Wealth Distribution in America

Status
Not open for further replies.

SoonerAviator

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
9,769
Location
Broken Arrow, OK
Display Name

Display name:
SoonerAviator
Let's see if we can keep this non-political . . . what consequences do you see as a result of the Middle Class wealth shrinking (as a proportion) and being absorbed into estates of the wealthiest of Americans?

Wealth distribution in America has become increasingly concentrated since 1990.

Today, the share of wealth held by the richest 0.1% is currently at its peak, with households in the highest rung having a minimum of $38 million in wealth. Overall, roughly 131,000 households fall into this elite wealth bracket.

With $20 trillion in wealth, the top 0.1% earn on average $3.3 million in income each year.
The greatest share of their wealth is held in corporate equities and mutual funds, which make up over one-third of their assets. Since 1990, their total share of wealth has grown from from 9% to 14% in 2023—the biggest jump across all wealth brackets.

In fact, the richest 0.1% and 1% were the only two rungs to see their share increase since 1990.

Meanwhile, the greatest decline was seen across the 50-90% bracket—households in the lower-middle and middle classes. Those in this rung have a minimum $165,000 in wealth with the majority of assets in real estate, followed by pension and retirement benefits.

Averaging $51,000 in wealth, the bottom 50% make up the lowest share, accounting for 3% of the wealth distribution in America. Income growth across this bracket has increased by over 10% between 2020 and 2022, higher than all other brackets aside from the top 1%.

Overall, the top 10% richest own more than the bottom 90% combined, with $95 trillion in wealth.

1710336934668.png
 
giphy.gif
 
I have a pretty broad swath of friends. There's a definite discretionary spending difference between the haves and the have-nots. And it's the wealth-poor ones that are spending/blowing their money on "right now" pleasure, or taking on debt for right-now pleasure instead of saving/investing - even if it's just a little bit. They don't think they will ever be able to get ahead, so they don't try to. It's just what makes me feel good now and gets me to the next paycheck mentality, and a lot of their investment strategy is the lottery. They could take that few thousand a year they are blowing on lottery and other non-essential crap and roll it over. But they don't. It's the ones that are well to do that don't spend the extra money each week. It gets invested. Investment ==> wealth. And RE-investment ==> WEALTH.
 
I think part of the growth of the top .1% is tech billionaires. Generations prior you had to be a manufacturer or oil company tycoon. Grind out your growth through manual labor and product manufacturing. Now you can invent something digitally and boom, welcome to the zillionaire club.
 
Yeah, good luck keeping this non-political and open for long.

I'll try.
Remember when Bell was deemed to be a monopoly and broken up into smaller companies? Today we have a bunch of duopolies (or mini-cartels) that should get the same treatment, yet nobody has the guts to break them up into individual parts. Everything coalesces into a couple large corporations with no real competition and that means they can do whatever they want to pricing. More money going from the working class to them, broadens the gap.

And it's the wealth-poor ones that are spending/blowing their money
We teach a lot of useless stuff in schools, but not a single bit of financial education. A kid raised in a family like the one described above will never know any better. Or by the time he realizes that it might be too late. We, as a society, are encourage to spend $1.10 for every $1 made. Enhances stockholder value.
 
Debating and discussing causes is what’s gonna get this locked. I echo the above, but throw human nature into the mix; we all do stuff we’re not supposed to, otherwise we’d be machines (I like to think I’m a machine, lol).

The consequences? Interesting question. I think it’s all “bad”, but just a generalization. Haven’t thought much about it. Maybe more crime and stressed out populace. More opportunities for gang/cartel influence just so folks can feed their families (why otherwise would a cop turn dirty). Bribery and corruption. General decline of the life we were used to. Wow, that sounds pessimistic. Sorry.
 
I always just thought this was a weird way of looking at things. Some people are doing really well, good for them. I don't see how their success is making me any worse off.

I don't pretend to know what everyone is going through everywhere but all the friends I grew up with are doing ok. I can honestly say I've never known an able bodied/minded person who made a decent effort at life who wasn't able to earn a living and have a few luxuries eventually. From where I'm sitting it doesn't seem all that dire... then again I'm wealthy enough to afford an airplane so what do I know?
 
