That would be correct. I guess that's why the article also talks about income and total compensation. Americans get only about two-thirds of their total income from wages and salaries. Employers are picking up more and more of the cost of benefits which my linked articles make clear. Did you miss Greenspan's statement that real per capita income has increased at an average annual rate of 2% over the past century?
the household debt ratio has continued to increase. We are paying more and more of our income to service the debt we use to consume.
That information is truly irrelevant when you consider that our net worth has increased by $30 trillion since 1980, which is more than the previous 200 years combined. Now, tell me again why the household debt ratio today is bad. LOL
I am seriously floored that a response like this comes from a magazine like Forbes.
Actually, it comes from David Malpass. He's the chief economist for Bear Stearns. Again, how can this level of debt you wring your hands about be bad when household net worth has more than doubled in the past 11 years?
Our credit market debt as a percentage of GDP is higher than it has ever been in our history
So are our household assets ($62 trillion). I guess that's why our household net worth is also at an all time high of $51 trillion. You can try and find a bogeyman in all this but he only exists in your imagination.
So it is not just irrelevant but truly irrelevant... hmmmm. Ok, why is it truly irrelevant that a greater percentage of our income is going to service are household debt ? Assets do not service debt. Income services debt.