7 ms·

The stock market and housing prices are higher than ever, so a large part of the population is doing good. Not just the elites have benefited from the spoils, p

by nikanj 6y ago

The stock market and housing prices are higher than ever, so a large part of the population is doing good. Not just the elites have benefited from the spoils, people with retirement portfolios and paid-off houses are sitting nice and flush.

boringg 6y ago
Also a pretty broad brush to paint a whole "class" of people that being the "elites".
habosa 6y ago
84% of wealth in the stock market is in the hands of the top 10% Not sure about housing.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Can you provide source for these numbers?
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    It's always interesting to me when people react like this to an internet comment without sharing any research they did themselves. To me a forum like this is like when I'd be sitting around in uni wondering aloud about some problem and someone will say "Well, maybe if you use the fact that the functions which invert the sign of the √2 and √3 parts in Q(√2, √3) are automorphisms, then you can see that the group containing them and their composition is just Z2×Z2". The truth of that part isn't important. It's the fact that it's a good faith hint. It's my job to go find the truth given this mild heuristic. They're the ones doing me the favour so I have to contribute in order to get more information. In this case, I can attempt to find an error in the proof or to ask clarification. But if I were to ask them to write out a proof then I'm being a fool and I'll get fewer hints from them in future. I noticed that most people who really know their field don't cite their assertions. It makes sense. So now I'm not surprised when people don't provide a citation. It's just a hint. They didn't sign up to be my tutor.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      It's always interesting to me when people react like this to an internet comment without sharing any research they did themselves. I didn't do any particular research here, because it conflicts with the preexisting knowledge I have about the subject, and because my experience tells me that figures like these, which can be, and especially when they actually are used to further political narrative, are often misleading, and/or wrong. However, I didn't want to accuse the commenter of any bias or misconduct, hence I phrased my question to leave out my skepticism. The truth of that part isn't important. It's the fact that it's a good faith hint. You actually hit the spot: you can assume good faith when sitting around in uni and asking people to help you calculate Galois groups. You cannot assume good faith when talking to strangers online on politically charged topics: even if they are themselves operating in good faith, it is highly likely that they were fed, as you call them, "hints", by bad faith actors. Hence, I ask for sources. I noticed that most people who really know their field don't cite their assertions. It makes sense. So now I'm not surprised when people don't provide a citation. That's because they can rely on their authority and experience to establish trust, and they have reputation to protect in case their assertions are actually completely wrong. None of this is true when talking to random, anonymous people online.
- l3v3ll 6y ago
  I was about to comment the same. The parent saying “not just the elites have benefited” is ignorant. https://money.com/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/ https://money.com/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/
- Kranar 6y ago
  I did not believe this to be true, but after researching it turns out that your figure is accurate for 2016 and that it's likely only gotten worse since then. Page 19 of this document produced by the NBER states that indeed, the wealthiest 10% own 84% of all publicly traded stocks, mutual funds, trusts, or various pension account assets: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24085/w24085.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24085/w240... It has many other interesting insights that are worth quickly reading through, for example you mention you are unsure about housing, but that report says the top 10% own 41% of all housing in the U.S. The other interesting figure is debt, where the top 10% owe 28% of all debt.
  - l3v3ll 6y ago
    Thanks for the link. I’m on mobile and only got a second hand source on my comment below. I totally agree it must be worse now. It would be interesting to see the latest numbers.
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    67.4% of Americans own a home. You don't need to be in the be in the top 10% to benefit. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
      That's not exactly what "home ownership rate" means. Home ownership rate is the proportion of occupied homes which are owned by their occupants. If your town has one hundred occupied homes, then 67 of those occupied homes would be owned (or being paid for on mortgagee) by the people living inside. Adult children living at home, adults living in homes with roommates, people underwater on their mortgage, etc would all count towards a higher home ownership rate.
      - WillPostForFood 6y ago
        Rising housing prices help people underwater on their mortgage get above water.
- npmaile 6y ago
  Much of that stock market wealth is tied up in the retirement accounts of people who are about to retire or are retired. A large portion of it is the elites without a doubt, but much of it is just people who've been contributing to a 401k for the last 50 years. Obviously they should both be in the upper percentages of income/wealth as well as own much of the stock market. They've been contributing for years and years.
- iphorde 6y ago
  Yea, this isn't true. Most of the money in the markets are from the average Joe's 401k, or pension. Wealthy people put their wealth to work in private equity, or venture capital. I am just disgusted at how incompetent people are, and how they reiterate what they heard from CNN, Foxnews, or morons like Ron Paul. Now, Banks, and Funds manage large amounts of cash, but again, Pensions and 401k's make up the most of it.
