Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Stagnant wages, the "savings rate" and other non-problems   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

736 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Feb 2007 at 6:52 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



31 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2007-02-03 6:56:15 PM  
Feed the Pig
 
2007-02-03 6:58:11 PM  
Hey look, it's an article by a supply sider that criticizes economic indicators but doesn't offer any better indicators. Don't forget, The Decider(tm) said that you have to offer a better plan if you're going to criticize.
 
2007-02-03 7:03:30 PM  
Well obviously these aren't problems to WSJ readers. A shortage of ivory backscratchers on the otherhand...
 
2007-02-03 7:10:33 PM  
LocalCynic: Hey look, it's an article by a supply sider that criticizes economic indicators but doesn't offer any better indicators. Don't forget, The Decider(tm) said that you have to offer a better plan if you're going to criticize.

Er... Seems to me that if the guy points out we are suffering illegitimate panic over bogus economic indicators, the better plan is implicit: Ignore the bogus indicators.
 
2007-02-03 7:10:37 PM  
You and I both know we're ignorant of economics, so answer me this, Yankee - why is it that $20 American brings me 130 crowns Swedish? Sweden is in a decline, and for most of the 90's 1 dollar equaled 10 kronar. It has kept dropping since I moved here 4 years ago so that now an American dollar has half the buying power of a (weak) Swedish crown. Should we go to the Euro? Or give up the liberal nanny-state bullshiat? Please, we just want to be like the beacon of freedom. I want to move back to America to get substandard wages and no benefits, because the economy is so strong!

It actually hurts me that the economy is bad (emotionally...I hate America enough that I invested in China 2 decades ago), but what hurts everyone more is claptrap like this article that makes my trolling seem tame and sane.
 
2007-02-03 7:11:02 PM  
The Unemployment rate is just one of four factors one must look at to get a good idea of wage earners. If you are working part-time you aren't considered unemployed. If you have given up looking for work, you aren't considered unemployed. If your benefits run out, you aren't considered unemployed.

The other three, Weeks on Unemployment, Labor Participation Rate and "Hours Worked" have been sickening for the last few years.

If the job market was a strong as the WSJ claims, then there would be much, much more wage inflation. You know, supply demand that sort of thing.
 
2007-02-03 7:11:28 PM  
The "negative savings rate" is disingenous. If you contribute money to your 401(k), that is not considered "savings" by the government. Not sure why not. Also, any money earned by the 401(k), or by your regular stock or interest bearing account isn't considered savings either. Nor is your increased equity that you're building up in your house.

None of it makes any sense, but Americans do not have a "true" negative savings rate.
 
2007-02-03 7:37:33 PM  
swahnhennessy

You and I both know we're ignorant of economics, so answer me this, Yankee - why is it that $20 American brings me 130 crowns Swedish?

I believe it's mainly because of rampant US borrowing.
 
2007-02-03 7:41:29 PM  
well, I was going to be snarky and say that those were of course non-problems, since the true issue was the Communists trying to sap us of our precious bodily fluids. But you guys are all really serious, so I'm backing slowly out of the thread.

/looks back briefly
//runs to an entertaining religion thread
 
2007-02-03 8:03:02 PM  
Regarding the "negative savings rate":

It is a valid indicator if you think about it like this: I earned 50k last year, but I spent 56k. Now, I contributed 10K to my 401K plan, and my home increased in value by 5K, so my overall assets increased by 9K, but I am now most likely carrying 6K in credit-card debt, and the things that increased in value are not easily liquidated (i.e. not cash equivalents). If I continue to do this, the actual debt I'm carrying, especially if it is on credit cards with their higher interest rates, will quickly become unsustainable.

Add to this the fact that a not-insignificant number of people do not own appreciating assets (such as a home) or have significant investments in the stock market (or large retirement accounts), in which case the "negative savings rate" is quite accurate, and I'd say that overall as an economic indicator, it certainly does have some validity.
 
2007-02-03 8:11:19 PM  
RS: I have a negative savings account myself.

She's listed on my tax return as 'spouse'.
 
2007-02-03 8:34:21 PM  
Rusty_shack
Add to this the fact that a not-insignificant number of people do not own appreciating assets (such as a home) or have significant investments in the stock market (or large retirement accounts), in which case the "negative savings rate" is quite accurate, and I'd say that overall as an economic indicator, it certainly does have some validity.

