Changes in US Wealth Distribution 1989-2019

[Wyatt earp]

"How Did the Distribution of Wealth Change From 1989 to 2019?​

"Wealth became less equally distributed over the 30-year period.

"The share of total wealth held by families in the top 10 percent of the distribution increased from 63 percent in 1989 to 72 percent in 2019, and the share of total wealth held by families in the top 1 percent of the distribution increased from 27 percent to 34 percent over the same period, CBO estimates.

"By contrast, the share of total wealth held by families in the bottom half of the distribution declined over that period, from 4 percent to 2 percent."

Families in the bottom half lost 2% over 30 years which means the bulk of the wealth transfer went from the US middle class to the richest ten percent; what will the next 30 years bring for 90% of Americans?

Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989 to 2019.

"How Did the Distribution of Wealth Change From 1989 to 2019?​

"Wealth became less equally distributed over the 30-year period.

"The share of total wealth held by families in the top 10 percent of the distribution increased from 63 percent in 1989 to 72 percent in 2019, and the share of total wealth held by families in the top 1 percent of the distribution increased from 27 percent to 34 percent over the same period, CBO estimates.

"By contrast, the share of total wealth held by families in the bottom half of the distribution declined over that period, from 4 percent to 2 percent."

Families in the bottom half lost 2% over 30 years which means the bulk of the wealth transfer went from the US middle class to the richest ten percent; what will the next 30 years bring for 90% of Americans?

Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989 to 2019.

Translation~ your a lazy person, thank God you quietly quit

 

[georgephillip]

Boom and Bust is inevitable, but the scale of it is not. It could be gentle waves, or huge 2008 waves.

Do you believe that's true for all economic systems or is capitalism one notable exception?

"...an everyday vocabulary, the terminology seems all right. For example, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines a recession as 'a difficult time for the economy of a country, when there is less trade, and industrial activity than usual and more people are unemployed.' 4

"However, as a macroeconomic term, this naming could cause serious confusion because it is directly related to the theory of the business cycle (Figure 1).

"According to this theory, a capitalist economy might go through four stages of economic performance -expansion, recession, depression and recovery."

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-Business-Cycle-of-a-non-socialist-Economy_fig1_342899306

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you believe that's true for all economic systems or is capitalism one notable exception?

"...an everyday vocabulary, the terminology seems all right. For example, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines a recession as 'a difficult time for the economy of a country, when there is less trade, and industrial activity than usual and more people are unemployed.' 4

"However, as a macroeconomic term, this naming could cause serious confusion because it is directly related to the theory of the business cycle (Figure 1).

"According to this theory, a capitalist economy might go through four stages of economic performance -expansion, recession, depression and recovery."

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-Business-Cycle-of-a-non-socialist-Economy_fig1_342899306

Depends on the system and how it works. I don't know every possibility for running an economy and anything other than capitalism has been Socialism and it generally only had busts.....

 

[georgephillip]

Freedom results in booms and busts.
Commies don't have to worry about busts.....their economies never boom.

Of course that doesn't prevent their commie idiocy from occasionally causing
a massive famine.

Greed leads to boom and busts, and capitalism doesn't exist without war and debt.

How many famines has capitalism produced?

Famine in India - Wikipedia

 

[georgephillip]

That is the best that you can do. A statement taken out of context.

FACT CHECK: No, Trump Did Not Tell People To ‘Inject Themselves With Disinfectant’ Or ‘Drink Bleach’ | The Daily Wire See it is dickheads like you who listened to the Lame Stream Media, that he said what you memed, so typical of a Marxist slave, you voted against lower gasoline prices, lower food prices, grocery store shelves bare, just because you were told that "Orange Man Bad". Such stupid people who bite their noses off, just to spite their faces....

Your link:

"And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning?"

Does injecting bleach sound healthier to you than drinking bleach?

"Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs..."

Does bleach your lungs sound MAGA or moronic?
What's the difference?

 

[Woodznutz]

Imho, that's another critical symptom of a disease called capitalism.
Around a century ago socialism was widely regarded as inevitable in western countries. The US state of Oklahoma had the greatest number of self-described socialists sitting in its state legislature of all US states. Futurists predicted a 10- hour work week before 2000. That wave crested in 1980. and since that time we've seen the biggest wealth transfer in history from the US middle class to its 1%.

