Slashdot Mirror
We Tracked Every Dollar 235 US Households Spent for a Year, and Found Widespread Financial Vulnerability (hbr.org)
Income inequality in the United States is growing, but the most common economic statistics hide a significant portion of Americans' financial instability by drawing on annual aggregates of income and spending. An article on the Harvard Business Review adds: Annual numbers can hide fluctuations that determine whether families have trouble paying bills or making important investments at a given moment. The lack of access to stable, predictable cash flows is the hard-to-see source of much of today's economic insecurity. We came to understand this after analyzing the U.S. Financial Diaries (USFD), an unprecedented study to collect detailed cash flow data for U.S. households. From 2012 to 2014 we set up research sites in 10 communities across the country. The USFD research team engaged 235 households that were willing to let us track their financial lives for a full year. We tried to record every single dollar the households earned, spent, saved, borrowed, and shared with others. [...] Our first big finding was that the households' incomes were highly unstable, even for those with full-time workers. We counted spikes and dips in earning, defined as months in which a household's income was either 25% more or 25% less than the average. It turned out that households experienced an average of five months per year with either a spike or dip. In other words, incomes were far from average almost half of the time. Income volatility was more extreme for poorer families, but middle class families felt it too.
My wife gets paid every two weeks, so two months of every year she gets three paychecks instead of the usual two. So a 50% uptick in income two months of every year.
A weekly paycheck means that four months of the year you'll get five checks instead of four. Note that that frequency conveniently maps to a 25% uptick in income four months of every year without any instability at all.
Not going to bother running even preliminary numbers for a household with two jobs, one paid weekly, one biweekly, but I expect that most of the income instability they saw could be accounted for that way.
Caveat: I'm not trying to imply that all the income instability was illusory, but it's certainly possible that a good chunk of it was an illusion produced by monthly spending and weekly/biweekly income....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Ironic that this article is in the Harvard Business Review! The Harvard Business School has been source of much of the business policy of the last several decades that pushed risk on workers and away from corporations. Who could have guessed that squeezing worker pay and social safety nets would result in increased economic instability for them!