Wealth Distributed Randomly?

[DGS49]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

 

[Andylusion]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

 

[Moonglow]

Work harder?
Show us the calculation you used to come to that idea....

 

[sealybobo]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

I was watching The Departed yesterday. Jack Nicholson’s character said that was his problem with the blacks. The Irish fought for their section of Boston and while they too had crime they had a much better neighborhood than the blacks.

Blacks had it harder than the Irish but there was a time no one would hire an Irishman in Boston. Jack said,”that’s my problem with the blacks. They don’t realize no one is going to give you anything you got to take it.

So, here is what I would say to blacks. My grandmothers and grandfathers came here broke from Greece. Even though they were poor they were able to save to buy a home and eventually retire with money in their bank accounts. Their kids grew up to be middle class and some even upper class. So in 2 generations our family struggled and succeeded.

Blacks can do this too. It may take a generation or two but if blacks followed my grandparents path there is no reason they too can’t get out of poverty.

One thing my grandparents did was get out of Greece. They didn’t even speak English. So poor black people who live in hoods may want to leave those neighborhoods.

 

[sealybobo]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

 

[Muhammed]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

Yep. I've known people who lived paycheck to paycheck their whole lives, despite the fact that thier income doubled or tripled.

 

[harmonica]

1. blacks only 13% of the population
2. high crime rate--low graduation rate
it's a fact that college grads make more $$$$
..so the blacks graduate high school at low levels = less ''qualified'' for college --and they graduate college at lower rates
3. blacks that do go to college are given MUCHO $/etc = they have less loans to pay off
4. but they are over represented in great paying/great jobs
the key is like Andy said---culture

.....AND--since they concentrate [ to put it MILDLY ] on very minuscule, unimportant problems like the POLICE!!!!!!!!-----and not the important problems--graduation/crime rates/etc--the cycle goes on and on

 

[Andylusion]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

 

[Gdjjr]

The OT and the first reply were awesome.
Then, as is the usual, on political message boards, it went off the rails-
There is NOT a dimes worth of difference in Republicrat or Demopublican "fiscal" Policy, which IS "borrow to spend"- in a monkey see, monkey do world, monkeys (no matter the color of their skin) emulate the leader monkeys. The Duopoly Party insures it's cronies leave enough crumbs, from the cake of plenty, to assuage the tools in their respective shops. The Public Education "system" is designed to exemplify conformity (college, so called education) and the numbers in debt for an alleged education in so called centers for higher education add to the coffers and provide ammunition for the ignorant, so called educated, to sling shit at the other guy because, his guy can say better shit-
SMH-

Free enterprise was one of the reasons this Country was founded and a fed gov't established, to help ensure "official" favoritism (legal) didn't occur- yet, the Public Education "system", subscribed to by BOTH in the Duopoly fails to point that out in the mandated curriculum-

FYI, Free is unencumbered- laws encumber. Laws were, originally, to punish for criminal action (harming another or taking what doesn't belong to you), yet, we have laws restricting participation = favoritism, no matter how it's sliced or diced. Yet, our (unconstitutional) Public Education "system" turns out drones, by the 100's if not 1000's and when they enter the work force if they don't conform (become script readers) they aren't welcome.

Yeah, it's Trumps fault- or Obama's or the next guy you don't like and, by GOD! pointing fingers at the other guy fixes everything.

 

[Andylusion]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

Yep. I've known people who lived paycheck to paycheck their whole lives, despite the fact that thier income doubled or tripled.

Me too. I'm always baffled when I meet people who have less money than me, and yet have double the income of me. I know a guy right now that makes almost $60,000 a year, and I have cash in my pocket, and he can't hardly go to McDonald's.

People are utterly... just... baffling to me. You don't *NEED* a new car. Yeah, you want one. But is it really worth it to be completely broke, so that poor people have more money than you? That's stupid.

 

[Andylusion]

Work harder?
Show us the calculation you used to come to that idea....

Context? What are you asking?

