Debt

One of the problems with all of the suggested "measuring tools" is the difficulty of maintaining an accurate tool for making the measure. That is, the value of money itself. Inflation makes all kinds of monetary measures questionable in present tense. It's easy to see after the fact that inflation was driving some measures out of whack (and "national savings rate" is a good example: when the money's value is eroded through inflation far faster than it can earn safe and reliable interest income in savings, then "maintaining a savings account in cash" is actually an unwise investment strategy; it's counter-productive). Our grandparents might disapprove of high credit card debt and no savings, but as a matter of economic fact that's a more prudent system for many people now, as long as they can maintain an income to pay off the debt as it comes due.

I still think like a grandfather, because I do maintain some savings and I abhor debt ... but it's not the smartest thing for me to do as inflation eats away at my savings.

When people see the value of stocks that they own rise, and in a rising market, and as their partially-owned house "increases in value" as they live in it over time, they may feel a wealth effect ... but how "real" is the increase in those asset class prices? How much does it reflect actual increase in value, and how much of it is driven by the falling value of the yardstick used to make the measurement?

I don't know the answer. If I did, then I could be much wealthier than I am.

You are conflating measures of personal choices with measures of economic growth. The two are not the same.

I think all rational Americans would agree that we'd like to see Americans put more in savings accounts, and stop borrowing so much money ... but those measures are largely a reflection of cultural priorities, not economic conditions. We live in the most prosperous time in human history, and yet, we borrow more on average than ever before. That's a reflection of the culture of materialism, not a reflection of how much wealth our nation produces.

Measures of personal choices:

• savings accounts
• debt to income ratios

Measures of economic growth:

• GDP
• value of a stock indexes

Other factors that you mentioned are multifaceted, but largely are driven by government regulation:

• healthcare costs (obviously driven by government regulation)
• hourly wages (not just minimum wage rates, but all government regulations affect average wage rates)

We should, of course, examine all statistical measures that are pertinent to any given discussion. However, we should also ensure that we accurately understand the primary underlying causes of each statistical measure examined.

I agree , personal savings are way lower than they should be , I blame that on credit cards . When I was growing up there were no credit cars and you saved for what you wanted and if you couldn't save it you didn't get it , but you had no debt. Now it's buy it now and we'll worry about paying for it later. Sounds like our federal government . Now as far as stock markets savings are concerned they are not mutually exclusive . IRA's ,pension funds and the like are a kind of savings , for retirement usually . As the stock market goes up so does the IRA's , increasing retirement savings

Hourly wages increase organically, not artificially as with minimum wage laws, yes? But yeah, that debt to income ratio is a serious problem. And saving money can also be a problem, because we have what's been referred to as a "debt-based" economy. To make a long story short, if you try to save money these days, its value can actually decrease over time, as opposed to spending it on something (preferably of lasting value, rather than consumable). So a buncha stuff upstream (or downstream) would need to change before saving money would be generally feasible.

A savings account will yield you 2% ... or less. why do that and lose money to inflation? also the interest is taxable. the banking and tax structure is designed to have people use their 401K's. Just about anyone with a full time job at a company will have access to a retirement plan that is tax deferred.

These do not reflect ordinary people because in the world of the billionaires and their stooges we do not count for a tinker's damn.

It's Keynesian econometrics. A subject far removed from economics. It's what happens when the issuer of a nation's "money" makes its strongest characteristic "a method of account". They really don't care that, to the citizen, it is a "store of value". They want to know who has it and where it is circulating, in order to make tax legislation and appropriate loopholes. They want to make sure you aren't keeping more than your "fair share" so you have to report your income so they take the right deductions off your paycheck.

Your statistics are far more important but not to the World Bank or even the national central banks. They think you will be okay if their statistics are up.

The stock market value and GDP are only national indicators and have no value for the individual outside of describing his economic environment -- unless groupthink prevails, then anyone's individual circumstances are unimportant. What's middle class? $10k per year would be fairly well off in much of the world, but poverty in a large American metro area. Aggregate measures are relative to group(s) discussed and can tell you scant little about any one member of the group. If I have a sample of dice rolls, I can tell you the distribution, average and total. Now, who can take any one of those figures and tell me the value of the 25th roll?