56% of Americans have no savings? Is this true

[BH]

I read this article claiming 56% of Americans have no savings:

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/14/myt...ost_americans_dont_even_have_1000_in_savings/


Those of you more economic and business savvy than, is this probably accurate or is it not? And how can such a statistic be found out?

I am also thinking about the well off people. Doesn't having an impoverished population also drag down the people who are well off too? It seems to me if the mass of your population is poor and impoverished it cannot maintain good roads, railroad systems, support as many doctors and hospitals. I know well off people will always have access to better doctors and such but if they are doing business out in the boonies and something happens that nice fancy hospital won't do them a lick of good if they 100 miles away from it and the roads are so bad it slows down their travel time to it too..

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That would be a low estimate, but yes. Very few people I know can afford to save.

 

[Ford]

I read this article claiming 56% of Americans have no savings

Well we're not being encouraged to save, are we?

Leaving aside the fact that most working class Americans don't make enough money to set some of it aside every month, we're being told over and over again that saving is a fool's errand.

Putting money into a bank is laughed at. Putting money into a money market or mutual fund is also laughed at. We're told to invest. To not just park our extra money, but try to turn it into riches! Do you have ten thousand dollars? Why the hell don't you put it in the market?


And honestly, the returns from a savings account are laughable. The banks themselves have set up a system whereby there's no money in just parking your money in their institution. In order to make money, you have to risk everything. Saving is for suckers.

 

[Axulus]

That would be a low estimate, but yes. Very few people I know can afford to save.

How did you determine they can't afford it? Are you saying that they all have nearly equal lifestyles and that lifestyle is so minimalist that nothing can be cut back? What mechanism is in play that is enforcing such equality among a majority of the population?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

That would be a low estimate, but yes. Very few people I know can afford to save.

How did you determine they can't afford it? Are you saying that they all have nearly equal lifestyles and that lifestyle is so minimalist that nothing can be cut back? What mechanism is in play that is enforcing such equality among a majority of the population?

I can't speak for Skwerl, however ...

If people I know tell me they can't afford to save, I believe them, I don't means test them.

 

[Axulus]

I read this article claiming 56% of Americans have no savings

Well we're not being encouraged to save, are we?

Leaving aside the fact that most working class Americans don't make enough money to set some of it aside every month, we're being told over and over again that saving is a fool's errand.

Putting money into a bank is laughed at. Putting money into a money market or mutual fund is also laughed at. We're told to invest. To not just park our extra money, but try to turn it into riches! Do you have ten thousand dollars? Why the hell don't you put it in the market?


And honestly, the returns from a savings account are laughable. The banks themselves have set up a system whereby there's no money in just parking your money in their institution. In order to make money, you have to risk everything. Saving is for suckers.

Why is earning a high return a prerequesite to saving money? Isn't having something available should something happen to one's current source of income enough of a reason to save?

 

[Ford]

Why is earning a high return a prerequesite to saving money? Isn't having something available should something happen to one's current source of income enough of a reason to save?

So you're making the case that if I park my money in a bank, I should earn no return at all.

 

[Derec]

Putting money into a bank is laughed at. Putting money into a money market or mutual fund is also laughed at. We're told to invest. To not just park our extra money, but try to turn it into riches! Do you have ten thousand dollars? Why the hell don't you put it in the market?

And honestly, the returns from a savings account are laughable. The banks themselves have set up a system whereby there's no money in just parking your money in their institution.

It's more of a function of low interest rates prevailing right now.

In order to make money, you have to risk everything. Saving is for suckers.

No risk no reward.

 

[Derec]

So you're making the case that if I park my money in a bank, I should earn no return at all.

Depends on your purpose for saving. For a "rainy day" fund you want it to be safe and stable and liquid and earning a return is not important. If you want long term growth you have to expose the money to some risk and it not being quickly accessible.

- - - Updated - - -

If people I know tell me they can't afford to save, I believe them, I don't means test them.

That said, if they sport a new car, expensive clothes, iPhone 6S and/or a Starbucks latte every day you might want to second guess their self-assessment.

 

[Ford]

Depends on your purpose for saving.

Saving.

But the banks are like "thanks for your money, fuck you if you expected something for depositing it with us."

I guess expecting a bit of interest is unrealistic?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Depends on your purpose for saving. For a "rainy day" fund you want it to be safe and stable and liquid and earning a return is not important. If you want long term growth you have to expose the money to some risk and it not being quickly accessible.

- - - Updated - - -

If people I know tell me they can't afford to save, I believe them, I don't means test them.

That said, if they sport a new car, expensive clothes, iPhone 6S and/or a Starbucks latte every day you might want to second guess their self-assessment.

