4 ms·

Average wage growth and employment rates across a country are irrelevant for, well, almost anyone that's not specifically studying them. Even on a more local l

Average wage growth and employment rates across a country are irrelevant for, well, almost anyone that's not specifically studying them. Even on a more local level - the median income in London, say, is not interesting to a shop worker, and neither is it to a lawyer. It's just another Statistic(tm). I don't know of anyone else (in real life) who even knows what the median income is, and about the only thing I've ever used median incomes for is to determine that the median person in my city is a serf (you'd require about double that to buy a small apartment). By contrast, the stock market is at least interesting to anyone who has any savings (because market return is your baseline expectation for an investment). It should also be interesting to those who aspire to have savings (which, at least rationally, should be most people). That latter point specifically is important because most people believe in, or at least desire, upward mobility. I (a person below the retirement age) expect that in ten years' time I'll have more than I do now. It would be odd for me to expect otherwise; that would imply that I should just sack off working and enjoy myself whilst I can. I agree that linking it with things like presidencies is silly, though.

helen___keller 8y ago
>Average wage growth and employment rates across a country are irrelevant for, well, almost anyone that's not specifically studying them. True, it doesn't directly address any single person's wallet but it paints a picture that actually includes every single person with an income. I don't know, maybe there's a better metric, but specifically the point I'm trying to make is this: >By contrast, the stock market is at least interesting to anyone who has any savings (because market return is your baseline expectation for an investment). This is exactly the "elite projection" the article is talking about. For most people, "savings" refers to a checking account or savings account that can be withdrawn from on a rainy day. These will always have a negligible return rate. I believe that around 13 percent of families own stocks directly, less than that for other major types of non-retirement investments, and 53 percent a retirement account ( see https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf table 3 on page 18 ). I mean, the stock market IS interesting in it's own right, and I can see why the news reports on a big correction and what not. But it's interesting in the same way that currency conversion rates can be interesting - because it holds some kind of macroeconomic significance. Not because a large percentage of Americans regularly move a large amount of cash between countries.
- esotericn 8y ago
  I don't disagree that most individuals aren't directly invested in the stock market. I'm specifically addressing your comment regarding median wage and unemployment - these figures are completely useless for anyone who isn't an economist (whether for professional reasons or otherwise). It's vaguely useful to know that median wage hasn't doubled or that unemployment isn't at 50%, that's about it. There is no possible metric that would be useful to an average, because the average person is in a bad situation, and any individual's best course of action is to aim to get out of that situation.

helen___keller 8y ago

>Average wage growth and employment rates across a country are irrelevant for, well, almost anyone that's not specifically studying them. True, it doesn't directly address any single person's wallet but it paints a picture that actually includes every single person with an income. I don't know, maybe there's a better metric, but specifically the point I'm trying to make is this: >By contrast, the stock market is at least interesting to anyone who has any savings (because market return is your baseline expectation for an investment). This is exactly the "elite projection" the article is talking about. For most people, "savings" refers to a checking account or savings account that can be withdrawn from on a rainy day. These will always have a negligible return rate. I believe that around 13 percent of families own stocks directly, less than that for other major types of non-retirement investments, and 53 percent a retirement account ( see https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf table 3 on page 18 ). I mean, the stock market IS interesting in it's own right, and I can see why the news reports on a big correction and what not. But it's interesting in the same way that currency conversion rates can be interesting - because it holds some kind of macroeconomic significance. Not because a large percentage of Americans regularly move a large amount of cash between countries.

esotericn 8y ago
I don't disagree that most individuals aren't directly invested in the stock market. I'm specifically addressing your comment regarding median wage and unemployment - these figures are completely useless for anyone who isn't an economist (whether for professional reasons or otherwise). It's vaguely useful to know that median wage hasn't doubled or that unemployment isn't at 50%, that's about it. There is no possible metric that would be useful to an average, because the average person is in a bad situation, and any individual's best course of action is to aim to get out of that situation.