Net worth of U.S. family drops 40% in 3 years

[LilOlLady]

And some people blame Obama for the economy not quickly recovering after this 3 year nosedive...

How can we have a quick recovery when people lost 40% of their net worth due to the bubble crash?

Frankly I'm amazed unemployment isn't much higher than it is. I'm surprised it's not at depression level percentages.

It's a 3yr nosedive because of his policies. We should have seen a sharp recovery after a sharp recession. That is the history. This time it's different because Obama and his economic team are the biggest bunch of pathetic blunderers to disgrace the White House in some time.

The economy was in a nose dive when Obama took office and he pulled it out. You do not see a sharp recovery after a sharp recession. It's slow and painful. Except some are not willing to submit to a little pain.
You must have slept thorugh 8 years of Bush/Cheney spending spree and tax cuts looking out for corporation that to the money and run over seas.
Anyone with half a brain know that Obama has pulled off a miracle. We were losing jobs, jobs were being sent over seas, Bush bailed out auto industry and Wall street before he left office and two wars unpaid for continuing. Must I go on and on before you get the real message?
8.2% is a miracle after what Bush left Obama with.
You people believe if you say these cockle doodle things long enough it becomes truth. Not one ad by Romeny has been truth.

You should be on your knees behind obama thinking him. Literally.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's a 3yr nosedive because of his policies. We should have seen a sharp recovery after a sharp recession. That is the history. This time it's different because Obama and his economic team are the biggest bunch of pathetic blunderers to disgrace the White House in some time.

The 3 year nosedive started in 2007.

How would that be "because of his policies" exactly?

And since we haven't seen a nosedive like this since 1929, how the hell would you be able to make a comparison to a normal recovery?

We'd probably have to go back to recession/recovery cycles pre-1930 to make any sort of comparison, since the legislations mentioned earlier in this thread allowed a catastrophic collapse, at a level not seen since before the crash of '29.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's a 3yr nosedive because of his policies. We should have seen a sharp recovery after a sharp recession. That is the history.

"That is the history" ? What does that even mean? Do I need to actually point out the numerous instances where that did not happen?

By all means go ahead.

1839
1873
1929

The sharper the recession, the sharper the recovery. We should have had a great recovery with UE about 6% by now and GDP growth north of 4%.

"Should have" according to what metric? Something you just pulled out of your ass?

 

[Vast LWC]

My wife and I's total income has increased about 66% since we got married 5 years ago - but our spending has maybe gone up 10%. As a consequence we were able to make a 20% down payment on duplex (home + rental unit) and have a sizeable "emergency" fund.

Of course we're about to have our first kid so I'm sure that will change as the great sucking of money begins.

That's for sure. I just had my second. Talk about expensive.

Oh, and congratz.

 

[LilOlLady]

It's a 3yr nosedive because of his policies. We should have seen a sharp recovery after a sharp recession. That is the history.

"That is the history" ? What does that even mean? Do I need to actually point out the numerous instances where that did not happen?

By all means go ahead.
The sharper the recession, the sharper the recovery. We should have had a great recovery with UE about 6% by now and GDP growth north of 4%. Instead we've got the shittiest recovery on record and the deficit to show for it.

YOU know why, you just cannot admit it. Obama inherited the worse recession ever. WE would if the Reich has let the tax cut expire, stop cutting public jobs, and opposing a stimulus that would have worked and holding Obama hostage with attacks on the middle class and the poor. If you want to blame someone, blame you own conservatives that take form the poor an give to the rich.

 

[Vast LWC]

By all means go ahead.
The sharper the recession, the sharper the recovery. We should have had a great recovery with UE about 6% by now and GDP growth north of 4%. Instead we've got the shittiest recovery on record and the deficit to show for it.

That's interesting.

What industries, specifically, do you feel would have provided said growth after those tens of trillions of dollars disappeared overnight?

'Cause it sure as hell wasn't going to be a recovery of the housing industry.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My wife and I's total income has increased about 66% since we got married 5 years ago - but our spending has maybe gone up 10%. As a consequence we were able to make a 20% down payment on duplex (home + rental unit) and have a sizeable "emergency" fund.

