hanimmal
Well-Known Member
THis is why I said there would have to be like 10 charts to really get a good look at wealth.Just because it's too simplified for my liking. Building wealth has an important element to it, which is frailty(inverse of strength). So when you have a downturn, people that are in frail positions(i.e. low equity), are wiped out. And people that were in stronger positions(i.e. high equity) and able to lick their wounds and move forward, so they're both in the same category of "homeownership", but on different economic planets.
Homeownership was just one category that I again would point to a very real 91 million (pretty sure that was the number from above) homes added is very real wealth gains. Regardless if there is a economic collapse (like in 200 and that wealth that was being built up was lost by the people who did overextend themselves when faced with a job loss. Someone will make some money off of it. And all those transactions add up to the fact that wealth is increasing.
Id just say that there are far more opportunities for people to extend themselves with credit today. Technology has made the ability to micro target not rely on a bottle neck at the bank.My perception is that people are far more willing to extend themselves today and, if true, that reflects "wealth" very inaccurately.I definitely thought about it, which I thought my example covered the increase-but-maybe-not thing, so it still doesn't address "wealth", imo.
I was just doing some mental math and it regurgitated out into my post I think mainly.Curious what the connection was to student debt and mortgage?
If I thought clouded it: Debt, Wages avg based on education level, mortgage, and think that is basically how I landed there.
Yeah I disagree with wealth being zero sum, hard.Something I was thinking about that could bring us through the backdoor, npi, is...do we agree that wealth is mostly zero sum? Obviously not completely, but mostly, or a significant portion?
We add to wealth when we work to produce stuff.
I think thinking of it as a 'loss' is incorrect.If yes, then I'd ask, in regard to the first chart showing the decline of total wealth from the 50th-90th percentiles, where do we think that loss comes from? Income? Real estate? Savings/retirement/investments?
The only loss is the share of the gains, but those are still gains.
The last 60 years the rich have been slowly milking back all that money that the government used to build up the suburban/rural infrastructure (roads/sewage/schools/etc) at a faster and faster rate due to them getting away with it.