I can see why, at first blush, the "negative savings rate" seems accurate, as indicated by your analysis. However, consider this extreme (and simplified) example:

Two men, Fred and Joe, start a company on Jan 1, 2006. For the sake of argument, let's call it "YouFlube". They each invest $10k in this company. The company is a hit, and the company goes public on Oct. 1, 2006 with a market value of $1 billion. Joe and Fred each sell $100 million worth of stock on October 1st.

On October 2nd, Joe buys a Cadillac XLR-V for $70k. Fred buys a mansion for $10 million.

Joe now has a negative savings rate of $60k. Fred now has a negative savings rate of $9.99 million.

Can you see how this example skews the result? The negative savings rate is caused by the vast amounts of money that entrepreneurs are creating. I mean, Joe knocked $3k off of 20 peoples savings. Fred knocked $3k of off 3,000 people's savings.

The average American is saving money. The negative savings rate is a quirk of a horribly inaccurate system.
 
2007-02-03 8:40:58 PM  
Is it computed as an average of individual savings rates or by using some sort of "national total income" - "national total spendings" type formula? If it is the former, I wonder why they don't just use the median, as it would most likely account for that. If they are using national figures without taking capital gains into account, it would appear to be a rather useless figure indeed.
 
2007-02-03 9:15:04 PM  
Damba
Joe now has a negative savings rate of $60k. Fred now has a negative savings rate of $9.99 million.

You lost me. Why doesn't Joe have a positive savings rate of $99,920,000 and Fred $89,990,000?
 
2007-02-03 9:35:08 PM  
RanDomino
You lost me. Why doesn't Joe have a positive savings rate of $99,920,000 and Fred $89,990,000?

The official American savings rate does not include capital gains. "Savings" are calculated as income minus expenditures. Capital gains are not income. Interest is not income. This exclusion is what makes the "savings rate" as calculated by the government useless.

Most people become wealthy from capital gains, not from income. If a man starts a company and builds it for 20 years and then sells it, the proceeds from the sale are capital gains. And this is how most people become wealthy -- a slow progression of investments that culminate in a large capital gain.

And none of that gain is considered savings. So according to the government, all those people who bought franchises or farms or whatever, have never "saved" a dime.
 
2007-02-03 10:35:24 PM  
Another factor with the negative savings rate is that we are entering a period of an unusual percentage of the population being retirees. Will this skew the statisticoontil we can kill off the boomers?

/My theory is we need a giant lazer blender out of Logans Run for anyone over 65.
 
2007-02-03 10:41:14 PM  

The official American savings rate does not include capital gains. "Savings" are calculated as income minus expenditures. Capital gains are not income. Interest is not income. This exclusion is what makes the "savings rate" as calculated by the government useless.


I'm sorry but capital gains simply don't matter for the vast majority of people, I can't see how it would skew the statistics.
 
2007-02-03 10:42:25 PM  
underemployment not considered

Many over 45 year olds

Old job 120K

New job Walmart

How does that affect those glorious statistics?
 
2007-02-03 11:05:27 PM  
Or do you sneak a peak at whether your IRA increased in value, or check the sale price your neighbor got on his home to figure out what you might be able to get for yours? By any normal definition, "savings" should include your increase in total assets--in other words, your gains in overall wealth.

Earth to the WSJ: if you sold your house you would still have to live somewhere. So if your house went from $100k to $500k and you sold it, unless you moved to somewhere where the cost of living was a lot less you're going to spend $500k to get a new house.

Course the people that believe this also own several houses so they can sell them at will and make money.
 
2007-02-03 11:08:07 PM  
ameliawizard
underemployment not considered
Many over 45 year olds
Old job 120K
New job Walmart


That's a good Haiku. And a lesson to those that think they are on the gravytrain and don't have marketable skills. If you were making $120k and now can only work as a greeter then the problem is with you, not with the market.
 
2007-02-03 11:17:02 PM  
Great Caesar's Toast
I'm sorry but capital gains simply don't matter for the vast majority of people, I can't see how it would skew the statistics.

See my previous post, repeated below:
Can you see how this example skews the result? The negative savings rate is caused by the vast amounts of money that entrepreneurs are creating. I mean, Joe knocked $3k off of 20 peoples savings. Fred knocked $3k of off 3,000 people's savings.

ameliawizard
Old job 120K
New job Walmart
How does that affect those glorious statistics?


