Obama vs the 93%

Now, what news on the Rialto?
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Obama vs the 93%

Post by Doc »

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/per ... t/2106455/
Pew: 93% of households lost net worth 2009-11
Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press12:50 p.m. EDT April 23, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — The richest Americans got richer during the first two years of the economic recovery while average net worth declined for 93% of the nation's households, the Pew Research Center said Tuesday.

The Pew report says wealth held by the richest 7% of households rose 28% 2009 through 2011, while the net worth of the other 93% of households dropped 4%.

Pew says the main reason for the widening gap is that affluent households have stocks and other financial holdings that increased in value, while the less wealthy have more of their assets in their homes, which haven't fully regained their value since the housing downturn.

The upper 7% of households owned 63% of the nation's household wealth in 2011, up from 56% in 2009, said the report, which analyzed Census Bureau data released last month.

Tuesday's report is the latest to point up financial inequality that has been growing among Americans for decades, a development that helped fuel the Occupy Wall Street protests.

A September Census Bureau report on income found that the highest-earning 20% of households earned more than half of all income the previous year, biggest share in records kept since 1967. A 2011 Congressional Budget Office report said incomes for the richest 1% soared 275% between 1979 and 2007 while increasing just under 40% for the middle 60% of Americans.

Other details of Tuesday's report:

—Overall, the wealth of American households rose by $5 trillion, or 14%, during the period to $40.2 trillion in 2011 from $35.2 trillion in 2009. Household wealth is the sum of all assets such as a home, car and stocks, minus all debts.

—The average wealth of the 8 million households in the most affluent 7% rose to an estimated $3.2 million from an estimated $2.5 million, while the average net worth of the 111 million households in the less affluent 93% fell to roughly $134,000 from $140,000.

—The upper 7% were the households with a net worth above $836,033 and the 93% represented households whose worth was at or below that. Not all households among the 93% saw a decline in net worth, but the average declined for that group.

—On an individual household basis, the average wealth of households in the more affluent group was almost 24 times that of those in the less affluent group in 2011. At the start of the recovery in 2009, that ratio was less than 18 to 1.

—During the study period, Standard & Poor's 500 stock index rose 34%, while the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index for home prices fell 5%.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Zack Morris »

I once heard that a rising tide lifts all boats. The top 7% now have more money to spend and the rest of the 93% should be happy for that.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Doc »

Zack Morris wrote:I once heard that a rising tide lifts all boats. The top 7% now have more money to spend and the rest of the 93% should be happy for that.
I am sure they are absolutely delighted that Obama is president. After all he has presided over the largest grown in wealth disparity probably since the robber barons.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote:I once heard that a rising tide lifts all boats. The top 7% now have more money to spend and the rest of the 93% should be happy for that.
They do seem to be happy with it. They voted for more of it. They are getting what they wanted.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Doc »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:I once heard that a rising tide lifts all boats. The top 7% now have more money to spend and the rest of the 93% should be happy for that.
They do seem to be happy with it. They voted for more of it. They are getting what they wanted.
Indeed Everyone that voted for Obama should be absolutely delighted by it.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Zack Morris »