 

[sealybobo]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

Oh you took me literally? The point was CEOs used to make 20x the average worker today it’s 350x.

Dont quote me on the numbers. Just get the point.

Factor inflation in the middle class is a shell of what it once was. On every level American workers have taken a step back since Reagan to now. And it’s because of republican policies you defended like break8ng unions.

No2 I’ll read the rest of what you posted.

 

[sealybobo]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

Bullshit. Starting with the GI bill, social security, labor laws and unions, liberalism created a middle class the world had never seen before. But the rich fought back and if we dared fight back you cried class warfare. Not realizing the war had already been waged against you starting with Reagan and jack Walsh

 

[sealybobo]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

 

[Andylusion]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

Bullshit. Starting with the GI bill, social security, labor laws and unions, liberalism created a middle class the world had never seen before. But the rich fought back and if we dared fight back you cried class warfare. Not realizing the war had already been waged against you starting with Reagan and jack Walsh

No. Not true. Not even close. The middle class of today, lives a dream life compared to the middle class of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. You are just fooling yourself if you deny that, because there isn't a single statistical measure you can look at, that suggests otherwise.

And no, Social Security is horrible. If you had control of the money flushed down social security, and put it in the worst possible investment, you would be better off than under social security as it is.

In fact, that's not even theory. It's fact. In the 1980s, they allowed a county in Texas to put the money that would have gone to social security, into a private investment fund, and every single person, who put their money into even the worst investment, did better than social security.

So no, I'm not going to believe some mythical wage war, and nonsense.

 

[Andylusion]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

First, that doesn't even follow. Your income has nothing to do with paying a Union. Nothing. As I said before, when I was in high school, you could work at the union grocery store, or the non-union one. The wages were identical. You didn't magically make a middle class income, scanning groceries as a cashier, simply because it was union.

In fact, you earned less money, because part of your identical wage, went to Union dues.

Moreover, there's a reason why the VW plant workers voted against Unionizing. Again.... there's a reason Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt, and GM and Chrysler did.
There's reason Little Debbie didn't go bankrupt, and Hostess did, and then reopened non-union.

There's a reason why Steel mills close under Unions, and reopen non-union. We had one do that here in Ohio. Was a Union shop, closed, and reopened non-union.

By the way, typically the company that buys out the closed union shop, will not hire former union employees.

As I said before, union membership has been falling everywhere in the world. This isn't an American thing, or a Reagan thing, or a Republican thing. This is true EVERYWHERE. Did Reagan go to Germany, and convince them to fight unions or something? No. He said 'tear down this wall', not 'tear down those unions'.

So, yeah I can say Unions suck, and I just did, and I have the evidence to support that position.

 

[hadit]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

Unions are victims of their own success because virtually everything they fought for has become law and they're chasing ever smaller rewards. Safer working conditions? Yup. 40 hour work week? Yup. Overtime? Yup. Basically everything. Where they went off the rails and shot themselves in the foot was when they viewed management as the enemy to be defeated instead of as a collaborator to make everyone more successful and demanded instead of negotiated. Hence, when the market drastically changed, they were unable to adapt and ended up shooting the goose. Why do you think GM had to be bailed out? Think inflexible, long term contracts based on unrealistic economic projections that prevented them from taking steps to avoid destruction. Why did some shops have to pay unproductive employees to do nothing? Think inflexible contracts that protected them at the expense of the productive. Unions continue to fight yesterday's battles that were won long ago. It's no wonder they're declining in popularity, because there's really not much need today for unions that act like it's still 1934 and American companies can dictate pricing and goods to the world.

Want to know why the jobs went overseas? Blame the consumers who want to pay $150 for a TV that would cost $350-$500 if it was made here by union shops. Don't like Walmart? Blame the consumer who wants to pay $10 for a shirt that would cost $25-$35 if it was made here by union shops. And on it goes. Corporations adapt to pressure, and if enough Americans refused to buy cheap crap from China, instead insisting on paying a lot more for the union label, guess what would happen? It's not up to the corporation to force things on the consumers, it's up to the consumers to demand what they want from the corporation.

