On average, wealth has increased since the Great Recession, but dis-aggregate the data and you'll find that many communities aren't very healthy.
This study dis-aggregates by zip code, and if you could further decomp into neighborhoods I'm sure you'd see much greater disparities.
But what does this ultimately say that we didn't already know? That the US is an extraordinarily unequal society? That the "recovery" was captured by some and left others behind?
Taking this to the next logical analytical step would be really powerful. How does this economic recovery compare with prior recoveries? When the next recession hits, who will bear the heaviest burden? Do the communities hurt most also show other signs of distress like lower life expectancy, higher crime rates, etc.? Is there a causal relationship we can detect?
If so, what are the implications for fiscal and monetary policy?
Say, we found that Chinese, on average, got better off, Mexicans, on average, got worse. Excellent. But surely some Chinese got worse and some Mexicans got better. That's where the answer may be. What did these people do that might explain the difference?
Do you know of anyone who is doing this specific analysis?
As if there's a finite amount of wealth that just gets divided unequally. No. Some people made the world better than they found it.
It's not everyone, but the typical millionaire in the US became a millionaire by producing a lot of value for somebody else.
See also "Justify your alpha" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0311-x
How are they accounting for multiple comparisons in their tests for statistical significance? The answer had better be really good because they are making a /lot/ of significance tests at once.
How come it is reasonable to estimate the average household wealth as the median multiplied by the total number of households? This is novel to me and intuitively it seems dubious.
in 20-25 years, when millennials approach retirement age - its not going to look pretty for the economy.
Is it one of those scenarios where there’s decent income, but wealth transfers to university administration in the form of the student loans offsets any of the gains?
Between that you’ve got most major costs addressed, housing, healthcare, food and utilities.
Retirement may not be achievable at 65 anymore but they are going to be hitting 65 much healthier than any prior generation so working past 65 won’t be the same burden as it was for someone who did hard physical labor their entire lives.
They are literally going to be the generation that has had it easiest, but they are going to feel like they’ve had it hardest.
The biggest problem isn’t savings but the fact that so many eschew the type of labor necessary to maintain the infrastructure they are inheriting. Without plumbers, electricians and other technical trades, much of the infrastructure they inherit may have greatly deteriorated due to long overdue deferred maintenance.
This is a major blow for the economy that is consumption based.
If people have very little saved and have little assetts by the time they retire - im afraid this is bad news for years 2040-2065. Not that far away...
This just illustrates how fucking stupid the government is
The government is, by definition, big data.
Such morons. Ajit pai should be drawn and quartered.
And shame on SV for being complicit.
Look at the following: palantir went hiding in its sleazy shell, YC defends them; yet we have a completely new industry vertical coming on line (cannabis) and we are all letting the same tropes fall in to place ... and the dialog on HN is crickets.
Here we have the biggest emerging market and YC acts like it doesnt exist....
The reason this is pertinent is that look at the consumption of flower/pens by demo? (I have done so... ) - look at financial distress cs medicating on that via dispensaries etc... i have the data to determine but not the time (building out our footprint is huge)