Fed report on median family net worth and income - seniors doing well (pensions, federal)

[Escort Rider]

The recently released Fed report on American family median net worth and median family income (perhaps some kind soul will come along and link to the report) - a report which the Fed does every three years - shows a steep decline in net worth over the last three years, not surprising given the crash in real estate values (the home being a significant part of most people's net worth).

What especially caught my eye was the age breakdown in median household income (not net worth, for which the Los Angeles Times article did not give age breakdowns): of various age categories, only the 65 plus group showed no change in median income - all other age groups went down.

I am speculating that the over 65's did incur a decrease in net worth, as lots of us in that age category have a paid-off house, but our income, as a group, held steady. To me that makes sense, as we are less likely to be working a job - and job losses are a major driver in lower incomes.

[BucFan]

Here's an LA Times story about the report that might add to the discussion.

Average U.S. family's wealth plunged 40% in recession, Fed says - latimes.com

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by BucFan

Here's an LA Times story about the report that might add to the discussion.

Average U.S. family's wealth plunged 40% in recession, Fed says - latimes.com

Thank you very much for posting the link. That is the article on the basis of which I wrote the original post for this thread.

[lenora]

Originally Posted by Escort Rider

The recently released Fed report on American family median net worth and median family income (perhaps some kind soul will come along and link to the report) - a report which the Fed does every three years - shows a steep decline in net worth over the last three years, not surprising given the crash in real estate values (the home being a significant part of most people's net worth).

What especially caught my eye was the age breakdown in median household income (not net worth, for which the Los Angeles Times article did not give age breakdowns): of various age categories, only the 65 plus group showed no change in median income - all other age groups went down.

I am speculating that the over 65's did incur a decrease in net worth, as lots of us in that age category have a paid-off house, but our income, as a group, held steady. To me that makes sense, as we are less likely to be working a job - and job losses are a major driver in lower incomes.

Here's the report: FRB: Federal Reserve Bulletin 2011: Volume 97

[Boompa]

Having lived through two mile long gas lines, four day a week mail delivery, 11% Unemployment and 14% inflation, I find the fact that the rich have driven down wages to the point that I have more spendable income than I need a relief. As long as the """Financial Sector""" is sitting on half of the money it will continue and so will I.

[texdav]

I gree that most of the wealth loss is in housing plus adding in some in savings rates.For mnay retirees who are not into investments it harder to adjust and mnay actaully do not want the risk. In fact in risk off its not just the median that are giving up some earnings .

[jghorton]

Do you suppose that the median income of the 65-year and older group is relatively fixed (ss, pensions, investment withdrawal, RMD's, CD's etc). Therefore, they would not show as great a reduction as other groups comprised mostly of working folks, many of who have lost jobs etc., reducing the group's median income. The wealth loss figures for both groups might also be lower for seniors, since they are likely to have less of the housing speculator crash reflected in their numbers.

[newenglandgirl]

only the 65 plus group showed no change in median income - all other age groups went down.
[/quote]

I'm assuming from all revenue streams combined (not earned income)?

[richrf]

My guess it has been catastrophic for the 65 plus group (I am 60). The medium net worth of this class plunged from $250,000 to $200,000. But to make matters worse, unlike other classes, it is almost impossible for this class to recover (replenish) the money that was lost.

Now let's add insult to injury. Without any interest on what is left of their savings (thank you Ben Bernanke), principle continues to shrink as retirees draw down on their savings in order to pay for daily survival. Again, there is no way to replenish because even if Bernanke ever decides to allow interest on savings again, there is now insufficient principle left to make it possible for seniors to survive.

But take heart. Bernanke saved Wall Street and they are still able to take home billions in bonuses. It helps me sleep better at night to know that bankers still have enough money to gamble hundreds of billions on European derivatives. It must be fun to be able to get all the money you want at no interest from the Federal Reserve bank. No wonder Jamie Dimon wants to maintain his seat on the N.Y. Fed Reserve Board.

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by newenglandgirl

only the 65 plus group showed no change in median income - all other age groups went down.

I'm assuming from all revenue streams combined (not earned income)?[/quote]

I would make the same assumption. Income means what is coming in. That would include dividends, interest, capital gains, pensions, etc. Lenora has posted a link to the entire report (and I thank her for that) but I haven't had time to look at it yet. It will be a bit tedious even to skim through is my prediction.