3 ms·
That really says very little. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you're unable to save for the future, because all of your income goes out to pay for rent, food
by luckylion 6y ago
That really says very little. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you're unable to save for the future, because all of your income goes out to pay for rent, food etc.
It's a different story if those 58% contain plenty of SV SWEs who make half a million a year and still only have $1000 in savings. My intuition tells me that there are very few of them in the 58%.
- fastball 6y agoIt's not really supposed to say very much. It's just a data point that directly contradicts your assertion.
- luckylion 6y agoBut it really doesn't in that extract. Do they have the option to work more to make more? Is more work available? Are they already working close to or at maximum capacity and their current level of wealth is the result? Without the contextual information available, that's hardly useful. I'm sure somebody that's unemployed and wants to work would work more than they currently are, but can't, because, well, they don't have a job to work at. Some random singular statistic doesn't say anything.
- fastball 6y ago> Most people work more than they need to because they realize that the future is uncertain and having savings will be beneficial if there's trouble at some point in the future. It really does contradict the above statement. This "random singular statistic" is a broad survey of the American populace which concludes that 58% of Americans do not have savings worth mentioning. Those people are clearly not working more than they need to because the "future is uncertain and having savings will be beneficial", otherwise they'd have savings. And 58% is in fact a majority, so the "most people" in the above statement makes it unequivocally false. If you have "better" stats that don't falsify your premise, I'm happy to look at them.