12 ms·

> I'm surprised the average Americans (the 90%) don't get that they are providing insurance to the 86% wealth of the top 10%, but get almost none of the gains.

> I'm surprised the average Americans (the 90%) don't get that they are providing insurance to the 86% wealth of the top 10%, but get almost none of the gains. Are you so sure that they don't get this? I guess that many do understand it and either would like a much more inequality-reducing tax structure, or envision themselves as (somehow!) becoming part of the top 10%.

vadym909 6y ago
Ofcourse a small portion will always be ambitious, enterprising and expect to join the 10%. But we are all convinced (and I assumed this too) that the stock gains are good because it helps average Americans increase their 401k, but the stock ownership ratio is so skewed to affect the majority. If the stock market crashed, it wouldn't really afffect most American's net worth which is so interesting? I'm sure companies will shut down and there's be trickle down job losses but that can happen in stock boom times too (like now). A quick Google search showed where this number comes from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-e...
folkhack 6y ago
> or envision themselves as (somehow!) becoming part of the top 10% I don't disagree with you but want to add some insight to this... My entire life I've been told the lie that if I "just work harder" I can be rich etc. Most of America thinks about themselves in this same way, and it's taken me years of traditional employment + risky startup opportunities to realize that no, success is not guaranteed if you "just work hard"... Honestly you just get nailed with the majority of work as an IC who's trying to crank it out vs. your peers who are off having "dev beers" at the trendy bar down the road. The peers that I see that are "well off" often had huge monetary injections from their parents in either fully-paid education, first houses, vehicles, incestuous "investments" in their business, etc. Now, those same people that had everything handed to them on a silver platter are invested, some own rental properties, etc. to the point that they can choose not to work for long periods of time to just collect dividends/rent. Funny part - they still define themselves as people who have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps! So yea - in the US we have a really unhealthy view/mentality around success and ignore the fact that the IT'S THE EXCEPTION for someone to truly "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" into any sort of significant wealth. Truth is most "rich" people had an incredible amount of external financial support and stability to get themselves there and maintain it. Bring the downvotes, because you're darn tootin' I'm bitter about all of this.
- thechao 6y ago
  The original formulation of the statement of “work hard and you’ll make it” was created in the context of 17th-19th c. Europe, where no matter how hard you worked, if you weren’t landed gentry, you simply could not make it. The idea was that any opportunity existed. The universalist position you described is a rosy reimagining of a history that never was.
  - folkhack 6y ago
    This is super interesting to me and I would actually love to learn the origins of this... do you have any resources you may be able link? Books, articles etc.
  - neskiredk 6y ago
    Precisely, My ancestors left Denmark and Sweden. Hundreds of thousands left doing the later period of the 19th century. Mainly because how the land was distributed and taxed in such a way that you could never get ahead.
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  Nice anecdotes! Here’s some more. Everyone I know who’s “made it”, top 10% came from poor or lower-middle class beginnings. Probably more a factor of where you came from, who you know, etc.
  - folkhack 6y ago
    This seems incredibly dismissive of what I was trying to say with your whole "nice anecdotes!" bit. Obviously it's situational.
- kazen44 6y ago
  what seems very weird to me (as a non US citizen), is that most working class people in the US seem convinced the 'american dream' is synonymous with being a millionare/billionare and introducing legalization to level the playing field of the latter will hurt their own changes at becoming part of the former. It might also be the reason social democratic/socialistic parties never got a foothold in the US post world war 2.
rvcdbn 6y ago
"39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 % of the income distribution, 56 % will find themselves in the top 10%, and 73% percent will spend a year in the top 20 %." from https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d8f00bc0cb46 https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d...:
- sidlls 6y ago
  What are these numbers actually taken from? I'm betting the vast majority of this is counting the sale of a home or a one-time windfall (e.g. small inheritance, gambling winnings) as income for "a year", but I'm not going to buy the book just to see.
  - shuckles 6y ago
    Russ Roberts has a fairly thorough treatment of composition effects impacting income statistics: https://medium.com/@russroberts/do-the-rich-capture-all-the-gains-from-economic-growth-c96d93101f9c https://medium.com/@russroberts/do-the-rich-capture-all-the-...
- refurb 6y ago
  Thanks for the link. These stats just backup what I've always heard - the top 10%, 1%, whatever, is not static. Neither is the bottom 10%. Many people usually start their careers at the bottom (i.e. college student working part time) and then eventually make it into the middle class and plenty make it further than that. Of course, some never make it out of poverty.
  - quadrangle 6y ago
    I've heard otherwise that this mobility (which nobody denies exists) is about the lowest it has ever been and growing more static. I'm sure some searches about social mobility stats would bring up lots of stuff.
    - refurb 6y ago
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
If every American worker started buying $100 worth of stock per month, they could start chiseling at that 86% number. Not every worker has the financial means to do so, but many could if they practiced financial constraint (delaying consumption now, in exchange for greater consumption later). To the extent it is feasible, it would be wonderful to see Americans fight back against wealth inequality by buying the ownership. Imagine how much progress towards equality could be made. Each household makes a choice with how to spend their money.
- birdyrooster 6y ago
  Considering many American workers are in debt with high interest rate products (sub-prime car loans and credit cards), those would first have to pay the interest on their debt on top of the capital gains on the $100 when they sold it (provided they invest wisely). In other words, it makes no sense to invest when the return wont consistently match your debt interest payments.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    Depends on the type of debt, which is individual to the consumer. Mortgage, auto, and student loan debt compose 88% of consumer debt. [0] These types of debt typically have low interest rates. Market returns for the past decade have exceeded the interest rates. Paying the minimums, and investing the difference? The consumer would be ahead. 12-15% YoY stock returns compound faster than 4% mortgage debt. [0]: https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/research/consumer-debt-study/ https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/research/consume...
    - dharma1 6y ago
      I don't think it's wise to project guaranteed 13-15% stock market returns, or suggest it's better than paying off debt. It may have been the case last few years of the cycle, but may well not be the case for the next 5 years.
    - maest 6y ago
      You're arguing for taking out loans to invest in the stock market, which sounds irresponsible to me.
zeruch 6y ago
It's more the latter I suspect. The fear that they can't become art of the elite if they reform the system currently keeping them from being the elite anyway doesn't register with a surprisingly large number of folk.
Blammar 6y ago
Possibly because they haven't read this book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealthy_Barber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealthy_Barber) or understood it.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  The Richest Man In Babylon is going to apply for the next decade, but all the negativity about romantic investments is countered by the billions being made in romantic investments. It's the wet blanket approach, it only has ten percent to consistently soak up in the flood times. When you have to make money by creating something, it breaks down. It can't handle Bitcoin, space rockets, jordan peterson, self driving cars, hyperloop, neuralink, starlink, ect. There's huge and reliable money to be made riding the flame. Or rather there was, it's all about to be flooded out and those of us who don't like being formless, liquid money & stock chasers will have to wait for the next desert to appear in fifteen years time.