And where is your documentation for this tired trope? Overall, median income in the US is increasing faster than inflation. That is, real wages are increasing. Not to mention that the median wage in the US is roughly 50% higher than in Europe.
 
2007-02-03 11:45:12 PM  
Damba
The official American savings rate does not include capital gains.

Thank you for making me smarter.


Saiga410
/My theory is we need a giant lazer blender out of Logans Run for anyone over 65.

RENEW!!


Great Caesar's Toast

I'm sorry but capital gains simply don't matter for the vast majority of people, I can't see how it would skew the statistics.

It doesn't matter for the poor, but when have we mattered before?
The richest 1% own 20% of the wealth (in the US) and deal in capital gains to a much greater extent than the plebs.
I wonder how it would look if their data were excluded...


lelio
If you were making $120k and now can only work as a greeter then the problem is with you, not with the market.

If the same bad thing happens to a large number of people, it's a systemic problem, not just an individual problem.


also, while attempting to do some Amazingly Quick Research about this just now, I ended up reading an article about Japan's "balance sheet recession"... "Left unattended, this deflationary gap will continue to shrink the economy until almost everyone becomes too poor to save any money."
Capitalism is so insane!!
 
2007-02-04 12:24:49 AM  
I still cannot see how capital gains or gains within a home would be considered "savings" unless there is a disposition. What is saving + appreciation one year, may be negative saving the next.

That said, it scares me that people are not saving.

If your income equals your consumption, then you have problems (medical expenses excepted). Live within your means, give some loot to charity, and save the rest to provide for your retirement.

I do not want to bail you out when you retire.
 
2007-02-04 3:19:27 AM  
RanDomino Japan's "balance sheet recession"... "Left unattended, this deflationary gap will continue to shrink the economy until almost everyone becomes too poor to save any money."
Capitalism is so insane!!


I'm not sure what "capitalism" has to do with that. How would another economic system "fix" this? By printing more money? By forcing people to work more (or less, depending on what econ school you're from)?
 
2007-02-04 3:53:40 AM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Er... Seems to me that if the guy points out we are suffering illegitimate panic over bogus economic indicators, the better plan is implicit: Ignore the bogus indicators.

Yeah, they're all bogus indicators because we all know everyone has large amounts of stock, bonds, annuities, properties, et al.

They're closing another plant around here (paper, well diapers/other absorbents). All those people aren't seeing their economic futures prospering. Let's go a bit further. Several of my younger brother's friends left one job, and went to another for less because the contract was given to another company. This company, like the last, has no health insurance or retirement options. The difference is that this one pays a buck an hour less, but what are they going to do? Not many like to be on the dole.

Go to school you say? Nice try, but many do not have a schedule that's conducive to school to say the least or many times the money. Many are already carrying other debt (some responsible, some not). The paper plant workers might end up better off if they can get a NAFTA provision. That would cover retraining / schooling. Even then they'll have to get lucky choosing the right schooling, draining investments they might have to pay the bills until they're closer to done and then getting lucky enough to find a job in that area!

You want another good economic indicator for an area, see how long residental, commercial, and industrial properties stay vacant. We could go further and say the volatile price of oil, the weakening of the dollar, or even the dismal value of replacment jobs for many displaced people but I digress.

Please go on thinking everything is without worry. I worry because I have a great deal to lose if the gap between the rich and the poor grows too wide. I know better than to assume that many Americans are rich in stock. I know better than to assume in job security. I know better than to believe that everything is rosy.

Perhaps you do not.

JudgeReinhold: If your income equals your consumption, then you have problems (medical expenses excepted). Live within your means, give some loot to charity, and save the rest to provide for your retirement.

Or one could say that many people saved and bought into the American dream of a house (a money sucking entity). However that is just a lottery with better odds.

Incidentally, do you have any idea what would happen if people slowed down buying things on credit? Near chaos. The retail machine would grind to a halt.

lelio: If you were making $120k and now can only work as a greeter then the problem is with you, not with the market.

Not in a world where the average person is getting the pink slip and their job moving to another country. In a world where countries intentionally hold their currency low (see China) and get away with it you'll see more.

Damba: Most people become wealthy from capital gains, not from income. If a man starts a company and builds it for 20 years and then sells it, the proceeds from the sale are capital gains. And this is how most people become wealthy -- a slow progression of investments that culminate in a large capital gain.

