4 ms·

I would be interested to see how excluding lower class affects this percentage, only middle class and above. I suspect it would skew the percentage much higher.

I would be interested to see how excluding lower class affects this percentage, only middle class and above. I suspect it would skew the percentage much higher. I am a firm believer that the free and less regulated stock market and a smart and balanced portfolio is the best wealth creation tool Americans can tap into. The alternatives of savings accounts and CD's are laughably low yielding.

ionised 8y ago
> I would be interested to see how excluding lower class affects this percentage, only middle class and above. I suspect it would skew the percentage much higher. You say this like you think it somehow proves a point. > I am a firm believer that the free and less regulated stock market and a smart and balanced portfolio is the best wealth creation tool Americans can tap into. The alternatives of savings accounts and CD's are laughably low yielding. And I am a firm believer that most of these people do not have the resources or know-how to even begin doing this. Most are living paycheck to paycheck. And I'm amused at the idea of loosening regulations on financial services industries ever has any effect other than a massive transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the wealthy.
- nodesocket 8y ago
  > And I'm amused at the idea of loosening regulations on financial services industries ever has any effect other than a massive transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the wealthy. Fair and that's the fundamental difference in our political ideology. I subscribe that the role of US government is not to transfer wealth or interfere with the free market. If I am in a room with another person and I have five dollars in my pocket and the other person has one dollar, am I suppose to give the other person two dollars to make everybody whole? The writer of this article and bill might think so.
  - jfk13 8y ago
    > I subscribe that the role of US government is not to transfer wealth or interfere with the free market That may not directly be its role, but if it isn't at -- least to some degree -- an outcome of the government's activity, then I think we're in trouble. To a first approximation, wealth = power; and human nature being what it is, those who have wealth (and therefore power) will tend, in the absence of control/restraint from government, to use that wealth and power to gather more wealth and power for themselves, without regard for any impact (often negative) on those who have less. Governments (in my opinion) have a responsibility to protect and help those who, for all kinds of reasons, do not have the wealth or power to adequately take care of themselves. That doesn't mean arbitrary handouts. But it does mean that a relatively larger share of centrally-managed resources should be directed towards helping those who need it most. And so I'd expect one of the results of a well-run government to be a tendency to reverse some of the flow of wealth towards those who already have it.
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      Since wealth and power can be freely converted from one to the other, in order to maintain some semblance of a society where power is roughly equally distributed among the people, it is necessary to ensure that wealth is also roughly evenly shared among the people.
- ams6110 8y ago
  It takes very little sophistication or resources to set up automatic savings into an IRA, invested in index funds. We should be teaching this in High School, but we don't.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    It does take a non-zero amount of money, though. Depending on your source, 49% [1], 76% [2], or 78% [3] [4] of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, implying that they have no savings available to be automated. 1: https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-money/jobs/survey-great-recession-aftershocks/ https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-money/jobs/survey-grea... 2: http://www.fox19.com/story/22676408/bankratecom-finds-76-of-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck http://www.fox19.com/story/22676408/bankratecom-finds-76-of-... 3: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck... 4: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-living-paycheck-to-paycheck/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-living-paycheck-to-pa...
    - MR4D 8y ago
      I've actually helped people out on welfare. One family had a big screen TV, everyone (even the kids) had cellphones, and so on. Some people are poor, but some are just dumb. I wish I could fix poor, but I can't fix stupid. And there is a lot of stupid around. I know many people who make a few hundred thousand dollars (in Texas, not silicon valley or NYC), and they live paycheck to paycheck. That's stupid, not poor. So when I see stats like that (thank you for the links), I always wonder what the real number is - how many are poor, and how many are just stupid.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      I often wonder how many of those same paycheck-to-paycheck Americans are driving leased cars, cars under 5 years old, smoking, own the latest smartphone, and/or are regularly eating/drinking out. I get that there are people living genuinely frugally and still struggling. It may just be observational bias, but I suspect there are a lot more people struggling who are not choosing to live frugally and where that choice would help them quite a bit.
ryandrake 8y ago
Obviously, excluding the lower or working class would increase the percentage, but that would further damage your claim that, "Working class Americans have lots of skin in the game." Whether or not the stock market and balanced portfolios are good wealth creation tools (I happen to believe they are too), most Americans do not take advantage of them, and therefore have no skin in the game.

ionised 8y ago

> I would be interested to see how excluding lower class affects this percentage, only middle class and above. I suspect it would skew the percentage much higher. You say this like you think it somehow proves a point. > I am a firm believer that the free and less regulated stock market and a smart and balanced portfolio is the best wealth creation tool Americans can tap into. The alternatives of savings accounts and CD's are laughably low yielding. And I am a firm believer that most of these people do not have the resources or know-how to even begin doing this. Most are living paycheck to paycheck. And I'm amused at the idea of loosening regulations on financial services industries ever has any effect other than a massive transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the wealthy.

nodesocket 8y ago
> And I'm amused at the idea of loosening regulations on financial services industries ever has any effect other than a massive transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the wealthy. Fair and that's the fundamental difference in our political ideology. I subscribe that the role of US government is not to transfer wealth or interfere with the free market. If I am in a room with another person and I have five dollars in my pocket and the other person has one dollar, am I suppose to give the other person two dollars to make everybody whole? The writer of this article and bill might think so.
- jfk13 8y ago
  > I subscribe that the role of US government is not to transfer wealth or interfere with the free market That may not directly be its role, but if it isn't at -- least to some degree -- an outcome of the government's activity, then I think we're in trouble. To a first approximation, wealth = power; and human nature being what it is, those who have wealth (and therefore power) will tend, in the absence of control/restraint from government, to use that wealth and power to gather more wealth and power for themselves, without regard for any impact (often negative) on those who have less. Governments (in my opinion) have a responsibility to protect and help those who, for all kinds of reasons, do not have the wealth or power to adequately take care of themselves. That doesn't mean arbitrary handouts. But it does mean that a relatively larger share of centrally-managed resources should be directed towards helping those who need it most. And so I'd expect one of the results of a well-run government to be a tendency to reverse some of the flow of wealth towards those who already have it.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    Since wealth and power can be freely converted from one to the other, in order to maintain some semblance of a society where power is roughly equally distributed among the people, it is necessary to ensure that wealth is also roughly evenly shared among the people.
ams6110 8y ago
It takes very little sophistication or resources to set up automatic savings into an IRA, invested in index funds. We should be teaching this in High School, but we don't.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  It does take a non-zero amount of money, though. Depending on your source, 49% [1], 76% [2], or 78% [3] [4] of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, implying that they have no savings available to be automated. 1: https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-money/jobs/survey-great-recession-aftershocks/ https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-money/jobs/survey-grea... 2: http://www.fox19.com/story/22676408/bankratecom-finds-76-of-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck http://www.fox19.com/story/22676408/bankratecom-finds-76-of-... 3: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck... 4: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-living-paycheck-to-paycheck/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-living-paycheck-to-pa...
  - MR4D 8y ago
    I've actually helped people out on welfare. One family had a big screen TV, everyone (even the kids) had cellphones, and so on. Some people are poor, but some are just dumb. I wish I could fix poor, but I can't fix stupid. And there is a lot of stupid around. I know many people who make a few hundred thousand dollars (in Texas, not silicon valley or NYC), and they live paycheck to paycheck. That's stupid, not poor. So when I see stats like that (thank you for the links), I always wonder what the real number is - how many are poor, and how many are just stupid.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    I often wonder how many of those same paycheck-to-paycheck Americans are driving leased cars, cars under 5 years old, smoking, own the latest smartphone, and/or are regularly eating/drinking out. I get that there are people living genuinely frugally and still struggling. It may just be observational bias, but I suspect there are a lot more people struggling who are not choosing to live frugally and where that choice would help them quite a bit.

ryandrake 8y ago

Obviously, excluding the lower or working class would increase the percentage, but that would further damage your claim that, "Working class Americans have lots of skin in the game." Whether or not the stock market and balanced portfolios are good wealth creation tools (I happen to believe they are too), most Americans do not take advantage of them, and therefore have no skin in the game.