3 ms·

A version of this comment appears every time this is discussed. This isn’t what we’re talking about. These aren’t liquidity problems. People really just don’t h

A version of this comment appears every time this is discussed. This isn’t what we’re talking about. These aren’t liquidity problems. People really just don’t have the money.

skookumchuck 8y ago
It's literally what the article is talking about. I included the quote. I suggest they are misinterpreting their data, and are measuring the wrong things. It's like that daft statistic a few years back that 40% of corporations don't pay any income tax. This raised all sorts of righteous hysteria. Never mind that 40% of corporations lost money that year, and income taxes are not due when you lose money.
- dionidium 8y ago
  Maybe the best thing I can do here is concede that "can you find $400 for an emergency" is an imprecise question that this article doesn't (and can't) answer. I think I know what it's saying (probably because I have a lot of experience with the type of people I'm imagining) and you guys think you know it's saying something else (because of your own experiences having money that's inaccessible), but, ultimately, the question is too imprecise for either of our claims. So, yes, I strongly suspect I'm right -- "selling something" is pretty plainly not referring to financial instruments -- but it's true that it's more intuition than fact.
gizmo686 8y ago
That may very well be true. But the point still stands that "can you find $400 for an emergency" does not measure what you think it measures. Having said that, it is still problematic that %40 of the population answers no to this; and I suspect that in most cases it is actually the case that they simply do not have the wealth. In fact, I think the phrasing in this article is far less problematic than the "in savings" phrasing one often sees. Further, I would go so far as to say that people, who have wealth but cannot cover an unexpected $400 expanse are genuinely victims of poor financial planning. If you are in that position, open a line of credit. Most credit cards will give you at least 1 month of 0% interest; and if you have equity in your house you should be able to use that to secure another low interest line of credit if you need to. Sure, you don't want to rely on either of these for day to day expenses, but they are a fine solution to solve the liquidity problem of emergencies. EDIT: I suppose my solution may fall under the catagory of "borrowing" which the article says is how the quoted %40 would cover such an expense. I read that line as talking about borrowing from friends/family.

A version of this comment appears every time this is discussed. This isn’t what we’re talking about. These aren’t liquidity problems. People really just don’t have the money.

skookumchuck 8y ago

It's literally what the article is talking about. I included the quote. I suggest they are misinterpreting their data, and are measuring the wrong things. It's like that daft statistic a few years back that 40% of corporations don't pay any income tax. This raised all sorts of righteous hysteria. Never mind that 40% of corporations lost money that year, and income taxes are not due when you lose money.

dionidium 8y ago
Maybe the best thing I can do here is concede that "can you find $400 for an emergency" is an imprecise question that this article doesn't (and can't) answer. I think I know what it's saying (probably because I have a lot of experience with the type of people I'm imagining) and you guys think you know it's saying something else (because of your own experiences having money that's inaccessible), but, ultimately, the question is too imprecise for either of our claims. So, yes, I strongly suspect I'm right -- "selling something" is pretty plainly not referring to financial instruments -- but it's true that it's more intuition than fact.

gizmo686 8y ago

That may very well be true. But the point still stands that "can you find $400 for an emergency" does not measure what you think it measures. Having said that, it is still problematic that %40 of the population answers no to this; and I suspect that in most cases it is actually the case that they simply do not have the wealth. In fact, I think the phrasing in this article is far less problematic than the "in savings" phrasing one often sees. Further, I would go so far as to say that people, who have wealth but cannot cover an unexpected $400 expanse are genuinely victims of poor financial planning. If you are in that position, open a line of credit. Most credit cards will give you at least 1 month of 0% interest; and if you have equity in your house you should be able to use that to secure another low interest line of credit if you need to. Sure, you don't want to rely on either of these for day to day expenses, but they are a fine solution to solve the liquidity problem of emergencies. EDIT: I suppose my solution may fall under the catagory of "borrowing" which the article says is how the quoted %40 would cover such an expense. I read that line as talking about borrowing from friends/family.