Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mehnimalism t1_ius54c5 wrote

You’re comparing a nominal amount to a rate. Dollar amounts naturally inflate and grow over time but a propensity doesn’t necessarily.



mehnimalism t1_iut33fk wrote

Certainly looks similar, just with a much longer timescale.

Regardless, loan total should be contextualized by adjusting for inflation, income levels, or something similar. It’s a similar argument to debt vs GDP — it means relatively little without understanding growth rate, ability to pay back, etc.

I will say on its own that’s an unhealthy CC debt trend.


gravityraster t1_iuucvyo wrote

Also the population grew by 17% over that timespan. This should be normalized to population size.


[deleted] t1_iusvc54 wrote

Dollar lost about half its value since 2000. Credit card debt is up 4x. So adjusted, 2x. Still scary.


mehnimalism t1_iut3koa wrote

Right but loan amount should be in context of income trends and total debt picture. It’s not the case, but what if incomes were up 50% over that time? Makes it much more manageable. Point is simply this is a comparison that leaves tons of room for lurking variables or misleading conclusions.


DaBearsManiac t1_iuunodb wrote


Savings rates are a much better monitor of the general population's cash-on-hand, since total savings amount can be skewed due to the amount of wealth held at the top.

This is telling us the amount of money saved as a percentage of total income.

This is against a graph of gross credit card debt.

Which, looking at its sharp rise against the collapsing savings rate, would suggest that people are having a harder time paying their month to month bills.

Which I think is evidently true.

That sharp uptick in 08 would far expand beyond an inflationary dollar values over just a 20yr period.