  - glial 6y ago
    > Most of the money in the markets are from the average Joe's 401k, or pension. Can you provide a source for that? I looked for one and couldn’t find one, but if you had one I would love to read it.
    - iphorde 6y ago
      People are stupid, they're unable to do basic math. https://www.statista.com/statistics/940498/assets-retirement-plans-by-type-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/940498/assets-retirement... Pensions and 401ks, etc were valued at $32 trillion. https://siblisresearch.com/data/us-stock-market-value/ https://siblisresearch.com/data/us-stock-market-value/ The total stock market value is only $36 trillion. Jesus people are fucking stupid. You can calculuate the value of the market yourself btw. It is really simple. How basic math could save everyone, but honestly, you are all that stupid. Please, keep watching CNN, and MSNBC.
  - l3v3ll 6y ago
    Yea, it IS true. Do you have a source? The comment above you has a source that includes > the wealthiest 10% own 84% of all publicly traded stocks, mutual funds, trusts, or various pension account assets Looks like pensions are included and mutual funds which are likely a majority of 401Ks.
  - Mc_Big_G 6y ago
    >Most of the money in the markets are from the average Joe's 401k, or pension This is just an assertion.
- esoterica 6y ago
  10% of the population is 33 million people. There's a sleight-of-hand going on here where people whine about a tiny number of billionaires and CEOs screwing over the masses and then point to statistics that actual show the average upper middle class household doing very well. I bet a large fraction of the posters on here who complain about being oppressed by economic inequality are themselves part of the top 10% too (and have benefited greatly from the trend towards more inequality).
  - l3v3ll 6y ago
    Quit down playing the inequality. Let me make the math easier. Of 10 people, one owns 86% of the stock. The other 9 fight for the other 14%. You are trying to justify that and it’s unfortunate. Also, the few billionaires are still very much a problem. However, the top 10% still displays a large inequality, quite the opposite of “doing very well”. And, I’m glad there are 10%’ers who are pro-equality, they aren’t complaining about being oppressed. They are displaying solidarity with the less fortunate and I hope they are showing it by voting for pro equality measures and politicians (an oxy-moron, I know, but there’s a few good ones).
    - ryandrake 6y ago
      More like one owns 86% of the stock, 4.5 own no stock at all, and the remaining 4.5 fight it out. 45% of Americans do not own a shred of stock at all, including indirectly through mutual funds or retirement accounts [1]. 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
      - l3v3ll 6y ago
        True, it’s hard to relate to the people defending the status quo in these comments. I think I am usually pretty good at understanding the other side of the argument, but tough for me here.
BitwiseFool 6y ago
I won't dispute that retirement portfolios and people with real estate have done quite well. But I personally think that many of these people are only doing well on-paper. This is only speculation, and you may rightfully call me a doomer, but I feel like most of this wealth is virtual.
- jonkho 6y ago
  Hard assets such as real estate and buildings are hardly considered virtual. More real than printed up dollars I’d say.
jefurii 6y ago
> people with retirement portfolios and paid-off houses That's definitely not everyone.
nicoburns 6y ago
So there's also a generational divide. This isn't a good thing.
- Kranar 6y ago
  Well of course there is a generational divide and it's a great thing and exactly what one should expect. Someone who is 60 years old has had approximately 30-35 years worth of time to invest and accumulate assets compared to someone 30 years old who has only had 5-10 years worth of time. What would you have expected to see in the alternative?
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    At least in the UK it's a lot more uneven than that. House prices have increased far far above inflation over the 20th century (not entirely evenly). So those who invested in property at low prices are now sitting on large nest eggs, while young people are unable to make similar investments as they are already priced out of the market.
    - Kranar 6y ago
      Sure but that's because a house in London is a fundamentally different asset today than it was say 30-40 years ago. I live in Toronto and people in my generation complain about housing prices here as well, that their parents bought a house for super cheap back in the 70s and 80s and now they have no chance to afford anything. What's not discussed is that these cities were much smaller back then, had far fewer services both private and government, had much higher crime and pollution and a host of issues that have all been substantially ameliorated over the decades, specifically the 90s. If people want the experience that their parents had to find cheap housing, then they have to move to a location that is in a similar state today that London or Toronto was in 30 years ago. Those places do exist and there's no shortage of affordable and cheap housing in Canada, many parts of the U.S., and I suspect the UK. The problem is that what people my generation really want are all the benefits that have come over the past 3-4 decades without the cost of paying for those benefits, and that's just not likely to happen.
cpursley 6y ago
Paid off houses? Mortgage rates are under 3% meaning people doing well can deploy that savings and cash into the stock market, other investments, furthering the wealth gap. No reason to pay off property when money is this cheap.
minimuffins 6y ago
> The stock market and housing prices are higher than ever, so a large part of the population is doing good. confusing the map for the terrain
jbay808 6y ago
"Higher" is measured in dollars, so isn't a high stock market and housing price consistent with the US dollar simply decreasing in value? If wages haven't risen in proportion, then this doesn't seem like a win.

