Net worth declines 1/3rd for typical American household

[vuduchile 1,947]

Like many, we took a pretty big hit to income and investments in 2008.

 

We went in a completely different direction, left the corporate world and opened a new business when everyone told us we were nuts to do so. Especially since 25-30% of independent retailers in our category were closing around the country.

 

We're still here. Not getting rich, but slowly starting to see the real potential. We'll likely never see pre-2008 spending again soon, but if we can get close to that level in the next 5 years, we should be in a great position to capitalize on it.

 

As a country, we continue to amass debt, give out too much foreign and domestic aid, and wildly mis-manage the funding of many government institutions and programs.

 

Change would be great, but it feels like a pipe dream.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

 

I make a decent wage for someone in my field, I'm driving a ten year old car, I bought one TV in the last 20 years, my kids don't have the latest tech unless they buy it themselves, I only have a couple thousand in CC debt and I'm still barely making ends meet.

 

It's the new paradigm.

I am not convinced that your papadigm has been adopted by all. In the mid 2000's, many people had disposable income for the first time in their lives and they liked spending. They liked having a new car, the latest cell phone and all of the cable options. These are the trappings of those who still cannot afford European vacations and 3rd vehicles. The drop in wealth, IMO, has been those who live only slightly above their means, but have been doing so for 8 years.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

I make a decent wage for someone in my field, I'm driving a ten year old car, I bought one TV in the last 20 years, my kids don't have the latest tech unless they buy it themselves, I only have a couple thousand in CC debt and I'm still barely making ends meet.

 

It's the new paradigm.

I drive an 8 year old car, don't buy new tech and have only purchased two TVs in the last two decades. I think we'd all do well to follow your paradigm.

[Frank M 181]

I drive an 8 year old car, don't buy new tech and have only purchased two TVs in the last two decades. I think we'd all do well to follow your paradigm.

 

Yeah, but the problem with barely making ends meet is that it's almost impossible to prepare for the future. There's always something else that sucks up the little extra money I have left over after the bills are paid. Braces, band camp, band uniform, gas to get the kids to all their commitments, vet bills for the dog, etc, etc....

 

At least I'm not going into debt to survive. I've done that before and it sucks.

[RLLD 4,275]

I would personally like to thank president obama. My net worth has never been higher.

 

Well yeah, if you are dependant on hand outs it has been a banner year....

[NorthernVike 2,100]

 

Well yeah, if you are dependant on hand outs it has been a banner year....

Funny.

 

Hard work and perseverance have brought me to this point. Not government handouts.

[RLLD 4,275]

Funny.

 

Hard work and perseverance have brought me to this point. Not government handouts.

 

[redtodd 7]

 

Yeah, but the problem with barely making ends meet is that it's almost impossible to prepare for the future. There's always something else that sucks up the little extra money I have left over after the bills are paid. Braces, band camp, band uniform, gas to get the kids to all their commitments, vet bills for the dog, etc, etc....

 

At least I'm not going into debt to survive. I've done that before and it sucks.

 

The key thing is that you are making ends meet. It may not be as easy as some others but you are making them meet, and I think you should be commended for it.

 

The problem with too many Americans (who make more and less than you) is that they don't make the ends meet. Most of the time, we all have the ability to make ends meet (which means making some sort of "sacrifice"), but we don't want to give up on our "nice to haves." We view our "wants" as "needs." Whether it is the poor person who has the full cable TV package with Premium channels and smokes cartons of Marlboros a week or the well off person who has to have the two Lexus SUV's, three extravacant vacations a year, awesonme wardrobe and 4,000 Sqft home (all of which they truly can't afford).

 

I travel globally quite a bit for the day job and I always come home thinking how spoiled we are as Americans. What we think are struggles are nothing like in other countries.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

I make a decent wage for someone in my field, I'm driving a ten year old car, I bought one TV in the last 20 years, my kids don't have the latest tech unless they buy it themselves, I only have a couple thousand in CC debt and I'm still barely making ends meet.

 

It's the new paradigm.

Indeed.

 

Wife and I both went to law school. Did well in school and made smart choices to start our careers.

 

And yet, we're just hanging in there. Not by a thread or anything, we're doing just fine. But 20-30 years ago people like us would've had the $ to live in a crazy nice house, drive brand new luxury vehicles and take expensive vacations all the time.

 

I'm not complaining, mind you. That stuff isn't very important to me (well, maybe the vacations). But point being, if we're only doing OK I hate to think how lesser-educated middle class folk are faring out there

[BudBro 185]

Trickle down does not work fine... Well... actually, it's never been fully implemented, so maybe we'll never know.