I agree that we haven't had enough break-up of the massive conglomerates. The last President to really target monopolies in a big way was Roosevelt. The Sherman Act was what eventually took down Bell as well.
Yeah, good luck keeping this non-political and open for long.

I'll try.
Remember when Bell was deemed to be a monopoly and broken up into smaller companies? Today we have a bunch of duopolies (or mini-cartels) that should get the same treatment, yet nobody has the guts to break them up into individual parts. Everything coalesces into a couple large corporations with no real competition and that means they can do whatever they want to pricing. More money going from the working class to them, broadens the gap.


We teach a lot of useless stuff in schools, but not a single bit of financial education. A kid raised in a family like the one described above will never know any better. Or by the time he realizes that it might be too late. We, as a society, are encourage to spend $1.10 for every $1 made. Enhances stockholder value.
 
The notion that money invested by one group results in other groups being prohibited from investing is absurd.

Also, wealth is an ill-defined term. I know net worth millionaires that can’t keep from floating checks while living paycheck to paycheck.
 
Let's see if we can keep this non-political . . . what consequences do you see as a result of the Middle Class wealth shrinking (as a proportion) and being absorbed into estates of the wealthiest of Americans?
A lot of the 'middle class' is the 'payment class' now. Literally just individual clearinghouses to finance companies. 'Can I afford the payment' is the deciding factor for consumption.

Wealth-building is not a concern for the payment class.
 
I don't pretend to know what everyone is going through everywhere but all the friends I grew up with are doing ok. I can honestly say I've never known an able bodied/minded person who made a decent effort at life who wasn't able to earn a living and have a few luxuries eventually.
This is actually a great point. A lot of discussion on income inequality, but if you look at the standard of living young adults have today vs 40 years ago, it's vastly improved. Cars, cell phones, food deliveries, on demand entertainment, etc.
 
I always just thought this was a weird way of looking at things. Some people are doing really well, good for them. I don't see how their success is making me any worse off.

I don't pretend to know what everyone is going through everywhere but all the friends I grew up with are doing ok. I can honestly say I've never known an able bodied/minded person who made a decent effort at life who wasn't able to earn a living and have a few luxuries eventually. From where I'm sitting it doesn't seem all that dire... then again I'm wealthy enough to afford an airplane so what do I know?
I wouldn't look at this quite as a "have and have-nots" discussion. The middle class is shrinking, in fact the wealth of the middle class is down 20% since 1970. It didn't move into the hands of the lower class, the wealth all moved "upward" into the top 1%. I read somewhere recently that the top 1% own something close to 50% of the stock equity shares in America. If the trend continues, you end up with the bulk of all United States wealth concentrated in the hands of a few thousand people out of a country of 340 Million. This can also be looked at from a position of power/market influence. Want to start an apartment complex in your city to grow wealth? Sorry, wealthy guy who owns other apartment buildings in the area has pull with the zoning approval board and you get denied. The Waltons, Kochs, Cargills, etc. end up owning 15% of all of the real estate, and the majority shares of the stock market. Obviously you can make investments with $100MM that aren't available to the guy with $100K, so they compound those earnings.

I don't think we should be looking at it from the standpoint of "tax them more", but so much power and influence in the hands of so few is contrary (in my opinion) to the American societal system. What happens when the middle class only has 20% of the wealth? 10%? 5%? At a certain point you have a Plutocracy, even more-so than it may already be.
 
IMO, the focus on the top 0.001% is misguided.

Our focus should be on the bottom 50%. Look at how THEY are doing. That's what determines how well our society is doing at enabling broad prosperity.

Now, here's the dirty little secret: The income of the bottom 50% cannot ever increase unless income disparity grows - this is a mathematical certainty. Why not? Because no job is ever created in the private sector unless the creation of that job increases the income of the ownership and management. Thus, trying to force down the higher incomes is self-defeating.

Second, look at government funding and where it comes from. The top 1% paid roughly 46% of all 2022 federal taxes collected in the US, and did so with about 26% of income (AGI) - all from IRS tax reports. If you forcibly shrink the upper incomes, what happens to tax revenue? The only way it can be done is to increase the tax burden on the lower- and middle-income population, and that is a political non-starter.

