652
submitted 10 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Historical data would be great. How was that figure in each previous decade? Isn't it true that at the peaks this tends to happen, and when we get a stock market downturn, the rich get poor faster then anyone else?

[-] riskable@programming.dev 12 points 10 months ago

Even when the stock market crashes the rich don't get poor. They can seemingly lose ungodly amounts of money exceptionally quickly but even after all that they'll still be rich because being rich is a comparison: If everyone on a mountain falls down the ones at the top will still be there.

[-] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I mean if we're talking about top 1% you're probably right, but I believe in the top 10% there's a bit of movement. Out from it and in to it from below.

And there are plenty of examples of people going from being extremely rich to being bankrupt and never recovering. It's not impossible, but probably requires quite a lot of effort and/or stupidity. For instance, when Iceland went based and let its banks fall, this guy went from being worth $1B to -$750m. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rg%C3%B3lfur_Gu%C3%B0mundsson

[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I think I crack the top 10 percent income earner I agree (not sure where I am in the USA net worth wise). I don't consider myself rich, but that is very much in part because I live in NYC, but if I didn't live there I probably wouldn't be 10% earner. A big market change could have very significant impacts on my life, housing, etc. Fuck the 1% percent though.

One thing I have noticed about folks that talk about income and wealth in my bracket is that they talk about Stock benefits like options, RSU's, and ESPP as income. When I was making salary and around folks under 75k no one really talked about those types of benefits as income meaningfully (partially because they didn't get it or didn't get a significant amount of it). But for those high income earners in the top 10% that factor their stock as part of their income lifestyle, that puts them more at risk for greater income swings in the event of market crashes to a certain degree (assuming job loss doesn't occur).

[-] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 10 months ago

Click on the link. Literally the first thing in the article is a graph over time.

tl;dr it was about 80% in 1990, and is now 92.5%. Or alternately, the bottom 90% of the population owned 20% of stock market wealth in 1990, and now they own 7.5%, so around one third as much as a generation ago.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago

Only if you consider "getting poor" going from a $200B net worth to $175B net worth.

[-] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah, probably, but now you're talking about top 0.1%, not top 10%. I mean technically the former is also in the latter, but you know.

this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
652 points (97.7% liked)

News

23437 readers
3241 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS