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.
