|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 01 2019 12:47 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 11:27 IgnE wrote:
It is a bit ironic that a guy who appears to have been, on the whole, less racist than his peers of whatever political party, is now being targeted for heinous remarks in a private conversation in 1971, largely because of his political significance in a deepening political schism. He put a goodly portion of the black population in prison so this question of whether he was less racist is not exactly clear.
I know I said I wasnt going to say any more but I will point out that, just like with Clinton in the 90s or Biden (who was in the Senate) many of these bills were supported by Democrats and black local leaders and I think. majority, or near majority of the CBC. Bill Clinton wasnt racist then for it, nor was Joe Biden, nor was RR. Nor was Ed Kennedy, the "liberal lion" or the "lion of the Senate." Another person loved by their party despite his, uh, personal imperfections. these bills were passed by large majorities or with voice consent.
|
Do you have a citation for half of Americans can't afford a $500 expense?
|
|
|
Doesn't look like those links mention Roth IRA or other retirement accounts / assets. The mean networth of under 35 households is $76200. 45-54 is $727,500 networth stats
Disposable Personal Income in the United States increased to 16454.47 USD Billion in June from 16384.73 USD Billion in May of 2019. Disposable Personal Income in the United States averaged 5338.68 USD Billion from 1959 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 16454.47 USD Billion in June of 2019 and a record low of 351.54 USD Billion in January of 1959.
tradingeconomics.com
Disposable income has been going up for decades
|
On August 01 2019 17:13 CorsairHero wrote:Doesn't look like those links mention Roth IRA or other retirement accounts. The mean networth of under 35 households is $76200. 45-54 is $727,500 networth statsShow nested quote +Disposable Personal Income in the United States increased to 16454.47 USD Billion in June from 16384.73 USD Billion in May of 2019. Disposable Personal Income in the United States averaged 5338.68 USD Billion from 1959 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 16454.47 USD Billion in June of 2019 and a record low of 351.54 USD Billion in January of 1959. tradingeconomics.comDisposable income has been going up for decades Its wonderful that the average American gets payed a salary over the course of a year, because that is all that disposable income is.
It doesn't account for expenses, that would be called Discretionary income.
Disposable income says nothing about how much a person/family has left after paying their bills, nor are retirement accounts something you should count for paying for a broken washing machine.
Net worth also doesn't help. Your house or car is, again, not something that helps to pay for your broken washing machine.
|
On August 01 2019 14:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 12:47 Doodsmack wrote:On August 01 2019 11:27 IgnE wrote:
It is a bit ironic that a guy who appears to have been, on the whole, less racist than his peers of whatever political party, is now being targeted for heinous remarks in a private conversation in 1971, largely because of his political significance in a deepening political schism. He put a goodly portion of the black population in prison so this question of whether he was less racist is not exactly clear. I know I said I wasnt going to say any more but I will point out that, just like with Clinton in the 90s or Biden (who was in the Senate) many of these bills were supported by Democrats and black local leaders and I think. majority, or near majority of the CBC. Bill Clinton wasnt racist then for it, nor was Joe Biden, nor was RR. Nor was Ed Kennedy, the "liberal lion" or the "lion of the Senate." Another person loved by their party despite his, uh, personal imperfections. these bills were passed by large majorities or with voice consent.
Alternatively, they were all pushing racist policy (which is what people have been saying for decades).
|
On August 01 2019 11:56 CorsairHero wrote:
yang is killing it on the reddit politics poll... 57%
Useless online poll.
Buzz me when he’s consistently above 5% and growing on RCP.
|
On August 01 2019 17:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 17:13 CorsairHero wrote:Doesn't look like those links mention Roth IRA or other retirement accounts. The mean networth of under 35 households is $76200. 45-54 is $727,500 networth statsDisposable Personal Income in the United States increased to 16454.47 USD Billion in June from 16384.73 USD Billion in May of 2019. Disposable Personal Income in the United States averaged 5338.68 USD Billion from 1959 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 16454.47 USD Billion in June of 2019 and a record low of 351.54 USD Billion in January of 1959. tradingeconomics.comDisposable income has been going up for decades Its wonderful that the average American gets payed a salary over the course of a year, because that is all that disposable income is. It doesn't account for expenses, that would be called Discretionary income. Disposable income says nothing about how much a person/family has left after paying their bills, nor are retirement accounts something you should count for paying for a broken washing machine. Net worth also doesn't help. Your house or car is, again, not something that helps to pay for your broken washing machine.
