Study: American Households Hit 43-Year Low In Net Worth

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 4:17 PM GMT
    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/study-american-households-hit-43-year-low-in-net-worth/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 6:08 PM GMT
    You must be thrilled at this news.

    Look at how much money has been funneled to the top 0.01%!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2012 12:41 AM GMT
    That's easily remedied. Just tax the shit out of everyone, politicians can look good while pissing away everyone's money, and no one will have anything ever again!! Would that make you feel better?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 03, 2012 10:25 AM GMT
    ... and the Net Worth of the upper .... can't raise my taxes .... 2%?

    What would that be?

    To quote Warren Buffet once again ...... There was a Class War here in the United States and We Won
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2012 1:43 PM GMT
    This is perhaps the best evidence imaginable for the utter failure of trickle-down economics, i.e. laissez-faire regulation, low [and regressive] taxation, "gifts" to corporations.

    Are we to take it that you're rejoining mainstream economics?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2012 5:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidYou must be thrilled at this news.

    Look at how much money has been funneled to the top 0.01%!


    Ah yes, when Zuckerberg came up with Facebook he stole all kinds of money from poor people. What a criminal, he should be jailed for robbing the poor...Just think, if he hadn't become rich from facebook there'd be so much more money for everyone else to enjoy...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2012 5:24 PM GMT
    corporateprofitsvswages1.png

    Wages are in blue, corporate profits are in red.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/03/news/economy/record-corporate-profits/ In the third quarter, corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago, according to last week'si gross domestic product report. That took after-tax profits to their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

    But the record profits come at the same time that workers' wages have fallen to their lowest-ever share of GDP.

    "That's how it works," said Robert Brusca, economist with FAO Research in New York, who said there is a natural tension between profits and the cost of labor. "If one gets bigger, the other gets smaller."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2012 11:08 PM GMT
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/01/Middle-Class-Net-Worth-Collapses-to-1969-Levels

    According to the study, we are now back to 1969 levels with respect to median net worth in this country. A large part of this is the housing crisis we've yet to recover from, which cost the middle class 18% of its net worth. The news isn't much better with respect to median incomes, which have dropped to $26,364, setting us all the way back to 1999.

    And as middle class incomes declined, the debt-load among the middle class has increased "significantly."

    In a nutshell: those of us in the middle class earn less, are worth less, and owe more. Meanwhile, during this same period of time, the wealthy increased their wealth by an unbelievable 71%.

    Normally, I don't care about the gap between the rich and the rest of us. I'm not rich, and at the age of 46, it's probably safe to say I'll never be rich; but I didn't care because I begrudge no one their success. But that was before…

    Before we looted the Treasury and mortgaged the futures of generations to bail out the Too Big To Fails; before we started losing ground while the Bailed Out prospered.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14390

    Dec 04, 2012 12:02 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/01/Middle-Class-Net-Worth-Collapses-to-1969-Levels

    According to the study, we are now back to 1969 levels with respect to median net worth in this country. A large part of this is the housing crisis we've yet to recover from, which cost the middle class 18% of its net worth. The news isn't much better with respect to median incomes, which have dropped to $26,364, setting us all the way back to 1999.

    And as middle class incomes declined, the debt-load among the middle class has increased "significantly."

    In a nutshell: those of us in the middle class earn less, are worth less, and owe more. Meanwhile, during this same period of time, the wealthy increased their wealth by an unbelievable 71%.

    Normally, I don't care about the gap between the rich and the rest of us. I'm not rich, and at the age of 46, it's probably safe to say I'll never be rich; but I didn't care because I begrudge no one their success. But that was before…

    Before we looted the Treasury and mortgaged the futures of generations to bail out the Too Big To Fails; before we started losing ground while the Bailed Out prospered.
    We also looted the treasury when we been wasting tax money on nation building and excessive defense spending. The social programs didn't cause the serious financial mess in the US. It is all the failed trickle down policies dating back to Reaganomics in the 1980s along with all the excessive defense spending that bankrupted the US. Anyone who cannot see that cannot see very clearly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 1:03 AM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    Christian73 saidYou must be thrilled at this news.

    Look at how much money has been funneled to the top 0.01%!


    Ah yes, when Zuckerberg came up with Facebook he stole all kinds of money from poor people. What a criminal, he should be jailed for robbing the poor...Just think, if he hadn't become rich from facebook there'd be so much more money for everyone else to enjoy...


    LOL. Did you pay attention to the IPO, particularly how the typical investor got soaked by buying at $40/share and they're now worth $20?

    That anyone thought Facebook was worth billions shows just how money is funneled to the top 0.01%. They took every day investors money and paid the billionaires and venture capitalists with it, screwing everyone else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 1:07 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/01/Middle-Class-Net-Worth-Collapses-to-1969-Levels

    According to the study, we are now back to 1969 levels with respect to median net worth in this country. A large part of this is the housing crisis we've yet to recover from, which cost the middle class 18% of its net worth. The news isn't much better with respect to median incomes, which have dropped to $26,364, setting us all the way back to 1999.

    And as middle class incomes declined, the debt-load among the middle class has increased "significantly."

    In a nutshell: those of us in the middle class earn less, are worth less, and owe more. Meanwhile, during this same period of time, the wealthy increased their wealth by an unbelievable 71%.

    Normally, I don't care about the gap between the rich and the rest of us. I'm not rich, and at the age of 46, it's probably safe to say I'll never be rich; but I didn't care because I begrudge no one their success. But that was before…

    Before we looted the Treasury and mortgaged the futures of generations to bail out the Too Big To Fails; before we started losing ground while the Bailed Out prospered.