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%—And That's Made the U.S. Less Secure

Inequities and disparities are more a function of human nature than an economic model.
Don't blame the rich for the misfortunes of the poor.
The poor and middle class have made themselves poor and have made the 1% rich. Follow the money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Greed leads to boom and busts, and capitalism doesn't exist without war and debt.

Greed leads to boom and busts

Only when people have the freedom to build and invest.

No freedom, no booms. Yet another reason why communism sucks.

 

[Woodznutz]

"How Did the Distribution of Wealth Change From 1989 to 2019?​

"Wealth became less equally distributed over the 30-year period.

"The share of total wealth held by families in the top 10 percent of the distribution increased from 63 percent in 1989 to 72 percent in 2019, and the share of total wealth held by families in the top 1 percent of the distribution increased from 27 percent to 34 percent over the same period, CBO estimates.

"By contrast, the share of total wealth held by families in the bottom half of the distribution declined over that period, from 4 percent to 2 percent."

Families in the bottom half lost 2% over 30 years which means the bulk of the wealth transfer went from the US middle class to the richest ten percent; what will the next 30 years bring for 90% of Americans?

Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989 to 2019.

In 1989 my net worth was about $10,000.
By 2019 I was a $millionaire.
Hurray for capitalism!

 

[georgephillip]

When you have a socialist economy, there isnt enough to go around to have a boon and bust happening. It is always just busted, where everyone is poor and miserable, that is the Marxist way. Equality and misery....

When you have a socialist economy no one dies from lack of insurance or falls into medical bankruptcy.

Soviet socialists survived a world war, the Russia revolution, an invasion by the US, UK, and French capitalists, and the onset of the Great Depression to achieve the 2nd most productive economy in the world.

https://en.topwar.ru/38765-stalinsk...rshilos-ekonomicheskoe-chudo-po-sovetski.html

"In 1913, Russia's share in global industrial production was about 4%, by 1937, it reached 10%, and by the middle of 70's, it was 20%, and kept at that level before the start of 'restructuring.'

"The most dynamic were the two periods of the Soviet stories: 1930 and 1950.

"The first period was industrialization, which was carried out under the conditions of a 'mobilization economy': in terms of total gross domestic product and industrial production in the USSR in the middle of the 1930s. came in first place in Europe and second place in the world, second only to the United States and significantly surpassing Germany, Britain, France.

"In less than three five-year periods in the country, 364 new cities were built, 9 thousand large enterprises were built and put into operation - a huge number - two companies a day!"

 

[georgephillip]

Translation~ your a lazy person, thank God you quietly quit

Quit what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you have a socialist economy no one dies from lack of insurance or falls into medical bankruptcy.

Soviet socialists survived a world war, the Russia revolution, an invasion by the US, UK, and French capitalists, and the onset of the Great Depression to achieve the 2nd most productive economy in the world.

https://en.topwar.ru/38765-stalinsk...rshilos-ekonomicheskoe-chudo-po-sovetski.html

"In 1913, Russia's share in global industrial production was about 4%, by 1937, it reached 10%, and by the middle of 70's, it was 20%, and kept at that level before the start of 'restructuring.'

"The most dynamic were the two periods of the Soviet stories: 1930 and 1950.

"The first period was industrialization, which was carried out under the conditions of a 'mobilization economy': in terms of total gross domestic product and industrial production in the USSR in the middle of the 1930s. came in first place in Europe and second place in the world, second only to the United States and significantly surpassing Germany, Britain, France.

"In less than three five-year periods in the country, 364 new cities were built, 9 thousand large enterprises were built and put into operation - a huge number - two companies a day!"

When you have a socialist economy no one dies from lack of insurance or falls into medical bankruptcy.

Obviously. They just don't give you any medical care.

Soviet socialists survived a world war, the Russia revolution, an invasion by the US, UK, and French capitalists, and the onset of the Great Depression to achieve the 2nd most productive economy in the world.

"They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work" LOL!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

When you have a socialist economy no one dies from lack of insurance or falls into medical bankruptcy.