So, what are we left with? We must have policies that encourage more high-value employment among the lower income ranges. That's manufacturing and high-value service industries. THIS is how you grow a middle class.
 
Last edited:
Years ago I read a study that looked at wealth distribution. They found that if all the money in the US was gathered and distributed equally to everyone, within 5 years the distribution would return to its original state.

As an example, there is my wife and I, and my wife's friend and her husband. In the big scheme of things we aren't that far apart in income. My wife and I can say we are comfortable, could always dream for more of course, bigger house, faster airplane, but we are comfortable. We have a roof over our head and money in the bank.

Her friend and husband live paycheck to paycheck. There is a little animosity that they struggle some and we aren't. But in the time period I have known this couple, they have been through 7 different vehicles, my wife and I only 2. Every time they get a little windfall, stimulus funding, tax refund, etc., they run out and buy the latest iGadget or laptop, we squirrel it away or invest. The list goes on and on.

But they view my wife and I as the 1%.
 
A lot of the 'middle class' is the 'payment class' now. Literally just individual clearinghouses to finance companies. 'Can I afford the payment' is the deciding factor for consumption.

Wealth-building is not a concern for the payment class.
I do think that's a large part of it. The 80s/90s brought about a whole slew of financial products that resulted in the average American having access to tons of capital they never would have before. 30-yr mortgages, prevalence of credit cards, and now 7-8yr auto loans. Of course, who owns the financial institutions and credit card companies that got rich off of it? JP Morgan and Chase Manhattan reaped a lot of it.
 
We teach a lot of useless stuff in schools, but not a single bit of financial education.

Back when I was working we had new hire training and indcctrination, and I was the one who usually presented and explained what we did in our department and function. At the end, I aways reserved a few minutes to talk to the new engineers about 401k and savings. I advised them to all immediately set their 401k investment at 10%, and then after that for every raise, split it with themselves and the 401k. IE, get a 6% raise, increase your 401k withholdings to 13%, enjoy the other 3% as increased lifestyle. Do this every raise and bouns! I also gave a little info on the tax benefits.

Most of them were agast that I asked them to do this, but I explained that if they followed this process, by the time they were 60 they'd likely be able to pull the ejection handles. Some thanked me, and said that HR didn't explain any of this.

Hopefully this sank in with a few of them, at least I tried.
 
Years ago I read a study that looked at wealth distribution. They found that if all the money in the US was gathered and distributed equally to everyone, within 5 years the distribution would return to its original state.
I do think there is plenty of truth to that. I do wonder what the end result is though. By that, I mean what does it look like in the US 50 years from now. If the "middle class" has lost so much wealth (20%) in 50 years, what will be left in the next 50 years? Is the natural result of our economy always 1% owning almost all of the country's wealth in the end?
 
There’s a good chance I’m about to redistribute most of my “wealth” back into society. Unfortunately almost no one will benefit from it.
 
Checks and balances

Rebalancing

To have growth to benefit all, the top MUST grow as well, right?!?

To say the middle class is gone, NO. We have SO much middle class housing. The rich are not going to live “that way”.
 
There’s a good chance I’m about to redistribute most of my “wealth” back into society. Unfortunately almost no one will benefit from it.
What do you mean?
 
I do think there is plenty of truth to that. I do wonder what the end result is though. By that, I mean what does it look like in the US 50 years from now. If the "middle class" has lost so much wealth (20%) in 50 years, what will be left in the next 50 years? Is the natural result of our economy always 1% owning almost all of the country's wealth in the end?

I think the biggest difference is not the money, but the mentality about money. The point of that study is that those that don't have money will always be in that position, because any extra income they receive gets spent. While those that are in the have position have because they don't let a penny slip through their fingers.

Just look at society, what part of the population most prevalently is smokers, spending $6,7,8 per day on cigarettes? Which part of the population spends the most on things like tattoos? One person I know that is in the have-not category spends every extra dollar of her paycheck on new ink. Over the last 5 years she has probably spent $20,000+ on tattoos and piercings, but doesn't have reliable housing or transportation. I'm not disparaging anyone into tattoos, but when your income is limited it isn't a wise investment.

I know doctors that are broke, and janitors that are closet millionaires. Its not income, its spending.
 