The same with automation. Why would anyone in their right mind expect an auto manufacturer to pay hundreds of thousands of people to stand at an assembly line bolting car parts together when they can buy a fleet of robots that do the job better, faster, and cheaper than humans can and pay a handful of people to monitor and service the machines? Only if the consumers demand that their cars are hand made and are willing to pay 10 times as much as they do now would that happen. McDonald's is automating with ordering kiosks instead of teenagers fumbling your order at the counter, and automated burger makers are on the way. Heck, we automated pumping gas before I even started driving, and that was back when Van Halen was just getting started. The pace of change in the world is accelerating, and unions tend to put the brakes on change, hence they have been rendered obsolete but just don't know it. It's what happens when you don't adapt to change.

 

[sealybobo]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

Bullshit. Starting with the GI bill, social security, labor laws and unions, liberalism created a middle class the world had never seen before. But the rich fought back and if we dared fight back you cried class warfare. Not realizing the war had already been waged against you starting with Reagan and jack Walsh

No. Not true. Not even close. The middle class of today, lives a dream life compared to the middle class of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. You are just fooling yourself if you deny that, because there isn't a single statistical measure you can look at, that suggests otherwise.

And no, Social Security is horrible. If you had control of the money flushed down social security, and put it in the worst possible investment, you would be better off than under social security as it is.

In fact, that's not even theory. It's fact. In the 1980s, they allowed a county in Texas to put the money that would have gone to social security, into a private investment fund, and every single person, who put their money into even the worst investment, did better than social security.

So no, I'm not going to believe some mythical wage war, and nonsense.

Omg where to begin on how wrong you are. Do I have to even explain this?

My parents and grandparents worked for the big three in the 60s-90s. They had really cheap healthcare and higher union wages with pensions and good social security and Medicare. The people during this era were the thriving booming middle class. Back then a GM was America’s largest employer. Today it’s Walmart,

Back then a high school dropout could go find a factory job and raise a family and buy a home on those wages. Today?

So this class warfare you so ignorantly deny. Step 1. Send union jobs overseas. Step two, buy Chinese buy at Walmart. And the 3rd way they attacked the middle class. Illegal employers started hiring illegal workers rather than pay American wages. This still happens today.

Republican policies have put more money in rich peoples pockets by cutting social programs that help the poor or programs that ar3 social safety nets for the middle class.

Andy, you’re just an idiot.

 

[sealybobo]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

Unions are victims of their own success because virtually everything they fought for has become law and they're chasing ever smaller rewards. Safer working conditions? Yup. 40 hour work week? Yup. Overtime? Yup. Basically everything. Where they went off the rails and shot themselves in the foot was when they viewed management as the enemy to be defeated instead of as a collaborator to make everyone more successful and demanded instead of negotiated. Hence, when the market drastically changed, they were unable to adapt and ended up shooting the goose. Why do you think GM had to be bailed out? Think inflexible, long term contracts based on unrealistic economic projections that prevented them from taking steps to avoid destruction. Why did some shops have to pay unproductive employees to do nothing? Think inflexible contracts that protected them at the expense of the productive. Unions continue to fight yesterday's battles that were won long ago. It's no wonder they're declining in popularity, because there's really not much need today for unions that act like it's still 1934 and American companies can dictate pricing and goods to the world.

Want to know why the jobs went overseas? Blame the consumers who want to pay $150 for a TV that would cost $350-$500 if it was made here by union shops. Don't like Walmart? Blame the consumer who wants to pay $10 for a shirt that would cost $25-$35 if it was made here by union shops. And on it goes. Corporations adapt to pressure, and if enough Americans refused to buy cheap crap from China, instead insisting on paying a lot more for the union label, guess what would happen? It's not up to the corporation to force things on the consumers, it's up to the consumers to demand what they want from the corporation.

The same with automation. Why would anyone in their right mind expect an auto manufacturer to pay hundreds of thousands of people to stand at an assembly line bolting car parts together when they can buy a fleet of robots that do the job better, faster, and cheaper than humans can and pay a handful of people to monitor and service the machines? Only if the consumers demand that their cars are hand made and are willing to pay 10 times as much as they do now would that happen. McDonald's is automating with ordering kiosks instead of teenagers fumbling your order at the counter, and automated burger makers are on the way. Heck, we automated pumping gas before I even started driving, and that was back when Van Halen was just getting started. The pace of change in the world is accelerating, and unions tend to put the brakes on change, hence they have been rendered obsolete but just don't know it. It's what happens when you don't adapt to change.

Great post. One thought though. This isn’t the consumers decision. Every country protects its vital industries. Manufacturing is the most vital industry in any big country. America was the only country that didn’t protect its vital industries why? Because American workers were the highest paid workers in the world. They wanted to break those union jobs.

Before trump started talking tariffs and protecting American workers us liberals were saying it. You laughed at us but cheer trump on for taking on China.

And that trade war in 2017 caused a slowing of the economy so we only got 2.3% growth. Trump laughed at Obama for that kind of growth and this is after trump passed the biggest tax break in us history. 2019 should have been the greatest year. Was it? Nope

 

[hadit]

Study highlights the role stock ownership plays in the racial wealth gap

Profits generated by publicly traded corporations between 2004 and 2019 amounted to about $13.4 trillion being paid to shareholders in the form of stock...

www.post-gazette.com

The linked article bemoans the fact that when it comes to the element of wealth that is corporate stock ownership, Americans of black African descent are largely left out. And of course this is true. Stocks are generally purchased with "extra" income, income that would otherwise just go to savings (or be pissed away), and if you are financially living on the edge - which a LARGE percentage of American Blacks are - significant stock ownership is not a realistic possibility.

Indeed, the article states that even in the GenPop, only a little more than half of Americans own stock - even including IRA's, 401k's, and indirect ownership through stock-based mutual funds.

There can be no doubt that stock ownership can be a major driver of wealth accumulation. The average year-to-year gain in the DOW since the Depression - when you include both increases in value and dividends - has been about 12%, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. So focusing on the stock boom since Our Beloved President was elected, one might truthfully say that "Black America" has been left out of this windfall.

(Left out of the conversation is the OTHER main avenue for wealth accumulation in the U.S.: Real Estate ("income property"). Although I have not checked the data, I know many people who have accumulated a great deal of wealth by buying and maintaining income property, mostly very inexpensive property in questionable locations. But I digress...).

What does race have to do with this? A large percentage of the non-Black population is born with the same lack of financial and other resources as a majority of Blacks. I know many people for whom the death of a parent is an EXPENSE, rather than a time to buy something nice with the inheritance. People who are born poor have to work a little harder to accumulate wealth than people who are born into families that have resources. A large percentage of the entire population is born into this economic class. Race has nothing to do with it.

The more interesting article would be to compare Black stock ownership with the stock ownership of poor whites in Appalachia. THEN one might see whether race has anything to do with it. The entire linked article is based on the specious theory that wealth is randomly distributed throughout the population, and therefore if one group ends up with less of it, then there is something nefarious (racism,?) at work.

By any financial measure, my family and those of most of my friends growing up were "poor." My father's net financial worth was "in the red" until he was in his 60's (my mother died early and never worked outside the home), so when it came to "helping out" with college and things of that nature, it was simply out of the question. I didn't have to pay room & board at home when I was actually attending classes; that was my parents' "help" for my education. To the extent that I succeeded (was able to buy stocks) it was because I took advantage of what was in front of me, including three years in the Army to get the GI Bill and a VA home loan. Where did that "white privilege" come in? Nowhere that I can see. The army didn't take me because I was white. The shit jobs that I had as a kid and young adult didn't come because I was white. The colleges and law school that I attended didn't accept me because I was white. Every single "professional" job that I ever got would've been enhanced if I had been Black. They would have rolled out the red carpet for me, and competed for my services, if I had been Black.

