Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)
8. Short answer: depends on the reason for the data collection
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:21 AM
May 2014

The analysis reads like first slices -- that is, simple counts by one attribute. Either there's not enough data richness to delve into issues like level of indebtedness or even cross tabulations of such as savings levels by income stratum, for example. Or Demos doesn't employ someone with the technical skills to do such an analysis. Unfortunately the linked Demos report didn't include a questionnaire or detailed quota group attributes so it's hard to tell which is the case here.

Either way, that doesn't mean the findings are faulty. Assuming that the sampling, execution, and weighting were done properly, the basic statistics shown are findings, if severely limited in terms of delving into reasons for the debt levels.

As for what 'good with money' means, it's clear that the author defines that as not having chronic credit card debt and/or having savings. While some will argue with that definition, IMHO that's not a bad definition for low to moderate income households.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No, People Don’t Get Buri...»Reply #8