    And riddler wonders why we mock him? Quoting Brietbart.com is about as reliable as quoting Grimm's Fairy Tales. Not to mention the learned and objective author of this ridiculousness started off with this:

    John Nolte, Brietbart.comIs America now a bigger version of Chicago, where Democrats and the media have so expertly rigged the electoral game that, even as their policies fail, they're able to stay in power?


    Of course, Nolte and Riddler ignore the fact that Republican economic policies have been in place for more than a decade (even the stimulus was 40% tax cuts) and it's destroy the economy. Now they want more of the same and the American people said "no."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 2:28 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/01/Middle-Class-Net-Worth-Collapses-to-1969-Levels

    According to the study, we are now back to 1969 levels with respect to median net worth in this country. A large part of this is the housing crisis we've yet to recover from, which cost the middle class 18% of its net worth. The news isn't much better with respect to median incomes, which have dropped to $26,364, setting us all the way back to 1999.

    And as middle class incomes declined, the debt-load among the middle class has increased "significantly."

    In a nutshell: those of us in the middle class earn less, are worth less, and owe more. Meanwhile, during this same period of time, the wealthy increased their wealth by an unbelievable 71%.

    Normally, I don't care about the gap between the rich and the rest of us. I'm not rich, and at the age of 46, it's probably safe to say I'll never be rich; but I didn't care because I begrudge no one their success. But that was before…

    Before we looted the Treasury and mortgaged the futures of generations to bail out the Too Big To Fails; before we started losing ground while the Bailed Out prospered.
    We also looted the treasury when we been wasting tax money on nation building and excessive defense spending. The social programs didn't cause the serious financial mess in the US. It is all the failed trickle down policies dating back to Reaganomics in the 1980s along with all the excessive defense spending that bankrupted the US. Anyone who cannot see that cannot see very clearly.


    Except that defense spending has been at historically low levels. Stop reading talking points and consider looking into the data.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 5:20 PM GMT
    Except that defense spending should not be pegged to GDP (currently around 4% thanks to Bush and soon to decrease to 3% under Obama, as with Clinton) but to the size of the threat.
    http://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/eisenhower-on-the-opportunity-cost-of-defense-spending/
    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 5:55 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidExcept that defense spending should not be pegged to GDP (currently around 4% thanks to Bush and soon to decrease to 3% under Obama, as with Clinton) but to the size of the threat.
    http://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/eisenhower-on-the-opportunity-cost-of-defense-spending/
    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?"


    Except that it would be a lie to suggest that spending on defense has not been on the decline - and that given the size of deficits and spending relative to GDP are significantly higher than historical norms, it is inaccurate to blame defense spending for this fiscal mess.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 5:57 PM GMT
    Yes, firms are becoming quite profitable, but who says they're making their money in the US?

    Related:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323717004578157331091972730.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

    Emerson Electric Co. EMR -0.30% has $2 billion of cash in the bank. But this year it had to borrow money in the U.S. to help buy back shares, distribute dividends and even pay its taxes.

    That's because "substantially all" of Emerson's cash is in Europe and Asia, according to the company's filings with securities regulators. The maker of power-plant and data-center equipment could always bring that cash back home, but it would be taxed at the 35% rate on corporate profits minus whatever tax it has already paid overseas.

    As a result, Emerson says, it brings its foreign cash holdings back to the U.S. only if that can be "accomplished tax efficiently." In its most recent fiscal year, that meant bringing back just $500 million, then using debt to cover other obligations.

    At a time when American companies hold near record amounts of cash, many are surprisingly cash-poor at home. That doesn't mean they could suddenly run out of money to pay their bills. But it does mean there could be unseen limits on their ability to pay dividends and buy back shares.

    With billions of dollars overseas that may never come back, the Securities and Exchange Commission is concerned that companies haven't been presenting investors with an honest appraisal of their liquidity. As a result, regulators are pressing companies to more clearly lay out how much of their cash is in the U.S. and how much is overseas and potentially encumbered by U.S. taxes.

    Those disclosures are rolling in, and they are revealing the extent to which U.S. tax policies—along with corporations' efforts to get around them—have distorted American companies' balance sheets.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2012 9:18 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidExcept that defense spending should not be pegged to GDP (currently around 4% thanks to Bush and soon to decrease to 3% under Obama, as with Clinton) but to the size of the threat.
    http://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/eisenhower-on-the-opportunity-cost-of-defense-spending/
    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?"


    Except that it would be a lie to suggest that spending on defense has not been on the decline - and that given the size of deficits and spending relative to GDP are significantly higher than historical norms, it is inaccurate to blame defense spending for this fiscal mess.


    No, military expenditure HAS increased in absolute $, even if as a % of GDP it's shrunken:
    800px-InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.P

    This one is per capita:
    800px-PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseS

    The budget deficit would be smaller if the absolute increase in $ is less. God knows we're taxing federally at historically low rates too.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14390

    Dec 04, 2012 9:24 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidExcept that defense spending should not be pegged to GDP (currently around 4% thanks to Bush and soon to decrease to 3% under Obama, as with Clinton) but to the size of the threat.
    http://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/eisenhower-on-the-opportunity-cost-of-defense-spending/
    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?"


    Except that it would be a lie to suggest that spending on defense has not been on the decline - and that given the size of deficits and spending relative to GDP are significantly higher than historical norms, it is inaccurate to blame defense spending for this fiscal mess.


    No, military expenditure HAS increased in absolute $, even if as a % of GDP it's shrunken:
    800px-InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.P

    This one is per capita:
    800px-PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseS

    The budget deficit would be smaller if the absolute increase in $ is less. God knows we're taxing federally at historically low rates too.
    And spending too much on defense and nation building. No wonder the US is going bankrupt.