4 ms·

Why do you exclude the possibility that talking heads in news and politics are pedaling the idea that consumers feel it’s terrible? Most everyone I know seems

Why do you exclude the possibility that talking heads in news and politics are pedaling the idea that consumers feel it’s terrible? Most everyone I know seems to be living it pretty good with much less concern for the future. Certainly compared to 2023 and even compared to 2019.

izacus 2y ago
What's the statistical relevancy of your "everyone I know" sample for US population in general? Are people you know of different ages, social classes, races, upbringings and living locations to capture the sentiment of population? Or are they all well off people in a few rich areas?
- AbstractH24 2y ago
  They are concentrated in a major metro area that was among the worst affected by the pandemic in America. They span many ages, social classes, races, upbringings, and jobs, from tech to blue-collar union work. Be that as it may, my point is that the possibility exists and is almost equally as likely. Not that it is correct.
wholinator2 2y ago
That's very good for you, you should count yourself lucky. But i think we should trust people when they tell us how they feel. Do you live paycheck to paycheck? Are you aware that a majority oh Americans (55-69%) do, defined as struggling to save or invest anything past the monthly expenses? I'm a late 20s man who made it into tech, I'm doing great! My friend who got into tech might kind of hate their corporate job lives but they're monetarily at least able to pay their student loans after 5 years of working. A few kids were able to start construction/lawn businesses, i don't know the details but they appear to be doing well. Every single other person that i know, who's finances I'm aware of directly, or indirectly (social media posts, etc. ) is having a hard time right now. I can count on one hand the number of people who feel good about the current US economy that i know, i speak and have spoken to dozens of people about this. Literally only the comp sci graduates are having a good time right now, and even that's starting to tighten. Jobs are getting more scarce, people have to take pay cuts to be able to actually have a life again, etc. You could say I'm doing well right now and then i could say that must mean everyone is doing well and the whole thing is propaganda. But there's a lot more than just successful people out here, we're on HN anyways, that says a lot about our socioeconomic status and friend groups.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Are you aware that a majority oh Americans (55-69%) do, defined as struggling to save or invest anything past the monthly expenses? How can that be? Only ~30-35% of Americans rent a home, which means that ~65-70% of Americans either own a home or are freeloading (e.g. living with parents). Only ~3% of homes are considered to be underwater, which means virtually all those who own a home have been able to save over and above their monthly expenses. So, especially on the high end, if 69% of Americans are unable to save, while virtually all homeowners have been able to save, and even if we assume all renters cannot afford to save, that suggests 34% of Americans are freeloaders. It seems highly unlikely that all renters are unable to save (what about the tech people who rent?), but whatever. How do we resolve that? The freeloader figure is in the ballpark of what the data suggests if you are counting all the way down to babies. Is that what you've done here? But nobody would ever think that a baby should have an income that allows them to save, so you're kind of being disingenuous if that is the case. I find it hard to believe you would state this figure including children. Or is it that you mean 55-69% of Americans do not have money in a savings account – as in a specific type of bank account? I have seen reports like that before so maybe that's where you got the idea? If that's what you mean, it is quite believable that the majority do not keep money parked in a savings account. The interest rates in such accounts are rarely compelling, so why would they?
  - yareal 2y ago
    Being underwater on a mortgage and not being able to save aren't the same. A mortgage that is underwater means the value of the home is less than the loan balance. That can happen for any number of reasons. It doesn't mean anything about your ability to save money. If you make $5k a month and spend $5k on expenses, you can make all your mortgage payments (whether or not that mortgage is underwater) but still not save. When outlets report savings of Americans they don't typically mean just in savings accounts.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > A mortgage that is underwater means the value of the home is less than the loan balance. Indeed. Which means that when a home is not underwater, the owner has savings (or is breaking even, of course, but that is as equally unlikely and is for all intents and purposes considered to be the same as underwater). > If you make $5k a month and spend $5k on expenses, you can make all your mortgage payments (whether or not that mortgage is underwater) but still not save. Interest-only loans account for only 1-2% of mortgages. Outside of that small group, and the small group underwater (which very well may be the same group), if you are paying a mortgage, a portion of that is a portion you are saving. Mathematically, that has to be true. There is no way around it. > When outlets report savings of Americans they don't typically mean just in savings accounts. So, then, again the numbers don't add up unless we're counting children. Why would you count babies in those not able to save? Is a newborn not making enough money to be able to save a problem or somehow notable?

izacus 2y ago

What's the statistical relevancy of your "everyone I know" sample for US population in general? Are people you know of different ages, social classes, races, upbringings and living locations to capture the sentiment of population? Or are they all well off people in a few rich areas?

