Top 1% of Americans own 56% of US stock - Bottom 90% own just 12% of stock (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

It's quite a figure and the share held by the top 1% is growing. When you consider the free rein that corporations have to act politically and that those decisions are controlled almost exclusively by the extraordinarily wealthy in a board room where the corporation is legally bound to act in the interest of its shareholders (i.e. the 1%), what does that mean for the bottom 90%? Not in the top 1%? Sucks to be you.

The wealthiest US households are strengthening their grip over corporate America. The richest 1 per cent of Americans now account for more than half the value of equities owned by US households, according to Goldman Sachs. Since 1990, the wealthiest have bought a net $1.2tn in company stakes, while the rest of the population has sold more than $1tn.

Three decades ago, ownership was also lopsided, but the top percentage point of Americans by wealth only controlled 46 per cent of all US equities held by households. By the end of September 2019, that proportion had hit a record 56 per cent, amounting to $21.4tn, according to the investment bank’s calculations. That includes both public stock and ownership stakes in private companies.

“The wealthiest households have been by far the biggest driver of positive household equity demand,” Goldman Sachs analysts, led by Arjun Menon, said in the report.

“Accelerating US economic growth and rising stock prices should continue to support equity purchases by the top 1 per cent.” Recommended LexEquities World economy/stocks: Piketty is right Premium As of September 2019, the bottom 90 per cent owned $4.6tn of equities, or 12 per cent of the total, the analysts noted.

How America’s 1% came to dominate equity ownership

Wealthiest households have bought $1.2tn of company stakes since 1990

www.ft.com

 

[SystemShock]

It is taxed.

I support a 100% tax on all wealth above 10 million upon death.

I don’t think any of the first 10 million should be taxed.

Dead people don’t have rights, and hereditary wealth is the main driver of inequality on the planet.

Well, good for you, so generous with other people's money.

It would just make it impossible to not bail out corporations who make poor choices and collapse an industry.

... and you think there are poor people now living paycheck to paycheck. Had the government not bailed the banks 10 years ago...

 

[SystemShock]

I'd say, owning stock is not the end-all-be-all of wealth accumulation.

There are plenty of people out there who are very well off, have enough to retire comfortably, and own 0 shares of anything.

Plenty of people lose their shirts playing the stock market too.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

For any of these arguments about privatizing SS to make sense, it would help to use real concrete numbers for how much the low income worker would save in said account through retirement age using conservative compound interest estimates. And then compare the amount that the worker could withdraw from the count at retirement to pay for expenses to the defined benefits paid under the current SS system. If the worker would have more money, you may be on to something. If it would be less, you are not. But without real, projectable numbers based on evidence the theoretical argument is completely meaningless. I can say stuff like "poor people can save a million dollars if they try hard" and even mean it sincerely but it is empty if I don't show my work to verify the statement. I'd be arguing for the sake of arguing.

There is also, of course, the question of what would happen to someone who retires during a market crash like 2008 and whose savings can't cover their retirement expenses. Do we reinvent social security again? And, if so, what was the point of changing it in the first place?

Carry on though

 

[FWtex]

It's not about who the billionaires are (even if those people are democrats), it's about the policies that the people you are voting for push, support and vote for. When you use the correct lens to look at the issue and don't get hoodwink with right wing media, it's very easy to understand.

Why isn't that one of the primary issues (along with health care) on the right? Why don't people who vote for Republicans demand their representatives address and solve this issue, if they're the ones who represent the "common folk"? That was the point of my post anyway. This is very clearly and issue on the left.

The reason for my response to your post was that you asked why no republican in the 1% pushes a policy in regards to the income inequality. My response was to show that those talking about income inequality are those that are the biggest abusers of income inequality and all the talk about income inequality sure looks like a lot of talk and projection by those abusers.

The basics of conservatives is that if given the freedom and the will to be successful anyone willing to take the risk has a chance to financially prosper. If everyone has the same access to education they can put themselves or their kids on a path to prosper. That is why you do not hear any conservatives jumping into any debates about the democrats income inequality platform.