I think the biggest difference is not the money, but the mentality about money. The point of that study is that those that don't have money will always be in that position, because any extra income they receive gets spent. While those that are in the have position have because they don't let a penny slip through their fingers.

Just look at society, what part of the population most prevalently is smokers, spending $6,7,8 per day on cigarettes? Which part of the population spends the most on things like tattoos? One person I know that is in the have-not category spends every extra dollar of her paycheck on new ink. Over the last 5 years she has probably spent $20,000+ on tattoos and piercings, but doesn't have reliable housing or transportation. I'm not disparaging anyone into tattoos, but when your income is limited it isn't a wise investment.

I know doctors that are broke, and janitors that are closet millionaires. Its not income, its spending.
I think we do the same, but for aviation? Lol
 
Let's see if we can keep this non-political . . . what consequences do you see as a result of the Middle Class wealth shrinking (as a proportion) and being absorbed into estates of the wealthiest of Americans?



View attachment 126617
That chart is a mess. The peak is just for dramatic effect as they're showing percentages of a total. What it's really showing is inflation. I'd like to see it adjusted for current dollars, which would make it nearly flat. I'd also like to se it go back to about 1800. I don't know for sure, but I feel like wealth inequality, to the extent there is such a thing, is increasing but still substantially less than it was when it was names like Rockefeller and Carnegie instead of Musk and Bezos.

Technology and automation have replaced the jobs that that used to make up the middle class, and that isn't slowing down. If you think the middle class is being destroyed now, wait until truck drivers, pilots, artists, writers, coders, and everyone else is replaced by AI.

I do think there is plenty of truth to that. I do wonder what the end result is though. By that, I mean what does it look like in the US 50 years from now. If the "middle class" has lost so much wealth (20%) in 50 years, what will be left in the next 50 years? Is the natural result of our economy always 1% owning almost all of the country's wealth in the end?

I think that's just the natural state of human affairs. Every form of government and economic system in history results in a few super wealthy people and a base of plebs.
 
That chart is a mess. The peak is just for dramatic effect as they're showing percentages of a total. What it's really showing is inflation. I'd like to see it adjusted for current dollars, which would make it nearly flat. I'd also like to se it go back to about 1800. I don't know for sure, but I feel like wealth inequality, to the extent there is such a thing, is increasing but still substantially less than it was when it was names like Rockefeller and Carnegie instead of Musk and Bezos.

I wonder about the effects of the internet in perception as well. Back in Rockefeller's day, print was the only real source of information. I would wager the average Joe didn't spend much time thinking about Rockefeller.

Today the internet is full of information and misinformation 24/7 about Bezos and Musk, their wealth, what they are doing, what they are wearing, what they are drinking, etc. Everyone seems so obsessed with what others have and do these days through social media, they forget to live their own life.

-The guy posting on a forum about other people
 
Yeah, good luck keeping this non-political and open for long.

I'll try.
Remember when Bell was deemed to be a monopoly and broken up into smaller companies? Today we have a bunch of duopolies (or mini-cartels) that should get the same treatment, yet nobody has the guts to break them up into individual parts. Everything coalesces into a couple large corporations with no real competition and that means they can do whatever they want to pricing. More money going from the working class to them, broadens the gap.


We teach a lot of useless stuff in schools, but not a single bit of financial education. A kid raised in a family like the one described above will never know any better. Or by the time he realizes that it might be too late. We, as a society, are encourage to spend $1.10 for every $1 made. Enhances stockholder value.
What specific companies/industries do you think have monopolies/duopolies that are price gouging (at least on a broad scale; I'm not talking as much about very niche industries where those kinds of things tend to happen pretty naturally).
 
What specific companies/industries do you think have monopolies/duopolies that are price gouging (at least on a broad scale; I'm not talking as much about very niche industries where those kinds of things tend to happen pretty naturally).
Broadband internet providers for one.
 