What does race have to do with stock ownership? Nothing. Poor people have to work harder than middle class and rich people if they want to own stocks. And there you have it.

Yeah I agree with those conclusions as well.

It is ridiculous to conclude that race has anything to do with buying and investing in stocks.

Culture has to do with it. Culture.

That's the issue.

It's not whether your mommy or daddy were poor or rich. That can have an effect, sure. But that isn't the issue.

It's culture.

Last year, I made a record breaking $30,000 for the year. That was my biggest taxable income ever reported.

Before last year, I made $25K and before that $22K, and for the previous 10 years... I averaged about $20K a year.

In 2008... I bought stock. Now how can I buy stock, with an income of just $20K, living on my own? By spending less than I make.

You don't need a smart phone. I had a $20 flip phone until somewhere around 2011.

Even now, I have a pay-go phone. My monthly bill is $22 dollars a month on average. The less I use the phone, the lower the bill is.

People blow their money, and then complain they have no retirement. That's on you. I have no credit cards. I have a 03 Grand Marquis I bought for $3,000 five years ago. I eat chicken and rice, because it's cheap.

You need to live within your means. If I don't have the money for something, then I don't buy that something.

Anyone can do this. Is it easy? No. It's hard. But that's what personal responsibility is all about.

I love your thinking. Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them. Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming. Corporations had to share the profits. But they didn’t like that so they sent those good paying jobs overseas. They hired illegals to do blue collar work because they didn’t like paying what Americans were asking.

I could go on and on but bottom line is today the middle class is you and the rich have never been richer. This is the republican blueprint. This is how they see the economy should work. You, the rabble, just need to spend and have less. Don’t ask for more.

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

And your reply is that you just need to spend less.

Not that bright are you?

Me? Besides maxing out my 401k I also put $20k into the stock market. You would be right if I wasn’t saving. Most people who make what I do spend too much. And yes, even poor Americans spend too much. Pay them $5 more an hour they probably won’t save it. But isn’t that how our economy works? Wouldn’t our economy collapse if everyone saved like you do and only made what you make?

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

So back then the ceo made $3 million and you made $60k and today they make $30 millio and you make $30k.

Ridiculous. Prove that claim. You give me specific proof of what job used to pay $60,000, and now people doing that exact same job, are making $30,000? Crazy.

Since the 1970s the rich have been widening the gap between us and them.

Actually the gap between the rich and poor has been widening since before 1776.

And this is normal. This is universal. There isn't anywhere in the world where the gap is not getting wider. And there hasn't be a time where the gap wasn't getting wider.

Let me explain it. Say you have six lemonade stands. You plan out the budget and math, and find it costs you $30 in product (cups, lemonade, ice, water), and you sell about $100 worth of lemonade. You pay a girl $60 to sit and sell lemonade, so you walk away with $10 profit.

So you make $60 a day, and so do your employees.

Here's where the change comes. What do you do with your $60? You save it, and open more stands. Now you have 12 lemonade stands. Does the math change at each stand? No.

You can't pay your employees $120, because each stand still brings in $100, and has $30 worth of expenses. Just because you are bringing home $120, $10 from each of the 12 lemonade stands, doesn't mean you can pay your employees more money

You open 100 lemonade stands. Now you are making $1,000 a day, while your employees are still making $60.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor is wider now. And it should be. They have invested, and that investment has a return.

And you didn't steal anything from any employee. When you opened 6 more lemonade stands, did you "take" anything from any of your employees? No. You paid all of them exactly what they were owed. You just have more.... lemonade stands. You didn't reduce any wages from any employees, and the amount you collected from each individual stand, did not increase.

How much money do you think could be given to employees at Walmart, from the CEO?

The Walmart CEO got $4.8 Million in cash. Walmart has 2.2 Million employees.

