need for catastrophic coverage).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's a rate, not an amount. In other words, of each pay check, what percent are people saving today. Under the lifecycle wealth hypothesis, savings rates should be going up, not down, after the stock market crash. They're not, because teh bloated marke got people used to a higher standard of living than they could/should afford, and now are dissaving by drawing down investments and/or refinancing and taking on more debt to support that increasedly spendy lifestyle.

But WTF are we blaming any president for it? The incentives to save remain, and, if anything, have become more attractive. People don't save for the same reason they overeat--they're part of the me, now, generation.

On the other hand, interest rates are low and the market sucks.

If I were smarter, I could relate this to the discount rate (we should be lowering everyone's, right?).