I'm surprised no one has pointed out the giant negative spike in the last column.
It effectively says that the poor are spending (ie, consuming) more than they make to maintain their standard of living. So, yes, consumption is the same, but the cost is a mortgaged future or a edifice that crumbles the first time anyone is seriously sick.
Further, it seems strange that the values are absolute. I'd like to see them as a percentage of income.
It effectively says that the poor are spending (ie, consuming) more than they make to maintain their standard of living. So, yes, consumption is the same, but the cost is a mortgaged future or a edifice that crumbles the first time anyone is seriously sick.
Further, it seems strange that the values are absolute. I'd like to see them as a percentage of income.