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

[The Brain]

Common motto: get rich or bitch while not trying.

[DGuller]

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

Maybe the interest rates are driven that low precisely because people aren't piling on debt.

[Admiral Yi]

Couldn't it be both problems?

There could be an infinite number of problems.  Your previous post suggested you saw it as single problem.

[Malthus]

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.

According to the article linked to the table you posted ...

The biggest difference between the most affluent group and everyone else, Pew said, is that the wealthiest households have their assets concentrated in stocks and other financial instruments, while others' wealth is concentrated in their homes.

Both stock and home values were pummeled during the recession. But in the recovery, stock values have rebounded nicely and have reached new highs. Housing values — particularly for those living in nonexclusive areas — have stayed mostly flat, although there have been some stirrings of a recovery in the past year.

Bottom line: the "rich" diversify asset classes (real estate plus equities, etc.); the "non-rich" who own assets, mostly own real estate alone. Diversification has, predictably enough, done better.

[fhdz]

Couldn't it be both problems?

There could be an infinite number of problems.  Your previous post suggested you saw it as single problem.

No, no - I'm quite aware there are multiple problems. I was responding to your post, which seemed to suggest there was one solution.

[Phillip V]

Stocks and real estate snapped up at bargain prices the past few years. Quantitative easing and government aid to boost these assets. Rents rose and vacancy rates declined. Who has/had the cash+financing to get the bargains that have now significantly appreciated? Rich people.

Change We Can Believe In. Forward.

[Malthus]

Stocks and real estate snapped up at bargain prices the past few years. Quantitative easing and government aid to boost these assets. Rents rose and vacancy rates declined. Who has/had the cash+financing to get the bargains that have now significantly appreciated? Rich people.

Change We Can Believe In. Forward.

Well, from the article, it is more like "rich" and "not-rich" alike took a bath on real estate - but when the stock market recovered and real estate stayed flat, this benefited the "rich" more. 

[CountDeMoney]

Quit sounding like class warfare warriors, people.  It's un-American.

[garbon]

Quit sounding like class warfare warriors, people.  It's un-American.

I wasn't.

[CountDeMoney]

Quit sounding like class warfare warriors, people.  It's un-American.

I wasn't.

You mentioned falling incomes.  It's a known fact that concept doesn't exist.  Incomes don't fall;  people simply become lazier.

[Admiral Yi]

 

[MadImmortalMan]

The house prices have been skyrocketing back up too.

[Malthus]

The house prices have been skyrocketing back up too.

If the theory in the article is correct, this should even out the difference. Assuming house prices are skyrocketing at a rate no less than the stock market.

[Admiral Yi]

It looks to me like spike in house prices is very localized.  Just a few markets.

[garbon]

Your guess is as good as mine.