AbstractH24 2y ago
They are concentrated in a major metro area that was among the worst affected by the pandemic in America. They span many ages, social classes, races, upbringings, and jobs, from tech to blue-collar union work. Be that as it may, my point is that the possibility exists and is almost equally as likely. Not that it is correct.

wholinator2 2y ago

That's very good for you, you should count yourself lucky. But i think we should trust people when they tell us how they feel. Do you live paycheck to paycheck? Are you aware that a majority oh Americans (55-69%) do, defined as struggling to save or invest anything past the monthly expenses? I'm a late 20s man who made it into tech, I'm doing great! My friend who got into tech might kind of hate their corporate job lives but they're monetarily at least able to pay their student loans after 5 years of working. A few kids were able to start construction/lawn businesses, i don't know the details but they appear to be doing well. Every single other person that i know, who's finances I'm aware of directly, or indirectly (social media posts, etc. ) is having a hard time right now. I can count on one hand the number of people who feel good about the current US economy that i know, i speak and have spoken to dozens of people about this. Literally only the comp sci graduates are having a good time right now, and even that's starting to tighten. Jobs are getting more scarce, people have to take pay cuts to be able to actually have a life again, etc. You could say I'm doing well right now and then i could say that must mean everyone is doing well and the whole thing is propaganda. But there's a lot more than just successful people out here, we're on HN anyways, that says a lot about our socioeconomic status and friend groups.

randomdata 2y ago
> Are you aware that a majority oh Americans (55-69%) do, defined as struggling to save or invest anything past the monthly expenses? How can that be? Only ~30-35% of Americans rent a home, which means that ~65-70% of Americans either own a home or are freeloading (e.g. living with parents). Only ~3% of homes are considered to be underwater, which means virtually all those who own a home have been able to save over and above their monthly expenses. So, especially on the high end, if 69% of Americans are unable to save, while virtually all homeowners have been able to save, and even if we assume all renters cannot afford to save, that suggests 34% of Americans are freeloaders. It seems highly unlikely that all renters are unable to save (what about the tech people who rent?), but whatever. How do we resolve that? The freeloader figure is in the ballpark of what the data suggests if you are counting all the way down to babies. Is that what you've done here? But nobody would ever think that a baby should have an income that allows them to save, so you're kind of being disingenuous if that is the case. I find it hard to believe you would state this figure including children. Or is it that you mean 55-69% of Americans do not have money in a savings account – as in a specific type of bank account? I have seen reports like that before so maybe that's where you got the idea? If that's what you mean, it is quite believable that the majority do not keep money parked in a savings account. The interest rates in such accounts are rarely compelling, so why would they?
- yareal 2y ago
  Being underwater on a mortgage and not being able to save aren't the same. A mortgage that is underwater means the value of the home is less than the loan balance. That can happen for any number of reasons. It doesn't mean anything about your ability to save money. If you make $5k a month and spend $5k on expenses, you can make all your mortgage payments (whether or not that mortgage is underwater) but still not save. When outlets report savings of Americans they don't typically mean just in savings accounts.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > A mortgage that is underwater means the value of the home is less than the loan balance. Indeed. Which means that when a home is not underwater, the owner has savings (or is breaking even, of course, but that is as equally unlikely and is for all intents and purposes considered to be the same as underwater). > If you make $5k a month and spend $5k on expenses, you can make all your mortgage payments (whether or not that mortgage is underwater) but still not save. Interest-only loans account for only 1-2% of mortgages. Outside of that small group, and the small group underwater (which very well may be the same group), if you are paying a mortgage, a portion of that is a portion you are saving. Mathematically, that has to be true. There is no way around it. > When outlets report savings of Americans they don't typically mean just in savings accounts. So, then, again the numbers don't add up unless we're counting children. Why would you count babies in those not able to save? Is a newborn not making enough money to be able to save a problem or somehow notable?