Doc wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:I once heard that a rising tide lifts all boats. The top 7% now have more money to spend and the rest of the 93% should be happy for that.
They do seem to be happy with it. They voted for more of it. They are getting what they wanted.
Indeed Everyone that voted for Obama should be absolutely delighted by it.
Finding a high-paying job is easier than it's ever been -- if you have the right skills. If you don't have the right skills, well, blame the decades-long all-out assault on the labor movement that has gutted labor unions. Just as standardization of the working week is not a threat to the economy, unless taken to an extreme, neither are the restrictions negotiated by unions on behalf of their members. It's a matter of establishing a workable social contract.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: Finding a high-paying job is easier than it's ever been -- if you have the right skills.
Hahaha no.
If you don't have the right skills, well, blame the decades-long all-out assault on the labor movement that has gutted labor unions.
I blame the lack of demand for labor. Labor unions do not create demand for labor.
Just as standardization of the working week is not a threat to the economy, unless taken to an extreme, neither are the restrictions negotiated by unions on behalf of their members. It's a matter of establishing a workable social contract.
After 4 years of Obama, 2 of which with near record majorities, how come they never got around to that part. In your own words.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: Finding a high-paying job is easier than it's ever been -- if you have the right skills.
Hahaha no.
Obviously, you don't employ skilled workers, else you would realize that engineering/science/math/medical salaries are sky-high right now. For the engineering and science folks (and many studying math as well), graduate school is funded and research is salaried, meaning no accumulation of debt. And it isn't all government money -- I was funded entirely by the private sector, save for two research stints abroad, which were government-funded.
If you don't have the right skills, well, blame the decades-long all-out assault on the labor movement that has gutted labor unions.
I blame the lack of demand for labor. Labor unions do not create demand for labor.
There is indeed a lack of demand for labor, that much is true. And that's not going to change with or without unions. The question is whether unions could have slowed the bleeding and whether protectionism's costs could have been spread around and sustained by the economy. Unchaining the low end has let the top echelons (top 10%, roughly) soar but at the cost of the remaining 90%.
Just as standardization of the working week is not a threat to the economy, unless taken to an extreme, neither are the restrictions negotiated by unions on behalf of their members. It's a matter of establishing a workable social contract.
After 4 years of Obama, 2 of which with near record majorities, how come they never got around to that part. In your own words.
The political system has been hopelessly broken for decades. I don't see how such a big issue could have been resolved in 2 years.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: Obviously, you don't employ skilled workers, else you would realize that engineering/science/math/medical salaries are sky-high right now.
Being a young person you don't realize that those markets have been healthy for decades. Nothing record breaking going on.
There is indeed a lack of demand for labor, that much is true.
Boy, is it ever.
And that's not going to change with or without unions. The question is whether unions could have slowed the bleeding and whether protectionism's costs could have been spread around and sustained by the economy. Unchaining the low end has let the top echelons (top 10%, roughly) soar
There is no relationship. The STPN 1% are doing so well because of STPN. All the money went to the 1%. Nothing to do with unions, one way or the other.
The political system has been hopelessly broken for decades. I don't see how such a big issue could have been resolved in 2 years.
The most successful economic period of all time was the result of a broken political system. Very interesting. Something to think about.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote: There is no relationship. The STPN 1% are doing so well because of STPN. All the money went to the 1%. Nothing to do with unions, one way or the other.
According to right wing economic theory, it doesn't matter where that money goes. They'll spend it on luxury yachts and caviar and create lots of jobs doing so.
The most successful economic period of all time was the result of a broken political system. Very interesting. Something to think about.
The most economically successful period of the last 100 years was the post-WWII period, for obvious reasons. The early 2000's were not successful -- it was a bubble, very little lasting value was produced (outside of the tech sector), and it was totally unsustainable. It took a hell of a lot longer undoing the prosperity of the late 40's/50's/60's than the Bush years.
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by noddy »

Image

20 years of boom baby.

now 20 years of austerity to get the graph down to pre 1990's levels.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: According to right wing economic theory, it doesn't matter where that money goes. They'll spend it on luxury yachts and caviar and create lots of jobs doing so.
Not when it comes to money printing and asset values. All that is on paper. When they go to cash, well.... well.
The most economically successful period of the last 100 years was the post-WWII period, for obvious reasons. The early 2000's were not successful -- it was a bubble, very little lasting value was produced (outside of the tech sector), and it was totally unsustainable. It took a hell of a lot longer undoing the prosperity of the late 40's/50's/60's than the Bush years.
Nah, from the 1980's onward was the largest increase in living standards that I can find, brought on by tight money, low taxes and smarter regulation. The Eisenhower years were good ones, including the Kennedy tax cut years, but compare households from either time period in terms of home appliances.

Yes, we did not detect the subprime bomb the Democrats created, and the Keynesian RE bubble created by the Fed, but certainly among us here we know who's ideas they were. Don't we.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by noddy »

all i see the last 20 years is the west living on easier to get credit - subprime is but the biggest most obvious one and the bail of straw that broke the camels back.

that graph shows this - none of the prosperity was from the rhetoric of innovation/productivity/exports.. it was from spending tommorows money today on bigger houses,cars and tv's.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Not exactly, we went over this before, did a whole thread on it. You can't borrow your way to riches, rather when you are getting rich people throw money at you. The global credit thrown at the US is without any real precedent.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by noddy »

true but not what i was getting at.

