OT – Bottom 50% of America holds 1% of wealth

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer] …It’s still hard for me to believe only 5% or less of US households have $1MM or more in investable assets–especially with all of the “attitudes” you see in CA–and I’m saying that as a native.[/quote]

flyer, I can believe it. I believe 90% the under 50 group live solely on credit and out of those 90% over half live paycheck to paycheck to keep mo payments made on that credit. The other portion (unemployed and underemployed) are only making sporadic payments, the minimum payment or none at all on that credit.

Most of the over 50 group has had a portion of their income cut off, whether thru job loss, retirement, semi-retirement, etc. So they don’t have the income to service the same level of debt as their younger counterparts. Nevertheless, the over-50’s who are still employed are trying to service debt, pay of their principal residence or are doubling/tripling up on saving for retirement. Most of the boomers who lost their jobs too early (or gave them up for health reasons) have learned to live within their (now) lower means. This is due to childhood conditioning from “WWII era” or “Greatest Generation” parents (who lived thru the great depression) and hammered into us the virtues of economizing :=]

If you lived all or most of your life without a smartphone and other gadgets, a newer luxury car, convenience food and cable TV, it doesn’t bother you so much if you don’t have these things now.

I honestly don’t know what today’s 30-yo mother of three does about her smartphone acct ($75+ per month) when her 5 years of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) gig is up.

[flyer]

Those are good points, nsr.

I know we’re all happy to be in the top 5%–however we happened to have gotten here–but I just thought there would be more people in that category. Guess I’m just too optimistic.

[flyer]

More good points, BG.

It will be interesting to see what the future decades of net worth stats reveal.

[Coronita]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=AN][quote=flu]AN.. For some people, moving around companies works out for them. For other people it doesn’t. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from. Hind sight is always 20/20. The pay difference is only 5-10%, so the decision to not jump around doesn’t affect him as much as his decision to buy the house. So, even if guy A didn’t jump around like guy B, if guy A just listen to guy B’s reason why he doesn’t want to buy a house in 2005, he would have been much better off. One decision alone, not the most popular decision in 2005, would have put guy A in a much better financial situation. This bad luck (2005 RE crash) affected everyone who own a house, so it’s not like guy B was in the right place at the right time.[/quote]

Can’t win if you don’t play.

Not moving is basically not playing.

So unless you’re really aggressive about moving around in a large company, then not moving companies is basically a guaranteed non-winner.

Winners make their own luck.[/quote]

Again, i’m not really disagreeing with any of the opinions against obama-hood… But my point is sometimes you win by not playing….A good example of this are *cough* public pensions (I know, I’m opening a can of worms on this one)….But that’s for a different discussion.

AN, it is very quite possible that someone didn’t buy in 2005 not because they were really financially astute but rather they so happen didn’t have enough cash/downpayment to buy (ie they couldn’t afford it)….Again, luck of being poor at time X ends up making you rich at time Y….
Sometimes the best decisions you make in life are the decisions in which your choices are no versus no and at other times yes versus yes.

Anyway, got to go to work. I have a deadline….Because a certain Q company is really doing a daddy job trying to put the rest world out of business…. :). That’s exactly why I stopped shorting Q and started going long long long… Not because I expect great returns….But simply because if Q is successful in annihilating everyone else, I need a hedge against my possible future underemployment 🙁

Have a nice weekend..

[an]

Flu, keep in mind that in 2005, you don’t need to have a down payment. However, friend b did have down payment. He just chose to hold off. He end up buying a few years and many low ball offers later.

[dumbrenter]

Interesting thread; to see waves of dogma about taxes & government and personal innuendo keep crashing against the rock of scholarship interwoven with a poignant personal tale that brought tears to my eyes.

Every man who has gotten to a point of something better from subsistence life knows deep down how close it was and how bad things would have turned out for reasons beyond his control (i.e. luck of whatever). We cannot find a better example than what happened to flu’s story.

[dumbrenter]

when 90% of the population thinks nothing of exchanging their hard earned paycheck for a gadget of questionable value AND with the knowledge that they are paying for a 40+% profit margin, is it any wonder that the top 1% will soon have most of the wealth?

