I am sure not a single American Jew is part of the 47% (see below)... 47% said they wouldn’t be able to cover a $400 emergency expense or would have to borrow money or sell something, and 31% said they went without some form of medical care in the last year because they couldn’t afford it. Americans are feeling better about their household finances but many remain on shaky ground when it comes to saving for emergency expenses and retirement, according to a Federal Reserve survey. A total of 65% of respondents in the Fed’s 2014 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking said they were “living comfortably” or “doing okay,” up from 62% in the 2013 survey, the central bank said Wednesday. Some 29% in 2014 said they expected their income to be higher in the next year, up from 21% a year earlier. Some 29% in last year’s survey said they were better off financially than they were a year earlier, compared with 21% who said they were worse off. A total of 40% said they were better off than they were five years ago, versus 28% who said they were worse off compared with 2009. But for many Americans, household finances remain fragile: 47% said they wouldn’t be able to cover a $400 emergency expense or would have to borrow money or sell something, and 31% said they went without some form of medical care in the last year because they couldn’t afford it. One in five said their spending exceeded their income over the last year, just 63% said they saved any money at all over the past 12 months and 31% of nonretirees said they had no retirement savings or pension. “The survey results reveal a lack of economic preparedness among many adults,” the Fed said in a news release. More than 5,800 people took the survey last fall, the Fed said. (Source : http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015...g-better-about-household-finances-fed-survey/)
As always, the results of such polls (one can hardly call these results "statistics") must be interpreted. For example, "living comfortably" or "doing okay" may be the result of lowered expectations and living within one's means. This need not and does not translate into buying power. The fewer who are able to buy, the less there is needed to be produced. The less there is needed to be produced, the less reason there is to hire. The fewer jobs there are, the fewer there are who are able to buy. And so on. All of this can and usually does lead to a different kind of economy, one which may depending on one's standards be "sound". But it does not bolster what we have come to accept as the "American economic system".
must be interpreted? 5800 people participated. And they asked very specific questions as well such as referring to the need for USD 400. I think the results are very conclusive and statistically significant.
tell me how "But for many Americans, household finances remain fragile: 47% said they wouldn’t be able to cover a $400 emergency expense or would have to borrow money or sell something, and 31% said they went without some form of medical care in the last year because they couldn’t afford it." can be misinterpreted. I bolded that section, but you can of course choose to get hung up on some other part you disagree with. And yes, I agree with you that other parts are not well defined, but again, those are parts were not my point and you can see from the first post.
If you choose to focus on what you bolded, you may want to look at how the survey was conducted in order to determine whether or not your point is what you think it is. It's easy to google. Look at the Technical Appendix on Survey Methodology.
omg, so you debunk the survey on the basis of what? Its a Fed survey for heaven's sake, and I am rather betting my chips on them having economics and statistics majors on staff who know how to conduct and interpret a survey than lending all too much credibility to a tin foil hat wearing someone with almost 18,000(!!!) posts on an anonymous internet forum.
How many respondents out of a hundred does it take to determine a 95% level of significance? You may want to look at that before placing any bets. As for the number of economics and statistics majors on staff, you may also want to look at the reliability of government reports in general.
you are an idiot. Your level of significance is utterly irrelevant here. What are you even trying to quantify with your 95% level of significance? That with 95% significance 47% responded they would be in trouble if they suddenly needed 400 bucks? What if I said "let's be liberal and state that in any case it should be at least 30%". You can do the statistics (it is actually a very simple stats problem) but I can assure you that the number of people asked is high enough to state with a high level of significance that at least 30% of the respondents would be in trouble if they suddenly needed to pay 400 USD. If you had the mental capability then you should be able to do the stats calculation yourself easily. Stop picking on small issues when the underlying issue is crystal clear and the message as well: The average American is very ill prepared for an economic downturn.
If only a few people out of hundred respond, the results are essentially meaningless. If any or all of the questions are also poorly defined, then the results are even less meaningful. One may as well do a survey of the homeless on their opinions regarding the state of the American economy.