Household Worth in U.S. Climbs by $2.95 Trillion to Record !!!

[greywar]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

When a MAJORITY of your fellow citizens either own a home or stock (or even both) - WHICH IS THE CASE, then yeah, it DOES affect the "average person" (pretty much by definition).

The fact that it may not affect YOU is not really relevent.

Ken

LOL. define "affect".

Home ownership is at its lowest rate in a decade-and falling.

And stock ownership? Same thing. in 2002 67% of Americans invested in stock. 2011 it was at 54%.

And the average 401K is 90K that sounds good right? But....the median is less then 10K. Yeah. The "average" person who owns stock via a 401K has less the 10K there.

Does it affect the "average" person. sure...by a tiny amount. The VAST majority of this is not benefiting the average person-its going to the top.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by greywar

LOL. define "affect".

Home ownership is at its lowest rate in a decade-and falling.

And stock ownership? Same thing. in 2002 67% of Americans invested in stock. 2011 it was at 54%.

And the average 401K is 90K that sounds good right? But....the median is less then 10K. Yeah. The "average" person who owns stock via a 401K has less the 10K there.

Does it affect the "average" person. sure...by a tiny amount. The VAST majority of this is not benefiting the average person-its going to the top.

"Affect" - for me it meant I could RETIRE.
Is that enough "affect" for you?
It meant I could sell my house in cold wet Seattle and move to warm sunny Arizona without having dig my way out from "underwater" on my house.
Is that enough "affect" for you?
And I'm not alone - last year 4 MILLION Americans came out from being "underwater" on their homes - something that gave them FREEDOM from being shackled to their existing house and location.
I don't know how one puts a price on such freedom, but it MOST DEFINITELY has value.

Is it true that folks with the most money gained the most in the stock market?
Of course it is - WHEN has that EVER been different? So what? It doesn't mean the "little people" don't benefit from the gains they've made.


Ken

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by RD5050

This calculation for household wealth is the same one that was used in previous years.

And as long as they continue to use the same calculations year after year, and we see household wealth on the rise, then we know it's moving in a positive direction. And that is a very good thing.

The fact that you think this number is meaningless, is meaningless in itself. You are just giving one man's opinion.

The value of cash is not fixed.

The value of U.S. currency goes up and down based on world events and inflation.

So cash is just as meaningless as stocks and home prices.

Which makes your argument meaningless as well.

Your last 4 statements sum it up pretty well.
The fact is, the stooopid arguments that "the fact that stock values went up and home values went up doesn't 'mean anything' because those are simply 'theoretical" increases", is pure unadulterated bullsh*t attempts to minimize and ignore some very good news.
As you mention, those increases are no more "theoretical" than the values of ones's paycheck is. If THOSE THINGS "only have real value when you spend them" then the very same thing is true of one's paycheck. Until it's spent it has "no value" either (but you never see any of the wingnuts argue that paycheck has no value).

The fact is, increases or decreases in stock holdings or home prices HAVE VALUE and they HAVE IMPACT - even if they don't "cash them in" they impact people's confidence and therefor their BEHAVIORS. One need only look back to the "theoretical" decrease in the value of the stock market in 2008 to see the "impact" it had on the entire world's economy.

The argument the wingnuts are trying to make is dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, DUMB - not to mention DESPERATE!!!!!!!


Ken