The growing indebtedness of most Americans is the main reason behind the erosion of the wealth share of the bottom 90 percent of families. Many middle class families own homes and have pensions, but too many of these families also have much higher mortgages to repay and much higher consumer credit and student loans to service than before. For a time, rising indebtedness was compensated by the increase in the market value of the assets of middle-class families. The average wealth of bottom 90 percent of families jumped during the stock-market bubble of the late 1990s and the housing bubble of the early 2000s. But it then collapsed during and after the Great Recession of 2007-2009
Attorney general, Loretta Lynch unsealed a 47-count indictment against nine fifa officials and another five corporate executives. She was passionate about their wrongdoing. “The indictment alleges corruption that is rampant, systemic, and deep-rooted both abroad and here in the United States,” she said. “Today’s action makes clear that this Department of Justice intends to end any such corrupt practices, to root out misconduct, and to bring wrongdoers to justice.”
Lost in the hoopla surrounding the event was a depressing fact. Lynch and her predecessor, Eric Holder, appear to have turned the page on a more relevant vein of wrongdoing: the profligate and dishonest behavior of Wall Street bankers, traders, and executives in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. How we arrived at a place where Wall Street misdeeds go virtually unpunished while soccer executives in Switzerland get arrested is murky at best. But the legal window for punishing Wall Street bankers for fraudulent actions that contributed to the 2008 crash has just about closed. It seems an apt time to ask: In the biggest picture, what justice has been achieved?
Since 2009, 49 financial institutions have paid various government entities and private plaintiffs nearly $190 billion in fines and settlements, according to an analysis by the investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. That may seem like a big number, but the money has come from shareholders, not individual bankers. (Settlements were levied on corporations, not specific employees, and paid out as corporate expenses—in some cases, tax-deductible ones.)
In early 2014, just weeks after Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, settled out of court with the Justice Department, the bank’s board of directors gave him a 74 percent raise, bringing his salary to $20 million.
From the Washington Center for Equitable Growth: The Rise and Fall of Middle-class Wealth Historically:
Shouldn't Wealth (which is Net Income After Taxes) be shared equitably in a nation? (Not equally, but fairly, just and rightly.)
Shouldn't we all, independent of income, have a fair share of the Economic Pie that we all work to bake?
Well, the above infographic shows that historically that has not been happening to 90% of the American population. So, one is right to question, Why?
And here's the reason given by the site linked, excerpted:
And who was responsible for that collapse? You, me? Nope. We were the faultless victims, not the perpetrators.
What about "them"? Have a look here, from The Atlantic: How Wall Street’s Bankers Stayed Out of Jail. Excerpt:
Yes, they bought themselves out of jail. And walked away with their millions.
PS: And I'm the fool for continually arguing for a revision of our Upper-Income Taxation in this forum, perhaps putting an ultimate cap on income taxed at 100%. And if not, where does the rot end ... ?
___________________________
From the Washington Center for Equitable Growth: The Rise and Fall of Middle-class Wealth Historically:
Shouldn't Wealth (which is Net Income After Taxes) be shared equitably in a nation? (Not equally, but fairly, just and rightly.)
Shouldn't we all, independent of income, have a fair share of the Economic Pie that we all work to bake?
Well, the above infographic shows that historically that has not been happening to 90% of the American population. So, one is right to question, Why?
And here's the reason given by the site linked, excerpted:
And who was responsible for that collapse? You, me? Nope. We were the faultless victims, not the perpetrators.
What about "them"? Have a look here, from The Atlantic: How Wall Street’s Bankers Stayed Out of Jail. Excerpt:
Yes, they bought themselves out of jail. And walked away with their millions.
PS: And I'm the fool for continually arguing for a revision of our Upper-Income Taxation in this forum, perhaps putting an ultimate cap on income taxed at 100%. And if not, where does the rot end ... ?
___________________________
From the Washington Center for Equitable Growth: The Rise and Fall of Middle-class Wealth Historically:
Shouldn't Wealth (which is Net Income After Taxes) be shared equitably in a nation? (Not equally, but fairly, just and rightly.)
Shouldn't we all, independent of income, have a fair share of the Economic Pie that we all work to bake?
Well, the above infographic shows that historically that has not been happening to 90% of the American population. So, one is right to question, Why?
And here's the reason given by the site linked, excerpted:
And who was responsible for that collapse? You, me? Nope. We were the faultless victims, not the perpetrators.
What about "them"? Have a look here, from The Atlantic: How Wall Street’s Bankers Stayed Out of Jail. Excerpt:
Yes, they bought themselves out of jail. And walked away with their millions.
PS: And I'm the fool for continually arguing for a revision of our Upper-Income Taxation in this forum, perhaps putting an ultimate cap on income taxed at 100%. And if not, where does the rot end ... ?
