Posted on 02/03/2006 7:13:08 AM PST by B4Ranch
What is the definition of savings ? To me, savings is an account that bears interest. The principle is safe from price fluctuations that 401k, bonds, stocks, real estate, precious metals, etc. all experience. I agree that more money is accumulated in these other vehicles but a level of risk is present with these that is not present with savings.
Correct you are about the risk factor, but the headline did not say "Americans not saving in risk-adverse ways", it said Americans weren't saving at all. Clearly that's wrong.
Personal savings to me, means clipping coupons : (
How in the hell can normal people save extra money, when the cost of living is going up faster than wages, I have no idea.
I don't think it is wrong. The element of risk eliminates this "saved" money from the category savings. People have always put money in investments and savings and I don't believe the definition of either has changed in recent past. Has the percentage of money in investments increased while savings has decreased ? Or has savings decreased because budgets are tighter ? I agree with you that people are still putting money away in different forms but I do think the savings rate being at all time lows is an important statistic.
I've tried to remain positive, but it's frustrating. Many of us were raised with certain values regarding money, but they don't seem to apply in these times. For some, all it takes is for your car to develop problems, or God forbid, fail the smog check.
Seems like all some of us do is crunch numbers. I'm worried that people will think they're getting a better deal with democrats in '08. Things will be worse if we get a Hillary or whoever runs.
I'll tell you something, if Hillary presents a coherent health plan, look out. People won't examine the rest of her proposals.
Absolutely correct. If a politician presents what people want, whther real or not, they will get elected. The general perception of most folks, is that they/we are in dire straits, and will vote accordingly.
Americans did not hear from Bush that a new Wal-Mart just opened on Chicago’s city boundary and 25,000 people applied for 325 jobs ( Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 26), or that 11,000 people applied for a few Wal-Mart jobs in Oakland, California. Obviously, employment is far from full.
Well now might be the time to gather the flock, before '08. If people want to be elected, or stay in office, the bottom line should be more jobs stay at home, less pork in government. More attention paid to our country, and less paid to Mexico, Venezuela, and others who hate this country. No more foreign aid to Palestinian terrorists. The biggest thing that would get people's attention is to foster a reasonable healthcare plan for the uninsured, thereby jacking Hillary's plan.
Can you imagine if someone said salary cuts for elected officials, and no official pensions unless that person serves at least 20 years?
Lol, I crack myself up ;-D
Obviously not full, but 4.7% unemployment is actually considered more than full according to some scales. Used to be 6% was considered full. While some areas may have more unemployment, the national average is very low. It seems that some of the Democratic strongholds suffer the worst unemployment rates; I wonder what's up with that.
Well since unemployment numbers have come up a few times on this thread, myself and others have a theory. We have had this theory for quite a few years; namely when someone exhausts his/her unemployment benefits they are dropped from the unemployment rolls, hence lower unemployment figures! It statistically doesn't matter if the person is still unemployed, the government no longer counts them.
A Walmart, Target, grocery store announces they're hiring, and it goes nuts. 15 years or so ago, a new Target store opened up in Apple Valley. The fire department had to come out with water (hotter than hades outside), and to make sure people didn't keel over. Several thousand people for a couple of hundred jobs. Same old thing.
I am not bashing Bush, because he wasn't in office back then, but I think Clintoon was.
Wal-Mart jobs aren't the worlds best because of rotationg hours and low or no benefits but when you have 35,000 people scrambling for 5 or 6 hundred jobs, the unemployment figures published by Uncle Sam must be cockeyed.
True we have no way of knowing how many of those people were illegals but we need to remember that they are unemployed just the same.
We have no way of telling if they are, in fact, unemployed. Many of them might be trying for a small improvement in working conditions/pay/benefits/location, etc.
I don't know many people who would go through the stress of competing with 25000 others for a ten minute commute savings, do you?
I think it would be easier to move closer to work.
I have no idea what people will or will not do. Down here in Mississipi, we have panhandlers that will stand out front of WalMart and hold "Will work for food" signs, while leaning against the sign that says WalMart is hiring and to apply within.
So are the crime figures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.