The wealth held by the poorest half of American households increased three times as fast as the wealth held by the 1% under the Trump administration

[bbhaag]

Welcome back, read your thread.

I did. All I saw was a bunch of people full of salt over appears to be a good thing.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I did. All I saw was a bunch of people full of salt over appears to be a good thing.

Then you should take your partisan reading glasses off.

 

[bbhaag]

Then you should take your partisan reading glasses off.

Ok sounds good.

 

[bbhaag]

So more salt but can anyone tell me when the last time something like this happened?
I also love how it's so divided now. Nobody in here knows anything about me but because I posted something positive that happened under the Trump administration I'm automatically labeled a Trumper.

 

[ivwshane]

How about you articulate what you think happened.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Can anyone let us know when the last time this happened?

It doesn`t matter when it happened last! What matters is there is a sound factual reason why it happenned at it has nothing to do with Trump!!

 

[bbhaag]

How about you articulate what you think happened.

Ok here it is.

The wealth held by the poorest half of American households increased three times as fast as the wealth held by the 1% under the Trump administration.

Hows that? Did I articulate it enough for you or did you want me to point out a million and one reasons why this isn't a good thing and how President Trump had nothing to do with it?
Would that make you feel better? Like we are on the same side and shit like that?

 

[ivwshane]

Ok here it is.

The wealth held by the poorest half of American households increased three times as fast as the wealth held by the 1% under the Trump administration.

Hows that? Did I articulate it enough for you or did you want me to point out a million and one reasons why this isn't a good thing and how President Trump had nothing to do with it?
Would that make you feel better? Like we are on the same side and shit like that?

Who said it wasn't a good thing?

You should probably work on your reading comprehension.

Blue Collar Boom? College Grads, Baby Boomers Big Winners in Trump's Economy

U.S. President Donald Trump rolled out an eye-catching statistic in his State of the Union address Tuesday: the wealth held by the poorest half of American households increased three times as fast as the wealth held by the "1%" since he became president.

www.nytimes.com

 

[nickqt]

Orange man say so, orange man good socshulism bad!

 

[ch33zw1z]

So more salt but can anyone tell me when the last time something like this happened?
I also love how it's so divided now. Nobody in here knows anything about me but because I posted something positive that happened under the Trump administration I'm automatically labeled a Trumper.

Your posting history and OP make your motivations clear.

You eagerness to ingest verifiable lies make your motivations clear.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think you missed the point. Yes, if you lock in a good house in appreciating neighborhood sure, it locks in your cost of living in that specific location (see all the Cali people who bought houses 20-30 years ago). So say you have $500K house in Denver and $500K in retirement assets, at this point you're technically a millionaire, but you you can't use equity in your house to put food on the table, you still only have $500K to spend down in retirement even if owning your house allows you to stay where you want to stay. As I said, adding house equity to net worth makes people deceptively wealthier than they really are.

And you have the difference between the fixed house payment & what you would have spent on rent compounded over the span of decades. You're talking about what it ends up looking like on paper vs what it does for a person in real life. It's also peripheral to this topic.

What's been happening to us since 1980 is that the success of the 1% & particularly the .01% has been at the expense of the lower 75%. Mere fact. Every time the GOP cuts taxes at the top it exacerbates the situation.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I did. All I saw was a bunch of people full of salt over appears to be a good thing.

That is because it is just that, something that only appears to be a good thing, when in reality it is at best a neutral thing. The stat is deceptive, because while their wealth appeared to go up by a large amount it is because they had so little to begin with that even small amounts are large percentages. The real wealth increase is so small that they lose almost all the increase at any small setback, and lose most of it every December.

So more salt but can anyone tell me when the last time something like this happened?

Sure, ElFenix was nice enough to do so in post 15 of this thread.

not really. for the similar period from the last 3 years of obama's terms (Q1 2014 - Q3 2016), the same measure increased by 56%.

net worth drops of the bottom half drops almost every Q4.

and yes I understand that you're saying that it's now at 100 and Obama only got the poors to 64 and 100 > 64.