___________________________
You have a very different defnition of wealth (bolded above) than your source link presents. Wealth (aka net worth?) is assets (typicallly real estate, savings and penson) less liabilities (debt). Higher income allows one to acumulate more assets but does not guarantee that will be done since many get a raise and simply consume all of it.
If we could somehow explain that upturn during the great depression, maybe we could figure out how to bend the curve upward once again.
Nonsense: wealth is a combination of both pairs (income/expenses paired with assets/liabilities).
And as you unintentionally implied, depressing income for 90% of the population destroys their ability to build wealth.
Joe Sixpack's income could double or even triple, but if he's in a race with Elon Musk to accumulate wealth he's going to lose, especially since Joe is always trying to pay down his credit card balance and thus never manages to save or invest a dime.
like most of us did
live within our means....not above it
save a minimum of 10% of what you earn....and let it grow
i had 35k saved coming out of the air force after 6+ years of active duty as an enlisted man in the early 80's (E1-E5)
saving is a lifestyle....ANY INCOME CAN DO IT
now some of that was earned as a second job....and some more was because i play poker fairly well
If your income never grows, saving nearly all of it while living in poverty is still going to take you several lifetimes to reach the 1%. No doubt you can do the math.
(By the way, did you report your gambling earnings to the IRS?)
The graph pretty much traces the rise and fall of the stock market over decades in real terms. Notice how the graph slopes down during much of the 1920s as stocks rose and the bottom 90%'s share of assets dropped. Then stocks dropped and and didn't get back to 1929 levels until the early 1950s, with the graph sloping upwards. Then stocks rose steadily until the mid 1960s, then they stayed stagnant again until the early '80s. Maybe it's coincidence, but the correlation would make the odds of that slim, I would think. Thus during periods when shares rose, the people who owned them took a larger share of the pie. When they dropped or stayed stagnant in real terms over an extended period, the share of assets owned by the wealthy dropped.
Most Americans accumulate wealth by owning a home and paying off their mortgage, but a large component of that is an illusion based on inflation; in real terms, the value of homes over time has not risen to the extent that an investment in stocks has. Thus people who own stocks tend to accumulate more wealth over time than those who don't. To be frank, the wealthy don't work for wages and they don't accumulate their wealth that way.
Joe Sixpack's income could double or even triple, but if he's in a race with Elon Musk to accumulate wealth he's going to lose, especially since Joe is always trying to pay down his credit card balance and thus never manages to save or invest a dime.
If we could somehow explain that upturn during the great depression, maybe we could figure out how to bend the curve upward once again.
Again one of those opinionated ideological populisms. I realize that there are people that think unthinkingly that the development is unfair. But then, that is because they look at graphs like your's and do not understand the reasons behind the clever lines. Itis so sad.
If we could somehow explain that upturn during the great depression, maybe we could figure out how to bend the curve upward once again.
Kind of a circular scenario.
How does Joe Sixpack pay down his liabilities if his income can't grow?
Some people make bad ones.....Or don't you believe in personal responsibility?
saving is a lifestyle....ANY INCOME CAN DO IT
One displays the statistical facts regarding Wealth and you refuse them as "opinionated" and "ideological".
I'm through with you. You are "sad" and beyond redemption ...
Personal responsibility is highly limited when one is a member of a large market-economy. We are all only one element in a very large mechanism of Supply & Demand for goods/services of which labor is only one component.
You are oversimplifying matters to suit a personal belief that we are all solely responsible for our destinies, when fate/luck is a much larger factor.
Of course, that may suit you personally. Smugness is also a human attribute.
Like a giant windmill that grinds the wheat, we are all only one peg on the wheel moving the grindstone ...
__________________[/SIZE]
No, he's right. If people would take more personal responsibility for their own circumstances they'd be a lot better off. All of my grandparents came from humble circumstances. They all dealt with difficult years during the Great Depression, but they survived and prospered because they shared common values like thrift, hard work, and the avoidance of debt. They also waited until they were married to have kids. :shrug:
Graduation rates
Question:
What are the graduation rates for students obtaining a bachelor's degree?
Response:
The 2013 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor's degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2007 was 59 percent. That is, 59 percent of first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor's degree at a 4-year institution in fall 2007 completed the degree at that institution by 2013.
No, he's right. If people would take more personal responsibility for their own circumstances they'd be a lot better off. All of my grandparents came from humble circumstances. They all dealt with difficult years during the Great Depression, but they survived and prospered because they shared common values like thrift, hard work, and the avoidance of debt. They also waited until they were married to have kids. :shrug:
You are making a subjective judgement about people. And the people in question are those Americans who work the most hours per year (far more than most of Europe) and habitually give vacation-time back to the company. (Which makes Europeans laugh when I tell them.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?