It's your choice if you want to lock in your money in a brand new depreciating car. New car sales almost doubled since 2009. Thats a pretty decent indication on the state of the american consumer confidence
The not having 500 dollars to cover an expense isn't as much of an indication of the economy as it is a representation of consumer spending habits such as vehicle purchases as mentioned above. Another example is that the average american cellphone life cycle is 21 months which is ridiculous.
|
On August 01 2019 17:34 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 17:23 Gorsameth wrote:On August 01 2019 17:13 CorsairHero wrote:Doesn't look like those links mention Roth IRA or other retirement accounts. The mean networth of under 35 households is $76200. 45-54 is $727,500 networth statsDisposable Personal Income in the United States increased to 16454.47 USD Billion in June from 16384.73 USD Billion in May of 2019. Disposable Personal Income in the United States averaged 5338.68 USD Billion from 1959 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 16454.47 USD Billion in June of 2019 and a record low of 351.54 USD Billion in January of 1959. tradingeconomics.comDisposable income has been going up for decades Its wonderful that the average American gets payed a salary over the course of a year, because that is all that disposable income is. It doesn't account for expenses, that would be called Discretionary income. Disposable income says nothing about how much a person/family has left after paying their bills, nor are retirement accounts something you should count for paying for a broken washing machine. Net worth also doesn't help. Your house or car is, again, not something that helps to pay for your broken washing machine. It's your choice if you want to lock in your money in a brand new depreciating car. New car sales almost doubled since 2009. Thats a pretty decent indication on the state of the american consumer confidence The not having 500 dollars to cover an expense isn't as much of an indication of the economy as it is a representation of consumer spending habits such as vehicle purchases as mentioned above. Another example is that the average american cellphone life cycle is 21 months which is ridiculous.
You incorrectly cited the average... you chose the mean instead of the median (both of which are right on the same site). The median is wayyy lower, as it's resistant to the outliers of the occasional person who's a millionaire or billionaire, which heavily skews the mean upwards. The median is a much more useful average when it comes to looking at pretty much anything involving money, wages, net worth, etc., and it's definitely more relevant when we're already discussing phrases like "the bottom 40%" or "the bottom 60%".
|
On August 01 2019 17:34 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 17:23 Gorsameth wrote:On August 01 2019 17:13 CorsairHero wrote:Doesn't look like those links mention Roth IRA or other retirement accounts. The mean networth of under 35 households is $76200. 45-54 is $727,500 networth statsDisposable Personal Income in the United States increased to 16454.47 USD Billion in June from 16384.73 USD Billion in May of 2019. Disposable Personal Income in the United States averaged 5338.68 USD Billion from 1959 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 16454.47 USD Billion in June of 2019 and a record low of 351.54 USD Billion in January of 1959. tradingeconomics.comDisposable income has been going up for decades Its wonderful that the average American gets payed a salary over the course of a year, because that is all that disposable income is. It doesn't account for expenses, that would be called Discretionary income. Disposable income says nothing about how much a person/family has left after paying their bills, nor are retirement accounts something you should count for paying for a broken washing machine. Net worth also doesn't help. Your house or car is, again, not something that helps to pay for your broken washing machine. It's your choice if you want to lock in your money in a brand new depreciating car. New car sales almost doubled since 2009. Thats a pretty decent indication on the state of the american consumer confidence The not having 500 dollars to cover an expense isn't as much of an indication of the economy as it is a representation of consumer spending habits such as vehicle purchases as mentioned above. Another example is that the average american cellphone life cycle is 21 months which is ridiculous.
I don't think anyone claimed that it is necessarily a problem with the economy. I think it is well known that a lot of americans are really bad at personal finance decisions. The fact that 40-60% of americans couldn't handle a broken washing machine without going into debt is still a problem, no matter what the cause of that is.