 

[blackangst1]

That increase in wealth is actually slightly below the normal average growth, despite that fact that Trump took over a booming economy. So if you really want to pin it on Trump you should be disappointed as it would indicate that he has actually depressed the ongoing growth of household wealth.

Secondly, even if you thought that we should be giving Trump credit for this statistic, what exactly has he done to cause it? The tax cuts had a negligible impact on the demographic you are highlighting and they are only temporary compared to the corporate tax cuts. Wage levels are increasing at the rates you would expect as unemployment continues to follow the trend under the Obama administration, so Trump hasn't boosted those. His drive for more tariffs has had a negative impact on the cost of living and businesses in general. The Republican administration has used recession countering techniques during a time of economic growth and yet somehow managed to not stimulate the economy beyond what it was already doing. That's the very definition of a colossal failure in economic policy. Yet you want us to give them credit.

So it's Trumps doing that the rich got richer (coz...bad things) but he had nothing to do with the poor getting richer.

Interesting.

 

[mect]

So it's Trumps doing that the rich got richer (coz...bad things) but he had nothing to do with the poor getting richer.

Interesting.

Well, if you look at the mechanisms involved, yes. Trump's policies have undeniably favored the wealthy, all the way from tax cuts to deregulation. In terms of the poor getting richer, going from $1 to $2 is a 100% increase in wealth, but that doesn't mean a person is significantly richer.

 

[blackangst1]

Well, if you look at the mechanisms involved, yes. Trump's policies have undeniably favored the wealthy, all the way from tax cuts to deregulation. In terms of the poor getting richer, going from $1 to $2 is a 100% increase in wealth, but that doesn't mean a person is significantly richer.

Except for the fact ANY income tax cuts only affect half of the country. So AFA tax cuts are concerned, of course they benefited the rich more than the poor. I mean, DUH.

That aside, increasing the poorest's wealth, albeit small, is a good thing. Unless youre saying that was a bad thing? I'll bet if you ask any of those who went from $1 to $2 to give it back because "it was wrong how it was done", they'd give you a hefty fuck you.

 

[TheVrolok]

Except for the fact ANY income tax cuts only affect half of the country. So AFA tax cuts are concerned, of course they benefited the rich more than the poor. I mean, DUH.

That aside, increasing the poorest's wealth, albeit small, is a good thing. Unless youre saying that was a bad thing? I'll bet if you ask any of those who went from $1 to $2 to give it back because "it was wrong how it was done", they'd give you a hefty fuck you.

Judging economics on a policy level by what a random speculative poor person says about having a small absolute increase in wealth. Makes sense.

 

[Jhhnn]

Judging economics on a policy level by what a random speculative poor person says about having a small absolute increase in wealth. Makes sense.

Only in Trumplandia. Wealth concentration has been ongoing since 1980. In Libertopia, the Rich eventually own everything.

The richest 10% of households now represent 70% of all U.S. wealth

The rich are getting richer. It is a refrain that has certainly been uttered before, and likely will again, as Deutsche Bank’s chief economist says the gap...

www.marketwatch.com

 

[mect]

Except for the fact ANY income tax cuts only affect half of the country. So AFA tax cuts are concerned, of course they benefited the rich more than the poor. I mean, DUH.

That aside, increasing the poorest's wealth, albeit small, is a good thing. Unless youre saying that was a bad thing? I'll bet if you ask any of those who went from $1 to $2 to give it back because "it was wrong how it was done", they'd give you a hefty fuck you.

So why did we give those tax cuts then? Its not like we have to cut taxes for the rich.

An no, any gain is not a good thing. It might be a less bad thing, but it is hardly a good thing. Small gains that make no meaningful impact on a person's quality of life or the distribution of power in this country get used as a smoke screen that prevents real change from taking place. This is particularly bad when the small gains still leave low income families increasingly far behind because they come in the form of housing, which the people don't actually profit from. Their house is worth more, but its still the same house. If they sell it, they would still need to buy another house which now costs more money. Where is the benefit?

 

[blackangst1]

So why did we give those tax cuts then? Its not like we have to cut taxes for the rich.