[CA renter]

[quote=dumbrenter]when 90% of the population thinks nothing of exchanging their hard earned paycheck for a gadget of questionable value AND with the knowledge that they are paying for a 40+% profit margin, is it any wonder that the top 1% will soon have most of the wealth?[/quote]

Exactly. Not only the customers, but the employees who barely make enough to get by so that upper-level management and shareholders can get a bigger cut of the value the *workers* create. Those who make the most are the ones who control who the winners are — the ones who control where capital flows. “Hard work” has very little to do with it.

This is one of the main reasons that wealth is driven up in the absence of an intervening force (like govt); that, and the fact that it’s much easier to make $1MM/year when you already have $100MM vs. having to work for that $1MM…and don’t even get me started on the fact that these incomes are taxed at different rates.

[scaredyclassic]

So…

My youngest kid invented a Type of toy a few months ago… It’s probably patentable. He has friends who literally go nuts over it. And my kid is obsessed with it. Even I admit it’s kind if cool.

Checked around there’s nothing like it.

Friends dad said… You oughts figure out a way to make money on this….

So… Do I get off my ass and make something happen? How awesome would it be if my family turned a profit.

[Coronita]

[quote=squat250]So…

My youngest kid invented a Type of toy a few months ago… It’s probably patentable. He has friends who literally go nuts over it. And my kid is obsessed with it. Even I admit it’s kind if cool.

Checked around there’s nothing like it.

Friends dad said… You oughts figure out a way to make money on this….

So… Do I get off my ass and make something happen? How awesome would it be if my family turned a profit.[/quote]

Do it. before you’re kid’s friend dad does….
But I’m sure you’ll have your fair share of folks that tell you it’s stupid, you’re wasting your time, yada yada yada. And of course if you do end up being “lucky” and your idea makes a lot of money, be prepared to pay 90+% in taxes, because after all it was “easier” to make money this way than having your kid for the rest of his life dig ditches or similar labor…Because accumulation of capital = bad, working yourself to death = good.

(FLU…Back from the trenches of smartphone hell)

[mike92104]

It’s been said in different ways, but I think the main difference between the uber- successful and those not so successful is the ability to recognize, and sieze upon opportunity.

One thing I am sure of is that they didn’t sit around and bitch about people having more money then them, and spend their time trying to get the government to take it. Instead, they went out and grabbed it for themselves.

[sdrealtor]

dlj
Just to be clear. I agree with your points on randomness beyond a certain level. To me there are lots of rockstars out there. Some are Dexy’s Midnight Runners and some are U2 but they are all rock stars whether they are worth $10 million or $100 million. If Gates didnt become the top dog there would have been another rock star who did, it wouldnt have been a public safety worker.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . . If Gates didnt become the top dog there would have been another rock star who did, it wouldnt have been a public safety worker.[/quote]

How astute of you to finally recognize that fact!

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=squat250]So…

My youngest kid invented a Type of toy a few months ago… It’s probably patentable. He has friends who literally go nuts over it. And my kid is obsessed with it. Even I admit it’s kind if cool.

Checked around there’s nothing like it.

Friends dad said… You oughts figure out a way to make money on this….

So… Do I get off my ass and make something happen? How awesome would it be if my family turned a profit.[/quote]

Do it. before you’re kid’s friend dad does….
But I’m sure you’ll have your fair share of folks that tell you it’s stupid, you’re wasting your time, yada yada yada. And of course if you do end up being “lucky” and your idea makes a lot of money, be prepared to pay 90+% in taxes, because after all it was “easier” to make money this way than having your kid for the rest of his life dig ditches or similar labor…Because accumulation of capital = bad, working yourself to death = good.

(FLU…Back from the trenches of smartphone hell)[/quote]

flu,

Developing something new and actually creating something is very different from “investing.” Very different.

I have no problem with those who **create.** My complaint is with those who simply buy up existing assets, hoarding the very things that are necessary for survival (food, housing, etc.) in order to force others who NEED those things to pay them higher prices or rent.

By all means, people should go out there and create, innovate, and improve upon things. That’s valuable to society, no doubt. But “investors” who don’t create, don’t expand productive capacity, etc.? That’s zero-sum, and requires other to suffer in order for the “winners” to gain.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]
By all means, people should go out there and create, innovate, and improve upon things. That’s valuable to society, no doubt. But “investors” who don’t create, don’t expand productive capacity, etc.? That’s zero-sum, and requires other to suffer in order for the “winners” to gain.[/quote]

You really need to go see a few more places where people don’t invest capital.

[Author]

Posts