|
On August 01 2019 19:45 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 17:34 CorsairHero wrote:On August 01 2019 17:23 Gorsameth wrote:On August 01 2019 17:13 CorsairHero wrote:Doesn't look like those links mention Roth IRA or other retirement accounts. The mean networth of under 35 households is $76200. 45-54 is $727,500 networth statsDisposable Personal Income in the United States increased to 16454.47 USD Billion in June from 16384.73 USD Billion in May of 2019. Disposable Personal Income in the United States averaged 5338.68 USD Billion from 1959 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 16454.47 USD Billion in June of 2019 and a record low of 351.54 USD Billion in January of 1959. tradingeconomics.comDisposable income has been going up for decades Its wonderful that the average American gets payed a salary over the course of a year, because that is all that disposable income is. It doesn't account for expenses, that would be called Discretionary income. Disposable income says nothing about how much a person/family has left after paying their bills, nor are retirement accounts something you should count for paying for a broken washing machine. Net worth also doesn't help. Your house or car is, again, not something that helps to pay for your broken washing machine. It's your choice if you want to lock in your money in a brand new depreciating car. New car sales almost doubled since 2009. Thats a pretty decent indication on the state of the american consumer confidence The not having 500 dollars to cover an expense isn't as much of an indication of the economy as it is a representation of consumer spending habits such as vehicle purchases as mentioned above. Another example is that the average american cellphone life cycle is 21 months which is ridiculous. I don't think anyone claimed that it is necessarily a problem with the economy. I think it is well known that a lot of americans are really bad at personal finance decisions. The fact that 40-60% of americans couldn't handle a broken washing machine without going into debt is still a problem, no matter what the cause of that is.
How is it a problem? I understand it could be one if the credit cost linked to that debt was high, but otherwise there is not much difference between keeping 500 under your mattress for emergencies with a balance varying between 500 and 0, and making a 500 debt when needed with a balance varying between 0 and -500.
If anything, it is more an indication that "being in debt" is not considered a problem (which could be a cultural difference between US and DE).
|
The cost of emergency credit is extremely high (think payday and title loans issued at the usury rate, if the state your'e in has one), and the average credit card interest rate hovers around 17 percent.
|
On August 01 2019 20:18 farvacola wrote:
The cost of emergency credit is extremely high (think payday and title loans issued at the usury rate, if the state your'e in has one), and the average credit card interest rate hovers around 17 percent.
So the question becomes: is paying those 17%, which means between 0 and 7$ a month when an emergency occurs (depending where you are on the 0/-500 range) enough of an incentive to refrain from spending those shiny 500$ you have today?
|
Nope, that's not the question because there are a ton more factors at play, two prominent ones being the fact that folks without an emergency fund are almost certainly already saddled with multiple kinds of both short and long term debts and will not have credit at average interest rates available. A third important consideration, among a host of others, is that folks without an emergency fund are almost certainly drawing on credit in emergency situations many times in a row, which plays directly into the above issues. I work very closely with bankruptcy so these are the sorts of things I see on a daily basis, the idea that a lack of an emergency fund is an acceptable shift in household resource allocation towards credit use just doesn't jive with how predatory emergency lending is.
Edit: I should add that an important problem in all this relates to, of all things, native american tribal sovereignty. Most states limit interest rates on consumer loans to a usury cap of around 25 percent. However, state law cannot interfere with the affairs of tribal sovereigns, save for a few very narrow exceptions, so there has developed a robust industry of title, payday, and emergency lenders who issue loans at mind-boggling rates (the worst I have seen is 322%). Naturally, the companies that do this shit tend to have almost nothing to do with the tribes save for tenuous contractual links that are the subject of ongoing litigation. The whole thing ends up being yet another facet of predation.
|
|
|
On August 01 2019 20:46 farvacola wrote:
Nope, that's not the question because there are a ton more factors at play, two prominent ones being the fact that folks without an emergency fund are almost certainly already saddled with multiple kinds of both short and long term debts and will not have credit at average interest rates available. A third important consideration, among a host of others, is that folks without an emergency fund are almost certainly drawing on credit in emergency situations many times in a row, which plays directly into the above issues. I work very closely with bankruptcy so these are the sorts of things I see on a daily basis, the idea that a lack of an emergency fund is an acceptable shift in household resource allocation towards credit use just doesn't jive with how predatory emergency lending is.
Edit: I should add that an important problem in all this relates to, of all things, native american tribal sovereignty. Most states limit interest rates on consumer loans to a usury cap of around 25 percent. However, state law cannot interfere with the affairs of tribal sovereigns, save for a few very narrow exceptions, so there has developed a robust industry of title, payday, and emergency lenders who issue loans at mind-boggling rates (the worst I have seen is 322%). Naturally, the companies that do this shit tend to have almost nothing to do with the tribes save for tenuous contractual links that are the subject of ongoing litigation. The whole thing ends up yet another facet of predation.
I would argue that, working closely with bankruptcy, your personal experience is skewed towards extreme indebtment cases. Initial post was that 60% of US households do not have an emergency fund. Even if you take the 2M bankruptcy fillings of 2005 as a reference, even if you add that most indebtement cases that match your description are handled before bankruptcy, that does not amount to 200M people.
