U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2011, 06:23 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,497 posts, read 62,167,040 times
Reputation: 32180

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Please clarify, I think I understand but want to be sure.
A new chart from the Economic Policy Institute, using data from NYU Economist Ed Wolff, shows that more than 80% of the nation’s wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%.
The top 1% gained 40% of the nation’s total wealth gain, while the next 4% gained 41.5%.

The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of the America’s Gains - The Wealth Report - WSJ

There is an easy to understand graphic in that article that CD tells me I have already posted... look at it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2011, 07:04 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,867,277 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
A new chart from the Economic Policy Institute, using data from NYU Economist Ed Wolff, shows that more than 80% of the nation’s wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%.
The top 1% gained 40% of the nation’s total wealth gain, while the next 4% gained 41.5%.

The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of the America’s Gains - The Wealth Report - WSJ

There is an easy to understand graphic in that article that CD tells me I have already posted... look at it.
Ok but is this a measurement of previous REdistribution or how it was initially gained. Is this a reflection of the growth of money? Just because one person loses doesn't mean another's gain came from them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Whereever we have our RV parked
8,786 posts, read 7,704,486 times
Reputation: 15067
Thomas Sowell had an article about this in the last few days. This is always the case. Yes it grows larger because the young people are just starting out, have school debt, maybe a new mortgage or rent, maybe even kids. They can't accumulate wealth. They have lots of expenses. Of course the gaps has grown. The young have little or nothing accumulated, and the older folks have more, in terms of raw dollars, just because of inflation. People who read this type of article and call this inequality "injustice" need to get a better education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 07:12 AM
 
4,343 posts, read 6,057,486 times
Reputation: 10428
US wealth gap between young and old is widest ever

Shouldn't it be? We've had 20-30 years more to save and invest wisely. What our children have is time to amass their wealth. We had nothing, and I mean nothing, up until we were done educating our children and they were out of the house. Now we're comfortable and feeling no guilt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 07:12 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,867,277 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
A new chart from the Economic Policy Institute, using data from NYU Economist Ed Wolff, shows that more than 80% of the nationís wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%.
The top 1% gained 40% of the nationís total wealth gain, while the next 4% gained 41.5%.

The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of the Americaís Gains - The Wealth Report - WSJ

There is an easy to understand graphic in that article that CD tells me I have already posted... look at it.
FYI and a good bit of info for others from your link

The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of the America’s Gains - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Quote:
Using the time frame of 1983 to 2009 also smooths over a lot of the wealth volatility and change at the top. An analysis of the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis and recession shows that the wealth of the top 20% declined more than any other group: 29% compared to 27% and 23% for the middle and bottom.

They may have well rebounded since then. But the people in the top 1% today may not be the same people who were there in 1983, or even 1995.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 07:16 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,867,277 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairieparson View Post
Thomas Sowell had an article about this in the last few days. This is always the case. Yes it grows larger because the young people are just starting out, have school debt, maybe a new mortgage or rent, maybe even kids. They can't accumulate wealth. They have lots of expenses. Of course the gaps has grown. The young have little or nothing accumulated, and the older folks have more, in terms of raw dollars, just because of inflation. People who read this type of article and call this inequality "injustice" need to get a better education.
Not sure about you but I know that many people who have had similar income paths and jobs throughout their lives are now at different wealth points entering retirement. Is that something that should now be corrected with redistribution? My daughter in law got me thinking this past weekend with her anger about the student loan program revisions and housing program offered recently by the White House. She was reflecting on her experiences and my sons both with how they used and financed college and how they purchased their home and their current work and financial habits. All of this magnified by their circle of friends who are all in similar positions and their knowledge of folks who aren't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 11:14 AM
 
4,135 posts, read 9,420,986 times
Reputation: 2687
Another thing to factor in here is what does something "really" pay or cost.

I started work with a college degree about $8K and my husband for under $6K. We were teachers. Our house, a few years later, cost about $23K.(less than 2X our joint income)

Today, kids in this area start teaching in the mid $30K range and if you had 2 working, by the same logic we used, they should buy a $80-100K home. [It can be done here.] Most buy newer ones for over $150-300K

Add the high price of things like homes, houses, add loans and the "wild spending", sure they are debt poor.

OTOH, my one daughter got a good job, married, bought a house cheap 10 years back and has it paid off, along with every loan and bill. Unfortuantely, her sister didn't catch the frugality "bug" -- and we are not bailing her out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top