this wasnt just america - its the same pattern all through the western world with varying mixes of private or public debt adding up to simmilar levels of hard to sustain payments.

my point was we didnt spend all that money on investment or growth and new industries we spent it on luxuries that dont earn money.

the real prosperity we HAD led to a new kind of credit based prosperity which took off in the 90's ..
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:true but not what i was getting at.

this wasnt just america - its the same pattern all through the western world with varying mixes of private or public debt adding up to simmilar levels of hard to sustain payments.

my point was we didnt spend all that money on investment or growth and new industries we spent it on luxuries that dont earn money.

the real prosperity we HAD led to a new kind of credit based prosperity which took off in the 90's ..
Well put, seems both typical and cyclical thruout human history.

And still, it seems both universal and timeless to blame or credit politicians with things beyond their control.

Are humans a bunch of whiny, finger pointing, crybabies or what?
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Enki »

Zack Morris wrote:Obviously, you don't employ skilled workers, else you would realize that engineering/science/math/medical salaries are sky-high right now. For the engineering and science folks (and many studying math as well), graduate school is funded and research is salaried, meaning no accumulation of debt. And it isn't all government money -- I was funded entirely by the private sector, save for two research stints abroad, which were government-funded.
Zack Morris is correct.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Enki »

Zack Morris wrote:According to right wing economic theory, it doesn't matter where that money goes. They'll spend it on luxury yachts and caviar and create lots of jobs doing so.
Trickle down economics is absolutely definitively true. The number of jobs that trickled down to Southeast Asia is immense.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Doc »

Enki wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Obviously, you don't employ skilled workers, else you would realize that engineering/science/math/medical salaries are sky-high right now. For the engineering and science folks (and many studying math as well), graduate school is funded and research is salaried, meaning no accumulation of debt. And it isn't all government money -- I was funded entirely by the private sector, save for two research stints abroad, which were government-funded.
Zack Morris is correct.
You know they say the sun rises each morning. IE it is not the skilled workers that are having problems. It is the unskilled workers that are long term unemployed.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/artic ... t-burtless
The Great Recession has thus pushed jobless workers into unemployment-duration groups with poor odds of finding work, even after economic recovery. From 2007 to 2011, the fraction of the nation’s unemployed who were unemployed six months or longer increased from 18 percent to 44 percent.

A simple explanation for why workers’ job-finding success drops as the duration of their unemployment rises is that the workers whose skills are in shortest supply will tend to be re-employed fastest. These workers thus tend to leave the unemployment queue before they have been jobless for long. A disproportionate number of the chronically unemployed simply lack skills currently prized by employers.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Enki »

I tell everyone I run across who needs work to learn Javascript and Ruby on Rails.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Enki wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Obviously, you don't employ skilled workers, else you would realize that engineering/science/math/medical salaries are sky-high right now. For the engineering and science folks (and many studying math as well), graduate school is funded and research is salaried, meaning no accumulation of debt. And it isn't all government money -- I was funded entirely by the private sector, save for two research stints abroad, which were government-funded.
Zack Morris is correct.
Corporations were paying for engineers' college when I graduated. There is nothing new about it. Zack Morris is incorrect.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Enki wrote:I tell everyone I run across who needs work to learn Javascript and Ruby on Rails.
Do you tell them also about investing in lawn robots.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Enki »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Obviously, you don't employ skilled workers, else you would realize that engineering/science/math/medical salaries are sky-high right now. For the engineering and science folks (and many studying math as well), graduate school is funded and research is salaried, meaning no accumulation of debt. And it isn't all government money -- I was funded entirely by the private sector, save for two research stints abroad, which were government-funded.
Zack Morris is correct.
Corporations were paying for engineers' college when I graduated. There is nothing new about it. Zack Morris is incorrect.
This isn't even an actual response to what anyone said. You need to start reading for comprehension.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Enki »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote:I tell everyone I run across who needs work to learn Javascript and Ruby on Rails.
Do you tell them also about investing in lawn robots.
I tell them to learn how to program robots, learn AutoCAD etc...
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Obama vs the 93%

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Ah no Tinekr back to the drawing board for you.

Zack Morris wrote:Finding a high-paying job is easier than it's ever been


That is certainly not true and the things he cited as evidence have been going on for a generation. Nothing new. Please work on your critical thinking skills, but then again why start now.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply