State of the Union

[Captainant 28390]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It doesn't  matter who you are. People try to say the say market isn't being utilized by a majority of the population, its a rich mans play thing. It's being used by at least half the work force, and probably a bit higher than that.  We saw that in a post above, 54% at least.

at a minuscule utilization rate. If the top 10% of US asset holders hold 84% of all US stocks, then only the other 16% of the stock market is accessible to us non-elites.

Presuming that it subtracts cleanly from your "54% of US citizens own stock" talking point, then the relative benefit to the rest of the 44% of stock owners is at least twenty times less beneficial compared to the wealthy. It's hilariously out of whack and inequitable. But since a slim majority of americans hold stock, then what's good for the macroeconomic goose must be good for the microeconomic gander, right?

.... what's that? Wages are increasing at a hilariously tiny rate comparative to the increase in value and productivity to the shareholders? And the wealthy are the near-exclusive owners of those shares?

Doesn't sound like the economy being better makes much of a difference for regular joes, it really only affects people when it's bad. 

I said it earlier: privatized benefits, socialized costs and penalties.

[F250 29176]

43 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It doesn't  matter who you are. People try to say the say market isn't being utilized by a majority of the population, its a rich mans play thing. It's being used by at least half the work force, and probably a bit higher than that.  We saw that in a post above, 54% at least.

I am addressing how applicable the health of the stock market is to those who only have stock via retirement accounts. Yes, the market is utilized by a majority of the population but the majority have to take a journey down the cyclical road of ups and downs before they finally are able to retire. The current status of the stock market doesn't have a direct impact on most people's investment since it is a very long term investment.  The people with a 401K, IRA, etc... only will not materialize wealth in the short term. That is a different game for a smaller portion of the population. It just seems like a strange thing for people in the middle class and below to latch onto.

[Texas Jeff 1998]

The bottom 50% have very little, this from the CBO report on family wealth:

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

1 hour ago, thrillhammer said:

if you really believe china is bending the knee then you don't know china very well.

lol, right?

[jimmyjazz 46977]

"Ownership of stock" is such a red herring.  What does 20% annual growth mean to a guy who has $10K in his 401K?  You can't argue that it means much.  Sure, 20% is great, but that $2K is gonna last him maybe another month.

The vast majority of people are closer to $10K than $1M when it comes to retirement accounts or other stock holdings.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

at a minuscule utilization rate. If the top 10% of US asset holders hold 84% of all US stocks, then only the other 16% of the stock market is accessible to us non-elites.

Presuming that it subtracts cleanly from your "54% of US citizens own stock" talking point, then the relative benefit to the rest of the 44% of stock owners is at least twenty times less beneficial compared to the wealthy. It's hilariously out of whack and inequitable. But since a slim majority of americans hold stock, then what's good for the macroeconomic goose must be good for the microeconomic gander, right?

.... what's that? Wages are increasing at a hilariously tiny rate comparative to the increase in value and productivity to the shareholders? And the wealthy are the near-exclusive owners of those shares?

Doesn't sound like the economy being better makes much of a difference for regular joes, it really only affects people when it's bad. 

I said it earlier: privatized benefits, socialized costs and penalties.

Stop, you hate people who have money,or stocks.

 

my 54% stat came from Bamachicks post.  A healthy stock market  is good for an American economy/ end thread .

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

I am addressing how applicable the health of the stock market is to those who only have stock via retirement accounts. Yes, the market is utilized by a majority of the population but the majority have to take a journey down the cyclical road of ups and downs before they finally are able to retire. The current status of the stock market doesn't have a direct impact on most people's investment since it is a very long term investment.  The people with a 401K, IRA, etc... only will not materialize wealth in the short term. That is a different game for a smaller portion of the population. It just seems like a strange thing for people in the middle class and below to latch onto.

Gotcha

[Nivek 17330]

There are different degrees of stock as well.  It is not like the poors get in the front of the line when the company is sold or goes belly up.  

[Ted Lange 16355]

 

[DDD Dad 14571]

 

Well that could be considered unimaginable.

 

I mean who would have imagined slower than targeted pace?

[El Diablo 4232]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

They hate Congress, but they love their own representatives.

Well they did until they got gerrymandered into a district that openly doesn't give a shit. Now they hate errybody.

[Ted Lange 16355]

SAD!
 

 

[Biff Tannen 46061]

1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

 

[Deej 77672]

11 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

SAD!
 

 

To be fair, "The Curse of Oak Island" was on. If you're going to believe in some bullshit treasure, go all in.

[tchookem 3966]

Thre little girl that got a scholarship didn't even go to a "failing public school". She goes to a charter school.

https://time.com/5780459/state-of-the-union-school-choice-charter-school/

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]