4 ms·

I don’t know what to make of this statistic. Wealth begets wealth so this is not surprising. Stocks are not a limited scarce resource so it’s not like the top a

I don’t know what to make of this statistic. Wealth begets wealth so this is not surprising. Stocks are not a limited scarce resource so it’s not like the top are hoarding them. A more interesting stat would be to see if the bottom 90% increased their stock holdings or not. It would be a shame if that reduced for some population bracket.

worrycue 5y ago
> Stocks are not a limited scarce resource so it’s not like the top are hoarding them. How are stocks not a limited resource? I know companies occasionally issue new stock to rise capital for new business ventures but that doesn’t happen that often no?
- itake 5y ago
  Employees are paid in stock. New stock is issued regularly for them.
  - lexapro 5y ago
    It is still limited.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    That's a very SV view. 1% of US-based companies are publicly traded. And publicly trader companies only make up about 1/3 of national employment.
    - jldugger 5y ago
      > 1% of US-based companies are publicly traded. Well, let's broaden the scope a bit then. Beyond simply issuing new shares, you can found a new company. This happens a lot, outside the bay, you just don't hear or think about it unless it's a VC backed firm hoping to make it huge. When it's a sole proprietorship, crickets. Perhaps this is fine, but there are different modes of ownership across the country.
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    “Employees are paid in stock” This is not true for the vast majority of employees and is a bit out of touch.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I think he was trying to say that they're liquid, so it's not like vc/private equity where you're locked out of the game until you're rich.
tshaddox 5y ago
One potential take-away is that aphorisms like “vote with your wallet” are a bit silly, assuming you’re nowhere near that top 10%.
- what_is_orcas 5y ago
  This is complicated. I live in a poor neighborhood in a reasonably large city. I shop locally (even avoiding the more affluent neighborhoods), exclusively if possible, as a matter of voting with my wallet because the businesses in my neighborhood employ mostly local folks. At large scale, yeah, you're right. But for a small local business, one or two extra regular customers can be a bigger difference (drop in a bucket vs drop in the ocean). Even something like shopping at a local big-box supports the local proletariat more than shopping at Amazon, where the proletariat isn't guaranteed to be local at all (and to be clear: it's more about supporting the proletariat than the capitalists).
ResearchCode 5y ago
It doesn't if you tax capital gains properly. It's more important to speak of relative ownership as that reflects the change in power held by the 90% majority of Americans - it's vanishing before your eyes.
- paconbork 5y ago
  If the most important thing is relative ownership then it sounds like you would prefer the poor to be poorer, provided the rich were less rich
  - ResearchCode 5y ago
    Oh the poor is getting poorer in both ways when they for instance get priced out of the housing market. Wealth equality is a premise for long term prosperity of the majority. And it's a feedback system, next time they choose the red or blue pimp, their ballot will be worth less due to increase in lobbying money held by the 10-1-0.1% - lobbying money used to purchase tax cuts for the same 10-1-0.1%.
pwned1 5y ago
From the article: The bottom 90% of Americans held about 11% of stocks, and added $1.2 trillion in wealth during the Covid-19 pandemic. The top 10% saw the value of their stocks gain 43% between January 2020 and June of 2021, according to the Fed. The bottom 90% saw stock wealth rise at a lower rate — 33%.
- drdec 5y ago
  Part of the phenomenon in the 2nd paragraph might be the way the data is picked, in the same way you might find that a basketball team averages 8 more points per game in wins vs losses.
newacct583 5y ago
> Stocks are not a limited scarce resource so it’s not like the top are hoarding them. Securities are by definition limited. Splits and IPOs are the only places stocks are born, and those are carefully regulated. And... while the language is inflammatory, it seems to me like the top are meeting the definition of "hoarding" them. That's what owning 89% of something means.
louis___ 5y ago
To me, this simply shows how inequal the american society has become, and how the stock market amplifies it. You can have an impact on the real economy with stocks. Look at what happened with GameStop. But that impact is done and decided by the wealthiest, who will reap the benefits of it. But if you live paychecks by paychecks, having no money to put into stocks, you just suffer the consequences of this impact.

