4 ms·

I can't find numbers on how many Americans own homes, but 67% of homes are occupied by their owner. That's quite a large aristocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/

I can't find numbers on how many Americans own homes, but 67% of homes are occupied by their owner. That's quite a large aristocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_St... 52% own stocks. http://www.gallup.com/poll/162353/stock-ownership-stays-record-low.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/162353/stock-ownership-stays-reco... I'm too lazy to google bonds and gold (both easily available to anyone with a brokerage account). The means to success seem pretty accessible based on these numbers.

hkmurakami 12y ago
Perhaps share of land / stocks / debts owned may be a better metric. Also, home ownership should be replaced with home equity ownership.
tormeh 12y ago
I think he meant that money-convertible assets, like land, bonds and shares are more important for the future increase in those assets than brains or education. Anyway, the bank usually own your house, not you. You're not a free man until you own your home and workplace debt-free.
Retric 12y ago
Thee is a meaningless difference between renting and owning 50+% the value of your home. Looks for the % of Americans that own 95% of their home and try again. PS: Out of 300 million There are under ~21 million households that own their home actually own their home.
- adaml_623 12y ago
  link for figures please :-)
  - Retric 12y ago
    Google: "home ownership without mortgage" There was a few pages with similar numbers. EX:"More than 20 million American homeowners own their homes outright. No mortgage." http://www.cnbc.com/id/100370046# http://www.cnbc.com/id/100370046#. I used under 21 because there seems to be diffirent definitions of home owner. IE if you get a reverse mortgage are you still a home owner, how about a small home equity line of credit, own 2 houses and have more than 1 house of equity etc.
- TheCondor 12y ago
  Actually, there is a very substantial difference. The world recognizes and honors that 50%. Particularly the credit markets do and in a liquidity event, you walk with the 50% in cash. Now if you were to just up and stop paying your debts, you can lose it.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Assuming the market does not tank. Plenty of homes have lost more than 50% of their value.
- transfire 12y ago
  Even when you "own" your home you don't really --try not paying those property taxes and see what happens.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>I can't find numbers on how many Americans own homes, but 67% of homes are occupied by their owner ...who has usually taken out a huge loan for the privilege, providing a stream of rents to the, uh, real aristocracy. >52% own stocks. Probably less than 1% could actually live off what they own, however, and rely primarily upon their labor for their income. >The means to success seem pretty accessible based on these numbers. Yes, well you intentionally made these numbers misleading didn't you? You didn't count the number of Americans whose incomes are derived wholly or nearly wholly from rents. You counted the proportion of Americans who owned at least one share. As for owning one's home... were medieval peasants who owned a sliver of land aristocracy? According to you it sounds like it.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  were medieval peasants who owned a sliver of land aristocracy? According to you it sounds like it. I find the whole concept of "aristocracy" as applied to the US nonsensical. Aristocracy is a form of government (rule by "the best"), and we simply don't have it. The fact that your mortgage payments go to a servicer who funnels it to a CDO who funnels it to Calpers doesn't mean that members of Calpers are aristocratic rulers of the US. And let me remind you that the mortgage holders don't necessarily own any land.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >I find the whole concept of "aristocracy" as applied to the US nonsensical. Of course you do. >Aristocracy is a form of government (rule by "the best"), and we simply don't have it. The fact that your mortgage payments go to a servicer who funnels it to a CDO who funnels it to Calpers doesn't mean that members of Calpers are aristocratic rulers of the US. Nope, the fact that the 1% own vastly more than Calpers or any other pension fund does mean that, though.

hkmurakami 12y ago

Perhaps share of land / stocks / debts owned may be a better metric. Also, home ownership should be replaced with home equity ownership.

tormeh 12y ago

I think he meant that money-convertible assets, like land, bonds and shares are more important for the future increase in those assets than brains or education. Anyway, the bank usually own your house, not you. You're not a free man until you own your home and workplace debt-free.

Retric 12y ago

Thee is a meaningless difference between renting and owning 50+% the value of your home. Looks for the % of Americans that own 95% of their home and try again. PS: Out of 300 million There are under ~21 million households that own their home actually own their home.

adaml_623 12y ago
link for figures please :-)
- Retric 12y ago
  Google: "home ownership without mortgage" There was a few pages with similar numbers. EX:"More than 20 million American homeowners own their homes outright. No mortgage." http://www.cnbc.com/id/100370046# http://www.cnbc.com/id/100370046#. I used under 21 because there seems to be diffirent definitions of home owner. IE if you get a reverse mortgage are you still a home owner, how about a small home equity line of credit, own 2 houses and have more than 1 house of equity etc.
TheCondor 12y ago
Actually, there is a very substantial difference. The world recognizes and honors that 50%. Particularly the credit markets do and in a liquidity event, you walk with the 50% in cash. Now if you were to just up and stop paying your debts, you can lose it.
- Retric 12y ago
  Assuming the market does not tank. Plenty of homes have lost more than 50% of their value.
transfire 12y ago
Even when you "own" your home you don't really --try not paying those property taxes and see what happens.

crdoconnor 12y ago

>I can't find numbers on how many Americans own homes, but 67% of homes are occupied by their owner ...who has usually taken out a huge loan for the privilege, providing a stream of rents to the, uh, real aristocracy. >52% own stocks. Probably less than 1% could actually live off what they own, however, and rely primarily upon their labor for their income. >The means to success seem pretty accessible based on these numbers. Yes, well you intentionally made these numbers misleading didn't you? You didn't count the number of Americans whose incomes are derived wholly or nearly wholly from rents. You counted the proportion of Americans who owned at least one share. As for owning one's home... were medieval peasants who owned a sliver of land aristocracy? According to you it sounds like it.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
were medieval peasants who owned a sliver of land aristocracy? According to you it sounds like it. I find the whole concept of "aristocracy" as applied to the US nonsensical. Aristocracy is a form of government (rule by "the best"), and we simply don't have it. The fact that your mortgage payments go to a servicer who funnels it to a CDO who funnels it to Calpers doesn't mean that members of Calpers are aristocratic rulers of the US. And let me remind you that the mortgage holders don't necessarily own any land.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >I find the whole concept of "aristocracy" as applied to the US nonsensical. Of course you do. >Aristocracy is a form of government (rule by "the best"), and we simply don't have it. The fact that your mortgage payments go to a servicer who funnels it to a CDO who funnels it to Calpers doesn't mean that members of Calpers are aristocratic rulers of the US. Nope, the fact that the 1% own vastly more than Calpers or any other pension fund does mean that, though.