 

David Stockton, who just happened to be Reagan's economic guru, and behind most of Reagan's economic policies, came out publicly and denounced it. There's a reason that is was being sold to the American people as "Supply Side Economics" and not Trickle Down. It had been tried before in the late 1800's under the name of Horse and Sparrow.

 

http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/fallacy-of-reaganomics-23.html

http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/fallacy-of-reaganomics-23.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

 

ContextEconomist Thomas Sowell has written that the actual path of money in a private enterprise economy is quite the opposite of that claimed by people who refer to the trickle-down theory. He noted that money invested in new business ventures is first paid out to employees, suppliers, and contractors. Only some time later, if the business is profitable, does money return to the business owners—but in the absence of a profit motive, which is reduced in the aggregate by a raise in marginal tax rates in the upper tiers, this activity does not occur.

 

from your wiki link, i said the exact same thing he said. the first link was about 80 paragraphs of folly that didn't say anything. we're living in the "horse and sparrow" theory now. give the fat-cat horses all the money to eat and what they sh**t out is picked up by the birds. those links just made a case that keynesian economics will never work. rich people save money because they have it to save. now, the serfs are saving money instead spending it all. the keynes model argues that poor people won't save. from the supply side however, i went from an investment side, you went from a taxation side. so, let's go with yours. if poor people are taxed less and have more discretionary income, they will spend more money in the tertiary economy...starbucks, massage, stuff that isn't necessary. in today's world, with higher taxes and high inflation, they don't have that money to spend because it is all taken up by gas and food and utilities and rising rents and paying for the govt to breastfeed the useless. you can search all you want for disparaging information on the economics behind the "high times," but you don't have to look far to know that the govt spending model of keynes has never worked, and the spiral towards socialism has begun, which also has never worked. you voted for the wrong economic model. all you have to do is apologize, repent of your misgivings, and make better choices in the future. social issues have nothing to do with an election that chooses the ceo of the largest business on the planet.

[OldMaid 2,137]

from your wiki link, i said the exact same thing he said. the first link was about 80 paragraphs of folly that didn't say anything. we're living in the "horse and sparrow" theory now. give the fat-cat horses all the money to eat and what they sh**t out is picked up by the birds. those links just made a case that keynesian economics will never work. rich people save money because they have it to save. now, the serfs are saving money instead spending it all. the keynes model argues that poor people won't save. from the supply side however, i went from an investment side, you went from a taxation side. so, let's go with yours. if poor people are taxed less and have more discretionary income, they will spend more money in the tertiary economy...starbucks, massage, stuff that isn't necessary. in today's world, with higher taxes and high inflation, they don't have that money to spend because it is all taken up by gas and food and utilities and rising rents and paying for the govt to breastfeed the useless. you can search all you want for disparaging information on the economics behind the "high times," but you don't have to look far to know that the govt spending model of keynes has never worked, and the spiral towards socialism has begun, which also has never worked. you voted for the wrong economic model. all you have to do is apologize, repent of your misgivings, and make better choices in the future. social issues have nothing to do with an election that chooses the ceo of the largest business on the planet.

 

My links weren't in favor of Keynsenian policies, either. Just letting you know that "trickle down", "supply side", "horse and sparrow" or whatever name you want to give it, is bullshit.

[NorthernVike 2,100]

My links weren't in favor of Keynsenian policies, either. Just letting you know that "trickle down", "supply side", "horse and sparrow" or whatever name you want to give it, is bullshit.

Still better than tax and give to lazy focks.

[OldMaid 2,137]

Still better than tax and give to lazy focks.

Not really... both are equally stupid. HTH

 

[Eaglesin14 12]

Not really... both are equally stupid. HTH

 

Compare the recovery Reagan's policies produced coming out of Carter's much worse recession to the recovery we have today and get back to me.

[BudBro 185]

My links weren't in favor of Keynsenian policies, either. Just letting you know that "trickle down", "supply side", "horse and sparrow" or whatever name you want to give it, is bullshit.

if you got your info from that first link, it neither helps nor hurts your knowledge. it just takes a lot of time to read. it all can't be bullsh**t because they are opposing views. i'm not persuaded by your emotion. i'd rather see something that works and prospers the nation.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,676]

Indeed.

 

Wife and I both went to law school. Did well in school and made smart choices to start our careers.

