4 ms·

And yet, the US is producing more millionaires each year than every country except China. . . https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/financial_instit

And yet, the US is producing more millionaires each year than every country except China. . . https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/financial_institutions_business_unit_strategy_global_wealth_2014_riding_wave_growth/?chapter=2#chapter2_section3 https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/financial_i... The total number of millionaire households (in U.S. dollar terms) reached 16.3 million in 2013, up strongly from 13.7 million in 2012 and representing 1.1 percent of all households globally. The U.S. had the highest number of millionaire households (7.1 million), as well as the highest number of new millionaires (1.1 million).

littletimmy 12y ago
That's what the earlier post is getting at. There is a lot of wealth skew towards the top... so of course there are a lot more millionaires. It is the common man who didn't see any benefit from TARP.
- adventured 12y ago
  The common man saw a massive benefit from TARP, and all the other programs. Had the government & Fed not intervened, the common man would have seen his housing value vaporized. Mortgage rates would have - properly - skyrocketed to record highs, making it extraordinarily expensive to refinance a home or buy a new home. Such high mortgage rates would have crushed housing values even further, and it's unlikely there would have been any value recovery to this day. The common man would have lost trillions.
  - YokoZar 12y ago
    The common man rents. The better off common man buys a house in a market with now reinflated prices. If you're a buyer, low prices are better than lower interest rates. The winners were the narrower subset of Americans who skewed older and wealthier (enough to have already owned a home).
    - adventured 12y ago
      The common man does not rent in America. The home ownership rate is 65%. The common man owns a house, or lives in a family that does. "The homeownership rate is computed by dividing the number of owner-occupied housing units by the number of occupied housing units or households." http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_HSG445212.htm http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_HSG445212.htm
      - scarmig 12y ago
        So you're counting a 26 year old millennial living with their parents as a homeowner?
        adventured 12y ago
        No, and neither is the 65% home ownership rate.
        scarmig 12y ago
        So, let's say we add an additional 26 year old millennial to every household that's owner occupied (that 65% rate you cite). Does the home ownership rate go down, along with that absolute and percentage increase in the number of people who don't own a home?
        duskwuff 12y ago
        No; that doesn't factor into it at all. The home ownership rate is the percentage of occupied houses that are occupied by their owner, rather than being rented. It isn't affected at all by the number of people under each roof.
        scarmig 12y ago
        Which is exactly the point: the home ownership rate does not, contrary to its name, give a real description of what proportion of people own homes. It describes the proportion of homes that are owner-occupied, which is an entirely different thing. And if what we're trying to do is figure out what the common man (whatever that is) rents or owns, it's a terrible and misleading measure to use.

littletimmy 12y ago

That's what the earlier post is getting at. There is a lot of wealth skew towards the top... so of course there are a lot more millionaires. It is the common man who didn't see any benefit from TARP.

adventured 12y ago
The common man saw a massive benefit from TARP, and all the other programs. Had the government & Fed not intervened, the common man would have seen his housing value vaporized. Mortgage rates would have - properly - skyrocketed to record highs, making it extraordinarily expensive to refinance a home or buy a new home. Such high mortgage rates would have crushed housing values even further, and it's unlikely there would have been any value recovery to this day. The common man would have lost trillions.
- YokoZar 12y ago
  The common man rents. The better off common man buys a house in a market with now reinflated prices. If you're a buyer, low prices are better than lower interest rates. The winners were the narrower subset of Americans who skewed older and wealthier (enough to have already owned a home).
  - adventured 12y ago
    The common man does not rent in America. The home ownership rate is 65%. The common man owns a house, or lives in a family that does. "The homeownership rate is computed by dividing the number of owner-occupied housing units by the number of occupied housing units or households." http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_HSG445212.htm http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_HSG445212.htm
    - scarmig 12y ago
      So you're counting a 26 year old millennial living with their parents as a homeowner?
      - adventured 12y ago
        No, and neither is the 65% home ownership rate.
        scarmig 12y ago
        So, let's say we add an additional 26 year old millennial to every household that's owner occupied (that 65% rate you cite). Does the home ownership rate go down, along with that absolute and percentage increase in the number of people who don't own a home?
        duskwuff 12y ago
        No; that doesn't factor into it at all. The home ownership rate is the percentage of occupied houses that are occupied by their owner, rather than being rented. It isn't affected at all by the number of people under each roof.
        scarmig 12y ago
        Which is exactly the point: the home ownership rate does not, contrary to its name, give a real description of what proportion of people own homes. It describes the proportion of homes that are owner-occupied, which is an entirely different thing. And if what we're trying to do is figure out what the common man (whatever that is) rents or owns, it's a terrible and misleading measure to use.