>> These gains don't show up in the "savings rate" so it looks
>> artificially low.
>
> But how artificially? If you _count_ 401k assets these days, wouldn't the
> savings actually look lower than if you don't count them?
If you counted 401(k) unrealized gains as savings (i.e., if your $10k contribution this year plus your $17k appreciation on the $150k you already have counted as $27k of "savings" instead of only $10k of "savings") then the "savings rate" would be "higher" ...
All I'm saying is that it doesn't get counted the way people think of it. It's probably "right" to count it the way it gets counted (I'm sure Doug is busy or he'd tell me why) but it sets up a time-series that is non-sensical and can't be used reliably to set policy: they might as well not track it at all.
/jordan