The basis of the democrats income inequality is that everyone that is in the lower income brackets are victims of a rigged system designed by the rich and the business owners to keep them down and as such the government has to step in and force businesses and the "rich" to open up opportunities. But instead of opening up opportunities the Democrats income inequality solutions cuts off opportunities because government red tape and taxes make starting a new business more difficult, and thus those already with established businesses have a heavy advantage to destroy new business that threaten their market.

That list I posted are the biggest abusers of killing new businesses that are a threat to their market. Those are the people with the speed dial numbers of those in government that will work to protect their financial interest. Those are the people who are staunch promoters of foreign workers and most support higher minimum wage laws, both policies that will hurt lower income and white collar American workers.

The higher minimum wage promotion is ridiculous, Sure it sounds great but it is an amateurish sucker ploy to make it sound like the rich policymakers are on the side of the workers. Why are they afraid to have a real debate about this? Here is the truth about an artificial minimum wage. You raise the minimum wage to $15 or $20 per hour and it looks great for those workers fro about a month maybe 6 months. Then what happens is the economy surrounding that new minimum wage catches up to it and that worker making $15 to $20 minimum wage is now right back where they were because rent eventually had to go up, grocery cost went up, the entertainment ticket cost went up, every thing they bought and consumed while they were living on their old wages increased as the new higher minimum wage propagated through the economy. And on top of that they are now paying higher taxes because taxes are a % of the cost of the higher purchase prices.

This idea of the Democrats that a higher minimum wage will operate in a vacuum of current cost and inflation is a joke but that is what they seem to be selling to their voters.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Usually when people claim that "those talking about income inequality are those that are the biggest abusers of income inequality" and list people like Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc., they would then be able to point to any comments any of those folks have ever made about income inequality. I can't find a single instance in which Jeff freaking Bezos, whose company pays no income tax and pays half of its workers less than $28k annually (i.e., less than $15/hour), has "talked about income inequality" and there seems to be little point in checking the rest. If you think that Republican Michael Bloomberg is running for the Democratic nomination to end income inequality and not to prevent Bernie Sanders from taking his money while running from a guillotine, I don't even know what there is to say.

Surely there is also evidence that all past minimum wage increases were rendered meaningless within 6 months. Right?

 

[coldseat]

The reason for my response to your post was that you asked why no republican in the 1% pushes a policy in regards to the income inequality. My response was to show that those talking about income inequality are those that are the biggest abusers of income inequality and all the talk about income inequality sure looks like a lot of talk and projection by those abusers.

Those aren't the primary or only people talking about income inequality. The people most talking about it are people like me, because it's a ridiculous disparity right now that can not be sustained. It's also unbelievably unjust. If those rich guys want to jump on board and support efforts to lower income inequality, then good.

The basics of conservatives is that if given the freedom and the will to be successful anyone willing to take the risk has a chance to financially prosper. If everyone has the same access to education they can put themselves or their kids on a path to prosper. That is why you do not hear any conservatives jumping into any debates about the democrats income inequality platform.

The basis of the democrats income inequality is that everyone that is in the lower income brackets are victims of a rigged system designed by the rich and the business owners to keep them down and as such the government has to step in and force businesses and the "rich" to open up opportunities. But instead of opening up opportunities the Democrats income inequality solutions cuts off opportunities because government red tape and taxes make starting a new business more difficult, and thus those already with established businesses have a heavy advantage to destroy new business that threaten their market.

Your whole these in this part, does not conform with recent history. It's also a lot of conservative talking points. We have been in a deregulation cycle since the 1990's. Many efforts have been undertaken to claw back regulation in all areas in both republican and democratic administrations. It's one of the primary reason we underwent the great recession in '07. It also correlates directly with the enormous growth in income disparity. During that same time, we've witnessed the death of unions, which has also been reflected in stagnant wages. You can deny all of that, but the data is right there.

That list I posted are the biggest abusers of killing new businesses that are a threat to their market. Those are the people with the speed dial numbers of those in government that will work to protect their financial interest. Those are the people who are staunch promoters of foreign workers and most support higher minimum wage laws, both policies that will hurt lower income and white collar American workers.

