4 ms·

The wealthiest 10% of American households—those making more than $250,000 a year, roughly—are now responsible for half of all US consumer spending and at least

The wealthiest 10% of American households—those making more than $250,000 a year, roughly—are now responsible for half of all US consumer spending and at least a third of the country’s gross domestic product. As of Q3 2024, per https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr..., the wealth held by the top 10 percent was $107T. The other 90% was $52T. The top 10% has 67% of the wealth and only contributes half of consumer spending and a third of the GDP. They doing less than their fair share.

usernomdeguerre 2y ago
How does this compare to other developed nations currently? Or developing nations on the cusp of modernization? Is this a contemporary trend or an outlier?
cootsnuck 2y ago
But that doesn't go along with the narrative.
zuminator 2y ago
The Fed's chart is talking about actual wealth, but Bloomberg, despite saying "wealthiest," is really talking about the top 10% income earners. So it's not an equivalent comparison.
CrazyStat 2y ago
> They [are] doing less than their fair share. This wording makes it sound like consumer goods and services are the moral things to spend money on and wealthier individuals are slacking. This is silly. There are many good things other than consumer spending that wealthy people can and do spend their money on: capital investments for new or growing businesses, philanthropy, research, etc. etc. etc. In fact it would probably be better if wealthy people spent less money on consumer (luxury) goods and services and more on these other things—if they were, in your words, even farther from “their fair share.”
- throwaway5752 2y ago
  This is a fair reply, and I was being a little glib. This is in response to the facile premise and body of the article that seeks to defend wealth concentration. What is clear is that wealth disparity is making it hard for more than half of the country to meet basic needs, and they are not contributing towards consumer spending measures because they are unable to not because they are unwilling to. The article makes a much better case for updating the higher tax brackets, taxing income avoidance strategies more effectively, and using the proceeds to ease the load on the least wealthy half of americans so they are able to contribute to consumer spending and live happier and healthier lives. This is where behavioral, microeconomics, and macroeconomics meet up. You have to appreciate the stress on individuals and the social fabric that these figures imply.

usernomdeguerre 2y ago

How does this compare to other developed nations currently? Or developing nations on the cusp of modernization? Is this a contemporary trend or an outlier?

cootsnuck 2y ago

But that doesn't go along with the narrative.

zuminator 2y ago

The Fed's chart is talking about actual wealth, but Bloomberg, despite saying "wealthiest," is really talking about the top 10% income earners. So it's not an equivalent comparison.

CrazyStat 2y ago

> They [are] doing less than their fair share. This wording makes it sound like consumer goods and services are the moral things to spend money on and wealthier individuals are slacking. This is silly. There are many good things other than consumer spending that wealthy people can and do spend their money on: capital investments for new or growing businesses, philanthropy, research, etc. etc. etc. In fact it would probably be better if wealthy people spent less money on consumer (luxury) goods and services and more on these other things—if they were, in your words, even farther from “their fair share.”

throwaway5752 2y ago
This is a fair reply, and I was being a little glib. This is in response to the facile premise and body of the article that seeks to defend wealth concentration. What is clear is that wealth disparity is making it hard for more than half of the country to meet basic needs, and they are not contributing towards consumer spending measures because they are unable to not because they are unwilling to. The article makes a much better case for updating the higher tax brackets, taxing income avoidance strategies more effectively, and using the proceeds to ease the load on the least wealthy half of americans so they are able to contribute to consumer spending and live happier and healthier lives. This is where behavioral, microeconomics, and macroeconomics meet up. You have to appreciate the stress on individuals and the social fabric that these figures imply.