 

And yet, we're just hanging in there. Not by a thread or anything, we're doing just fine. But 20-30 years ago people like us would've had the $ to live in a crazy nice house, drive brand new luxury vehicles and take expensive vacations all the time.

 

I'm not complaining, mind you. That stuff isn't very important to me (well, maybe the vacations). But point being, if we're only doing OK I hate to think how lesser-educated middle class folk are faring out there

 

 

I think the "My kids are going to have it better than we did" mantra is all but dead.

[OldMaid 2,137]

Compare the recovery Reagan's policies produced coming out of Carter's much worse recession to the recovery we have today and get back to me.

There a lot of reasons, but none of them include trickle down economics.

[Eaglesin14 12]

There a lot of reasons, but none of them include trickle down economics.

Reagan never uttered the words trickle down economics when describing his policies.

 

What are the reasons his recovery led to huge job growth and prosperity across the board?

[OldMaid 2,137]

if you got your info from that first link, it neither helps nor hurts your knowledge. it just takes a lot of time to read. it all can't be bullsh**t because they are opposing views. i'm not persuaded by your emotion. i'd rather see something that works and prospers the nation.

Maybe you should Google David Stockton. He's admitted that the Reagan tax cuts were essentially a Trojan horse, and that they had to sell it as supply side ecomincs vs trickle down, because no one would buy it under that name. And he's not the only one from Reagan's economic team that has come out and bashed it either.

 

I'm all for something that will work for our nation, as well. Unfortunately, I don't think the nation is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make that happen.

[OldMaid 2,137]

Reagan never uttered the words trickle down economics when describing his policies.

What are the reasons his recovery led to huge job growth and prosperity across the board?

Of course he didn't. I've already covered that. It was being sold as supply side, because no one would take trickle down seriously.

 

The influx of cheap and easy credit, an increase in military spending and a move towards deregulation all played some part.

[Frank M 181]

Of course he didn't. I've already covered that. It was being sold as supply side, because no one would take trickle down seriously.

 

The influx of cheap and easy credit, an increase in military spending and a move towards deregulation all played some part.

 

OldMaid for the win!

 

Schooling the rook!

[OldMaid 2,137]

OldMaid for the win!

 

Schooling the rook!

Me thnks he also forgot that unemployment also went up under Reagan.

[Eaglesin14 12]

Of course he didn't. I've already covered that. It was being sold as supply side, because no one would take trickle down seriously.

The influx of cheap and easy credit, an increase in military spending and a move towards deregulation all played some part.

Drastically lowering income tax rates across the board and leaving trillions in the private sector had nothing to do with it?

 

Interesting theory.

[Eaglesin14 12]

Me thnks he also forgot that unemployment also went up under Reagan.

7.5% when Reagan took office.

 

5.3% when he left office.

 

It did go up before he passed his tax cuts, but his policies lowered them.

[OldMaid 2,137]

7.5% when Reagan took office.

5.3% when he left office.

It did go up before he passed his tax cuts, but his policies lowered them.

Drastically lowering income tax rates across the board and leaving trillions in the private sector had nothing to do with it?

Interesting theory.

You're living in a fantasy world.

 

Think of the economy like trying to get in shape. Spending = diet and taxes = exercise. Sure you can try the Atkins diet, and it might work for awhile, but it's all going to come crashing down, sooner or later.

[BudBro 185]

Maybe you should Google David Stockton. He's admitted that the Reagan tax cuts were essentially a Trojan horse, and that they had to sell it as supply side ecomincs vs trickle down, because no one would buy it under that name. And he's not the only one from Reagan's economic team that has come out and bashed it either.

 

I'm all for something that will work for our nation, as well. Unfortunately, I don't think the nation is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make that happen.

tax cuts work. tax revenues increase when taxes are cut. one would think all administrations from both sides would always want increased tax revenues. my explanation was from the investment side of the coin, and how the wealthy contributed to economic growth, whereas now they just drain it.

 

i agree with you that few are willing to make any sacrifices. too bad they don't understand that those same sacrifices are being extracted from them without their will. 35% less income and 20% inflation is a result of increased govt borrowing. nobody asked us if we'd like to vote for that. we would all so "no, thank you." but at least 51% voted for it.

[drobeski 3,061]

You're living in a fantasy world.

 

Think of the economy like trying to get in shape. Spending = diet and taxes = exercise. Sure you can try the Atkins diet, and it might work for awhile, but it's all going to come crashing down, sooner or later.

what a completely retarded analogy

 

 

 

 

 

That is all.