The higher minimum wage promotion is ridiculous, Sure it sounds great but it is an amateurish sucker ploy to make it sound like the rich policymakers are on the side of the workers. Why are they afraid to have a real debate about this? Here is the truth about an artificial minimum wage. You raise the minimum wage to $15 or $20 per hour and it looks great for those workers fro about a month maybe 6 months. Then what happens is the economy surrounding that new minimum wage catches up to it and that worker making $15 to $20 minimum wage is now right back where they were because rent eventually had to go up, grocery cost went up, the entertainment ticket cost went up, every thing they bought and consumed while they were living on their old wages increased as the new higher minimum wage propagated through the economy. And on top of that they are now paying higher taxes because taxes are a % of the cost of the higher purchase prices.

This idea of the Democrats that a higher minimum wage will operate in a vacuum of current cost and inflation is a joke but that is what they seem to be selling to their voters.

Again here, there is a plethora of direct evidence that suggest the exact opposite of what you're claiming. This is more top, down conservative talking points. In this most recent economic expansions, wages for most Americans have been lagging and growing very slowly. It's only in the last couple of years that wages and economic wealth is starting to grow for the bottom 50%. That is large part due to city and states raising minimum wages to at least $15. So it wasn't just low unemployment or other economic growth factors that have caused this. The fact that the federal minimum wage is still $7.50 or so is just ridiculous.

Wage inequality. From 2000 to 2018, wage growth was strongest for the highest-wage workers, continuing the trend in rising wage inequality over the last four decades.

• Since 2007, the labor market peak before the Great Recession, the strongest wage growth has continued to be within the top 10 percent of the wage distribution.
• From 2017 to 2018, relatively fast growth continued at the top (2.7 percent at the 95th percentile), but the 20th and 30th percentiles saw the strongest growth at 4.8 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. Median wages grew 1.6 percent over the year.

Wage growth in states with minimum wage increases. From 2017 to 2018, wages of the lowest-wage workers grew more in states that increased their minimum wage in 2018.

• On average, in the 29 states without minimum wage increases in 2018, the 10th-percentile wage rose 1.6 percent; in states with minimum wage increases in 2018 (including the District of Columbia), the average 10th-percentile wage rose by 2.1 percent.
• The differential is larger when looking across recent years with many minimum wage increases: Between 2013 and 2018, when 26 states and D.C. experienced at least one minimum wage increase, the 10th-percentile wage grew much faster in those states (and in D.C.) than in states without any increase (13.0 percent vs. 8.4 percent).
• In both comparison periods, both men and women at the 10th percentile saw greater wage growth in states with minimum wage changes versus those without.

State of Working America Wages 2018: Wage inequality marches on—and is even threatening data reliability

Analysis of 2018 wage data shows not only rising inequality in general, but also the persistence, and in some cases worsening, of wage gaps by gender and race. What also stands out in this last year of data is that, while wages are growing for most workers, wage growth continues to be slower...

www.epi.org

 

[JimEverett]

Income inequality is a function of demand. On this page (https://libertystreeteconomics.newy...places-are-much-more-unequal-than-others.html) is a map of cities with most and least income inequality - what seems clear is that places that are doing very well economically and have a demand for higher-skilled workers end up with the most inequality. While places that are seeing less economic growth have less inequality.

As far as minimum wage: On the one hand it seems like raising the minimum wage in places like NY, SF, Boston, etc. makes sense while raising it in places like Youngstown, OH, Flint, MI, or Pikeville, KY makes less sense. On the other hand, the employers better able to absorb higher labor costs are large employers - so small businesses operating with low-skilled skilled service labor would be less able to absorb the costs. You can see this in a lot of the cities with higher minimum wage and with greater inequality - although the minimum wage is simply one of many factors.

 

[FWtex]

Those aren't the primary or only people talking about income inequality. The people most talking about it are people like me, because it's a ridiculous disparity right now that can not be sustained. It's also unbelievably unjust. If those rich guys want to jump on board and support efforts to lower income inequality, then good.



