Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › misleading statistics regarding debt and demographics
- This topic has 7 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 4 months ago by scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 13, 2019 at 12:16 AM #22710June 26, 2019 at 8:38 AM #812844barnaby33Participant
So other than, it’s misleading, do you have a point to make? Something along the lines of, the kids are alright?
JoshJune 26, 2019 at 9:36 AM #812845The-ShovelerParticipantLOL, I think the point TG is trying to make is these area’s (2-4 at least) tend to have young middle class families so this type of debt is not unusual.
Versus more urban area’s where there maybe a mix of more poor and homeless and in some area’s more affluent families.
In the case of area’s like San Francisco probably a mix of all + a lot young single guys with no kids (seriously I could not imagine trying to raise kids in San Fran or any similar big city downtown environment).
June 26, 2019 at 12:58 PM #812851Astrid ReyParticipantI don’t understand why this article has you so triggered. It just presents the numbers without trying to make any judgments about the cities or the people living there. The article isn’t telling you to move anywhere!
There are many reasons why people living in the cities on the edges of major urban areas would have more auto debt. Many of them work in the bigger cities and commute. I live in Menifee and almost nobody who lives here works here. Temecula, Santa Clarita, and Gilroy are similar. These places tend to be where service workers, construction and maintenance people live. They have jobs but they don’t pay as well as the professional jobs that people in the cities may have. Cars cost the same everywhere so if one gets paid less and has to drive more, they probably have more auto debt.
June 28, 2019 at 12:25 AM #812862temeculaguyParticipantThe article doesn’t have me triggered, the state of journalism does. It also presents skewed facts without perspective or context. People under 30 statistically get their news only from social media and thus only the headlines or summaries are all that are presented. Rarely do articles today interview a second source or an expert with another perspective, they just regurgitate the press release. The UT like other outlets no longer allow comments unless you are a paid subscriber, further closing the echo chamber.
There are huge flaws in the article, but nobody will hear them. They will just make incorrect assumptions. Case in point, Oceanside and El Cajon are better than Carlsbad based on the limited and short sighted statistical information in the article. Maybe it’s just me, maybe it’s just the decline of print media but it feels like articles decline in quality by the day. It’s my fault too, I no longer subscribe to a daily paper. I subscribed to two papers for decades and I got what I paid for, now I don’t pay and I’m disappointed in the quality of the reporting, but I guess that’s because of me and those like me. So perhaps I shouldn’t complain, I got what I paid for. Nothing.
June 28, 2019 at 3:50 AM #812864FlyerInHiGuestI don’t know….. I for one am glad that the San Diego Union Tribune is “the failing UT”. It used to be a lot more powerful and biased before the Internet. I am not missing them.
July 1, 2019 at 2:26 AM #812911moneymakerParticipantYesterdays Union Tribune had an insert/addition called community almanac San Diego. It has all kinds of demographic info as well as short histories of most every local community, it’s a keeper I think. Shows a lot of Republicans in the east county like Ramona, Lakeside, Santee, Jamul.
July 1, 2019 at 6:31 AM #812912scaredyclassicParticipantits always been difficult to discern anything approaching the truth.
somewhat related, my mom had some old newspaper clipping from the 60s. on the back was some headline about “what will the fed reserve do, it matters so much this werk” that sounded the same as today.
its been all bullshit all the time. since 1776.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.