Of course we're about to have our first kid so I'm sure that will change as the great sucking of money begins.

That's for sure. I just had my second. Talk about expensive.

Oh, and congratz.

We're very lucky to have access to affordable health care. I work for LSU and it costs less than 100 bucks a month to add the little ma fa to our policy.

Day care - going to be around $850 per month.

The school system sucks here so prolly private school at some point.

Then I guess you've got to feed the thing, too, right?

 

[g5000]

Sounds reasonable. I particularly like the last one. Any time you can make a market behave better by making information MORE available to its participants, only the greedy profiteers have any real right to complain. I know when I go online to trade a stock option (which happens like once or twice a year ) I can see the open interest on the option so I know how many other folks are in it. Are you saying if I traded CDS's that wouldn't be the case under current law?

Yes, that is the case. And there is no law at all regarding CDS. None whatsoever. That is the problem.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

It's a 3yr nosedive because of his policies. We should have seen a sharp recovery after a sharp recession. That is the history.

"That is the history" ? What does that even mean? Do I need to actually point out the numerous instances where that did not happen?

By all means go ahead.
The sharper the recession, the sharper the recovery. We should have had a great recovery with UE about 6% by now and GDP growth north of 4%. Instead we've got the shittiest recovery on record and the deficit to show for it.

Typical retard logic, look at this:

The American Dream Shrinks: Avg. Net Worth Falls 40% From 2007-2010 | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

But this negative trend does not stop there. As average families become poorer, rich Americans are growing richer. The Fed survey showed the wealthiest 10% of families actually saw their net worth rise from 2007 to 2010. Over that time period, their net worth increased from $1.17 million to $1.19 million.

Now if trickle down worked incomes and net worth for workers would along with of the wealthiest 10%, Obama' policies since 2007? Imbecile.

 

[g5000]

And some people blame Obama for the economy not quickly recovering after this 3 year nosedive...

How can we have a quick recovery when people lost 40% of their net worth due to the bubble crash?

Frankly I'm amazed unemployment isn't much higher than it is. I'm surprised it's not at depression level percentages.

It's a 3yr nosedive because of his policies. We should have seen a sharp recovery after a sharp recession. That is the history. This time it's different because Obama and his economic team are the biggest bunch of pathetic blunderers to disgrace the White House in some time.

I do hold Obama partly accountable for the slowness of the recovery. The sharp rise in the stock market is due entirely to the action of the Fed. The Fed does a great job helping rich people.

But it is up to Congress and the White House to help everyone else, and they have been falling on their faces.


However, there is more to this picture.

If you look at the 90s, during Clinton's administration 25 million jobs were created. During the 8 years of Bush, only 3 million jobs were created. Those 3 million new jobs, and then some, were subsequently wiped out by the recession.

When comparing the Bush years to every Presidency since WWII, we see there was a serious softening of job creation occuring well before the crash, all during the Bush years.

So I believe the cause of that softening is still at work and is the bigger factor in why the recovery has been so slow.

What is that factor? Well, I think it is the fact that with the collapse of Communism and the transfer of 2 billion Chinese and Indians from centrally planned economies into the world market economy, it is going to take a long, long time for that marketplace to absorb all those workers. When you consider the US has only 100 million workers compared to the 2 billion Chinese and Indian workers, then job and wage suppression is to be expected here until their wages rise to near our level.

This will take quite some time. But I do see signs of it happening. The Chinese laborers are beginning to demand higher pay and better work conditions. Labor unions and strikes can't be far behind.

 

[The Rabbi]

"That is the history" ? What does that even mean? Do I need to actually point out the numerous instances where that did not happen?

By all means go ahead.

1839
1873
1929

The sharper the recession, the sharper the recovery. We should have had a great recovery with UE about 6% by now and GDP growth north of 4%.

"Should have" according to what metric? Something you just pulled out of your ass?

Here:
United States GDP Growth Rate
Recession of 1947-8 had 3.1% decline in GDP, followed by strong growth, about 15%
1960 had only 1.7% decline, followed by less strong growth
73-75 had 3.2% decline, followed by nearly 10% growth
81-81 saw 2.7% decline followed by 8% growth
This one had a 5% decline and has been followed by 3.5% max growth.