You get closer with the 50% of households that keep a carrying credit card debt, but that was my argument: having a carrying debt probably doesn't feel like a big deal in the US, at least not as much as it would in Germany (where credit cards aren't that common anyway). There are Americans that could have an emergency fund, but do not because avoiding debt is not as high a priority as it would be elsewhere.
|
Norway28876 Posts
Oslo is basically the same size as Portland and they had 5 traffic deaths in all of 2018 (average 4.2 past 5 years)
So there should definitely be room for improvement..
|
|
|
On August 01 2019 23:03 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 20:46 farvacola wrote:
Nope, that's not the question because there are a ton more factors at play, two prominent ones being the fact that folks without an emergency fund are almost certainly already saddled with multiple kinds of both short and long term debts and will not have credit at average interest rates available. A third important consideration, among a host of others, is that folks without an emergency fund are almost certainly drawing on credit in emergency situations many times in a row, which plays directly into the above issues. I work very closely with bankruptcy so these are the sorts of things I see on a daily basis, the idea that a lack of an emergency fund is an acceptable shift in household resource allocation towards credit use just doesn't jive with how predatory emergency lending is.
Edit: I should add that an important problem in all this relates to, of all things, native american tribal sovereignty. Most states limit interest rates on consumer loans to a usury cap of around 25 percent. However, state law cannot interfere with the affairs of tribal sovereigns, save for a few very narrow exceptions, so there has developed a robust industry of title, payday, and emergency lenders who issue loans at mind-boggling rates (the worst I have seen is 322%). Naturally, the companies that do this shit tend to have almost nothing to do with the tribes save for tenuous contractual links that are the subject of ongoing litigation. The whole thing ends up yet another facet of predation. I would argue that, working closely with bankruptcy, your personal experience is skewed towards extreme indebtment cases. Initial post was that 60% of US households do not have an emergency fund. Even if you take the 2M bankruptcy fillings of 2005 as a reference, even if you add that most indebtement cases that match your description are handled before bankruptcy, that does not amount to 200M people. You get closer with the 50% of households that keep a carrying credit card debt, but that was my argument: having a carrying debt probably doesn't feel like a big deal in the US, at least not as much as it would in Germany (where credit cards aren't that common anyway). There are Americans that could have an emergency fund, but do not because avoiding debt is not as high a priority as it would be elsewhere.
Reference to bankruptcy filing rates from 14 years ago doesn’t undermine my point, nor does my familiarity with the legal framework that undergirds the short term consumer credit system. It is very expensive to be poor in the US, and a locus for that dynamic is easily found with reference to the emergency liquidity problems of the lower class.
|
On August 01 2019 23:03 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 20:46 farvacola wrote:
Nope, that's not the question because there are a ton more factors at play, two prominent ones being the fact that folks without an emergency fund are almost certainly already saddled with multiple kinds of both short and long term debts and will not have credit at average interest rates available. A third important consideration, among a host of others, is that folks without an emergency fund are almost certainly drawing on credit in emergency situations many times in a row, which plays directly into the above issues. I work very closely with bankruptcy so these are the sorts of things I see on a daily basis, the idea that a lack of an emergency fund is an acceptable shift in household resource allocation towards credit use just doesn't jive with how predatory emergency lending is.
Edit: I should add that an important problem in all this relates to, of all things, native american tribal sovereignty. Most states limit interest rates on consumer loans to a usury cap of around 25 percent. However, state law cannot interfere with the affairs of tribal sovereigns, save for a few very narrow exceptions, so there has developed a robust industry of title, payday, and emergency lenders who issue loans at mind-boggling rates (the worst I have seen is 322%). Naturally, the companies that do this shit tend to have almost nothing to do with the tribes save for tenuous contractual links that are the subject of ongoing litigation. The whole thing ends up yet another facet of predation. I would argue that, working closely with bankruptcy, your personal experience is skewed towards extreme indebtment cases. Initial post was that 60% of US households do not have an emergency fund. Even if you take the 2M bankruptcy fillings of 2005 as a reference, even if you add that most indebtement cases that match your description are handled before bankruptcy, that does not amount to 200M people. You get closer with the 50% of households that keep a carrying credit card debt, but that was my argument: having a carrying debt probably doesn't feel like a big deal in the US, at least not as much as it would in Germany (where credit cards aren't that common anyway). There are Americans that could have an emergency fund, but do not because avoiding debt is not as high a priority as it would be elsewhere.
It isn't as high a priority because it isn't as possible. People end up with credit card debt whether they like it or not, so the whole thing has become normalized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
