B-Large Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 http://cnnmoney.mobi/wk_snarticle?articleId=urn:newsml:CNNMoney.com:20120611:fed-family-net-worth:1&category=cnnm_business Key Points: 37% decline in median net worth of American family from 2007-2010. From 126,400 to 77,300. Top 10% net worth grew from 1.17 million to 1.19 million 2007-2010. Middle class families in the 40-60 percentile, median net income decreased from 92,300 to 65,900 - a 29% decline. Conclusion middle class has higher concentration of wealth in home equity and recession has impacted employment and wages of middle class. Its been slowly happening for 30 years, incomes have not kept pace with assets such as housing, that is why most people now need Government assitance mortgages to float them the 3% downpayment to qualify for a Government backed home loan... So the bigger question is, what does this all mean? I think this will mean Middle Classers will either go in one of two directions- - they will educate themselves on how money works, and realize that incomes that are robust and jobs that plentiful are not coming back... they will begin to look for ways to cut things that are not essential in their lives, expensive cable, two cars (if the bus is an option), new car leases/ financing payments, 4-5 bedroom houses (instead of small homes in decent hoods)..... It really is not that hard to spin of plenty of cash even if you do not make a lot of money. Its true, I did it for years and did not made a ton of income. Today is a different story, dual incomes with the same FISCALLY SOUNDS PRICIPLES and we are popping off a bunch of money to pay off our house, rentals, etc.... - Do what they have always done... buy too much house because they can "afford" the monthly payment.... buy a new car because they can "afford" the monthly payment... have 1,500 channels on TV "just cause".... eat our alot because they are too lazy to cook at home and make grcoery lists.... eat out at work because they are too lazy to brown bag.... they will continue to hold dear the same on fallacies baout money that they have, and continue to lose ground on the future- and they will pass the stupid onto their kids.... The wealthly in the country have already won in America, nearly 25% of the US economy is financial services.... how much does the Average scrock really know about the Stock Markets, Leveraged Buyouts, ETFs.... and thank your representative Government for being to lever to help create this environment... Big Government does not just help the people holding the hand out, it also serves the powerful to shape and mold the envronment they want... So middle classers, put your nose to the stone and think differently. Carve out your Kingdom. While the United States is becoming more about the Haves and Have Nots and that is getting worse, this in the one place where you can still live a GREAT life if you make the decision to do so- if you are flat broke in America, you are doign something wrong...
birdog1960 Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 And the sun rises in the east. That always happens at the tail end of a normal distribution. It's part of the reason certain idiots who used to participate on this board think "error" causes regression to the mean. there is nothing normal about wealth distribution in the us, and that's the point. if you were to attempt to set up a society, economic and political system from scratch would your desired outcome be this huge wealth disparity and concentration with only a few winners and more and more losers? maybe this board is the wrong place to ask but i think a sizable majority of americans would emphatically say no.
GG Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 there is nothing normal about wealth distribution in the us, and that's the point. if you were to attempt to set up a society, economic and political system from scratch would your desired outcome be this huge wealth disparity and concentration with only a few winners and more and more losers? maybe this board is the wrong place to ask but i think a sizable majority of americans would emphatically say no. Your statement speaks wonders. All attempts to socially engineer wealth distribution have failed miserably, especially those that vilify the top earners. There's nothing wrong with setting up a social safety net that can provide temporary support when needed. Yet, there's absolutely everything wrong to demonize Bill Gates & Mark Zucherberg for getting rich out of creating something out of nothing. And the US does not have a perfectly normal wealth distribution, because you don't go to the same negative scale as you do on the positive, so the high earners skew the bell curve to the right from the outset.
Chef Jim Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 there is nothing normal about wealth distribution in the us, and that's the point. if you were to attempt to set up a society, economic and political system from scratch would your desired outcome be this huge wealth disparity and concentration with only a few winners and more and more losers? maybe this board is the wrong place to ask but i think a sizable majority of americans would emphatically say no. So if you take away the incentive to no longer be a loser how is this going to reduce their numbers??
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 there is nothing normal about wealth distribution in the us, and that's the point. if you were to attempt to set up a society, economic and political system from scratch would your desired outcome be this huge wealth disparity and concentration with only a few winners and more and more losers? maybe this board is the wrong place to ask but i think a sizable majority of americans would emphatically say no. Let me rephrase that: In any statistical distribution, at the tail end(s) of the distribution you would expect a wide difference between mean and median values strictly based on the small sample size with widely differing values. "Normal distribution" is a statistical term, you !@#$ing idiot.
birdog1960 Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Let me rephrase that: In any statistical distribution, at the tail end(s) of the distribution you would expect a wide difference between mean and median values strictly based on the small sample size with widely differing values. "Normal distribution" is a statistical term, you !@#$ing idiot. the deviation on the low end of this data is slight. doesn't that disqualify it from being characterized normal distribution in a statistical sense? and yes i realized what you meant. it just had nothing to do with my argument. So if you take away the incentive to no longer be a loser how is this going to reduce their numbers?? does incentive need to be 100's of times average income? would you not be incentivized to work for double your current salary?
