Let's not resort to such vage speculation. Low-income earners definitely have more to spend than unemployed people and unemployment is rather low right now in the USA.
The point wasn't particularly about a person with $1 having more resources than the person with $0, but how healthy the local businesses in an area are given how many dollars are in circulation around it, and what the trend of this looks like. That is, in the medium-to-micro, not in the macro economics.
Anyone who has ever had a body is probably familiar with the concept of the whole seeming OK, while there's something unhealthy happening in the small. I'm not rejecting other metrics, but I don't think this is irrelevant to the economy at large.
The comment you're replying to pointed out that the absence of a wage or presence of a low wage probably does not correlate with an equivalent amount of passive income for the vast majority.
You reject this and call it "vague speculation", for which I assume that the alternative theory is that there's a substantial majority of passive income earners at the bottom of society. It's an interesting theory.
> You reject this and call it "vague speculation", for which I assume that the alternative theory is that there's a substantial majority of passive income earners at the bottom of society. It's an interesting theory.
It's possible. More economically savvy people = more early retirees. Higher rents could also be a factor (some people might be able to sustain their families with previously worthless property and low wages). Let's not call these people "bottom of society" though. I know a few with 0 wages and 7 figure capital incomes.
Something like 40% of Americans have zero savings and would be ruined by a medium health emergency or unexpected car repair. What are you talking about.
