University Digest

Q&A: Ronald T. Wilcox

< PREVIOUS ARTICLE   NEXT ARTICLE >



Ronald T. Wilcox
Photo by Ian Bradshaw

In his new book, Whatever Happened to Thrift?, Darden professor and former economist for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Ronald T. Wilcox examines the causes and consequences of America’s aversion to saving. Wilcox’s book explains "why our savings have declined dramatically and what we can do now to rescue our future."

Wilcox discussed the savings crisis in a May interview with BusinessWeek, excerpted below.

How do you think we ended up at this point, where American families are spending more than they make?

Americans have saved less than most developed nations for a long time, even pre-World War II. It’s not like we’ve ever been a nation of savers. There are famous examples of people who are prominent in American history—Thomas Jefferson being one—who were always in debt. We are a country of optimists. When you’re optimistic you tend not to save because you think tomorrow is going to be better than today.

Do you think the fact that people spend more than they have and don’t save is why we’re in trouble now?

I think that is true in the housing market, where people probably spent too much money on their houses. When the housing market is declining as it is right now, they don’t have additional savings to cushion their ability to go out and buy things that they would like or need. The lack of savings probably is exacerbating the current economic downturn. I think it will exacerbate it in the future. I don’t think it’s the primary cause, however.

What is the primary cause?

Overexuberant lending. I lay it at the feet both of individuals who borrowed too much money and overexuberant lenders.

Would it help our economy if more people saved?

Yes, it would. It would not help in the short term. The government is exhorting us to spend the tax rebates that are going out now. In the short term, the economy would be better off if people spent more money. But that is a short-term solution. In the long term, we would be better off if people had more money in savings, so when there are economic downturns, they could then tap into some of that savings to buy the things they need and want.

What advice do you have for people on saving money?

There are some ways to save money that are easier than others. One is to make a decision now that you are going to save more when you get your next raise. That’s a plan called the "Save More Tomorrow Plan" by Richard Thaler. You go to your human resources department and say: "At the time of my next raise, I want to allocate a certain percentage of that raise to my 401(k) plan." The benefit is that you never see your paycheck go down, and it’s a lot easier in this kind of environment than going cold turkey and saving more today.

How grave is the situation that we’re facing when it comes to savings and the future of our own finances?

I don’t want to say we should become pessimists. But I think we should become realists. It is unlikely that wages and the money we earn in the U.S. are going to go up dramatically in the next couple of decades. That’s true at the aggregate level. On average, it’s true at the personal level as well. Individuals need to be realistic about how much more money they’re going to be making over time. You need a little bit of realistic pessimism about your future to adequately determine how much you need to save.

< PREVIOUS ARTICLE   NEXT ARTICLE >



Comments:
Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 7:51:21 AM 
I believe the reason do not save is because the goverment penalizes savings. Example, Family A saves 10% of its income for retirement while next door Family B spends every penny of the same amount of income. Upon retirement Family A has its social security income taxed, Family B does not. Family A has seen its savings eroded by inflation (unless it has invested wisely, in which case the government takes away the value of that investment with taxes), Family B has spent the dollar when it was worth a dollar. Why should Family A save?
Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 9:17:48 AM 
I believe the country does not save better, or make better financial decisions, because we believe someone will always bail us out of our problems and never actually hold our feet to the fire. Take the current financial situation. AIG is bailed out of major financial mishandling - by comparison, were the the top executives severely penalized out of their personal wealth despite that their decisions have severely damaged the personal wealth of the American people? No, they took a luxury vacation. The list goes on. Remember Enron?