by nikanj 6y ago

boringg 6y ago

Also a pretty broad brush to paint a whole "class" of people that being the "elites".

habosa 6y ago

84% of wealth in the stock market is in the hands of the top 10% Not sure about housing.

xyzzyz 6y ago
Can you provide source for these numbers?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  It's always interesting to me when people react like this to an internet comment without sharing any research they did themselves. To me a forum like this is like when I'd be sitting around in uni wondering aloud about some problem and someone will say "Well, maybe if you use the fact that the functions which invert the sign of the √2 and √3 parts in Q(√2, √3) are automorphisms, then you can see that the group containing them and their composition is just Z2×Z2". The truth of that part isn't important. It's the fact that it's a good faith hint. It's my job to go find the truth given this mild heuristic. They're the ones doing me the favour so I have to contribute in order to get more information. In this case, I can attempt to find an error in the proof or to ask clarification. But if I were to ask them to write out a proof then I'm being a fool and I'll get fewer hints from them in future. I noticed that most people who really know their field don't cite their assertions. It makes sense. So now I'm not surprised when people don't provide a citation. It's just a hint. They didn't sign up to be my tutor.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    It's always interesting to me when people react like this to an internet comment without sharing any research they did themselves. I didn't do any particular research here, because it conflicts with the preexisting knowledge I have about the subject, and because my experience tells me that figures like these, which can be, and especially when they actually are used to further political narrative, are often misleading, and/or wrong. However, I didn't want to accuse the commenter of any bias or misconduct, hence I phrased my question to leave out my skepticism. The truth of that part isn't important. It's the fact that it's a good faith hint. You actually hit the spot: you can assume good faith when sitting around in uni and asking people to help you calculate Galois groups. You cannot assume good faith when talking to strangers online on politically charged topics: even if they are themselves operating in good faith, it is highly likely that they were fed, as you call them, "hints", by bad faith actors. Hence, I ask for sources. I noticed that most people who really know their field don't cite their assertions. It makes sense. So now I'm not surprised when people don't provide a citation. That's because they can rely on their authority and experience to establish trust, and they have reputation to protect in case their assertions are actually completely wrong. None of this is true when talking to random, anonymous people online.
l3v3ll 6y ago
I was about to comment the same. The parent saying “not just the elites have benefited” is ignorant. https://money.com/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/ https://money.com/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/
Kranar 6y ago
I did not believe this to be true, but after researching it turns out that your figure is accurate for 2016 and that it's likely only gotten worse since then. Page 19 of this document produced by the NBER states that indeed, the wealthiest 10% own 84% of all publicly traded stocks, mutual funds, trusts, or various pension account assets: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24085/w24085.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24085/w240... It has many other interesting insights that are worth quickly reading through, for example you mention you are unsure about housing, but that report says the top 10% own 41% of all housing in the U.S. The other interesting figure is debt, where the top 10% owe 28% of all debt.
- l3v3ll 6y ago
  Thanks for the link. I’m on mobile and only got a second hand source on my comment below. I totally agree it must be worse now. It would be interesting to see the latest numbers.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  67.4% of Americans own a home. You don't need to be in the be in the top 10% to benefit. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    That's not exactly what "home ownership rate" means. Home ownership rate is the proportion of occupied homes which are owned by their occupants. If your town has one hundred occupied homes, then 67 of those occupied homes would be owned (or being paid for on mortgagee) by the people living inside. Adult children living at home, adults living in homes with roommates, people underwater on their mortgage, etc would all count towards a higher home ownership rate.
    - WillPostForFood 6y ago
      Rising housing prices help people underwater on their mortgage get above water.
npmaile 6y ago
Much of that stock market wealth is tied up in the retirement accounts of people who are about to retire or are retired. A large portion of it is the elites without a doubt, but much of it is just people who've been contributing to a 401k for the last 50 years. Obviously they should both be in the upper percentages of income/wealth as well as own much of the stock market. They've been contributing for years and years.
iphorde 6y ago
Yea, this isn't true. Most of the money in the markets are from the average Joe's 401k, or pension. Wealthy people put their wealth to work in private equity, or venture capital. I am just disgusted at how incompetent people are, and how they reiterate what they heard from CNN, Foxnews, or morons like Ron Paul. Now, Banks, and Funds manage large amounts of cash, but again, Pensions and 401k's make up the most of it.
- glial 6y ago
  > Most of the money in the markets are from the average Joe's 401k, or pension. Can you provide a source for that? I looked for one and couldn’t find one, but if you had one I would love to read it.
  - iphorde 6y ago
    People are stupid, they're unable to do basic math. https://www.statista.com/statistics/940498/assets-retirement-plans-by-type-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/940498/assets-retirement... Pensions and 401ks, etc were valued at $32 trillion. https://siblisresearch.com/data/us-stock-market-value/ https://siblisresearch.com/data/us-stock-market-value/ The total stock market value is only $36 trillion. Jesus people are fucking stupid. You can calculuate the value of the market yourself btw. It is really simple. How basic math could save everyone, but honestly, you are all that stupid. Please, keep watching CNN, and MSNBC.
- l3v3ll 6y ago
  Yea, it IS true. Do you have a source? The comment above you has a source that includes > the wealthiest 10% own 84% of all publicly traded stocks, mutual funds, trusts, or various pension account assets Looks like pensions are included and mutual funds which are likely a majority of 401Ks.
- Mc_Big_G 6y ago
  >Most of the money in the markets are from the average Joe's 401k, or pension This is just an assertion.
esoterica 6y ago
10% of the population is 33 million people. There's a sleight-of-hand going on here where people whine about a tiny number of billionaires and CEOs screwing over the masses and then point to statistics that actual show the average upper middle class household doing very well. I bet a large fraction of the posters on here who complain about being oppressed by economic inequality are themselves part of the top 10% too (and have benefited greatly from the trend towards more inequality).
- l3v3ll 6y ago
  Quit down playing the inequality. Let me make the math easier. Of 10 people, one owns 86% of the stock. The other 9 fight for the other 14%. You are trying to justify that and it’s unfortunate. Also, the few billionaires are still very much a problem. However, the top 10% still displays a large inequality, quite the opposite of “doing very well”. And, I’m glad there are 10%’ers who are pro-equality, they aren’t complaining about being oppressed. They are displaying solidarity with the less fortunate and I hope they are showing it by voting for pro equality measures and politicians (an oxy-moron, I know, but there’s a few good ones).
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    More like one owns 86% of the stock, 4.5 own no stock at all, and the remaining 4.5 fight it out. 45% of Americans do not own a shred of stock at all, including indirectly through mutual funds or retirement accounts [1]. 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
    - l3v3ll 6y ago
      True, it’s hard to relate to the people defending the status quo in these comments. I think I am usually pretty good at understanding the other side of the argument, but tough for me here.