vadym909 6y ago

Ofcourse a small portion will always be ambitious, enterprising and expect to join the 10%. But we are all convinced (and I assumed this too) that the stock gains are good because it helps average Americans increase their 401k, but the stock ownership ratio is so skewed to affect the majority. If the stock market crashed, it wouldn't really afffect most American's net worth which is so interesting? I'm sure companies will shut down and there's be trickle down job losses but that can happen in stock boom times too (like now). A quick Google search showed where this number comes from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-e...

folkhack 6y ago

> or envision themselves as (somehow!) becoming part of the top 10% I don't disagree with you but want to add some insight to this... My entire life I've been told the lie that if I "just work harder" I can be rich etc. Most of America thinks about themselves in this same way, and it's taken me years of traditional employment + risky startup opportunities to realize that no, success is not guaranteed if you "just work hard"... Honestly you just get nailed with the majority of work as an IC who's trying to crank it out vs. your peers who are off having "dev beers" at the trendy bar down the road. The peers that I see that are "well off" often had huge monetary injections from their parents in either fully-paid education, first houses, vehicles, incestuous "investments" in their business, etc. Now, those same people that had everything handed to them on a silver platter are invested, some own rental properties, etc. to the point that they can choose not to work for long periods of time to just collect dividends/rent. Funny part - they still define themselves as people who have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps! So yea - in the US we have a really unhealthy view/mentality around success and ignore the fact that the IT'S THE EXCEPTION for someone to truly "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" into any sort of significant wealth. Truth is most "rich" people had an incredible amount of external financial support and stability to get themselves there and maintain it. Bring the downvotes, because you're darn tootin' I'm bitter about all of this.

