cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Yep, for the bottom 75%, house value increases might be an influencing factor, although the majority of the US has seen only nominal real estate price upticks. If you're away from the ocean and some unusual housing markets, you probably havent seen a fraction of a Boston or San Francisco type improvement.
I read the whole survey through, but I'm afraid I have a major problem with it. The sample size for the whole thing was under 4,500 people, about 3000 of which were sampled geographically and the rest were high income/net worth people (as defined by their tax returns) oversampled to improve the data quality for the 1%/5% figures.
Just to cut to the chase, I'd have some doubts about sampling error and "steering" with 10x the number of survey participants.
I'm terribly interested in what purpose the survey was put to. Nobody does a survey (especially the govt) just to see what happens, they use it to decide whether, where and how much to fund things or as a lever in creating or developing legislation.
With the sampling size and methodology implemented, I could have made this say absolutely anything I wanted it to. But 99% of people look at the chart or table produced, and really dont look at the underlying methodology.
Whats worse is when someone "bundles", by layering or interleaving two pieces of data (accepted as gospel without evaluation of the methodology or "purpose"), to draw unreasonable conclusions.
Maybe I'll have a look see for what this study was subsequently used for...
I read the whole survey through, but I'm afraid I have a major problem with it. The sample size for the whole thing was under 4,500 people, about 3000 of which were sampled geographically and the rest were high income/net worth people (as defined by their tax returns) oversampled to improve the data quality for the 1%/5% figures.
Just to cut to the chase, I'd have some doubts about sampling error and "steering" with 10x the number of survey participants.
I'm terribly interested in what purpose the survey was put to. Nobody does a survey (especially the govt) just to see what happens, they use it to decide whether, where and how much to fund things or as a lever in creating or developing legislation.
With the sampling size and methodology implemented, I could have made this say absolutely anything I wanted it to. But 99% of people look at the chart or table produced, and really dont look at the underlying methodology.
Whats worse is when someone "bundles", by layering or interleaving two pieces of data (accepted as gospel without evaluation of the methodology or "purpose"), to draw unreasonable conclusions.
Maybe I'll have a look see for what this study was subsequently used for...