> Different metrics aren't a different language. You aren't citing a "different metric". You are citing an unscientific internet poll by Bankrate.com, whose re

> Different metrics aren't a different language. You aren't citing a "different metric". You are citing an unscientific internet poll by Bankrate.com, whose results were released as a PR announcement meant to encourage people to open savings accounts. The "no savings" means "no money in a savings account" by those who answer the poll. You know nothing about whether these people were even in the labor force, how old they were, what money they had in checking accounts or 401Ks or money market mutual funds, and whether they were a representative sample (N=hundreds). Because an internet poll is not a study, and a marketing campaign is not scientific data. This is clickbait. If you have a quality study not published by bankrate.com, then please cite it. And also explain why you are ignoring the US Census and the SCF, which is what everyone who studies household wealth uses. I am citing the gold-standard academic study of household finances -- the survey of consumer finances, and the gold standard study of income as determined by the Census. This is not a situation of "different metrics", this is a situation of bad data versus good data leading to bad conclusions versus accurate conclusions. Please look to the Census and academic studies to form your worldview of the state of US household finances rather than Bankrate.com's marketing department.