worrycue 5y ago

> Stocks are not a limited scarce resource so it’s not like the top are hoarding them. How are stocks not a limited resource? I know companies occasionally issue new stock to rise capital for new business ventures but that doesn’t happen that often no?

itake 5y ago
Employees are paid in stock. New stock is issued regularly for them.
- lexapro 5y ago
  It is still limited.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  That's a very SV view. 1% of US-based companies are publicly traded. And publicly trader companies only make up about 1/3 of national employment.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    > 1% of US-based companies are publicly traded. Well, let's broaden the scope a bit then. Beyond simply issuing new shares, you can found a new company. This happens a lot, outside the bay, you just don't hear or think about it unless it's a VC backed firm hoping to make it huge. When it's a sole proprietorship, crickets. Perhaps this is fine, but there are different modes of ownership across the country.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  “Employees are paid in stock” This is not true for the vast majority of employees and is a bit out of touch.
colinmhayes 5y ago
I think he was trying to say that they're liquid, so it's not like vc/private equity where you're locked out of the game until you're rich.

tshaddox 5y ago

One potential take-away is that aphorisms like “vote with your wallet” are a bit silly, assuming you’re nowhere near that top 10%.

what_is_orcas 5y ago
This is complicated. I live in a poor neighborhood in a reasonably large city. I shop locally (even avoiding the more affluent neighborhoods), exclusively if possible, as a matter of voting with my wallet because the businesses in my neighborhood employ mostly local folks. At large scale, yeah, you're right. But for a small local business, one or two extra regular customers can be a bigger difference (drop in a bucket vs drop in the ocean). Even something like shopping at a local big-box supports the local proletariat more than shopping at Amazon, where the proletariat isn't guaranteed to be local at all (and to be clear: it's more about supporting the proletariat than the capitalists).

ResearchCode 5y ago

It doesn't if you tax capital gains properly. It's more important to speak of relative ownership as that reflects the change in power held by the 90% majority of Americans - it's vanishing before your eyes.

paconbork 5y ago
If the most important thing is relative ownership then it sounds like you would prefer the poor to be poorer, provided the rich were less rich
- ResearchCode 5y ago
  Oh the poor is getting poorer in both ways when they for instance get priced out of the housing market. Wealth equality is a premise for long term prosperity of the majority. And it's a feedback system, next time they choose the red or blue pimp, their ballot will be worth less due to increase in lobbying money held by the 10-1-0.1% - lobbying money used to purchase tax cuts for the same 10-1-0.1%.

pwned1 5y ago

From the article: The bottom 90% of Americans held about 11% of stocks, and added $1.2 trillion in wealth during the Covid-19 pandemic. The top 10% saw the value of their stocks gain 43% between January 2020 and June of 2021, according to the Fed. The bottom 90% saw stock wealth rise at a lower rate — 33%.

drdec 5y ago
Part of the phenomenon in the 2nd paragraph might be the way the data is picked, in the same way you might find that a basketball team averages 8 more points per game in wins vs losses.

newacct583 5y ago

> Stocks are not a limited scarce resource so it’s not like the top are hoarding them. Securities are by definition limited. Splits and IPOs are the only places stocks are born, and those are carefully regulated. And... while the language is inflammatory, it seems to me like the top are meeting the definition of "hoarding" them. That's what owning 89% of something means.

louis___ 5y ago

To me, this simply shows how inequal the american society has become, and how the stock market amplifies it. You can have an impact on the real economy with stocks. Look at what happened with GameStop. But that impact is done and decided by the wealthiest, who will reap the benefits of it. But if you live paychecks by paychecks, having no money to put into stocks, you just suffer the consequences of this impact.