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%.
Obama vs the 93%
Obama vs the 93%
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/per ... t/2106455/
"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
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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.
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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.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 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
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Obama vs the 93%
They do seem to be happy with it. They voted for more of it. They are getting what they wanted.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.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Obama vs the 93%
Indeed Everyone that voted for Obama should be absolutely delighted by it.Mr. Perfect wrote:They do seem to be happy with it. They voted for more of it. They are getting what they wanted.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 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
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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.Doc wrote:Indeed Everyone that voted for Obama should be absolutely delighted by it.Mr. Perfect wrote:They do seem to be happy with it. They voted for more of it. They are getting what they wanted.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.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Obama vs the 93%
Hahaha no.Zack Morris wrote: Finding a high-paying job is easier than it's ever been -- if you have the right skills.
I blame the lack of demand for labor. Labor unions do not create demand for labor.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.
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.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.
Censorship isn't necessary
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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.Mr. Perfect wrote:Hahaha no.Zack Morris wrote: Finding a high-paying job is easier than it's ever been -- if you have the right skills.
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%.I blame the lack of demand for labor. Labor unions do not create demand for labor.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.
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.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.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.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Obama vs the 93%
Being a young person you don't realize that those markets have been healthy for decades. Nothing record breaking going on.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.
Boy, is it ever.There is indeed a lack of demand for labor, that much is true.
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.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
The most successful economic period of all time was the result of a broken political system. Very interesting. Something to think about.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.
Censorship isn't necessary
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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.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.
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.The most successful economic period of all time was the result of a broken political system. Very interesting. Something to think about.
Re: Obama vs the 93%
20 years of boom baby.
now 20 years of austerity to get the graph down to pre 1990's levels.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Obama vs the 93%
Not when it comes to money printing and asset values. All that is on paper. When they go to cash, well.... well.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.
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.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.
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
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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.
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
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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 ..
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
Re: Obama vs the 93%
Well put, seems both typical and cyclical thruout human history.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 ..
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?
Re: Obama vs the 93%
Zack Morris is correct.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.
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
-Alexander Hamilton
Re: Obama vs the 93%
Trickle down economics is absolutely definitively true. The number of jobs that trickled down to Southeast Asia is immense.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.
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
-Alexander Hamilton
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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.Enki wrote:Zack Morris is correct.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.
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
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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
-Alexander Hamilton
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Obama vs the 93%
Corporations were paying for engineers' college when I graduated. There is nothing new about it. Zack Morris is incorrect.Enki wrote:Zack Morris is correct.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.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Obama vs the 93%
Do you tell them also about investing in lawn robots.Enki wrote:I tell everyone I run across who needs work to learn Javascript and Ruby on Rails.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Obama vs the 93%
This isn't even an actual response to what anyone said. You need to start reading for comprehension.Mr. Perfect wrote:Corporations were paying for engineers' college when I graduated. There is nothing new about it. Zack Morris is incorrect.Enki wrote:Zack Morris is correct.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.
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
-Alexander Hamilton
Re: Obama vs the 93%
I tell them to learn how to program robots, learn AutoCAD etc...Mr. Perfect wrote:Do you tell them also about investing in lawn robots.Enki wrote: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
-Alexander Hamilton
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Obama vs the 93%
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.
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