4 ms·

Grievous is absolutely the right word -- stocks, flows, and dimensions are cherry picked to have maximum verbal impact without looking at whether the underlying

Grievous is absolutely the right word -- stocks, flows, and dimensions are cherry picked to have maximum verbal impact without looking at whether the underlying measure even makes sense. One of my favorites is something like "the richest 10 people have more net worth than the bottom 40% of Americans SUMMED". Well the bottom 40% of Americans are in debt, so if you have $1, the above statement is true for you too! The sleight-of-hand happens with the word "net worth" which usually means financial or in-bank net worth. For most of the population, their actual worth is stored in their human capital. If you account for that, I assure you the top 10 or even 100 richest Americans do not have greater worth than 150 million bottom Americans (to proxy this, look at income). A easier way to visualize this is to consider the statement "Joe Biden owns more cars (3) than the bottom 30% of the US SUMMED (0)". Cars is such a weird dimension of inequality.

pksebben 3y ago
> the bottom 40% of Americans are in debt That this somehow reads to you as totally normal and not at all anything to worry about tells me a lot about your perspective. edit (addendum): > "Joe Biden owns more cars (3) than the bottom 30% of the US SUMMED (0)" Fairly certain the bottom 30% owns more than 0 cars in total.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  This would logically be read as "bottom 30% of Americans, ranked by car ownership [rather than net worth or income]". I suspect that there are in fact more than 30% of Americans who own zero cars. 18% of Americans are 14 years old or younger [and presumably almost none of them own a car], so if 15% of those 15 years old or older don't own a car, the total is over 30%.
  - pksebben 3y ago
    Fair point. Even solving for age, I would assume this holds as cities with metros mean roughly 80% of people don't even need a car. It's still an absurd comparison, as 0% of people don't need money.
lapcat 3y ago
> the bottom 40% of Americans are in debt It's not clear how that makes inequality sound any better. > For most of the population, their actual worth is stored in their human capital. What does that even mean? > Cars is such a weird dimension of inequality. How so? Cars are freedom. Almost everything in life is more difficult without a car. It's difficult to shop. Difficult to find a good job and commute to that job. Difficult to move to a better city with more jobs and/or housing.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  If it makes you feel better, its credit and debt all the way down. Your money can only be created through the creation of a corresponding debt, for which the money for interest was never created. Its not only the bottom 40% in debt, it's the entirety of human civilization.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  The bottom 40% of Americans have consumed goods and services in excess of their current resources. There was a time early in my career when I was in debt (school loans, mostly). Someone had lent me money that my family and I didn't have and I was able to use that money to attend college. I was able to use that college degree to help me start my career. I was able to buy my first car before saving up the full amount for it. I was able to buy my first house (and later our current house) without saving the full amount. Debt, used properly, can be a very useful and productive tool. Banning debt doesn't help all poor people and surely hurts many of them.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Banning debt doesn't help all poor people and surely hurts many of them. Nobody mentioned or suggested banning debt. The problem for the bottom 40% isn't that they're spending too much; the problem is "their current resources", which are negligible.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    I was going to write a post on this, but this one nails it succinctly. The Dave Ramsey view of the world that says that all debt is bad is probably too simplistic. If you're borrowing to buy a car you could never afford to impress your neighbor, that's probably not a good idea. If you've just had a kid and can't afford to pay cash for a car that has room for a seat and you have the choice of saving up for three years to buy one, or taking a 36 month loan now, then that interest is probably excellent value for money. We start our lives in debt to the bank, and the bank ends up in debt to us - the "zero" point is actually not that interesting.
mschuster91 3y ago
> One of my favorites is something like "the richest 10 people have more net worth than the bottom 40% of Americans SUMMED". Well the bottom 40% of Americans are in debt, so if you have $1, the above statement is true for you too! That interpretation is even more shocking than "the rich are so rich". Like, a very significant part of your population have to resort to borrowing money in a death spiral to bankruptcy, just to survive. While 40% just barely surviving paycheck to paycheck is bad enough, 40% in debt is even worse because the people who barely make do come on top of that. The lower class minority struggles day to day, and the fat cats at the top make bank despite the world being embroiled into a multitude of parallel crises.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >That interpretation is even more shocking than "the rich are so rich". Like, a very significant part of your population have to resort to borrowing money in a death spiral to bankruptcy What. No, look, for example: assessed from a "net worth" perspective, almost every single college student is in the "debtor" column, because the net present value of a college education isn't something that shows up in the calculation. If I borrow money to buy a car, but have no substantial savings, then I'm a debtor - but if I can easily afford the payment then there's no problem, is there? You're making one of the exact same semantic errors as the OP was talking about.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > the net present value of a college education isn't something that shows up in the calculation. Sometimes it never shows up. Mine never did. And I still have student loan debt. When you're calculating values, consider that different students have very different levels of student debt despite receiving the same education. Rich kids with the bank of mommy and daddy don't need to borrow at all. > If I borrow money to buy a car, but have no substantial savings, then I'm a debtor - but if I can easily afford the payment then there's no problem, is there? No, because your net worth is not negative.
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago

