4 ms·
It's hardly cherry picking. I don't know exactly the percentage, but let's say 50% of the US population is net in debt. So all these people are poorer than the
by retube 11y ago
It's hardly cherry picking. I don't know exactly the percentage, but let's say 50% of the US population is net in debt. So all these people are poorer than the millions in developing nations without a penny to their name? As above, I would argue no, they are not. Hence this statistic doesn't mean much.
- ksowocki 11y agoYour example of a recent MBA graduate is absolutely a cherry picked example. Even if it wasnt cherry picked example, it's still a bad example for your argument because a cohort of MBA graduates will quickly pay off their debt because of their high earning potential. Your entire argument is based upon two faulty assumptions, that people in poorer / developing nations (1) have a lower standard of living than all Americans and (2) have no debts themselves.
- snowwrestler 11y agoThe point of the statistic is not living standards, which you are focusing on. The point is who controls the wealth. A person with a negative net worth is not wealthy. The person who holds the note for their debt, is. A loan is an asset on the loaner's books, and yes, it will be included in the calculation of relative levels of wealth.