That means if you distributed the money to the employees, it was turn out to be $2.18. That is two dollars, and eighteen cents.... for the year. You think the CEO earning less is going to increase people's wages? It's not.

Union membership used to be 35% of the workforce. The middle class was booming.

Union membership has fallen because Unions sucks. When I was in high school, I had the option of working at a store that was union, and store that was not union. The wages were identical, but at the Union store, you had to pay union dues... even though you were not eligible for union benefits until you had been there for 2 years. Which was obviously planned out, because they knew most of their employees were high school students, which couldn't get a job until they were 16, and likely would leave for college in..... about.... two years.

So you had to pay for the Union, without any benefits from being in the Union, until you were going to leave the job anyway.

Unions suck. They suck everywhere. There is a reason why non-union Honda and Toyota did not go bankrupt in the US, while Unionized Chrysler and General Motors did.

There's a reason non-union Little Debbie did not go bankrupt, and Union Hostess did. Oh... and by the way, after going bankrupt, Hostess was bought out, and reopened as non-union shop.

And as I said, Unions suck everywhere. If you look at Europe, Union membership has fallen in every single country.

Unions destroy their own jobs, and their members. That's why union membership has fallen absolutely everywhere.

Go read about the tire plants in France, where the Union plant, refused to make concessions until the entire plant closed. The tire plant right down the road on the same street, agreed to complete concessions, and remained open. The union actually kicked those workers out of the Union, because they agreed to the concessions to keep their jobs. Unions wreck their members and their jobs. That's why unions are declining.

As for the middle class booming, I'm not sure how you could possibly imply that it isn't now. The middle class in this country has a standard of living, that people in the 50s couldn't hardly dream of.

And most people can only dream of around the world too. You realize that $32K a year, puts you in the top 1% of the planet? And yet middle class is $40K or more? So our lower class, has a better life, than 99% of the world.

In fact, an economist from Mexico said that the Mexican middle class, wishes they could live like the "poor" of the United States.

But people have this goofy romanticized view of the 1950s, that's a bunch utter crap. Lower-class working people, live in bigger homes than the middle class of the 1950s. We have central air, color TVs, cell phones, internet and computers. We have multiple cars, and cars that have air conditioning. And getting a flat tire like in Christmas story, was normal. Even in 1950s almost half of all homes did not have hot water, bathtubs, showers, or a flush toilet.

And you want to claim things were better in the past? You crazy. Go look at an average house from the 1950s. In the 1950s, the average house size for a middle class American, was 980 sqft.

My college apartment was 900 sqft.

Today the average house size for a middle class American is 2,650 sqft.... oh but the middle class was 'booming' then, and not now? You crazy.

You guys brag about consumer spending but then fault those consumers too?

Sure. I've been saving and investing since 2007. Do you think that for the last 13 years, that I have not spent anything on consumer purchases?

You can do both. You can be wise enough to save some money for the future AND spend money on things you need or want today.

Where the fault is, is when you spend EVERYTHING. Or worse, spend everything and more, and have debt, like moron.

I have zero debt. I owe no one anywhere, anything. If you were to see my credit score page, it has credit history zero, payment history zero, total balances zero. Credit score is 700.

Point being, consumer spending is fine, provided you manage your finances wisely.

Now I don't have a problem with people who refuse to save for retirement, but don't complain to me that we need higher taxes for your Social Security, when you have chosen to be irresponsible.

You can’t say unions suck when you only make $30k. Sorry

Unions are victims of their own success because virtually everything they fought for has become law and they're chasing ever smaller rewards. Safer working conditions? Yup. 40 hour work week? Yup. Overtime? Yup. Basically everything. Where they went off the rails and shot themselves in the foot was when they viewed management as the enemy to be defeated instead of as a collaborator to make everyone more successful and demanded instead of negotiated. Hence, when the market drastically changed, they were unable to adapt and ended up shooting the goose. Why do you think GM had to be bailed out? Think inflexible, long term contracts based on unrealistic economic projections that prevented them from taking steps to avoid destruction. Why did some shops have to pay unproductive employees to do nothing? Think inflexible contracts that protected them at the expense of the productive. Unions continue to fight yesterday's battles that were won long ago. It's no wonder they're declining in popularity, because there's really not much need today for unions that act like it's still 1934 and American companies can dictate pricing and goods to the world.