[OldMaid 2,137]

tax cuts work. tax revenues increase when taxes are cut. one would think all administrations from both sides would always want increased tax revenues. my explanation was from the investment side of the coin, and how the wealthy contributed to economic growth, whereas now they just drain it.

 

i agree with you that few are willing to make any sacrifices. too bad they don't understand that those same sacrifices are being extracted from them without their will. 35% less income and 20% inflation is a result of increased govt borrowing. nobody asked us if we'd like to vote for that. we would all so "no, thank you." but at least 51% voted for it.

Tax cuts only work if reduced spending is also included. Too bad that never happens.

[OldMaid 2,137]

what a completely retarded analogy

That is all.

I guess that's why your general shape is round.

[drobeski 3,061]

I guess that's why your general shape is round.

not spending equals diet....dumbo

[OldMaid 2,137]

not spending equals diet....dumbo

If you actually understood that, you wouldn't be so fat. That was my point, moron.

[BudBro 185]

Tax cuts only work if reduced spending is also included. Too bad that never happens.

no, instead we increase borrowing and increase spending. if only they would come here, to the football geeks, we could straighten things out in so many arenas of life.

[The Moz 72]

As of now at least My industry (construction) is doing decent here in Chicago. So far I am having one of my better years ... Granted the IRS focked me with an audit and chopped the hell out of my savings but business is pretty decent. I guess I am good until the next market collapse which IMO almost has to come soon -- when the Market is at a record high , jobs are still no where near up to par , and National debt is where it is something has to give sometime.

[Eaglesin14 12]

You're living in a fantasy world.

Think of the economy like trying to get in shape. Spending = diet and taxes = exercise. Sure you can try the Atkins diet, and it might work for awhile, but it's all going to come crashing down, sooner or later.

Fantasy?

 

The unemployment figures I provided are fact.

 

You said nothing about spending until this post, and I 100% agree spending should be cut......drastically.

 

But that was just a diversion by you to try to deflect from the facts I provided that shows your opinion on Reagan's policies are wrong.

[OldMaid 2,137]

Fantasy?

The unemployment figures I provided are fact.

You said nothing about spending until this post, and I 100% agree spending should be cut......drastically.

But that was just a diversion by you to try to deflect from the facts I provided that shows your opinion on Reagan's policies are wrong.

Here, knock yourself out.

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=the%20Reaganomics%20myth

[Eaglesin14 12]

Here, knock yourself out.http://www.google.com/search?q=the Reaganomics myth

I can give you a similar link that has all kinds of articles that says Bigfoot is real.

 

But that still wouldn't change the fact unemployment went down under Reagan.

[Reality 3,124]

I've lost count of how many times I've posted this but, here ya go again..

 

 

It's amazing that people refuse to give Reagan his due. All the dude did was give us the largest economic growth in American history. His policies created 18 million jobs, doubled revenues, doubled the GDP, lowered inflation from 13% to 3%, and his military spending was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. All with a Democratic controlled Congress that gobbled up every new dollar that came in. The unemployment rate had dropped to 5.5% by 1988.

 

Obama has no business ever being mentioned in the same breath as Reagan, please stop doing it, it's embarrassing. Liberals can attempt to rewrite history until the end of time but, these numbers will never change. Both were dealt terrible hands, one exceeded all expectations, the other failed miserably..

 

HTH

[OldMaid 2,137]

I can give you a similar link that has all kinds of articles that says Bigfoot is real.

But that still wouldn't change the fact unemployment went down under Reagan.

We were talking about trickle down ecomincs, as a whole. It also doesn't change the fact that unemployment went up after his tax cuts. I believe it didn't go back down until after he raised them back up.

[OldMaid 2,137]

I've lost count of how many times I've posted this but, here ya go again..

 

 

 

Obama has no business ever being mentioned in the same breath as Reagan, please stop doing it, it's embarrassing. Liberals can attempt to rewrite history until the end of time but, these numbers will never change. Both were dealt terrible hands, one exceeded all expectations, the other failed miserably..

 

HTH

Who the fock is mentioning Obama?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I've lost count of how many times I've posted this but, here ya go again..

 

 

Obama has no business ever being mentioned in the same breath as Reagan, please stop doing it, it's embarrassing. Liberals can attempt to rewrite history until the end of time but, these numbers will never change. Both were dealt terrible hands, one exceeded all expectations, the other failed miserably..

 

HTH

How many fingers do you use when fingering your poo hole over Ronnie Reagan? Just curious