Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (106848)	6/6/2001 11:34:42 AM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

>>>your continued rant after his post makes no sense to me but whatever:<<< Well, that was obvious. But I'll try one last time-- How could my assertion that only 25% (a quarter) of minimum wage workers are clearly students living at home without the family responsibility based on age (19 yrs old and younger) possibly support Les' argument that the number is 33% (a third) without family responsibility based on their status as part time workers? How can my number, which is 25% not having family obligations, possibly support his number, which is 33% not having family obligations, when my number is clearly less-- not equal to or greater than? What skewed, bizarre mathematical world do you inhabit?<ggg> Is it in fact some version of "Back to the Future" where not only the laws of time and space are in play but the basics of elementary school math as well? Hello Mc Fly? I take it you liked that trilogy quite a bit. My kid does too. I thought part III was weak.

To: LLCF who wrote (106848)	6/6/2001 6:57:39 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

DAK, I think you made the most excellent insight regarding the overall savings rate being skewed by higher income individuals. I didn't comment on it at the time, but it set off a light bulb for me. Another case of my using a brush to broad to see an accurate picture. I found this today, which I thought you might find of interest; it seems to belie the hypothesis of that earlier post. FED STUDY SHOWS NEGATIVE SAVINGS RATE MISLEADING. LOWER BRACKETS SAVINGS INCREASING. UPPER BRACKET SELLS LOTS OF STOCK EACH YEAR. The Federal Reserve published a study in April (A Cohort Analysis of Household Saving in the 1990's by Maki and Palumbo) showing that all but the highest income bracket actually increased real savings rates over the past few years. However, the top bracket of income types had a negative savings rate. Why? They sold lots of stock. They didn't necessarily consume anything. Rather they sold huge amounts of stock, in many cases using the funds for business purposes. In other words, when insiders sell large numbers of original shares, that sale shows up as consumption, regardless of what the money was used for. trimtabs.com