4 ms·

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 m

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.
        adventured 12y ago
        That scenario is a fake one, it doesn't exist in reality, and it's a straw-man. Nowhere on earth, at any point in time, has it been common for a 24 or 26 year old to own a home. Among 30-34 year olds, the home ownership rate is above 50%. Among 25-29 year olds, it's still 37%, which is substantial. The stats say the vast majority of sub 30 adults are renting, not living at home with their parents. That group is the only majority renter group and has been for decades. 208 million people in the US live in a home that is owner occupied, and that represents 79.5 million homes. Those 79.5 million homes have a mere 2.6 people per home. It's blatantly obvious the 'common man' owns a home. 74 million of the US population are non-adults and can't qualify for home ownership typically. That leaves 240 million people. Just the fact that there are nearly 80 million homes that are owner occupied, proves my point. You can't have 80 million owner occupied homes, and pretend it's the minority, when the total sum of all households in the US is 123 million. There are 43 million households that are renter occupied, representing 104 million people. By definition these people are the uncommon, the minority.

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.
        adventured 12y ago
        That scenario is a fake one, it doesn't exist in reality, and it's a straw-man. Nowhere on earth, at any point in time, has it been common for a 24 or 26 year old to own a home. Among 30-34 year olds, the home ownership rate is above 50%. Among 25-29 year olds, it's still 37%, which is substantial. The stats say the vast majority of sub 30 adults are renting, not living at home with their parents. That group is the only majority renter group and has been for decades. 208 million people in the US live in a home that is owner occupied, and that represents 79.5 million homes. Those 79.5 million homes have a mere 2.6 people per home. It's blatantly obvious the 'common man' owns a home. 74 million of the US population are non-adults and can't qualify for home ownership typically. That leaves 240 million people. Just the fact that there are nearly 80 million homes that are owner occupied, proves my point. You can't have 80 million owner occupied homes, and pretend it's the minority, when the total sum of all households in the US is 123 million. There are 43 million households that are renter occupied, representing 104 million people. By definition these people are the uncommon, the minority.