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Its been slowly happening for 30 years, incomes have not kept pace with assets such as housing, that is why most people now need Government assitance mortgages to float them the 3% downpayment to qualify for a Government backed home loan... So the bigger question is, what does this all mean? I think this will mean Middle Classers will either go in one of two directions- - they will educate themselves on how money works, and realize that incomes that are robust and jobs that plentiful are not coming back... they will begin to look for ways to cut things that are not essential in their lives, expensive cable, two cars (if the bus is an option), new car leases/ financing payments, 4-5 bedroom houses (instead of small homes in decent hoods)..... It really is not that hard to spin of plenty of cash even if you do not make a lot of money. Its true, I did it for years and did not made a ton of income. Today is a different story, dual incomes with the same FISCALLY SOUNDS PRICIPLES and we are popping off a bunch of money to pay off our house, rentals, etc.... - Do what they have always done... buy too much house because they can "afford" the monthly payment.... buy a new car because they can "afford" the monthly payment... have 1,500 channels on TV "just cause".... eat our alot because they are too lazy to cook at home and make grcoery lists.... eat out at work because they are too lazy to brown bag.... they will continue to hold dear the same on fallacies baout money that they have, and continue to lose ground on the future- and they will pass the stupid onto their kids.... The wealthly in the country have already won in America, nearly 25% of the US economy is financial services.... how much does the Average scrock really know about the Stock Markets, Leveraged Buyouts, ETFs.... and thank your representative Government for being to lever to help create this environment... Big Government does not just help the people holding the hand out, it also serves the powerful to shape and mold the envronment they want... So middle classers, put your nose to the stone and think differently. Carve out your Kingdom. While the United States is becoming more about the Haves and Have Nots and that is getting worse, this in the one place where you can still live a GREAT life if you make the decision to do so- if you are flat broke in America, you are doign something wrong... are you really blaming the middle class for losing everything the past 30 years? really? i didnt know joe the plummer had so much power... no mention of globalization, neoliberalism, extreme downfall of union leverage in the private sector, massive deregulation of securitization and the psychotic selling of cdos and betting against them with no regs on aig..... when in doubt, blame poor people.... the deviation on the low end of this data is slight. doesn't that disqualify it from being characterized normal distribution in a statistical sense? and yes i realized what you meant. it just had nothing to do with my argument. does incentive need to be 100's of times average income? would you not be incentivized to work for double your current salary? apparently they ignore that in any economy there is both monetary incentive and moral incentive. if you can rip people off on wall st. thats great monetary incentive but fails the test of moral incentive. you need a balance of both... Edited June 12, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER
justnzane Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 What about the disparity in growth/loss by race? White Median -13.1% vs Non White Median -7.2% White Mean +9.2% vs Non White Median +22% Or did you not bother to look beyond the surface numbers? For those numbers, white people had more to lose than black (and other non-white) people to begin with. So, they would have a more dramatic median income loss. I assume you meant non-white mean in the second line. That could be explained to a small degree (in a stereotypical way) with higher numbers of Indian doctors, Asians in silicon valley, Blacks in rap/hip-hop/urban clothing, and Blacks in pro sports many of which coming from poorer backgrounds.
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 the deviation on the low end of this data is slight. doesn't that disqualify it from being characterized normal distribution in a statistical sense? Same thing I thought at first...until I considered that people can have negative net worth, and the distribution at THAT tail end is probably not slight. But you were thinking that net worth can't be less than zere. and yes i realized what you meant. it just had nothing to do with my argument. Yes, it did. You said: "the difference between mean and median, especially among the top 10% deserves comment. it doesn't require a statistics degree to guess the explanation." Except that, if it's a statistical artifact, it doesn't deserve comment...as anyone with a statistics degree could tell you. And just did. You !@#$ing moron.
Chef Jim Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 the deviation on the low end of this data is slight. doesn't that disqualify it from being characterized normal distribution in a statistical sense? and yes i realized what you meant. it just had nothing to do with my argument. does incentive need to be 100's of times average income? would you not be incentivized to work for double your current salary? Under this current administration I have no incentive to even double my income. I would be chastised for not paying my fair share. As an example my cap gains rate will go from 15% to 23.8%. That's more than a 50% increase. Where's the incentive in that? The middle class would just sit back and get their handouts.
B-Large Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 are you really blaming the middle class for losing everything the past 30 years? really? i didnt know joe the plummer had so much power... no mention of globalization, neoliberalism, extreme downfall of union leverage in the private sector, massive deregulation of securitization and the psychotic selling of cdos and betting against them with no regs on aig..... when in doubt, blame poor people.... apparently they ignore that in any economy there is both monetary incentive and moral incentive. if you can rip people off on wall st. thats great monetary incentive but fails the test of moral incentive. you need a balance of both... You took my entry to where we are today, divisive politcal rhetoric nonsense. What I suggesting is the Middle Classers need to take a active role in their lives, and decide how they can survive and thrive in the current climate. Middle Classers still hold the power in this country, which I find Ironic that the discussion around them is one of powerlessness. Middle Classer, IMHO, contribute to their own problems... for example, Walmart- people still flock in droves week after week to the very place that represents their downfall. WalMart heirs skim the Cream, enrich themselves, pay workers like crap, sell basically imported trash, and kill small business in commuinities... but people CRAVE CHEAP... and do not care as long as it is cheap... well, I hope you like your .99 cent shovel that breaks in 10 pushes, cause it is costing your neighbor a job.... I stick to my stance- buy American and local, if at all humanly possible. Reject imports if you can, buy from a small business who is American and hired Americans... spend your dollars (your power) on things and places that employee you and your neighbors. Vote for small Government, if at all possible vote for someone other than entreched ideologies of the R and D's... they're in the same game, the goals is power and money.... keep you money, don't empower the Cronies and lace thier buddies with green pockets. That is what I am saying. Don't get distratced but the Political nonsense, sharpen your fiscal pencil and start carving out your future...
Recommended Posts