Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jannyk

(4,810 posts)
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 04:35 PM Jun 2012

Brutal Recession Destroyed Americans' Wealth, Net Worth Down 40% In 3 Years (Forbes)

Just how bad have the last three years been for some Americans? A Fed survey has some brutal data today showing that both median family income and net worth dropped dramatically over the last three years.

The median family net worth dropped a staggering 40% to $77,300 in 2010 from $126,400 in 2007, the Fed said in its Survey of Consumer Finances which is released every three years. The median family income dropped as well from $49,600 in 2007 to $45,800, or a 7.7% drop.

Middle-class families faced the brunt of the declines with those in the 60th to 80th percentile of income seeing a 40.4% drop in net worth from $215,700 to $128,600. Families with a net income in the the 20th to 39.9th percentile of income saw a 35.4% drop in net worth from $39,600 to $25,600.

The Fed’s survey, which was conducted in 2010, shows just how badly some Americans were hit by the recession. The daunting figures are the result of one of the worst economic periods the U.S. has seen since the Great Depression. Of course, the net worths of Americans are directly tied to the value of their homes which have sunk dramatically in the period.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/06/11/brutal-recession-destroyed-americans-wealth-net-worth-down-40-in-3-years/

Fed Chart


And that's only through 2010!

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Brutal Recession Destroyed Americans' Wealth, Net Worth Down 40% In 3 Years (Forbes) (Original Post) jannyk Jun 2012 OP
and the top 1% sucked it all up. n/t Horse with no Name Jun 2012 #1
Agreed bobobjohnae Jun 2012 #2
How, exactly? Most of this is due to the house price bubble deflating. Nye Bevan Jun 2012 #5
The one percent received a nice bail out on their failed investments. HuckleB Jun 2012 #6
By having the federal reserve buy their fecal mortgage backed securities at face value! kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #15
Kenny, this is one of the most righteous coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #17
agreed. laundry_queen Jun 2012 #22
So how did Lehman Brothers go bankrupt? Nye Bevan Jun 2012 #20
Because it happened too fast laundry_queen Jun 2012 #23
Lehman bankruptcy happend before the cash-for-trash programs began. The coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #24
here's one theory: HiPointDem Jun 2012 #32
Indeed a GREAT explanation........ socialist_n_TN Jun 2012 #26
Thanks for so eloquently proving my 1 line reply Horse with no Name Jun 2012 #27
+1. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #29
kenny blankenship speaks the truth. Prometheus Bound Jun 2012 #37
It was fake wealth to begin with NickB79 Jun 2012 #3
just compare 2001 ($106K) to $77K in 2011 - Huge drop with NO housing factor nt msongs Jun 2012 #4
zing! cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #8
Very true. I'm not arguing that there wasn't a big drop NickB79 Jun 2012 #9
Only if you think housing wasn't already in a bubble in 2001. boppers Jun 2012 #35
A bank lending against that fake value would have disagreed cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #7
All very good points. NickB79 Jun 2012 #10
Wages are not wealth, or worth. boppers Jun 2012 #31
The only the thing fake about it is that it was built on Ponzi bank credit. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #11
I have a different take on it NickB79 Jun 2012 #12
Any time you hear about "overpopulation" remember one thing Zalatix Jun 2012 #13
Who's talking about controlling overpopulation? NickB79 Jun 2012 #14
In 2009, world total fertility rate was 2.47 births per woman. It's likely lower today (recession/ HiPointDem Jun 2012 #34
Speculation drove these bubbles in commodities. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #16
"Economic growth does not have to come at the expense of the environment" The2ndWheel Jun 2012 #18
Speculation can only do so much NickB79 Jun 2012 #25
"You can't speculate and drive the price of a commodity through the roof that's widely available" girl gone mad Jun 2012 #28
I suggest investing in Tulips. boppers Jun 2012 #33
Sure looks like the predicted 'bumpy plauteau' to me n/t Strelnikov_ Jun 2012 #21
no, what you saw was the result of too much money chasing too few real investment opportunities = HiPointDem Jun 2012 #30
"Mission accomplished!" bighughdiehl Jun 2012 #19
Since 2001, every decile of the income distribution lost wealth except the top 10%. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #36

bobobjohnae

(4 posts)
2. Agreed
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 04:40 PM
Jun 2012

Exactly -- this "recession" is really just a robbery, where the richest Americans have used the strength of a bought government to steal wealth from the rest of us in the name of "saving the economy".

