“Calculate Your Economic Risk” – Uh, Okay!

The New York Times created an economic risk assessment that allows you to calculate your risk of living in poverty in the next five, ten, or fifteen years.  Hilariously, it is called “Chasing the American Dream,” and you can try it for yourself by clicking the link.

I’m always a fan of attempting to predict my future, despite (or because of?) the possibility of it adding to my list of anxieties, so let’s go!

Thoughts Before

As a white middle-class graduate school educated individual, I’ve got race, class, and education on my side.  But I’m also a single woman who currently relies on fundraising (though I don’t know if that will even be considered).  So who knows?  I’m definitely curious whether my privilege will win out. 


Short Term (5 Years):  16.2% chance of living in poverty
Middle Term (10 Years): 19.3% chance of living in poverty
Long Term (15 Years):  21.1.% chance of living in poverty

Thoughts After

Oh good!  I can ride on my privilege a while longer!

Two thoughts though: I was disappointed that there were only four variables.  I think I was expecting a more personality test-type system that would take into account work ethic and previous job experience.  Also, why is my risk going up as time goes on??  I can only assume it’s the “single” variable, which just confirms that the world is structured to benefit married couples.  *glare*

Did you try the assessment?  What do you think about your results?  Leave a comment and let me know!

2 thoughts on ““Calculate Your Economic Risk” – Uh, Okay!

  1. Jeremy May 10, 2016 / 7:03 am

    7.5% short term; 9.2% medium term; and 10% long-term — this is as a white married person in the 35-39 age range with a greater than high school education.

    I changed the variable to non-white and the risk went up by 1.8% short-term and long-term and 1.3% medium term.

    I bumped my age up to 40, and my risk went down for each time period. I bumped my age to 45 and my risk went down further for short-term and medium term, but was higher long-term than 40-44 but still slightly below the 35-39 long-term range.


    • Tricia May 10, 2016 / 11:55 am

      Interesting! I am especially confused that gender was not taken into consideration, because I bet that would change things somewhat significantly (or # of kids!).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s