Who said anything about cars, clothes or phones? Why are you introducing facts not in evidence, particularly things that would be seen and evaluated and already used to exclude such people from the group addressed? Can't make your point with the current situation, so you move the goal posts?

 

[laughing dog]

I read this article claiming 56% of Americans have no savings:

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/14/myt...ost_americans_dont_even_have_1000_in_savings/


Those of you more economic and business savvy than, is this probably accurate or is it not? And how can such a statistic be found out?

I am also thinking about the well off people. Doesn't having an impoverished population also drag down the people who are well off too? It seems to me if the mass of your population is poor and impoverished it cannot maintain good roads, railroad systems, support as many doctors and hospitals. I know well off people will always have access to better doctors and such but if they are doing business out in the boonies and something happens that nice fancy hospital won't do them a lick of good if they 100 miles away from it and the roads are so bad it slows down their travel time to it too..

I think this article is a bit misleading. The quote is

More than half of Americans — 56 percent, to be exact — have less than $1,000 combined in their checking and savings accounts, according to a recent survey,

. That is not the same thing as saying less than 56% have no savings. If the results of the survey are accurate, a more precise statement is 56% have less than 1,000 dollars in liquid savings.

People can save by using bank accounts. People can also save by using defined contribution plans for 401(k) etc.... at work. And people can save by purchasing physical assets (like homes) in the hopes of appreciation in value.

 

[Derec]

Who said anything about cars, clothes or phones? Why are you introducing facts not in evidence, particularly things that would be seen and evaluated and already used to exclude such people from the group addressed? Can't make your point with the current situation, so you move the goal posts?

You were talking about people you know, right? So you would have some idea about their lifestyle (for which the items I listed are merely examples) and thus you would know if they are full of shit if they say they can't afford to save.

 

[Derec]

And people can save by purchasing physical assets (like homes) in the hopes of appreciation in value.

All true. Note though that a working asset like a house provides benefit beyond appreciation. You either live in it or rent it out giving you liquid income.

 

[laughing dog]

The judgment whether someone can "afford to save' depends on the particular values of the assessor. There is no universal standard.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Depends on your purpose for saving. For a "rainy day" fund you want it to be safe and stable and liquid and earning a return is not important. If you want long term growth you have to expose the money to some risk and it not being quickly accessible.

- - - Updated - - -


That said, if they sport a new car, expensive clothes, iPhone 6S and/or a Starbucks latte every day you might want to second guess their self-assessment.

Who said anything about cars, clothes or phones? Why are you introducing facts not in evidence, particularly things that would be seen and evaluated and already used to exclude such people from the group addressed? Can't make your point with the current situation, so you move the goal posts?

Can you explain why we should have known you excluded the obvious liars?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Who said anything about cars, clothes or phones? Why are you introducing facts not in evidence, particularly things that would be seen and evaluated and already used to exclude such people from the group addressed? Can't make your point with the current situation, so you move the goal posts?

Can you explain why we should have known you excluded the obvious liars?

Were such things mentioned? Would you have said that a particular group were believabe being too broke to save if that group were populated with people driving porches, wearing rolexes, or sporting diamonds? If you wouldn't. why would you assume I would?

So i will now ask you, Can't make your point with the current situation, so you move the goal posts? Is you argue on the actual subject matter that weak?

 

[dismal]

Can you explain why we should have known you excluded the obvious liars?

Were such things mentioned? Would you have said that a particular group were believabe being too broke to save if that group were populated with people driving porches, wearing rolexes, or sporting diamonds? If you wouldn't. why would you assume I would?

So i will now ask you, Can't make your point with the current situation, so you move the goal posts? Is you argue on the actual subject matter that weak?

It seems pretty obvious, if one has even slight knowledge of US income demographics, that if 56% of the people don't save it's not because that 56% don't have enough income to save.

 

[James Brown]

Depends on your purpose for saving.

Saving.

But the banks are like "thanks for your money, fuck you if you expected something for depositing it with us."

I guess expecting a bit of interest is unrealistic?

In a low-interest rate environment, banks are also earning very little interest. Should banks operate at a loss?

"We're earning three percent on long-term mortgages, but we're going to pay five percent to short-term savers so that people won't accuse us of being greedy."

 

[Harry Bosch]

Saving.

But the banks are like "thanks for your money, fuck you if you expected something for depositing it with us."

I guess expecting a bit of interest is unrealistic?

In a low-interest rate environment, banks are also earning very little interest. Should banks operate at a loss?

"We're earning three percent on long-term mortgages, but we're going to pay five percent to short-term savers so that people won't accuse us of being greedy."

Yea, with interest rates so low, banks have very little spread (the difference between how much they pay for deposits and how much they earn from interest). As rates go up, banks will have more profits, deposits will go down (not all the time), and banks will begin paying for deposits again.