I have a pretty broad swath of friends. There's a definite discretionary spending difference between the haves and the have-nots. And it's the wealth-poor ones that are spending/blowing their money on "right now" pleasure, or taking on debt for right-now pleasure instead of saving/investing - even if it's just a little bit. They don't think they will ever be able to get ahead, so they don't try to. It's just what makes me feel good now and gets me to the next paycheck mentality, and a lot of their investment strategy is the lottery. They could take that few thousand a year they are blowing on lottery and other non-essential crap and roll it over. But they don't. It's the ones that are well to do that don't spend the extra money each week. It gets invested. Investment ==> wealth. And RE-investment ==> WEALTH.
Had a employee ask me 'how do you get ahead?' Never spend all your money out of a paycheck - somehow you have to -not- spend $5 or $10 - every week. He didn't see how that could be done.
 
Years ago I read a study that looked at wealth distribution. They found that if all the money in the US was gathered and distributed equally to everyone, within 5 years the distribution would return to its original state.

As an example, there is my wife and I, and my wife's friend and her husband. In the big scheme of things we aren't that far apart in income. My wife and I can say we are comfortable, could always dream for more of course, bigger house, faster airplane, but we are comfortable. We have a roof over our head and money in the bank.

Her friend and husband live paycheck to paycheck. There is a little animosity that they struggle some and we aren't. But in the time period I have known this couple, they have been through 7 different vehicles, my wife and I only 2. Every time they get a little windfall, stimulus funding, tax refund, etc., they run out and buy the latest iGadget or laptop, we squirrel it away or invest. The list goes on and on.

But they view my wife and I as the 1%.

There was another study that was done 25+ years back which asked a simple question:

If you are walking down the street and find $100, what do you do with it. I asked the question amongst my friends, individually so no answers were swayed by other people. To a T all of the poor ones said "pizza party with my friends," "buy x y z," etc... Ones not scraping buy all answered with a variation of "it goes in the bank or it goes in the fund pay bills." None of them were going to waste it, every one earmarked it for saving/bill pay.
 
Had a employee ask me 'how do you get ahead?' Never spend all your money out of a paycheck - somehow you have to -not- spend $5 or $10 - every week. He didn't see how that could be done.

There is a guy on Tiktok I follow that owns a small septic business. He has said he started paying his employees on Monday instead of Friday. When he paid his employees on Friday, they would show up Monday hungover, exhausted, broke, and in bad moods, if they showed up at all. They would take that Friday paycheck and blow it all on the weekend and be broke by Monday. By paying them on Monday, he has found they use it a little more wisely, paying their bills and taking care of business before the weekend comes, then don't have as much money to party on the weekend.
 
I wouldn't look at this quite as a "have and have-nots" discussion. The middle class is shrinking, in fact the wealth of the middle class is down 20% since 1970..

You think that may have something to do with comp packages transitioning to stock awards, tying portions of comp to company stock prices, and the explosion of publicly traded companies?

Again, wealth is ill-defined, but once you start peeling the layers, at the individual level, that ‘wealth’ is pretty much paper wealth that, to be accessed, is used to guarantee loans for liquid cash or other real assets or has deferment requirements preventing liquidity for years into the future.
 
Had a employee ask me 'how do you get ahead?' Never spend all your money out of a paycheck - somehow you have to -not- spend $5 or $10 - every week. He didn't see how that could be done.
I don't know that particular persons circumstances, but in fairness, there are a lot of people who objectively make less than it takes to survive. They work for a living. Often in some of the worst jobs out there. But it costs $200 a week to live where they are and the job they can get only pays $150. It's pretty easy for some who fly around in little planes as a hobby to forget that there are people who just flat-out aren't smart enough to get an education and a better gig in the world and they struggle to survive as a result, because in the past 100 years or so, the number of jobs where one can support oneself with just manual labor has gone down by about 90% while the percentage of people who aren't smart enough to do anything more than that has stayed the same.
 
Had a employee ask me 'how do you get ahead?' Never spend all your money out of a paycheck - somehow you have to -not- spend $5 or $10 - every week. He didn't see how that could be done.
Back when I wasn't making what I do now, every extra penny (ok slight hyperbole) went to debt pay off. First was the vehicle because I couldn't deduct that interest. Then it went to mortgage. I bought WELL under what I could afford and only what I really needed. Once the car was paid off, I was making double sometimes triple mortgage payments. Tax refund - mortgage. Bonus - mortgage. Anything - mortgage. No vacations until it was paid off. Other then the plane (which was done on a HeLoc and paid off in 3 years) it all then started going into investments. You know how quick that starts to grow when you throw a house payment and car payment every month into a fund? Even since the mortgage payoff 20 years ago, I've only taken 3 real vacations and a honeymoon. Once the portfolio account reaches a certain point, then we can relax and really start to enjoy life.

