Example collocations logo

Households in sentence

1591 examples of Households in a sentence

The same holds for households, with millions of weaker and poorer borrowers defaulting on mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, student loans, and other forms of consumer credit.
And, while higher-income and wealthier households have a buffer of savings to smooth consumption and avoid having to increase savings, most lower-income households must save more, as banks and other lenders cut back on home-equity loans and lower limits on credit cards.
Moreover, income and wealth inequality is rising again: poorer households are at greater risk of unemployment, falling wages, or reductions in hours worked, all leading to lower labor income, whereas on Wall Street outrageous bonuses have returned with a vengeance.
Higher household saving depresses consumption because it is the difference between households’ after-tax income and what they spend.
In any year, some households are savers and others, especially retirees, are dissavers that use past saving to finance current consumption.
Before that, between 1960 and 1985, American households saved an average of 9% of their after-tax incomes.
That fall in wealth means that households must save more to prepare for retirement, and that retirees are not able to dissave as much as they did before.
And, with unemployment stubbornly high, many households are saving in order to have additional cash if they should lose their job or be put on shorter hours.
But if households instead become optimistic about the pace of recovery, they might choose to cut back on their saving in order to maintain consumption, despite weak earnings.
The problem, the parrot would say, is that households and businesses are still trying to build up their stocks of safe, high-quality assets, and are switching expenditures from buying currently-produced goods and services to increasing their shares of an inadequate supply of government liabilities.
When “aggregate demand” – the level of real expenditure on final domestic goods that households, businesses, the government, and overseas buyers are willing to make – falls short of output at full employment, output is limited to the demand.
In fact, the multiplier effect can even be negative during economic expansions when central banks maintain zero-interest rates and households expect taxes to rise when interest rates do.
Those who can borrow have ample cash and are cautious about spending, while those who want to borrow – highly indebted households and firms (especially small and medium-size enterprises) – face a credit crunch.
Spain’s overall level of debt (government, households, financial firms, and non-financial corporates) is barely below its 2012 peak and still far higher than in 2008.
If households and firms anticipate a tax increase in the future as a result of government borrowing today, they will reduce their consumption and investment accordingly.
On this view, if fiscal austerity relieves households of the burden of future tax increases, they will increase their spending.
This implies that the problem has mainly been a lack of demand for credit – reluctance on the part of businesses and households to borrow on almost any terms in a flat market.
State- and local-government budgets are improving, the housing market is strengthening, and households are deleveraging and repairing their balance sheets.
Moreover, in 2014, an estimated 330 million urban households lived in substandard housing, or struggled financially due to housing costs; that number is projected to rise to 440 million by 2025.
Since the financial crisis, US households have deleveraged and built up wealth.
After all, households that are saving twice as much as previously suspected should be expected to be more resilient when confronted with rising interest rates.
We have learned that the economy is expanding slightly faster and households were more thrifty than previously thought.
A global savings glut would suggest that rebalancing the world economy requires policies to boost America’s savings rate and to increase non-US households’ consumption.
Something may well happen in the next several years to radically boost America’s savings rate by making US households feel suddenly poor: tax increases, a real estate crash, rapidly-rising import prices caused by a plummeting dollar, a deep recession, or more than one of the above.
But households still control too little income and save at very high rates.
That might seem widely beneficial, but it would help only those in high enough tax brackets to itemize deductions – mostly households with annual income above $75,000 (median US household income was $54,462 in 2015).
Second, we thought that the depositors prone to panic would always be small depositors – households and small firms – rather than corporations or professional investors.
If large corporations (and other banks) have deposits that they expect to be able to claim on short notice, and if they know that not all such deposits can be withdrawn at the same time, then suspicion that a bank might fail gives them as much reason to rush to the exit as households have.
We can also encourage households to consume less energy, and companies to reduce the amount of energy that they waste.
In practice, helicopter drops would arrive in the form of lump-sum payments to households or consumption vouchers for everybody, funded exclusively by central banks.
BackNext