Most people do not have capital gains to speak of. Tell me of thy neighbor in the average neighborhood (median income) who becomes rich by selling their major investment. The major investment for most Americans. The American home. Most people do not become rich from that sale. Stock sales then? Most Americans do not own large quantities of stock. Many have a 401k, or 403b, et al, but these are averaged returns. Nothing like the capital gains you speak of. They never get the killing return that really kicks in capital gains tax.

---

No folks, the new American way is simple. Heck it's almost the pirates creed from the Disney movie. Take all you can, give nothing back.

Show no loyalty to your employer. Sell them out the instant you get a choice. Don't get me wrong, no illegal actions. However if your circumstances permit, stab them in the back before they stab you first. Change jobs on a regular basis. Never get attached. The next time you hear anything of "employer / employee loyalty" try your best not to laugh.

Do the least amount of work for the most pay while demanding things like tuition assistance. A good portion of my contract spells out school related expenses billable to whatever current employer I have as continued training to complete the project.

Squeeze every penny out of the useless bas***ds you can before they toss you aside. Remember that it's only a matter of time before they toss you aside, as almost all companies are now driven by the next quarter rather than even one year hence.

Don't buy a house unless you can pay for a major portion (at least 33%) with cash left over. That old adage about how it's better to pay yourself? Great in theory, lousy in a bad market. Foreclosure nets you zip.

Finally remember that supply-side economics is for morons who want their cake and believe they can eat it too. The only responsible way to lower taxes (a laudable goal anytime) is to lower spending. So until the people who write the government checks (Republicans who cut and spend, and Democrats who tax and spend) have the stones to say enough profligate spending, it will never get better. To do that we have to be willing to say "no we don't need that bridge" or post office, or subsidy to a profitable company. We have to be willing to say enough.

Enough corporate welfare, enough taxes, enough runaway debt.

I have little faith that will happen anytime soon.
 
2007-02-04 4:01:28 AM  
The situation in question exists because of money. Consider communism (moneyless capitalism), Communism (top-down control), Anarchism ("are you done with that? thanks"), and Barter ("wtf r banks"). They have their own problems, but none where, as you put it, a solution might involve improving the economy by working less! Crazy!
 
2007-02-04 11:15:45 AM  
inglixthemad

No folks, the new American way is simple. Heck it's almost the pirates creed from the Disney movie. Take all you can, give nothing back.

Show no loyalty to your employer. Sell them out the instant you get a choice. Don't get me wrong, no illegal actions. However if your circumstances permit, stab them in the back before they stab you first. Change jobs on a regular basis. Never get attached. The next time you hear anything of "employer / employee loyalty" try your best not to laugh.

Do the least amount of work for the most pay while demanding things like tuition assistance. A good portion of my contract spells out school related expenses billable to whatever current employer I have as continued training to complete the project.

Squeeze every penny out of the useless bas***ds you can before they toss you aside. Remember that it's only a matter of time before they toss you aside, as almost all companies are now driven by the next quarter rather than even one year hence.

Don't buy a house unless you can pay for a major portion (at least 33%) with cash left over. That old adage about how it's better to pay yourself? Great in theory, lousy in a bad market. Foreclosure nets you zip.

Finally remember that supply-side economics is for morons who want their cake and believe they can eat it too. The only responsible way to lower taxes (a laudable goal anytime) is to lower spending. So until the people who write the government checks (Republicans who cut and spend, and Democrats who tax and spend) have the stones to say enough profligate spending, it will never get better. To do that we have to be willing to say "no we don't need that bridge" or post office, or subsidy to a profitable company. We have to be willing to say enough.

Enough corporate welfare, enough taxes, enough runaway debt.

I have little faith that will happen anytime soon.


What's your plan for saving for retirement?

Just curious.
 
2007-02-04 2:42:05 PM  
[image from i17.photobucket.com too old to be available]
 
2007-02-04 4:16:08 PM  
All I know about the economy is that the value of my paycheck has been going down for years now and that my bills and groceries are so high that if I lose my job I'll be insolvent in about two months.

Oh, and I don't know anyone at all that has told me they're in a different boat.

WSJ can tell me they're "non-problems" all they want, they're probably for me and everyone I know, and we're having a hell of a time turning the situation around the way prices keep going up.
 
2007-02-04 5:08:28 PM  
The Wall Street Urinal.

Yeah i believe them.
 
2007-02-04 9:57:53 PM  
Gannon's Remorse

Invest either in Gold, if you think the economy will recover, or land and bullets if you think it won't.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.