77% of Low-to-Moderate Income Households Now Below the Asset Poverty Threshold

I’m sure that people who are on the verge of financial disaster think that their dire situation is a small price to pay for their safety from the flu.

Study Finds:

An unsettlingly high percentage of Americans are teetering right on the edge of financial disaster. More than three in four (77%) low-to-moderate income U.S. households have dipped below the asset poverty threshold, according to a new study from Oregon State University.

What exactly does this mean? In the event of job loss or loss of income, these families do not own enough financial assets to stave off a fall below the poverty-level status within three months.

Researchers compared asset poverty rates among American and Canadian citizens for this study. While Canada has generally done better than the U.S. in this regard lately, the Great White North has its fair share of issues as well. Sixty-two percent of of low to moderate-income Canadians also fall below the asset poverty threshold.

Moreover, the study’s authors say these statistics have never been more relevant than right now, due to COVID-19.

The fact that the U.S. safety net is so connected to work, and then you have this huge shock to employment, you have a system that’s not prepared to handle such a big change to the employment system,” says lead study author David Rothwell, an associate professor in OSU’s College of Public Health and Human Sciences, in a release. “It results concretely in family stress and strain, and then that strain and stress relates to negative outcomes for children and families.”

For this study, financial assets like stocks, bonds, and mutual funds were primarily focused on as opposed to houses or real estate assets. Why? Financial assets are much more liquid and available for quick cash if need be.

With most companies and businesses struggling to make money in this new Virus Regime, the future of many families is uncertain. Sadly, they are in this stressful situation for no good reason, other than that the government was interested in socially engineering the population.

We know that the lockdown is completely useless. There’s an important study by J.P. Morgan exposing just how absolutely useless and damaging it is, but there’s also countries like Sweden, Uruguay, and others, that serve as the control group in the lockdown experiment.


A control group is a statistically significant portion of participants in an experiment that are shielded from exposure to variables. In a pharmaceutical drug study, for example, the control group receives a placebo, which has no effect on the body.1

Since there is a lot of room for error within the scientific method, having a control group present is vital for accurate analysis. One common source of error within experimentation is confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is the tendency for experimenters to give their expected outcome too much weight when measuring results, leading to inaccurate findings.

Sweden, with no lockdown, is better off than the United Kingdom with its lockdown. The lockdown is not a useful measure if the goal is to keep people safe from viruses.

The countries and places that act as control groups in this sick lockdown experiment prove that the lockdown is useless.

This idea that the lockdown is useful wouldn’t pass peer-review, but the government and its experts keep pushing it, while pretending it is somehow “science.”

People are paying the price.