3 ms·

GDP isn't a good metric to compare household debt to. The US has an incredibly unequal society (see Gini index) and a lack of welfare compared to other Western

GDP isn't a good metric to compare household debt to. The US has an incredibly unequal society (see Gini index) and a lack of welfare compared to other Western countries. In aggregate, it means that debt is likely higher for households where that matters. The poor.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> GDP isn't a good metric to compare household debt to It's a fantastic metric to compare aggregate debt to. It isn't the end of the story, which is why I also cited debt payments to disposable income. American households are not, in aggregate, in a painful or even deteriorating position with respect to their debt. That doesn't mean many households, or even entire regions, e.g. West [1], aren't in pain. [1] https://usafacts.org/articles/the-state-of-household-debt-in-the-us/ https://usafacts.org/articles/the-state-of-household-debt-in...
- hikingsimulator 3y ago
  Disposable income as an aggregate doesn't show a income-level class (my point). Unfortunately having up to date information on economic status given the income level is hard to get.
  - twoodfin 3y ago
    One reason is that in aggregate it doesn’t matter all that much: The differences between US means and medians for household financial stats are substantial but not overwhelming—and more importantly in this context, largely trend together. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17Pem https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17Pem https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17Ped https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17Ped
    - xyzzy123 3y ago
      If I am reading these graphs correctly, don't they support hikingsimulator's point? The mean has gone up but the median has gone down.
      - twoodfin 3y ago
        Oops: The mean one is in current (nominal) dollars. Here’s the inflation-adjusted version: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17PWA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17PWA
adventured 3y ago
It's not the technical poor that suffer the most in the US, it's the next block up, the low income working class. The US has free healthcare for the bottom ~25%, including the poor. If you are in the low income working group, you're often largely out of luck. Those are the people suffering the most. They often don't qualify for EBT cards, they don't qualify for free healthcare, they don't qualify for housing subsidies, and so on.
- koprulusector 3y ago
  How about both groups suffer far more than they should in any civilized, modern society. It’s not a contest which group is screwed over the most, let’s instead focus on why/how/what and solve.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  The stats often don’t include benefits as income so it’s hard to really understand what’s going on. “Free healthcare” in the form of Medicaid is a bit generous of a description for people under 65 and over 18. Few providers take it, and the benefits are really bad in many places.
willio58 3y ago
Solid point. With inequality like it is, we really need to use metrics like median household debt and income to make any sort of meaningful conclusions.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> GDP isn't a good metric to compare household debt to It's a fantastic metric to compare aggregate debt to. It isn't the end of the story, which is why I also cited debt payments to disposable income. American households are not, in aggregate, in a painful or even deteriorating position with respect to their debt. That doesn't mean many households, or even entire regions, e.g. West [1], aren't in pain. [1] https://usafacts.org/articles/the-state-of-household-debt-in-the-us/ https://usafacts.org/articles/the-state-of-household-debt-in...

hikingsimulator 3y ago
Disposable income as an aggregate doesn't show a income-level class (my point). Unfortunately having up to date information on economic status given the income level is hard to get.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  One reason is that in aggregate it doesn’t matter all that much: The differences between US means and medians for household financial stats are substantial but not overwhelming—and more importantly in this context, largely trend together. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17Pem https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17Pem https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17Ped https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17Ped
  - xyzzy123 3y ago
    If I am reading these graphs correctly, don't they support hikingsimulator's point? The mean has gone up but the median has gone down.
    - twoodfin 3y ago
      Oops: The mean one is in current (nominal) dollars. Here’s the inflation-adjusted version: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17PWA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17PWA

adventured 3y ago

It's not the technical poor that suffer the most in the US, it's the next block up, the low income working class. The US has free healthcare for the bottom ~25%, including the poor. If you are in the low income working group, you're often largely out of luck. Those are the people suffering the most. They often don't qualify for EBT cards, they don't qualify for free healthcare, they don't qualify for housing subsidies, and so on.

koprulusector 3y ago
How about both groups suffer far more than they should in any civilized, modern society. It’s not a contest which group is screwed over the most, let’s instead focus on why/how/what and solve.
Spooky23 3y ago
The stats often don’t include benefits as income so it’s hard to really understand what’s going on. “Free healthcare” in the form of Medicaid is a bit generous of a description for people under 65 and over 18. Few providers take it, and the benefits are really bad in many places.

willio58 3y ago

Solid point. With inequality like it is, we really need to use metrics like median household debt and income to make any sort of meaningful conclusions.