Your whole these in this part, does not conform with recent history. It's also a lot of conservative talking points. We have been in a deregulation cycle since the 1990's. Many efforts have been undertaken to claw back regulation in all areas in both republican and democratic administrations. It's one of the primary reason we underwent the great recession in '07. It also correlates directly with the enormous growth in income disparity. During that same time, we've witnessed the death of unions, which has also been reflected in stagnant wages. You can deny all of that, but the data is right there.



Again here, there is a plethora of direct evidence that suggest the exact opposite of what you're claiming. This is more top, down conservative talking points. In this most recent economic expansions, wages for most Americans have been lagging and growing very slowly. It's only in the last couple of years that wages and economic wealth is starting to grow for the bottom 50%. That is large part due to city and states raising minimum wages to at least $15. So it wasn't just low unemployment or other economic growth factors that have caused this. The fact that the federal minimum wage is still $7.50 or so is just ridiculous.

State of Working America Wages 2018: Wage inequality marches on—and is even threatening data reliability

Analysis of 2018 wage data shows not only rising inequality in general, but also the persistence, and in some cases worsening, of wage gaps by gender and race. What also stands out in this last year of data is that, while wages are growing for most workers, wage growth continues to be slower...

www.epi.org

I disagree that this country has been in a state of deregulation since the 1990's.

The large increase in wealth disparity since 2007 from the article you linked makes a lot of sense. When the housing market and financial market crashed it opened a BOOOOOM for anyone with cash or access to cash to clean up and set themselves up for generations. Those that were at the top simply separated themselves from those just below them like being shot out from a cannon. Another economic change that occurred is the re-dominance of the tech industry but unlike the late 1990 tech surge that died, this resurgence took over markets and established itself as the portal for all other industries. The whole economy now goes through silicon valley in some way and it is hypocritical for those same people to talk about income inequality as though they are the fixers for that when they are the creators of it.

 

[wardorican]

I disagree that this country has been in a state of deregulation since the 1990's.

The large increase in wealth disparity since 2007 from the article you linked makes a lot of sense. When the housing market and financial market crashed it opened a BOOOOOM for anyone with cash or access to cash to clean up and set themselves up for generations. Those that were at the top simply separated themselves from those just below them like being shot out from a cannon. Another economic change that occurred is the re-dominance of the tech industry but unlike the late 1990 tech surge that died, this resurgence took over markets and established itself as the portal for all other industries. The whole economy now goes through silicon valley in some way and it is hypocritical for those same people to talk about income inequality as though they are the fixers for that when they are the creators of it.

I'll ignore the regulation side, since I'm not up on it, but the rest you say is pretty on point.

The lack of wage growth has been a huge issue. Now, is that partly due to health care costs skyrocketing? Or is that an excuse?

You are right, a lot of those corporate owners could just pay better wages. Now, those in Silicon Valley often do. But I'd venture that most people making over 50k per year, at at least 10-20% underpaid, until you get into the 200k and up range. People below 50k/year, I think more in dollars than %.

 

[dtc]

I don't buy the argument that low wage earners are too stupid to pick qualified funds to invest in. Most people who have 401ks are not sophisticated investors. Do you see how that works?

I didn't say they were too stupid, but some are. Let's just say it's 10% who are actually too stupid. Or, they just don't do it.

What happens when that 10% gets robbed or cheated and have no money?

Social Security is a fantastic program. It's one of the greatest achievements our nation has ever enacted.

Millions of otherwise destitute old and sick people have and will continue to depend on it and it's relatively inexpensive. Frankly, it should be less expensive and could be easily if we kicked out the contribution income ceiling levels or charged on all income regardless of source.

 

[dtc]

Do you know how social security works or what it is ? It is retirement account, it is not welfare. Whether a person earns $5 an hour or $500 an hour - they will build more wealth by investing in equities than not investing or investing in Treasuries.

It's not a retirement account and was never meant to be that alone. It's a social safety net program designed to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. For some of us, it's not a particularly good deal. For others, it's the one thing that they can depend on like death and taxes.

And, yes. Anyone would make more in equities than in SS EXCEPT for the person who never contributes. The person who is sick of disabled half their life. The person who has to spend their retirement to pay for surgery to save their child's life. THe person who makes minimum wage and lives to be 100 will get far more out of their investment than they ever could dream in the market.