Want to know why the jobs went overseas? Blame the consumers who want to pay $150 for a TV that would cost $350-$500 if it was made here by union shops. Don't like Walmart? Blame the consumer who wants to pay $10 for a shirt that would cost $25-$35 if it was made here by union shops. And on it goes. Corporations adapt to pressure, and if enough Americans refused to buy cheap crap from China, instead insisting on paying a lot more for the union label, guess what would happen? It's not up to the corporation to force things on the consumers, it's up to the consumers to demand what they want from the corporation.

The same with automation. Why would anyone in their right mind expect an auto manufacturer to pay hundreds of thousands of people to stand at an assembly line bolting car parts together when they can buy a fleet of robots that do the job better, faster, and cheaper than humans can and pay a handful of people to monitor and service the machines? Only if the consumers demand that their cars are hand made and are willing to pay 10 times as much as they do now would that happen. McDonald's is automating with ordering kiosks instead of teenagers fumbling your order at the counter, and automated burger makers are on the way. Heck, we automated pumping gas before I even started driving, and that was back when Van Halen was just getting started. The pace of change in the world is accelerating, and unions tend to put the brakes on change, hence they have been rendered obsolete but just don't know it. It's what happens when you don't adapt to change.

Great post. One thought though. This isn’t the consumers decision. Every country protects its vital industries. Manufacturing is the most vital industry in any big country. America was the only country that didn’t protect its vital industries why? Because American workers were the highest paid workers in the world. They wanted to break those union jobs.

Before trump started talking tariffs and protecting American workers us liberals were saying it. You laughed at us but cheer trump on for taking on China.

And that trade war in 2017 caused a slowing of the economy so we only got 2.3% growth. Trump laughed at Obama for that kind of growth and this is after trump passed the biggest tax break in us history. 2019 should have been the greatest year. Was it? Nope

Of course it's the consumers' decision. If everyone left the $150 China made TVs sitting on the shelves and insisted on buying only American union made $350 TVs, the cheap crap would disappear because it wasn't selling. Money talks really loud, and the company that can provide the cheapest goods makes the most sales. That's really the bottom line. You have to provide a much more powerful incentive for the consumer to spend more, and quite frankly, for most people the cheap stuff is good enough. Why spend $1000 on a good sound system when you don't care about the marginal increase in sound quality and a set of $100 ear buds gives you 85%?

See, as long as you can charge a premium price for something, you can afford to pay higher wages than the other guy, but once something reaches commodity pricing you can't. Case in point. I worked in IT at Circuit City during their hayday when they were number one. They told us that it took 40 years for TVs to go from premium to commodity pricing. Guess how long it took DVD players to do the same thing? Two years. That's one of the reasons CC died, they were too stuck on the premium pricing model and lost out to Walmart and BestBuy. There were other reasons too, but that's a different topic, and I'm just glad I got out under my own power when I did. I could see the target on my back and really think I would have been in the next wave of layoffs had I not jumped. And all the unions in the world can't stop that from happening.

Consider what you said. On the one hand, you laud protectionism, while on the other you deride the economic impact of the higher prices, which are the inevitable result of said protectionism. That always seems to be lost in the shuffle when people start talking about artificially higher wages and preventing foreign competition. Are tariffs a good thing or a bad thing? We applied them and saw a lower increase in the rate of economic growth. Were wages helped and jobs protected by those actions? You tell me.

I don't know about you, but 2019 was a pretty good year for a whole lot of people. The tax cuts were nice, but it sure would have been good had Washington discovered the word "no" when it came to increasing spending.