Had it not been for the plane(s) I would be retired already, but i did live a little while still socking money away.
 
IMO, the focus on the top 0.001% is misguided.

Our focus should be on the bottom 50%. Look at how THEY are doing. That's what determines how well our society is doing at enabling broad prosperity.

Now, here's the dirty little secret: The income of the bottom 50% cannot ever increase unless income disparity grows - this is a mathematical certainty. Why not? Because no job is ever created in the private sector unless the creation of that job increases the income of the ownership and management. Thus, trying to force down the higher incomes is self-defeating.

Second, look at government funding and where it comes from. The top 1% paid roughly 46% of all federal taxes collected in the us, and did so with about 26% of income (AGI) - all from IRS tax reports. If you forcibly shrink the upper incomes, what happens to tax revenue? The only way it can be done is to increase the tax burden on the lower- and middle-income population, and that is a political non-starter.

So, what are we left with? We must have policies that encourage more high-value employment among the lower income ranges. That's manufacturing and high-value service industries. THIS is how you grow a middle class.
Your 'handle' reflects your post, admirably. :thumbsup:
 
I wouldn't look at this quite as a "have and have-nots" discussion. The middle class is shrinking, in fact the wealth of the middle class is down 20% since 1970. It didn't move into the hands of the lower class, the wealth all moved "upward" into the top 1%. I read somewhere recently that the top 1% own something close to 50% of the stock equity shares in America. If the trend continues, you end up with the bulk of all United States wealth concentrated in the hands of a few thousand people out of a country of 340 Million. This can also be looked at from a position of power/market influence. Want to start an apartment complex in your city to grow wealth? Sorry, wealthy guy who owns other apartment buildings in the area has pull with the zoning approval board and you get denied. The Waltons, Kochs, Cargills, etc. end up owning 15% of all of the real estate, and the majority shares of the stock market. Obviously you can make investments with $100MM that aren't available to the guy with $100K, so they compound those earnings.

I don't think we should be looking at it from the standpoint of "tax them more", but so much power and influence in the hands of so few is contrary (in my opinion) to the American societal system. What happens when the middle class only has 20% of the wealth? 10%? 5%? At a certain point you have a Plutocracy, even more-so than it may already be.

Something related I've had on my mind since the 2008 bailouts is why do we have institutions that are "too big to fail"? Beyond that we have so many industries with little competition where you have very close communication between the CEOs, regulators, and politicians. Big companies will have entire teams of people to figure out the taxes, to figure out how to comply with(or lobby against) the regulations. A small business owner has to figure that all out on their own on top of actually running the business.

Perhaps some old school trust-busting style breakups of some of these big banks and other companies might be worth at least looking into.

I don't want to talk too much about myself as my situation is not at all a typical one for anyone. But I will say almost every major decision I've made over the past decade+ has revolved around taxes. What category does this put me in, what does this do to cost basis, etc. A while back we were looking at multiple new potential business ventures and everything we looked into just didn't seem worth the effort and risk once we factored in what would happen with taxes along with the potential for liability and amount of effort we'd put in for the return. To get much more into it would spin this off into even more controversial subjects but in general I've always felt squeezed between government tax/regulatory policy and a corporate world that make the traditional employment model here in the US unattractive to say the least.
 
I do think there is plenty of truth to that. I do wonder what the end result is though. By that, I mean what does it look like in the US 50 years from now. If the "middle class" has lost so much wealth (20%) in 50 years, what will be left in the next 50 years? Is the natural result of our economy always 1% owning almost all of the country's wealth in the end?

Um, there’s no real ‘lost’ wealth. Shrinking middle class is direct result of individual choices when it comes to investing and finances, especially considering the prevalence of 401(k) and 403b opportunities. Unfortunately, it won’t be until next year until those are mandatory opt-ins.

Even then, job hoppers will still forget to roll those accounts over when they change employers and the help of compounding won’t be as helpful and some will even forget about some of those accounts over their lifetimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top