Still, you are missing the fact that if you put that amount of money into equities it would have driven earnings down as grossly more dollars sought the same return.


It's economics.

 

[JimEverett]

I didn't say they were too stupid, but some are. Let's just say it's 10% who are actually too stupid. Or, they just don't do it.

What happens when that 10% gets robbed or cheated and have no money?

Social Security is a fantastic program. It's one of the greatest achievements our nation has ever enacted.

Millions of otherwise destitute old and sick people have and will continue to depend on it and it's relatively inexpensive. Frankly, it should be less expensive and could be easily if we kicked out the contribution income ceiling levels or charged on all income regardless of source.

If you knock out the contribution ceiling are you going to increase SS payment accordingly? Again - it is not really a welfare program.

I understand you can say that people might get cheated - but in the big scheme of things the amount of "cheating" is small - even more so when you are talking about the big, relatively transparent funds that I am talking about.
Building wealth involves risks. Again - you can complain about rich people getting richer off the stock market or you can enable the bottom half to get a piece.

 

[dtc]

You would require them to. At least how I envision it - you would require them to invest in something like a 401k or they could invest in low-risk Treasuries. Or bond funds, or some combination. And it doesn't have to be 100%.

The point is to try and build wealth in the way rich people build wealth - instead of just complaining about rich people getting richer by investing in equities, lets take a successful program and make it more successful by taking advantage of things rich people take advantage of.

Isn't the reason you hate SS because of your Republican disdain for being told what to do? Or, is it just that that $7k you pay every year for SS and will eventually pay you $2500 per month from 65 till you die is not as good a return as you can get elsewhere? I'm curious.

Anyway, I have no problem with getting the poor to invest. We all should be even if it's tiny. Hell, I started very young and with little bits of money and it's going to work out really well. One of the wisest things I ever did was buy a whole life insurance policy when I got out of college. It was the one thing I ever got from an internship I did that helped me figure that being a stock broker was a telemarketer gig and not what I wanted to do.

I would happily support a program that matched dollar for dollar that convinced 20 year olds to invest $50 per week. Hell, I'd take some tax money from someone to fund it and it would make a world of difference if you could get a 22 year old to save 2500 per year and let it grow over 40 years, but that's not the job SS is employed to do.

 

[JimEverett]

Isn't the reason you hate SS because of your Republican disdain for being told what to do? Or, is it just that that $7k you pay every year for SS and will eventually pay you $2500 per month from 65 till you die is not as good a return as you can get elsewhere? I'm curious.

Anyway, I have no problem with getting the poor to invest. We all should be even if it's tiny. Hell, I started very young and with little bits of money and it's going to work out really well. One of the wisest things I ever did was buy a whole life insurance policy when I got out of college. It was the one thing I ever got from an internship I did that helped me figure that being a stock broker was a telemarketer gig and not what I wanted to do.

I would happily support a program that matched dollar for dollar that convinced 20 year olds to invest $50 per week. Hell, I'd take some tax money from someone to fund it and it would make a world of difference if you could get a 22 year old to save 2500 per year and let it grow over 40 years, but that's not the job SS is employed to do.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. I stated how good of a program SS has been. Never once hinted that I hated it. But I do think times have changed and we can do better with the program. There is no reason why all that money - that is meant as an insurance program for retired persons - should earn the low rate of return it is earning now.

 

[dtc]

If you knock out the contribution ceiling are you going to increase SS payment accordingly? Again - it is not really a welfare program.

I understand you can say that people might get cheated - but in the big scheme of things the amount of "cheating" is small - even more so when you are talking about the big, relatively transparent funds that I am talking about.
Building wealth involves risks. Again - you can complain about rich people getting richer off the stock market or you can enable the bottom half to get a piece.

First, I'm not complaining about the rich getting richer. I can fully afford to build a wall around my nice waterfront home on a private road. I could even team up with my neighbors to hire guards to man the wall like we are in El Salvador.

