3 ms·

> Editor's note: This story and chart were corrected to reflect that it is 93% of U.S. households' stock market wealth (not 93% of the stock market) that is hel

> Editor's note: This story and chart were corrected to reflect that it is 93% of U.S. households' stock market wealth (not 93% of the stock market) that is held by the wealthiest 10% of those households. This is actually kind of an important distinction. If you add back in things like pension funds that distributes things a lot more generously. Also, I am not sure if 1 in 10 people I know even own stock directly. 1/10th of the population is still a lot of people and it almost surely skews more by age than any other metric.

Retric 3y ago
Pensions don’t increase their payouts when the market is booming and you can’t include them in a will. So is it’s really not stock ownership as you just get the downsides without the upside.
- loeg 3y ago
  Is the goal financial security in retirement, or perfectly uniform stock market ownership distribution? Annuities suffer from similar problems but like, if the retiree has sufficient income, at the end of the day, who cares if they personally own part of the stock market? People see these power law distributions and are surprised? But like, do you actually want enforced uniform wealth (communism)?
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Communism is more like “off the books” wealth in a lot of ways. In capitalism the people who control sections of the economy “own” them in the same way one owns a shoe. In communism people still control sections of the economy, it just isn’t shown on paper. They do extract personal benefit from that control, it’s just in the form of a weird and inefficient black market barter system.
  - charred_patina 3y ago
    I think the issue is more that power laws distributions have a lot of negative externalities. Inequality is correlated with a lot of societal problems. > People see these power law distributions and are surprised? But like, do you actually want enforced uniform wealth (communism)? This is a really all-or-nothing take. A handful of people are arguing for enforced uniform wealth, most people are just pointing out that our current economic system is marginalizing a growing number of people each year, while enriching a handful of giga-wealthy individuals.
- cperciva 3y ago
  It depends? With defined contribution plans the payout absolutely depends on the market returns. Even with defined benefit plans there's an indirect connection -- with higher expected returns, employers will offer larger pensions.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    > with higher expected returns, employers will offer larger pensions. As you say, the carrot is held by the employer.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- refurb 3y ago
  Your money is still invested in the market.

Retric 3y ago

Pensions don’t increase their payouts when the market is booming and you can’t include them in a will. So is it’s really not stock ownership as you just get the downsides without the upside.

loeg 3y ago
Is the goal financial security in retirement, or perfectly uniform stock market ownership distribution? Annuities suffer from similar problems but like, if the retiree has sufficient income, at the end of the day, who cares if they personally own part of the stock market? People see these power law distributions and are surprised? But like, do you actually want enforced uniform wealth (communism)?
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Communism is more like “off the books” wealth in a lot of ways. In capitalism the people who control sections of the economy “own” them in the same way one owns a shoe. In communism people still control sections of the economy, it just isn’t shown on paper. They do extract personal benefit from that control, it’s just in the form of a weird and inefficient black market barter system.
- charred_patina 3y ago
  I think the issue is more that power laws distributions have a lot of negative externalities. Inequality is correlated with a lot of societal problems. > People see these power law distributions and are surprised? But like, do you actually want enforced uniform wealth (communism)? This is a really all-or-nothing take. A handful of people are arguing for enforced uniform wealth, most people are just pointing out that our current economic system is marginalizing a growing number of people each year, while enriching a handful of giga-wealthy individuals.
cperciva 3y ago
It depends? With defined contribution plans the payout absolutely depends on the market returns. Even with defined benefit plans there's an indirect connection -- with higher expected returns, employers will offer larger pensions.
- klyrs 3y ago
  > with higher expected returns, employers will offer larger pensions. As you say, the carrot is held by the employer.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
refurb 3y ago
Your money is still invested in the market.