5 ms·

Can you elaborate on "society having to clean up after a bunch of people losing everything."? Perhaps I'm reading too much into your post, but so far as I can t

Can you elaborate on "society having to clean up after a bunch of people losing everything."? Perhaps I'm reading too much into your post, but so far as I can tell you're suggesting you reside in a nation with stronger social systems than the US. And a number of people failing, who otherwise would not have, could pose a strain on such systems. Yet this is confusing to me since presumably we're speaking of older individuals. Young individuals are, generally, still earning money and so they are already sustaining their own livelihood regardless of their savings (or [sudden] lack thereof). But back to the older individuals, would these individuals not already be receiving social benefits - healthcare, social security, etc? It seems that their personal dependence on these would increase - but their burden on society would not change, at least not particularly meaningfully. Like I said, probably reading way too much into your comment. Curious what you meant!

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> Yet this is confusing to me since presumably we're speaking of older individuals. Young individuals are, generally, still earning money and so they are already sustaining their own livelihood regardless of their savings (or [sudden] lack thereof). Plenty of young people are easily to dupe with get-rich-schemes too. And earning money is not that helpful, especially on the poorer end - I mean, imagine that right now all your savings went to 0. Somebody cleared out your savings account and all the spare cash you happen to store around the house. Are you comfortable with that situation because you still have your job? Now consider a person on a regular, shitty, low-paying high-demand job. A loss of all money buffer can, through small unexpected expenses, quickly push someone into poverty. So now these people stop contributing to GDP, because they can't hold a job (had to sell a car to eat, etc.), and they get on welfare, and they are unhappy and spread that unhappiness around, and if there's enough of them, they'll make a stink in the media about government not doing enough to protect their people. This is not something socially desirable.
- indubitable 9y ago
  You have a contradiction in your logic. Poor people working "regular, shitty, low-paying high-demand jobs" do not have savings. The numbers may vary somewhat by country but here [1] they are for America. 85% have less than $10k. 50% have less than $1k. 34% have $0. And there's probably going to be a pretty good correlation with savings and income. The 15th percentile in household income is about $120,000. Interestingly enough indicating even relatively well off Americans are awful at saving! [1] - https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-...
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    We were not talking exclusively, or even in particular, about the US, though.
    - indubitable 9y ago
      Interesting! Those data are indeed specific to the US and I expected the numbers would vary by nation, but not radically so. I enjoy learning more about economics and the fact there is a nation where even the poor have substantial savings is quite bemusing to me! Do you have any sources available?
pjc50 9y ago
See upthread comment on Albanian civil war caused by too much of the country losing everything all at once in a set of pyramid schemes.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> Yet this is confusing to me since presumably we're speaking of older individuals. Young individuals are, generally, still earning money and so they are already sustaining their own livelihood regardless of their savings (or [sudden] lack thereof). Plenty of young people are easily to dupe with get-rich-schemes too. And earning money is not that helpful, especially on the poorer end - I mean, imagine that right now all your savings went to 0. Somebody cleared out your savings account and all the spare cash you happen to store around the house. Are you comfortable with that situation because you still have your job? Now consider a person on a regular, shitty, low-paying high-demand job. A loss of all money buffer can, through small unexpected expenses, quickly push someone into poverty. So now these people stop contributing to GDP, because they can't hold a job (had to sell a car to eat, etc.), and they get on welfare, and they are unhappy and spread that unhappiness around, and if there's enough of them, they'll make a stink in the media about government not doing enough to protect their people. This is not something socially desirable.

indubitable 9y ago
You have a contradiction in your logic. Poor people working "regular, shitty, low-paying high-demand jobs" do not have savings. The numbers may vary somewhat by country but here [1] they are for America. 85% have less than $10k. 50% have less than $1k. 34% have $0. And there's probably going to be a pretty good correlation with savings and income. The 15th percentile in household income is about $120,000. Interestingly enough indicating even relatively well off Americans are awful at saving! [1] - https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-...
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  We were not talking exclusively, or even in particular, about the US, though.
  - indubitable 9y ago
    Interesting! Those data are indeed specific to the US and I expected the numbers would vary by nation, but not radically so. I enjoy learning more about economics and the fact there is a nation where even the poor have substantial savings is quite bemusing to me! Do you have any sources available?

pjc50 9y ago

See upthread comment on Albanian civil war caused by too much of the country losing everything all at once in a set of pyramid schemes.