Report: Median net worth at lowest level since 1969
By Harry Bradford, Huffington Post
Stunning new research from a New York University economics professor reveals just how wide the chasm between the rich and everyone else has grown over the past few decades.
In 2010 median net worth in the U.S. hit its lowest point since 1969 at $57,000, according to a recent study by NYU Professor Edward Wolff, who studied Americans’ net worth from 1983 – 2010.
During the same period, income inequality skyrocketed in the U.S., Wolff found, largely thanks to the housing bust, which took a significant bite out of middle-class Americans’ assets. Wolff found that while middle income earners lost 18 percent of their net worth, those in the top 1 percent increased their wealth by 71 percent over the same time period, according to Wolff’s report.
The findings bring into sharper relief existing evidence that average Americans are getting squeezed ever tighter, while the country’s wealthiest watch their fortunes explode. In 2010, the annual median wage fell to $26,364, its lowest level since 1999, according to a separate study. The decline in wages may have, in part, contributed to growing wealth inequality, resulting in a member of the 1 percent’s worth equaling 288 times that of the median U.S. household, the Economic Policy Institute found in a report released in September.
The Great Recession is responsible for much of that disparity with the wealth of the median family declining a record 38.8 percent between 2007 and 2010. Those between the ages of 35 and 44 were hit particularly hard. Partly as a result, half of American households now possess just 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
Since net worth includes real estate including a personal residences and home prices were extremely overinflated thanks to our wonderful federal government, it is no wonder average net worth has gone down with the housing crash.
Stunning and skyrocket are terms used by propagandists to make a point by using gross exaggeration.
How do you explain this statement:
“middle income earners lost 18 percent of their net worth, those in the top 1 percent increased their wealth by 71 percent over the same time period”
Also do you know the difference between average and median? It is basic statistics, I think I learned it in 6th grade.
Huff Po.
Dogula, you once again are nonsensical, but that seems to be normal for you. I assume you are referring to the article being from the Huffington Post. This is true, they are reporting on the findings from an economic professor at NY University (one of the top universities in the world mind you). So if you have an issue, review the study, determine whether or not they relied on a good data source and sound methodology for their analysis and if you have criticisms levy it against the analysis. My sense is the report (which btw is very math centric) is way over your pay grade. Enjoy Rick
Why bother using your intellect to address an argument when you can just attack the source?
Conservatives are averse to factual discussions.
“My sense is the report (which btw is very math centric) is way over your pay grade. Enjoy Rick”
So, Rick, why is it that after insulting someone, you always close with, “Enjoy Rick”? It’s extremely patronizing.
But then, your posts are for the most part also.
Well Dogula, actually engage in an intellectual discussion by evaluating the facts and offering an alternative view based on reasoned analysis and you will find me less patronizing – when all you do is fire off some inane comment that is stepped in ideology and easily disproved as horsesh-t, you will find me purposely patronizing. Enjoy, Rick
This study has to be flawed and/or terribly inaccurate!! Wasn’t Obama supposed to be this Great Savior? Didn’t he have a filibuster proof Congress to pass whatever he wanted during his first two years?
I’ll say it again, let’s see where we are in another two years?!
Hey Parker, the ‘job creators’ have had nice tax breaks for almost a decade.
Where are the jobs?
“Didn’t he have a filibuster proof Congress to pass whatever he wanted during his first two years?” Uh, no.
Only the perpetually obtuse foxnooze viewer believes Pres. Obama had a filibuster proof Congress for his 1st 2 years. Sen. Kennedy’s illness, death and replacement by Scott Brown(R) early on, Sen. Byrd’s illness, Minnesota’s Franken-Coleman Sen. election being undecided, Arlen Specter’s defection and Senators Lieberman and Sanders being Independents were all factors making this just another bogus wingnut talking point. The real period of time that the Pres. had anything close to a filibuster proof opportunity was actually 72 days and he was facing the immediate humongous problems handed to him after 8 years of the Bush disaster. These are easily researched facts. We have facts… you have fox.
So he did have a filibuster proof Congress, and Obama had greater majorities than his predecessor had! In fact, when everyone blames the financial collapse on George Bush, weren’t the Democrats in control of Congress at the time?
When all one watches is MSNBC, they buy into the narrative of, if a Republican is in the White House, it’s all the Republican’s fault. If a Democrat is in the White House, it’s still all the Republican’s fault!
Well Parker, prior to Obama taking office the country experienced an economic crash 2nd only to the Great Depression. You may recall, it took over a decade to come out of the Depression and the huge stimulus from the Federal Gov in response to WWII is what brought us out. So 4 years after Obama took office, the economy is recovering, slower then many people would like, but recovering. The stock market has nearly doubled the last 4 years, unemployment is declining and consumer confidence index is a highest since Feb 2008 (Obama took office Jan 2009). The economy is growing, but needs to grow faster. In other words, recovery takes time.
How congress works together over the next couple of months will do more to grow the economy then most anything else. Remember Standard and Poor downgraded our credit worthiness, largely because congress was dysfunctional (an explicit statement of the report). The primary goal of the republican congress last year was to defeat Obama, not help the US economy. Hopefully they got the message and the public wants solutions and those solutions are not the ones advocating from Grover Norquist. In fact a recent poll noted that only 39% of republican voters supported the republican solution. Many insiders are being optimistic that a reasonable compromise will be found, I hope they are correct – as that is what the folks in congress were elected to do, not support their party but support the entire country. Enjoy, Rick
Actually, really not trying to be partisan here, if one studies the history of our country’s financial crashes, the 2008 crash was bad. But not the 2nd worst ever. Also, if one looks at that same history of crashes, you’ll see that they didn’t take years from which to recover. That became the narrative after the Great Depression. And has become the narrative after the ’08 crash.
It becomes the narrative when the recovery is mishandled by such entities as the Federal Reserve, which keeps trying to fix things by keeping our economy on a sugar high. Very low interest rates, which has been terrible for savers, and means there are no real investment alternatives, is what’s led to the stock market rebound.
But anyway, while I disagree with some parts of your post Rick, I like, and believe, it elevates the tone! And believe me, I firmly believe Republicans bare a good chunk of responsibility for our bad economy. Just believe that there’s lots of blame to go around! And that the Republicans’ principles aren’t wrong. But rather their failure to live up to their principles, is where they screwed up.
But hey, as I’ve blogged previously, good luck to Pres. Obama, whom the people voted for, and let’s see where we stand when the next election cycle rolls around?!