• Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, but ultimately they’re measuring how someone feels about their ability to absorb a change in bills, not their actual ability to absorb that change. I think these things are likely very different. So a headline like this doesn’t strike me as dire as it sounds.

    • streetfestival@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I tend to think perceived ability to absorb a change in income/bills would be a reasonable estimate of actual ability, but I don’t know much about this stuff and I appreciate your difference of opinion. Your other comment about the different reports for each province revealed to me that they seem to be cherry-picking the most click-baity findings from each individual survey/subsurvey in the reports, so there’s a selective reporting bias at play to create the direness. Independent of this report I do tend to think consumer debt is a big issue

      • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, and you’re right. As a proxy for ability to absorb a change you could do much worse than perceived ability. I’m thinking more technical indicators, mortgage defaults, car loan defaults , and bankruptcy would be more informative. So far we’ve not seen the kind of movement in those indicators that would suggest this gs are as dire as the headline for this post would make people think. I agree though, household non mortgage debt is a big issue in Canada but so far we seem to be handling it.