An no, any gain is not a good thing. It might be a less bad thing, but it is hardly a good thing. Small gains that make no meaningful impact on a person's quality of life or the distribution of power in this country get used as a smoke screen that prevents real change from taking place. This is particularly bad when the small gains still leave low income families increasingly far behind because they come in the form of housing, which the people don't actually profit from. Their house is worth more, but its still the same house. If they sell it, they would still need to buy another house which now costs more money. Where is the benefit?

Wait so...because the poor's wealth increased 50+%, theyve fallen further behind? Behind what exactly?

And those poor families whose wealth increased, they would disagree with your post and call you a jerk.

 

[blackangst1]

That is because it is just that, something that only appears to be a good thing, when in reality it is at best a neutral thing. The stat is deceptive, because while their wealth appeared to go up by a large amount it is because they had so little to begin with that even small amounts are large percentages. The real wealth increase is so small that they lose almost all the increase at any small setback, and lose most of it every December.

First...tell that to those whose wealth doubled. Second, can you explain how its lost every December?

 

[SMOGZINN]

First...tell that to those whose wealth doubled. Second, can you explain how its lost every December?

No problem, I trust they are smart enough to know that small amounts can be large precentages. Just think about it, if you have $1.00 and I give you a 10 dollar bill you have increased your wealth by 900%! WoW! What a gain! But realistically they are not really catching up with a billionaire that increased his net worth only 1%, because that 1% gain the billionaire made will be compounded while the 900% will be spent immediately. In 30 years the Billionaire will still have retained the 1% he gained, and compounded it year after year, but the poor people will have long spent theirs.

Yes, I can explain how they lose it again in December. The amount is so small that they end up having spent it by the end of the year, and so it does not carry over. Poor people neither invest nor save, they use their money to maintain. It is the boots theory, that extra money bought them a new pair of boots, but not the expensive ones, just a cheap one without holes. They are better off, because their boots no longer have holes, but they are not ahead, those boots are going to wear out again soon.

 

[Stryke1983]

So it's Trumps doing that the rich got richer (coz...bad things) but he had nothing to do with the poor getting richer.

Interesting.

The poor got richer at a rate at or below the recent rates and the average rates over the last 30 years or so, despite the current administration having the advantage of coming into power during a growing economy. That demonstrates why the poster I quoted was wrong in claiming we should be congratulating Trump for it. That evidence lines up with the expected results of Trump's policies, which overwhelmingly favor the wealthy.

I also enjoy how I mention very specific policies and their widely predicted outcomes compared to known economic history and you strawman it into "bad things", as if I just made a statement with only vague assertions to back it up. Which just about sums up the vast majority of Republican arguments in the last few decades. I'm still torn on whether you are trolling or just so blinded by your 'faith' in Republican policies that you don't look at the facts.

 

[Jhhnn]

The poor got richer at a rate at or below the recent rates and the average rates over the last 30 years or so, despite the current administration having the advantage of coming into power during a growing economy. That demonstrates why the poster I quoted was wrong in claiming we should be congratulating Trump for it. That evidence lines up with the expected results of Trump's policies, which overwhelmingly favor the wealthy.

I also enjoy how I mention very specific policies and their widely predicted outcomes compared to known economic history and you strawman it into "bad things", as if I just made a statement with only vague assertions to back it up. Which just about sums up the vast majority of Republican arguments in the last few decades. I'm still torn on whether you are trolling or just so blinded by your 'faith' in Republican policies that you don't look at the facts.

Facts have a Liberal bias. Everybody knows this. They don't matter any more than deficits when the GOP holds power.

 

[bbhaag]

Haha this thread went exactly like I thought it would. Post some thing good that the orange man said is good and watch this place have a fucking melt down. It's almost to easy haha you guys are so predictable.
RIP to this thread!!

 

[bbhaag]

Your posting history and OP make your motivations clear.

You eagerness to ingest verifiable lies make your motivations clear.

Oh I love this. As if you know what my posting history is or even give a flying fuck about it. All you care about is that I made this thread and it went against your "team blue" narrative.
Don't feed me some shit about my posting history and my motivation to ingest lies.