You posted a graph broken down by income percentile. Find one broken down by age and get back to me. Pension funds buy bonds. It's a fact. At the very least, explain why the number of old people forced out of retirement has doubled since 1990.
No I won't get back to you on it. The numbers speak for themselves.
You've provided exactly no evidence to back up your assertion, not to mention you've tried to change the topic from America as a whole to what the elderly are doing. So not only are you factless, but you're moving the goal posts.
Here's a simple fact to digest. What is Social Security's main asset? Government bonds. Social security is what? It's a pension fund. By dropping interest rates, what are you doing to social security? Causing it to be underfunded.
So your argument is that unless the government pays itself more money it won't have enough money to pay social security beneficiaries.
Well that makes a whole shit ton of sense. Use your head.
Here's a link supporting my case. It's one of the top google results if you search for "pension fund interest rates"
http://www.thestar.com/business/per...s_shrink_thanks_to_higher_interest_rates.html
Oh good, more anecdotal evidence.
They needed to ask an actuary how higher interest rates mean higher interest rate payments?
It's good to know Canada's media is just as bad as American media. Or maybe theirs is still a little better. Ours doesn't even get basic facts correct. They keep saying you can't catch ebola by having an ebola patient cough or sneeze on you, which is factually wrong. It's so obviously wrong that it's amazing anyone believes it. Doctors wear face masks when dealing with ebola but they don't wear face masks when dealing with HIV. Why? It's because HIV doesn't spread through coughing whereas ebola
does spread through coughing. Duh.
Non sequitur.
Going from $2.90 to $3.60
So you're saying 100%+ inflation in the stock market is caused by the fed, but 24% inflation in oil is not.
Asset inflation is not inflation. You mean asset appreciation. Additionally, you're cherry-picking dates, which is a huge analytic no-no.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply ignorant of how to conduct economic analysis instead of deliberately attempting to distort data.
Image from your link:
It appears overall spending is on a steep incline.
Why did you take one chart out of three and ignore the other two? Oh wait, I know why. Dismissal of contrary information.
I question the source of data. I lost my health insurance this year because the cost went through the roof.
Of course you do, it's telling you things you don't want to hear. Your anecdotes don't count.
Housing prices have more than doubled since 2000, but incomes have not. It was amazing what you could buy for 150k back then. You could get a nice house with a yard and everything. Now, you can't buy a meth shack for that much. It's even worse in Canada and Australia. Houses in Canada are something nuts like 8-10x the median income. Is it the result of declining wages? Nope. Wages are the same, but the cost of housing has risen dramatically.
The median home sale price today is approximately $188k. The median home sales price in 2000 was approximately $120k. That means you've had increases of approximately 3% annually. This is only slightly higher than the overall rate of inflation.
Interesting how in your math and fact free world that goes from a nice house to not even being able to buy a meth shack.
Economists really do say this. Economists were thrilled when the stats showed Americans spending more money on groceries. It should be obvious that spending a larger percentage of your money on food means you have less money for savings or a down payment on a house. Like I said, this is why home ownership is at a 19 year low.
Wrong. Economists say low inflation is a good thing, because it obviously is. The empirical research for this is so utterly overwhelming that it's not even really talked about anymore. It's simply a fact. That's different than what you have been arguing here, that people losing their ability to buy other things is a good thing.
This is also why so many "millenial" adults still live with their parents. Do you think they want to live with their parents? Of course not. Nobody does. They do so because they need to. The cost of moving out has risen while wages have not.
No it isn't. Millennials started living with their parents at higher rates when the recession hit. Up until that point they were living with them at lower rates than previous generations.
I love it when people can change my mind on something. Here's your big chance. I want you to explain to me why so many young adults still live with their parents. Also, please explain why the number of old people working is increasing.
I've hit you with so many facts and showed you so many different ways that you have a badly distorted understanding of economics. None of it has made even the slightest dent and when you're shown to be wrong on something you simply ignore it and move on.
Can you provide me with any reason to be hopeful that you're capable of changing your mind on this?
Facebook
Twitter