pksebben 3y ago

> the bottom 40% of Americans are in debt That this somehow reads to you as totally normal and not at all anything to worry about tells me a lot about your perspective. edit (addendum): > "Joe Biden owns more cars (3) than the bottom 30% of the US SUMMED (0)" Fairly certain the bottom 30% owns more than 0 cars in total.

sokoloff 3y ago
This would logically be read as "bottom 30% of Americans, ranked by car ownership [rather than net worth or income]". I suspect that there are in fact more than 30% of Americans who own zero cars. 18% of Americans are 14 years old or younger [and presumably almost none of them own a car], so if 15% of those 15 years old or older don't own a car, the total is over 30%.
- pksebben 3y ago
  Fair point. Even solving for age, I would assume this holds as cities with metros mean roughly 80% of people don't even need a car. It's still an absurd comparison, as 0% of people don't need money.

lapcat 3y ago

> the bottom 40% of Americans are in debt It's not clear how that makes inequality sound any better. > For most of the population, their actual worth is stored in their human capital. What does that even mean? > Cars is such a weird dimension of inequality. How so? Cars are freedom. Almost everything in life is more difficult without a car. It's difficult to shop. Difficult to find a good job and commute to that job. Difficult to move to a better city with more jobs and/or housing.

Geisterde 3y ago
If it makes you feel better, its credit and debt all the way down. Your money can only be created through the creation of a corresponding debt, for which the money for interest was never created. Its not only the bottom 40% in debt, it's the entirety of human civilization.
sokoloff 3y ago
The bottom 40% of Americans have consumed goods and services in excess of their current resources. There was a time early in my career when I was in debt (school loans, mostly). Someone had lent me money that my family and I didn't have and I was able to use that money to attend college. I was able to use that college degree to help me start my career. I was able to buy my first car before saving up the full amount for it. I was able to buy my first house (and later our current house) without saving the full amount. Debt, used properly, can be a very useful and productive tool. Banning debt doesn't help all poor people and surely hurts many of them.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Banning debt doesn't help all poor people and surely hurts many of them. Nobody mentioned or suggested banning debt. The problem for the bottom 40% isn't that they're spending too much; the problem is "their current resources", which are negligible.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  I was going to write a post on this, but this one nails it succinctly. The Dave Ramsey view of the world that says that all debt is bad is probably too simplistic. If you're borrowing to buy a car you could never afford to impress your neighbor, that's probably not a good idea. If you've just had a kid and can't afford to pay cash for a car that has room for a seat and you have the choice of saving up for three years to buy one, or taking a 36 month loan now, then that interest is probably excellent value for money. We start our lives in debt to the bank, and the bank ends up in debt to us - the "zero" point is actually not that interesting.

mschuster91 3y ago

> One of my favorites is something like "the richest 10 people have more net worth than the bottom 40% of Americans SUMMED". Well the bottom 40% of Americans are in debt, so if you have $1, the above statement is true for you too! That interpretation is even more shocking than "the rich are so rich". Like, a very significant part of your population have to resort to borrowing money in a death spiral to bankruptcy, just to survive. While 40% just barely surviving paycheck to paycheck is bad enough, 40% in debt is even worse because the people who barely make do come on top of that. The lower class minority struggles day to day, and the fat cats at the top make bank despite the world being embroiled into a multitude of parallel crises.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
>That interpretation is even more shocking than "the rich are so rich". Like, a very significant part of your population have to resort to borrowing money in a death spiral to bankruptcy What. No, look, for example: assessed from a "net worth" perspective, almost every single college student is in the "debtor" column, because the net present value of a college education isn't something that shows up in the calculation. If I borrow money to buy a car, but have no substantial savings, then I'm a debtor - but if I can easily afford the payment then there's no problem, is there? You're making one of the exact same semantic errors as the OP was talking about.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > the net present value of a college education isn't something that shows up in the calculation. Sometimes it never shows up. Mine never did. And I still have student loan debt. When you're calculating values, consider that different students have very different levels of student debt despite receiving the same education. Rich kids with the bank of mommy and daddy don't need to borrow at all. > If I borrow money to buy a car, but have no substantial savings, then I'm a debtor - but if I can easily afford the payment then there's no problem, is there? No, because your net worth is not negative.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago