> You aren't citing a "different metric". You are citing an unscientific internet poll by Bankrate.com Again, this seems obtuse. It is interesting that your in

> You aren't citing a "different metric". You are citing an unscientific internet poll by Bankrate.com Again, this seems obtuse. It is interesting that your inference of a single poll ignores the many (well publicized) savings studies, that are regularly conducted by a wide number of organizations. > I am citing the gold-standard study of household finances conducted by the Federal Reserve regularly since the 1970s That's nice. Metrics adopted in the 1970s based on data from even earlier decades doesn't universally inspire the confidence that you seem to feel. I'd offer that metrics that well reflect the ~entirety of America who faces a meaningful risk of losing housing/medicine/food would likely be the metrics that most matter to people facing those risks. Otherwise it feels similar to hearing the unemployment rate is 4.9% while >24% of 16-64 aren't working.