agman
Well-known member
I am hopeful the following commentary will provide some incite into the deficiency in how savings are calculated by the government under the National Income Accounting process which is reported on the news or you read about in the papers. As you will soon ascertain my explanation to Brad S. regarding savings was correct, I never doubted it was correct, despite what the naysayers claim. Your 401K and/or IRA contributions are not included, as I indicated, under the current manner of computing savings used by the government. Household Net Worth is now over $50 trillion as I indicated. Excluding housing values household NET worth is over $40 trillion. agman
By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC
Like most government accounting, the monthly statistics on consumer spending and savings bear little resemblance on the way the average household manages its finances. You're right that using some of your paycheck to pay off your credit cards (instead of spending on more stuff) is as good as putting that money in the bank. You've increased your household "net worth" -– the difference between what you own and what you owe.
And by that measure, American households are in great shape. It's true that consumer debt is at record levels in the U.S. -– but so is household net worth. That "net worth" includes what most of us would consider savings: cash in the bank, plus the value of our investments and our homes, and every thing else we own.
But the government definition of savings doesn't see it that way. According to the folks down at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, "savings" simply represents what you have left over from your "disposable income" after you've gone shopping and paid the bills (including taxes.) By that measure, the savings rate has been falling since the early 1990s and is approaching zero.
How can savings be falling and net worth rising? Because this widely quoted "savings rate" overlooks some major sources of American wealth. For one thing, gains on stocks don't count. Neither does the increase in the value of your house -– which for many Americans represents a major portion of their net worth.
When it comes to pension plans, the savings numbers get even screwier. For example, money set aside in a 401(k) plan at work doesn't count as savings because those are pre-tax dollars -– and not considered part of your "disposable income." For older, so-called defined benefit pensions, the impact is even worse on the spending vs. savings picture. That's because income statistics are based on the employer contributions to these plans, not benefits paid out -– which is a larger number. So retirees have a lot more money to spend than the official figures take into account.
The conventional wisdom holds that free-spending American consumers are on a perennial spending binge, in debt up to their eyeballs and unable to put away a dime for a rainy day. The clear implication is that Americans should embrace personal sacrifice, put away their credit cards and emulate other, more frugal societies, where savings rates are higher and consumption is more restrained.
All of which may be true. But it's hard to know for sure because the government statistics that fuel this conventional wisdom are seriously flawed.
By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC
Like most government accounting, the monthly statistics on consumer spending and savings bear little resemblance on the way the average household manages its finances. You're right that using some of your paycheck to pay off your credit cards (instead of spending on more stuff) is as good as putting that money in the bank. You've increased your household "net worth" -– the difference between what you own and what you owe.
And by that measure, American households are in great shape. It's true that consumer debt is at record levels in the U.S. -– but so is household net worth. That "net worth" includes what most of us would consider savings: cash in the bank, plus the value of our investments and our homes, and every thing else we own.
But the government definition of savings doesn't see it that way. According to the folks down at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, "savings" simply represents what you have left over from your "disposable income" after you've gone shopping and paid the bills (including taxes.) By that measure, the savings rate has been falling since the early 1990s and is approaching zero.
How can savings be falling and net worth rising? Because this widely quoted "savings rate" overlooks some major sources of American wealth. For one thing, gains on stocks don't count. Neither does the increase in the value of your house -– which for many Americans represents a major portion of their net worth.
When it comes to pension plans, the savings numbers get even screwier. For example, money set aside in a 401(k) plan at work doesn't count as savings because those are pre-tax dollars -– and not considered part of your "disposable income." For older, so-called defined benefit pensions, the impact is even worse on the spending vs. savings picture. That's because income statistics are based on the employer contributions to these plans, not benefits paid out -– which is a larger number. So retirees have a lot more money to spend than the official figures take into account.
The conventional wisdom holds that free-spending American consumers are on a perennial spending binge, in debt up to their eyeballs and unable to put away a dime for a rainy day. The clear implication is that Americans should embrace personal sacrifice, put away their credit cards and emulate other, more frugal societies, where savings rates are higher and consumption is more restrained.
All of which may be true. But it's hard to know for sure because the government statistics that fuel this conventional wisdom are seriously flawed.