The penalties of poor decisions, informed poor/foolish decisions, are unrealistically light. As a result, we, as a people, have learned an unrealistic impunity that is evident in our high levels of debt and poor corporate financial management. The decision to match penalties with damages is not an easy decision but it is necessary. I believe that would lead to improved long term decision making. For example, Company B (Family B, Person B, etc) will
Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 9:29:50 AM 
"Overexuberant lending. I lay it at the feet both of individuals who borrowed too much money and overexuberant lenders." Amazing that Prof. Wilcox does not include the political class and agitators among the guilty. Groups like ACORN and PUSH/Jesse Jackson, and Democratic members of Congress (Barney Frank & Maxine Waters to name but a few), were telling banks that unless they started to lower their credit-rating standards to accomodate the policy goal of making loans available to people who had a poor likelihood of repaying their loan based on their credit history, then the banks would lose their charters. That was a political decision by the political class, not just the "individuals who borrowed too much money and overexuberant lenders" that Wilcox identifies as the primary culprits. Had the banks not been forced by the political class to make loans to borrowers that the banks would have preferred not to approve, then we wouldn't be where we are today.
Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 9:43:58 AM 
What precisely are savings? If you have some salary going into either a pension-fund or a stock-market account, you've has saved less than nothing if, upon retirement, the market in which money has been vested has collapsed. It the would-be saver put some of his wages into a mattress or a savings account, and the consumer price index changes by a factor of three, i.e., it takes $3 to buy what the original savings would have bought for $1, what precisely has s/he saved? -- $0.33 per $1deposited into a "savings account." SEE NEXT COMMENT
Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 9:47:54 AM 
Family A saves money for college. The admissions office asks for an accounting of resources. They make up the difference with a partial scholarship. Family B buys a 2nd car, a swimming pool, and a piano -- the children don't take the school bus, they become accomplished swimmers and musicians' the admissions committee notes this, and offers them a full scholarship. We don't encourage saving, we punish it.
Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 10:01:57 AM 
E.g., we were savers, our parents had been through the Depression, and my father worked for a year without pay because his family considered it dishonorable for able persons not to be employed in useful work. We used the money we had reserved in behalf of our own children to pay full freight for educations at (and degrees from) Brown, Harvard, Columbia, and Yale. We were queried about resources by the last named institution, and our honest answer resulted in the withdrawal of a full scholarship for graduate study in New Haven (even though that scholarship was offered, no strings attached, by Stanford, Harvard, and UCBerkeley). College educations are now running at something like the price of houses -- I wonder do the mortgages for the former at all match those for the latter?
Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 10:29:37 AM 
over-exuberant borrowing and lending are symptoms as well, not causes... the first response has it right - the system is set up to reward borrowers and punish savers. this is the fault of government and the fed's policies of inflation and artificial credit expansion, which drain money from the honest and hard working and transfer it to wealthy politicians and bankers.

people are becoming wise to the inherent insolvency in our banking system (fractional reserves) and the fact that the fed not only can't protect us from hard times or fix them, but is actually causing them.

Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 1:43:23 PM 
Predatory interest rates charged to low income borrowers exacerbated the problem. People borrow at a low "introductory rate", then get burned when the rate goes higher and they default on the loan. Loaners claim they need the higher rate to cover the high default rate, but at least in part, it's those high rates cause the high default rate.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but does blame really help? The economy is not sustainable without a strong middle class. You can't sell things unless people can afford to buy them. In general, it's been a while since government policy encouraged a strong middle class. Instead, it helps out those who don't need the help; the extremely wealthy who can buy influence.

Republicans like to complain about progressive taxation as government redistribution of wealth. I'd call $700,000,000,000 from taxpayers to banks (and their CEOs) redistribution of wealth worth noting, especially when combined with tax breaks for the rich.
Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 5:28:28 PM 
To: "Predatory interest rates...."

Since you seem to advocate the rich (those who create jobs and are responsible for improving your standard of living) being taxed more, on what premise could you complain about how tax money is spent? That tax revenue comes primarily from the rich. You, as do all looters, feel that you have a claim on something that someone else earned.


Your comments will not be posted until they have been approved by the moderator.



Search    Back Issues    Contact Us    Alumni Association Home    U.Va. Home

© 2008 by the U.Va. Alumni Association