Post by wy Post by jane.playne Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
senario of a couple who turned 65 and retired on Oct 23, 2013. I stated:
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.