Which one is the oddball in this picture?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a 3yr nosedive because of his policies. We should have seen a sharp recovery after a sharp recession. That is the history. This time it's different because Obama and his economic team are the biggest bunch of pathetic blunderers to disgrace the White House in some time.

The 3 year nosedive started in 2007.

How would that be "because of his policies" exactly?

And since we haven't seen a nosedive like this since 1929, how the hell would you be able to make a comparison to a normal recovery?

We'd probably have to go back to recession/recovery cycles pre-1930 to make any sort of comparison, since the legislations mentioned earlier in this thread allowed a catastrophic collapse, at a level not seen since before the crash of '29.

The nosedive started in 2008. Remember McCain suspending his campaign in July to go back to Washington?
We have had recessions since the 1930s. We can certainly judge what the recovery ought to look like. And this isn't it.

 

[Truthmatters]

so now this liar wants to change the year dates on the article for poltical purposes?

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Americans saw wealth plummet 40*percent from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says - The Washington Post

I find that many people I know and have talked to about the economy say their net worth has dropped 20-30% over the last 3 years. Several have lost their savings, several their homes, and a lot have lost their jobs only to replace them with lower paying ones. Only 3 out of the 60 or so have said their wealth has gone up.

My 2 main business's have suffered about a 25% drop in revenue.

One venture I have taken on in the last 2 years has profited over 600%, that is buying foreclosures, fixing them up and reselling them.

It is a two edged sword, economy stinks and loose in one respect but then gain because of the stinking Economy another opportunity opens. Buying foreclosures is not my preferred way to make money, but A Gremlin does have to eat.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Mostly white folks. "Nothing to see here. Move along now!"

 

[Lakhota]

Fox & Friends Falsely Claims Fed Saw 40% Wealth Drop In “Last Three Years”

 

[Vast LWC]

The nosedive started in 2008. Remember McCain suspending his campaign in July to go back to Washington?
We have had recessions since the 1930s. We can certainly judge what the recovery ought to look like. And this isn't it.

The worst of the nosedive was happening by 2008. It started in 2007, with it's very beginnings happening as early as 2006.

As per the Wiki:

U.S. house sales prices peaked in mid-2006 and began their steep decline forthwith, refinancing became more difficult. As adjustable-rate mortgages began to reset at higher interest rates (causing higher monthly payments), mortgage delinquencies soared. Securities backed with mortgages, including subprime mortgages, widely held by financial firms, lost most of their value. Global investors also drastically reduced purchases of mortgage-backed debt and other securities as part of a decline in the capacity and willingness of the private financial system to support lending. Concerns about the soundness of U.S. credit and financial markets led to tightening credit around the world and slowing economic growth in the U.S. and Europe.

In October of 2007 the Dow peaked at 14093 started moving steadily downward.

By September 19, 2008, it had fallen nearly 3000 points to 11388. That's when Lehman Brothers and Merill Lynch collapsed.

In the month that followed, it dropped like a rock, to 8451 on October 10.

A little over a month after Obama took office, on March 6 2009, it reached it's low point at 6626.

Dropping a total of 7467 points from October of 2007 to March of 2009.

 

[Vast LWC]

Fox & Friends Falsely Claims Fed Saw 40% Wealth Drop In “Last Three Years”

I think that began in a Forbes article. I saw it earlier today.

The author deliberately used the term "the last 3 years" 3 times in it, even as the author posted charts and figures that were specifically labeled "2007-2010".

Fox probably just skimmed the article and rattled off their usual crap.

 

[g5000]

Part of the stupidity surrounding this report is that this is 2012, but the report is for the period 2007-2010. Some partisans just hear "three years" and think it is the three years of Obama's presidency and then hop on a mad horse and run with it.

This is a good way of finding out who actually reads things and who is just an opportunistic partisan hack with a heavy confirmation bias not the slightest bit interested in evidence against their belief system.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Americans saw wealth plummet 40*percent from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says - The Washington Post

My net worth has soared compared to 3 years ago.

Maybe that will be Obama campaign theme?

Sure most of you are worse off, but so what?