Rich get richer

Report: Richest 7% got richer during recovery
Associated Press
Apr 24, 2013

The richest Americans got richer during the first two years of the economic recovery while average net worth declined for the other 93 percent of U.S. households, says a report released Tuesday.

The upper 7 percent of households owned 63 percent of the nation's total household wealth in 2011, up from 56 percent in 2009, said the report from the Pew Research Center, which analyzed new Census Bureau data released last month.

The main reason for the widening wealth gap is that affluent households typically own stocks and other financial holdings that increased in value, while the less wealthy tend to have more of their assets in their homes, which haven't rebounded from the plunge in home values, the report said.

Tuesday's report is the latest to point up financial inequality that has been growing among Americans for decades, a development that helped fuel the Occupy Wall Street protests.

A September Census Bureau report on income found that the highest-earning 20 percent of households earned more than half of all income the previous year, the biggest share in records kept since 1967. A 2011 Congressional Budget Office report said incomes for the richest 1 percent soared 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 while increasing just under 40 percent for the middle 60 percent of Americans.

Other details of Tuesday's new report:

• Overall, the wealth of American households rose by $5 trillion, or 14 percent, during the period to $40.2 trillion in 2011 from $35.2 trillion in 2009. Household wealth is the sum of all assets such as a home, car and stocks, minus the sum of all debts.

• The average net worth of households in the upper 7 percent of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28 percent, while that of households in the lower 93 percent dropped by 4 percent. That is, the mean wealth of the 8 million households in the more affluent group rose to an estimated $3.2 million from an estimated $2.5 million while that of the 111 million households in the less affluent group fell to roughly $134,000 from $140,000.

• The upper 7 percent were the households with a net worth above $836,033 and the 93 percent represented households whose worth was at or below that. Not all households among the 93 percent saw a decline in net worth, but the average amount declined for that group.

• On an individual household basis, the average wealth of households in the more affluent group was almost 24 times that of those in the less affluent group in 2011. At the start of the recovery in 2009, that ratio was less than 18 to 1.

• During the study period, Standard & Poor's 500 stock index rose by 34 percent, while the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index for home prices fell by 5 percent.

___

Online:

Pew Research Center: www.pewresearch.org

 

Comments

VOTENO

What do you call a person that voted for Obama? An idiot.

shucks

I quess you voted for Obama, according to your logic.

VOTENO

What do you call a person who voted for Obama twice? An idiot.

shucks

I quess you voted for Obama twice, according to your logic.

Wanna go for three?

VOTENO

What do you call a person who voted for Obama 386 times? A Democrat.

shucks

Any proof?

coasterfan

Your friend is smart. I''e always wondered how a lower class person could vote GOP. All the moreso now that they no longer even try to hide the fact that they only care about the richest 1%

arnmcrmn

Hey. It's Obie's 5th year and people are still getting richer than ever before. What gives Obie?

S w Rand 2016

I would agree if you were merely referring to the old guard of Republicans, but you seem to lump them all into one category. This is not very thoughtful. Frankly, it's reckless.

You should look over all of my replies to coasterfan. Particulary the ones with the links which explain Malinvestment and currency devaluation.
Then, consider the one where I talk about the Democrat party being "for the rich" even moreso than the old guard of Republicans are. The one where I talk about Democrat leaders being good bedfellows with mega-corporations, trying to wipe out all the small businesses so that their Big Government aspirations become possible to achieve.

Senator Rand Paul for President in 2016

VOTENO

Thanks Obama and Democrat Senate.

shucks

you lose

KURTje

That's okay..stated this years ago. Wars have long terms costs. Keep paying suckas.

bullydogs1971

i used to laugh at Carlin and Hicks before i was awake...but now i cant help but shed a tear when i hear this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C...

whocares

You cannot blame it on the GOP. During the Bush era Congress was controlled by the Democrats. Its simple poor people have been voting Democrat for years and their still poor. Your Democrat Congress person keeps getting richer.

shucks

During 6 years of the Bush era the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives were controlled by Republicans, right?

goofus

And when did in your opinion did everything go to heck, the last two years?

shucks

2006-2008 IMHO

shucks

What's your opinion?

coasterfan

2006-2008? That's not an opinion, that's a fact. The seed for the recession, of course, began earlier, thanks to 2 unnecessary, unpaid wars, expanded government via the growth of Medicaid funding, and tax cuts. Thank you, Mr. Bush, for the above.

It's amusing listening to conservatives trying to place the blame elsewhere, when everyone knows the problem and the cause was George. Nice try, guys. You can't polish a turd, you know?

Contango

coasterfan writes:

"2006-2008? That's not an opinion, that's a fact."

Nonsense:

AIG was 2008.

Lehman Bros. was 2008

Bear Stears was 2008.

TARP was 2008.

Your memory is faulty.

http://www.fool.com/investing/ge...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ame...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr...

goofus

Not faulty, just selective and misguided like all liberals when it comes to history!!!!

anthras

At the end of the 6 years unemployment was about 5.5% inflation was OK, interest rates were favorable and gas prices were ok then the country voted the democratic congress in.

coasterfan

Well, yeah we can. He put 2 wars on the country's credit car, while simultaneously cutting incoming revenue. Bush gave us a stunningly effective template for how to turn a budget surplus into a multi-trillion dollar deficit. I don't applaud any congressman these days, but Democrats are definitely the lesser of 2 evils, from where I am sitting...

S w Rand 2016

re: coasterfan

While Bill Clinton never claims that the economy was so good because of his policies, he sure likes to hover over those who credit him with it and smile downward upon them. Never mind that the Internet caused it (as businesses were using the Internet a decade before it became commonplace in the household).
And, by the way, Clinton never legitimately balanced any annual budget. Robbing Social Security to cook your books is not balancing a budget.

Bush never had a multi-trillion dollar deficit. You are claiming that, in a single fiscal cycle (one year), he added multi-trillions of dollars to our debt? Nonsense. Obama is the only president who had an annual deficit of even $1 trillion.

By the way, those wars are more Obama's wars now than they were ever Bush's. He did not end the Iraq war even one single day before the end date already set by Bush AND President Obama SURGED our numbers in Afghanistan. Not only did he continue Bush's wars, he escalated them! Look it up. Who has spent more on war, Bush or Obama?

S w Rand 2016

re: coasterfan

You don't applaud ANY congressman these days? What about Senator Rand Paul? Personal opinions aside, his proposals as Senator are very forward-thinking (on both fiscal and social issues). He seems intent on becoming a populist candidate who will also be effective as President.
I mean, c'mon. He has a budget proposal which balances the U.S. budget in 5 years and does not hurt Social Security or Medicare. Compare that to President Obama, who is offering up cuts to those programs with no plan to EVER see a balanced budget again.

Senator Rand Paul also has centrist solutions to social issues. I suppose the Far Left would hate him for that, tho. We wouldn't want to solve those social issues and have the Democrat party's public leaders losing their re-election talking points, would we?

The Big Dog's back

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Profane, obscene, sexual or derogatory language.

goofus

Obozo and his merry band of thieves

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blo...

goofus

By the way, some of the 7% might not be a 7% come tomorrow

http://www.reuters.com/article/2...

I

There used to be an old saying..."It takes money to make money." Sadly, it's been replaced by a new saying..."He has more than me, it's not fair, wahwahwahhh."

Julie R.

If they're going to whine why don't they just go out and steal it? It's super easy in Erie County.

Pages