For it to be survivorship bias you would need to address a failure based only off successful cases (survivors). But in this particular case, the premise is that one can attain a good score with or without accruing debt. That’s just a factually accurate statement about reality; it has nothing to do with addressing issues.
I think (and I’m really not trying to put words in your mouth here so correct me if I’m wrong) that the premise you are arguing for is that most Americans will, at some point, rely on borrowed money to make ends meet. In that case it would make more sense to claim survivorship bias because a well-off individual claiming that they don’t need loans is not evidence that there is no problem with our general reliance on loans. They are just a success case or a “survivor”.
That just because you managed to do that doesn’t make it the norm.
You could argue that that simply isn’t an option for many people. If you can live life without using a credit card implies you have not struggled for that extra cash, whereas some people simply don’t make enough to not use it.
I still don’t see how this makes it survivorship bias.
But that being said, if you’re not going to be able to pay off something in a few months, then you can’t afford it with or without a card, because buying it with the card just makes it more expensive. Sometimes you need to tide yourself over, I did that when my wife was switching jobs and we were moving so there were extra expenses. But I quickly paid it all off when we returned to normal income.
I believe it’s SB just for the fact that having a line of credit available and not using it simply isn’t an option for some people.
Imagine you have a line of credit and you lose your job, but you still need to feed your family. Then that person is going to do what they need to provide food.
The bias come from you commenting in the vain of I did this, ergo everybody else should be the same, when in fact we are not all the same.
Similar to how someone from a council estate can make it as a politician, which neglects to consider that 99% of people from council estates with that dream didn’t make it.
I hope that makes more sense. I suck at explaining things.
Survivorship bias!!
Not survivorship bias.
Care to elaborate on why not?
Just so I know. I’m not saying you’re wrong.
For it to be survivorship bias you would need to address a failure based only off successful cases (survivors). But in this particular case, the premise is that one can attain a good score with or without accruing debt. That’s just a factually accurate statement about reality; it has nothing to do with addressing issues.
I think (and I’m really not trying to put words in your mouth here so correct me if I’m wrong) that the premise you are arguing for is that most Americans will, at some point, rely on borrowed money to make ends meet. In that case it would make more sense to claim survivorship bias because a well-off individual claiming that they don’t need loans is not evidence that there is no problem with our general reliance on loans. They are just a success case or a “survivor”.
I understand what survivorship bias is, I just don’t see how it applies here. Could you explain?
That just because you managed to do that doesn’t make it the norm.
You could argue that that simply isn’t an option for many people. If you can live life without using a credit card implies you have not struggled for that extra cash, whereas some people simply don’t make enough to not use it.
I still don’t see how this makes it survivorship bias.
But that being said, if you’re not going to be able to pay off something in a few months, then you can’t afford it with or without a card, because buying it with the card just makes it more expensive. Sometimes you need to tide yourself over, I did that when my wife was switching jobs and we were moving so there were extra expenses. But I quickly paid it all off when we returned to normal income.
I believe it’s SB just for the fact that having a line of credit available and not using it simply isn’t an option for some people.
Imagine you have a line of credit and you lose your job, but you still need to feed your family. Then that person is going to do what they need to provide food.
The bias come from you commenting in the vain of I did this, ergo everybody else should be the same, when in fact we are not all the same.
Similar to how someone from a council estate can make it as a politician, which neglects to consider that 99% of people from council estates with that dream didn’t make it.
I hope that makes more sense. I suck at explaining things.