thechao 6y ago
The original formulation of the statement of “work hard and you’ll make it” was created in the context of 17th-19th c. Europe, where no matter how hard you worked, if you weren’t landed gentry, you simply could not make it. The idea was that any opportunity existed. The universalist position you described is a rosy reimagining of a history that never was.
- folkhack 6y ago
  This is super interesting to me and I would actually love to learn the origins of this... do you have any resources you may be able link? Books, articles etc.
- neskiredk 6y ago
  Precisely, My ancestors left Denmark and Sweden. Hundreds of thousands left doing the later period of the 19th century. Mainly because how the land was distributed and taxed in such a way that you could never get ahead.
eanzenberg 6y ago
Nice anecdotes! Here’s some more. Everyone I know who’s “made it”, top 10% came from poor or lower-middle class beginnings. Probably more a factor of where you came from, who you know, etc.
- folkhack 6y ago
  This seems incredibly dismissive of what I was trying to say with your whole "nice anecdotes!" bit. Obviously it's situational.
kazen44 6y ago
what seems very weird to me (as a non US citizen), is that most working class people in the US seem convinced the 'american dream' is synonymous with being a millionare/billionare and introducing legalization to level the playing field of the latter will hurt their own changes at becoming part of the former. It might also be the reason social democratic/socialistic parties never got a foothold in the US post world war 2.

rvcdbn 6y ago

"39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 % of the income distribution, 56 % will find themselves in the top 10%, and 73% percent will spend a year in the top 20 %." from https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d8f00bc0cb46 https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d...:

sidlls 6y ago
What are these numbers actually taken from? I'm betting the vast majority of this is counting the sale of a home or a one-time windfall (e.g. small inheritance, gambling winnings) as income for "a year", but I'm not going to buy the book just to see.
- shuckles 6y ago
  Russ Roberts has a fairly thorough treatment of composition effects impacting income statistics: https://medium.com/@russroberts/do-the-rich-capture-all-the-gains-from-economic-growth-c96d93101f9c https://medium.com/@russroberts/do-the-rich-capture-all-the-...
refurb 6y ago
Thanks for the link. These stats just backup what I've always heard - the top 10%, 1%, whatever, is not static. Neither is the bottom 10%. Many people usually start their careers at the bottom (i.e. college student working part time) and then eventually make it into the middle class and plenty make it further than that. Of course, some never make it out of poverty.
- quadrangle 6y ago
  I've heard otherwise that this mobility (which nobody denies exists) is about the lowest it has ever been and growing more static. I'm sure some searches about social mobility stats would bring up lots of stuff.
  - refurb 6y ago

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

If every American worker started buying $100 worth of stock per month, they could start chiseling at that 86% number. Not every worker has the financial means to do so, but many could if they practiced financial constraint (delaying consumption now, in exchange for greater consumption later). To the extent it is feasible, it would be wonderful to see Americans fight back against wealth inequality by buying the ownership. Imagine how much progress towards equality could be made. Each household makes a choice with how to spend their money.

birdyrooster 6y ago
Considering many American workers are in debt with high interest rate products (sub-prime car loans and credit cards), those would first have to pay the interest on their debt on top of the capital gains on the $100 when they sold it (provided they invest wisely). In other words, it makes no sense to invest when the return wont consistently match your debt interest payments.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  Depends on the type of debt, which is individual to the consumer. Mortgage, auto, and student loan debt compose 88% of consumer debt. [0] These types of debt typically have low interest rates. Market returns for the past decade have exceeded the interest rates. Paying the minimums, and investing the difference? The consumer would be ahead. 12-15% YoY stock returns compound faster than 4% mortgage debt. [0]: https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/research/consumer-debt-study/ https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/research/consume...
  - dharma1 6y ago
    I don't think it's wise to project guaranteed 13-15% stock market returns, or suggest it's better than paying off debt. It may have been the case last few years of the cycle, but may well not be the case for the next 5 years.
  - maest 6y ago
    You're arguing for taking out loans to invest in the stock market, which sounds irresponsible to me.

zeruch 6y ago

It's more the latter I suspect. The fear that they can't become art of the elite if they reform the system currently keeping them from being the elite anyway doesn't register with a surprisingly large number of folk.

Blammar 6y ago

Possibly because they haven't read this book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealthy_Barber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealthy_Barber) or understood it.

friendlybus 6y ago
The Richest Man In Babylon is going to apply for the next decade, but all the negativity about romantic investments is countered by the billions being made in romantic investments. It's the wet blanket approach, it only has ten percent to consistently soak up in the flood times. When you have to make money by creating something, it breaks down. It can't handle Bitcoin, space rockets, jordan peterson, self driving cars, hyperloop, neuralink, starlink, ect. There's huge and reliable money to be made riding the flame. Or rather there was, it's all about to be flooded out and those of us who don't like being formless, liquid money & stock chasers will have to wait for the next desert to appear in fifteen years time.