I said in that message:
>> (i.e., IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.)
You follow with:
> Employer contribs to retirement funds are "other labor income"
> and are included as personal income.
I didn't say "employer contribs" -- I said IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.
> The point of looking at the low savings rate is that it's the
> product of Americans spending a growing share of their income
> and borrowing more to do it.
Which, as you say, is "nuts" -- except that it sounds like tut-tut'ing to me like it always does from you. People saved for houses, they are taking advantage of historically low interest rates and historically _different_ access to mortgages (a sea change if there ever was one: this is sort of like looking at the percentage of adults who voted after women were allowed to!) to do so, there's no good reason to carry around cash in a 0.7% "savings" account, the government has made tax-advantaged retirement savings widely available to those who can do it (and then they don't count it as "savings" ...!) -- what do you expect?
The fact is that the only people who ever "saved" in the past were those who were "able" to -- so we're already talking about at least mid-to-upper middle class and higher -- and they have a) gotten far more sophisticated and b) gotten sick of being the low man on the interest-totem-pole.
I don't see this as trouble; I see it as a widespread increase in capability!
> Savings are going down because people are letting capital gains -
> first on stocks, now on houses, perform the illusion of saving for
> them.
It's not just that: those who have tax-advantaged savings think they are covered. And largely they are!
I don't have a savings account. But I have tax-advantaged savings that I could live on for a few years ... according to you, I don't have "savings" -- my "savings rate" is 0%. But the truth is far different.
/jordan