You're putting words in my mouth, but I understand. It's not that far from what I am saying which is that our economy and tax structure have been rigged by the rich in order to benefit themselves - and me - to the detriment of many others. I also fully believe that I could stand to be a little less well treated and that for a small additional cost we could fix many of the problems we face as a society.

As for the scenario I mentioned about increasing the cap, I could certainly see that it could allow for higher payouts for those who have need.

If we were to kick the rate to 4% instead of 6 and raise the ceiling from 115k or whatever it is to all income it would provide enough to pay more to everyone receiving it. Means testing is another method by which the program could be made much stronger, but I'm not really set on whether I think that's fair. I would maybe support means testing, but would then take back my thought that we should require payment on all income. Maybe then only to 250.

further, the issue isn't really SS. That's an easy issue to deal with.

The real issue is income tax and funding that balances the budget while providing the necessary services we need as a nation. Military, healthcare, education and retirement security for our old an infirm.

Big stuff takes a nation.

 

[dtc]

You obviously haven't been paying attention. I stated how good of a program SS has been. Never once hinted that I hated it. But I do think times have changed and we can do better with the program. There is no reason why all that money - that is meant as an insurance program for retired persons - should earn the low rate of return it is earning now.

I'm running to a meeting, but let me leave you with this problem.

take 12% of all income in this country up to 115k and tell me how much money that is this year.

Let's just say it's 2 trillion times 12%. That's 240bn per year.

What happens to earnings when you try to stuff 240bn more in cash into an already overpriced market?

 

[JimEverett]

First, I'm not complaining about the rich getting richer. I can fully afford to build a wall around my nice waterfront home on a private road. I could even team up with my neighbors to hire guards to man the wall like we are in El Salvador.

You're putting words in my mouth, but I understand. It's not that far from what I am saying which is that our economy and tax structure have been rigged by the rich in order to benefit themselves - and me - to the detriment of many others. I also fully believe that I could stand to be a little less well treated and that for a small additional cost we could fix many of the problems we face as a society.

As for the scenario I mentioned about increasing the cap, I could certainly see that it could allow for higher payouts for those who have need.

If we were to kick the rate to 4% instead of 6 and raise the ceiling from 115k or whatever it is to all income it would provide enough to pay more to everyone receiving it. Means testing is another method by which the program could be made much stronger, but I'm not really set on whether I think that's fair. I would maybe support means testing, but would then take back my thought that we should require payment on all income. Maybe then only to 250.

further, the issue isn't really SS. That's an easy issue to deal with.

The real issue is income tax and funding that balances the budget while providing the necessary services we need as a nation. Military, healthcare, education and retirement security for our old an infirm.

Big stuff takes a nation.

I am not opposed to some sort of tax reform - especially if it goes along with reducing the deficit and/or investing in projects that can benefit all. ut the idea that wealth or income inequality can be solved by the tax code seems far-fetched imo. For example - if you confiscated every dollar made by the top 1% you could fund the total government spending in the U.S. (federal, state, local) for just over a quarter of the year.

The economy is getting to the point where unskilled and low skilled labor costs are going to get close to zero - particularly in industrialized economies. There will still be room for a substantial amount of skilled trade jobs and perhaps some low-skill service sector jobs - but that is about it. We are, of course, already seeing it in the article I posted above. If we want a growing economy the way it is structured is, of course, going to promote income and wealth inequality. For those not in the high demand sectors, ownership of the companies that are growing seems like a better way of building wealth than simply taxing people more (although, again - not necessarily opposed to that).

 

[JimEverett]

I'm running to a meeting, but let me leave you with this problem.

take 12% of all income in this country up to 115k and tell me how much money that is this year.

Let's just say it's 2 trillion times 12%. That's 240bn per year.

What happens to earnings when you try to stuff 240bn more in cash into an already overpriced market?

So, only the rich should be able to profit? The rest of us should live on the paltry amount SS provides after working for 40+ years? And then have nothing to pass onto to our children.

It seems like your idea is that the way to decrease wealth inequality is to reduce wealth overall. So what if the stock market or bond market or real estate market takes a downward move after a large influx of investment? I think the economy would actually emerge stronger with more money in it as opposed to sitting hypothetically) in a trust fund doing nothing.