[jpancake]

You may also try reading it like this: only the fifth richest have money to save. Due to the inflexibility in cost of necessary commodities (food, housing) one may mistakenly read that as 'the poor trying to live like the rich,' but that is far from the case.

Let's assume that you spend $200 a month (a fairly meagre amount) on food; that would be $2400 a year. And you also spend $600/month on rent (a fairly low/middling amount). That's $7200 a year. Combine the two and you get $9600.

That's already >90% of the TOTAL income of the lowest bracket. The lack of savings among the poorer members of our society has less to do with trying to 'live like the rich' than with 'not being able to do so.'

[pg]

Due to the inflexibility in cost of necessary commodities

Really? So are all the people driving around in lowered SUVs with giant chromed rims rich? Or are you saying that lowered SUVs with giant chromed rims are a necessary commodity?

[jpancake]

I think it's cute that you skirted my main point.

A car isn't a necessary commodity. Food is. Housing is. Cars aren't. For the poorest Americans, the necessary acts of eating and securing shelter consume the vast majority of their income.

Secondly, what makes you think that someone who's driving a 'lowered SUV with giant chromed rims' can't afford it? Implicit racial bias? Why did you pick this example? Why not something closer to home: Did every douche in Silicon Valley with a BMW pay for it outright?