BitwiseFool 6y ago

I won't dispute that retirement portfolios and people with real estate have done quite well. But I personally think that many of these people are only doing well on-paper. This is only speculation, and you may rightfully call me a doomer, but I feel like most of this wealth is virtual.

jonkho 6y ago
Hard assets such as real estate and buildings are hardly considered virtual. More real than printed up dollars I’d say.

jefurii 6y ago

> people with retirement portfolios and paid-off houses That's definitely not everyone.

nicoburns 6y ago

So there's also a generational divide. This isn't a good thing.

Kranar 6y ago
Well of course there is a generational divide and it's a great thing and exactly what one should expect. Someone who is 60 years old has had approximately 30-35 years worth of time to invest and accumulate assets compared to someone 30 years old who has only had 5-10 years worth of time. What would you have expected to see in the alternative?
- nicoburns 6y ago
  At least in the UK it's a lot more uneven than that. House prices have increased far far above inflation over the 20th century (not entirely evenly). So those who invested in property at low prices are now sitting on large nest eggs, while young people are unable to make similar investments as they are already priced out of the market.
  - Kranar 6y ago
    Sure but that's because a house in London is a fundamentally different asset today than it was say 30-40 years ago. I live in Toronto and people in my generation complain about housing prices here as well, that their parents bought a house for super cheap back in the 70s and 80s and now they have no chance to afford anything. What's not discussed is that these cities were much smaller back then, had far fewer services both private and government, had much higher crime and pollution and a host of issues that have all been substantially ameliorated over the decades, specifically the 90s. If people want the experience that their parents had to find cheap housing, then they have to move to a location that is in a similar state today that London or Toronto was in 30 years ago. Those places do exist and there's no shortage of affordable and cheap housing in Canada, many parts of the U.S., and I suspect the UK. The problem is that what people my generation really want are all the benefits that have come over the past 3-4 decades without the cost of paying for those benefits, and that's just not likely to happen.

cpursley 6y ago

Paid off houses? Mortgage rates are under 3% meaning people doing well can deploy that savings and cash into the stock market, other investments, furthering the wealth gap. No reason to pay off property when money is this cheap.

minimuffins 6y ago

> The stock market and housing prices are higher than ever, so a large part of the population is doing good. confusing the map for the terrain

jbay808 6y ago

"Higher" is measured in dollars, so isn't a high stock market and housing price consistent with the US dollar simply decreasing in value? If wages haven't risen in proportion, then this doesn't seem like a win.