Soviet socialists survived a world war, the Russia revolution, an invasion by the US, UK, and French capitalists, and the onset of the Great Depression to achieve the 2nd most productive economy in the world.

https://en.topwar.ru/38765-stalinsk...rshilos-ekonomicheskoe-chudo-po-sovetski.html

"In 1913, Russia's share in global industrial production was about 4%, by 1937, it reached 10%, and by the middle of 70's, it was 20%, and kept at that level before the start of 'restructuring.'

"The most dynamic were the two periods of the Soviet stories: 1930 and 1950.

"The first period was industrialization, which was carried out under the conditions of a 'mobilization economy': in terms of total gross domestic product and industrial production in the USSR in the middle of the 1930s. came in first place in Europe and second place in the world, second only to the United States and significantly surpassing Germany, Britain, France.

"In less than three five-year periods in the country, 364 new cities were built, 9 thousand large enterprises were built and put into operation - a huge number - two companies a day!"

When you have a socialist society millions of people die, because they dont want to live in a socialist society. ******* stupid people i guess never bothered with history. They just take a Marxist politician's word for it.

 

[georgephillip]

Depends on the system and how it works. I don't know every possibility for running an economy and anything other than capitalism has been Socialism and it generally only had busts.....

You might consider thinking of socialism as capitalism's critical shadow (and likely successor):



"Capitalism isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.

"It's just another phase.

"Every economic system the world has ever seen was born, evolved and died.

"Capitalism is among them.

"It was born.

"It has evolved.

"So guess what the next stage is?

"It dies."

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You might consider thinking of socialism as capitalism's critical shadow (and likely successor):



"Capitalism isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.

"It's just another phase.

"Every economic system the world has ever seen was born, evolved and died.

"Capitalism is among them.

"It was born.

"It has evolved.

"So guess what the next stage is?

"It dies."

Just think, if it dies, then there is no other country left to save US from the Communists/Marxists/Democrats. You like high gas and food prices now, you will see rationing after that. Millions of people have died under Socialism as it is all about poverty and misery, except for the few elites who think they are so much better than you, so steal all the money from the people.

Socialism is the leading man-made cause of misery and death and misery known to mankind. Irrespective of its method of implementation, whether it be implemented by mob or strongman, collectivisation is a poverty generator. It is an attack on human dignity and a destroyer of rights.

Socialism Ends in Misery. – RadioChristianity​

radiochristianity.com/socialism-ends-in-misery/

 

[georgephillip]

Inequities and disparities are more a function of human nature than an economic model.
Don't blame the rich for the misfortunes of the poor.
The poor and middle class have made themselves poor and have made the 1% rich. Follow the money.

When the rich bribe politicians for tax and trade policies that export million of middle class jobs to China thereby making millions of Americans unemployed, the rich are responsible for the misfortunes those job losses create.

 

[georgephillip]

Greed leads to boom and busts

Only when people have the freedom to build and invest.

No freedom, no booms. Yet another reason why communism sucks.

How does the "freedom to build and invest" differ from the freedom to exploit?"

Exploitation of labour - Wikipedia

 

[Woodznutz]

When the rich bribe politicians for tax and trade policies that export million of middle class jobs to China thereby making millions of Americans unemployed, the rich are responsible for the misfortunes those job losses create.

Those lost jobs have been steadily replaced, to the extent that there are 10 million unfilled job openings at present, with more looming, especially in the healthcare sector. Many professional and technical fields are importing labor from other countries. The failure isn't from exporting jobs, but from our failed education system.

 

[Woodznutz]

How does the "freedom to build and invest" differ from the freedom to exploit?"

Exploitation of labour - Wikipedia

Labor is now exploiting business, demanding, and receiving, more pay and benefits than ever before. Even the minimum wage is largely a thing of the past.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does the "freedom to build and invest" differ from the freedom to exploit?"

Exploitation of labour - Wikipedia

When there is freedom, how can you exploit labor?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

When the rich bribe politicians for tax and trade policies that export million of middle class jobs to China thereby making millions of Americans unemployed, the rich are responsible for the misfortunes those job losses create.

So what you are telling me is that because of the Marxists/Socialists/Demofascists, and what they are doing to the Citizens of the US, no one can achieve wealth in this country? So why do people like you continue to vote for the very people who prevent you from success?