Rich get richer as economy gets better; everyone else is worse off

[merithyn]

Change in worth by household category

Link to table

A new study shows that wealth disparity has been accelerating in the two years since the recession ended. The study by the Pew Research Center underscored other data showing that the economic growth that has followed the Great Recession has benefited mainly those at the top. View the change in household worth from 2009 to 2011. Source: Pew Research Center tabulations of Survey of Income and Program Participation wealth data.

Well then...

[Admiral Yi]

So people should save more.

[garbon]

Of course, by that the rich consist of 13% of households in the US.

Also how far off is that most recent commenter who pointed out that a large part of many people's networth had been their homes whose worth then tanked?

[merithyn]

Of course, by that the rich consist of 13% of households in the US.

Also how far off is that most recent commenter who pointed out that a large part of many people's networth had been their homes whose worth then tanked?

I thought that all happened prior to 2009.

[garbon]

Of course, by that the rich consist of 13% of households in the US.

Also how far off is that most recent commenter who pointed out that a large part of many people's networth had been their homes whose worth then tanked?

I thought that all happened prior to 2009.

According to this, looks like we bottomed in 2011, though yes biggest decline was before '09.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/21/us-home-prices-rise-to-2009-levels.aspx

[merithyn]

Of course, by that the rich consist of 13% of households in the US.

Also how far off is that most recent commenter who pointed out that a large part of many people's networth had been their homes whose worth then tanked?

I thought that all happened prior to 2009.

According to this, looks like we bottomed in 2011, though yes biggest decline was before '09.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/21/us-home-prices-rise-to-2009-levels.aspx

So while that may have been part if it, it certainly wasn't all of it. Something else is causing that disparity.

[garbon]

Of course, by that the rich consist of 13% of households in the US.

Also how far off is that most recent commenter who pointed out that a large part of many people's networth had been their homes whose worth then tanked?

I thought that all happened prior to 2009.

According to this, looks like we bottomed in 2011, though yes biggest decline was before '09.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/21/us-home-prices-rise-to-2009-levels.aspx

So while that may have been part if it, it certainly wasn't all of it. Something else is causing that disparity.

Here's another article. This one does blame a large portion of it on housing.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/11/news/economy/fed-family-net-worth/index.htm

Looks like it also points out falling incomes/rates of saving.

Fun Fed report in that link too.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Of course, by that the rich consist of 13% of households in the US.

Also how far off is that most recent commenter who pointed out that a large part of many people's networth had been their homes whose worth then tanked?

I agree that this chart is highly distorted by real estate values.  My mom, for instance, is in the second-highest bracket due to her house, but only makes about $30k/year as a head custodian for an elementary school.

That said, the 2009 column is after people's house net worth deflated.  The delta between the columns should include a slight rise in property value.

[derspiess]

Of course, by that the rich consist of 13% of households in the US.

Also how far off is that most recent commenter who pointed out that a large part of many people's networth had been their homes whose worth then tanked?

I thought that all happened prior to 2009.

According to this, looks like we bottomed in 2011, though yes biggest decline was before '09.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/21/us-home-prices-rise-to-2009-levels.aspx

So while that may have been part if it, it certainly wasn't all of it. Something else is causing that disparity.

WHITE FOLKS' GREED RUNS A WORLD IN NEED

[fhdz]

So people should save more.

There you go! Problem solved.

Unless of course you are already living paycheck to paycheck.

[mongers]

So people should save more.

There you go! Problem solved.

Unless of course you are already living paycheck to paycheck.

Pfft, come on that's just ridiculous, next you'll be telling us the majority of household sometimes face unexpected extra expenditures. Or that in a recession peoples circumstances can suddenly change. 

[Barrister]

Of course, by that the rich consist of 13% of households in the US.

Also how far off is that most recent commenter who pointed out that a large part of many people's networth had been their homes whose worth then tanked?

I thought that all happened prior to 2009.

According to this, looks like we bottomed in 2011, though yes biggest decline was before '09.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/21/us-home-prices-rise-to-2009-levels.aspx

So while that may have been part if it, it certainly wasn't all of it. Something else is causing that disparity.

Debt.  With interest rates at historic lows consumers have been piling on debt.

[Admiral Yi]

There you go! Problem solved.

Unless of course you are already living paycheck to paycheck.

Depends how you define the problem.  If you see the problem being that people with no disposable income aren't saving, as you point out there is no solution.  If the problem is that people with disposable income are experiencing a decrease in net assets, they should start saving more or borrowing less.

[fhdz]

There you go! Problem solved.

Unless of course you are already living paycheck to paycheck.

Depends how you define the problem.  If you see the problem being that people with no disposable income aren't saving, as you point out there is no solution.  If the problem is that people with disposable income are experiencing a decrease in net assets, they should start saving more or borrowing less.

Couldn't it be both problems?

[MadImmortalMan]

There you go! Problem solved.

Unless of course you are already living paycheck to paycheck.

Depends how you define the problem.  If you see the problem being that people with no disposable income aren't saving, as you point out there is no solution.  If the problem is that people with disposable income are experiencing a decrease in net assets, they should start saving more or borrowing less.

Couldn't it be both problems?

Well, that and their assets have gone net negative.