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
5. How, exactly? Most of this is due to the house price bubble deflating.
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 05:01 PM
Jun 2012

How exactly do the 1% profit from falling real estate prices?

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
6. The one percent received a nice bail out on their failed investments.
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 05:04 PM
Jun 2012

You're point is valid, but only to a certain extent.

kenny blankenship

(15,689 posts)
15. By having the federal reserve buy their fecal mortgage backed securities at face value!
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 06:13 PM
Jun 2012

It's called "Cash for Trash", and QE and QE2, and it's why the bankers and Wall st. are rolling in dough right now. (no not that QE that just celebrated a Jubilee without any debt forgiveness. Quantitative Easing - a fancy pants term for the Fed taking on shit assets from banks onto its own balance sheets)

Meanwhile, Ma and Pa Kettle get no relief on their upside down mortgages.

Meanwhile, the official Fed policy for righting the capsized economy is to flood the same banks who deliberately inflated the housing bubble with zero interest rate liquidity so they can play HFT(high frequency trading) computer games in the stock market and replace the funny money of housing with funny money from stocks. Let's just replace one deliberately inflated asset bubble with another - that make sense right? Oh, but they'll be even handed and fair about it, surely? Well, do Ma & Pa Kettle get comped the zero interest Bernanke Bux that the banks get? No. Do they get to front run the stock market with HFT computerized trading (which ought to already be illegal under existing SEC regulations)? No. Do the downtrodden Kettles receive a Fed issued debit card charged up with $50,000 and a blessing from Ben to "Go, Thou, and spend it in the real economy and get our industry moving again!" No.

Now you wanted to know how the 1% could profit from falling real estate prices. As indicated above, they are protected from losses on their class specific vehicles for speculating on real estate. Poor people don't have Mortgage Backed Securities - neither sound ones nor crap stuffed ones. Banks, the premier 1% players participate in that. When their crap-stuffed MBOs start to stink, Smiling Ben takes them off their hands at face value instead of their market value (which is nil). They are protected as a matter of policy: Too Big To Fail. Real estate crashes, and the private sector assets, or trash-sets as they might be more properly called, are then moved onto the publicly backed balance sheet of Uncle Ben at or close to par (that's backed by the currency and future earnings of American taxpayers). During all this, ordinary people are losing purchasing power like shit going through a goose. They're unemployed and looking for work. They're getting permanently dropped from the rolls of the workforce. They're taking cutbacks in wages and hours. Their incomes are being way out-paced by inflation. As the report indicates they've lost the equivalent of about 20-25 years gains in accumulated net worth. But this is not happening to the rich, neither the rich individuals or the TBTF institutions they suck teat on. What does that disparity mean?

It means the 1% can buy up all the assets that are hitting the market because poorer people are repossessed on or otherwise forced to liquidate. The purchasing power of the rich is not just intact since early 2009, but has objectively improved. It's not just improved but because the purchasing power of the non-rich is actually in reverse, purchasing power is being multiplied for the rich. The Fed backstopped 1% thus are able snap up swathes of real estate and other assets at CYCLICAL LOWS. And that's what they're doing right now. If you want to buy a piece of property from them, and they want you to eventually - but for the moment they are in accumulation mode - you will have to pay a higher price.

The criminal class gets trillions thrown at it, as a reward for a career of crime and fucking things up, all in the wan hope that they will start lending again I suppose, someday. They also escape prosecution for control fraud. The real economy and the 99% who swim in it get fucked through the eyesockets - by the banksters and their boot boys in the government.

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
17. Kenny, this is one of the most righteous
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 06:25 PM
Jun 2012

summations I have read of the utter unfairness and even brutality of all the so-called rescue efforts.

Some other statistics to help make your effort even more concrete: 46 million Americans are currently at or below the poverty line. 50 million Americans are receiving food stamps and roughly 50 million lack any health insurance whatsoever. At the same time, 1% of the country's population controls 40% of the wealth and 10% controls 80% of the wealth. The 6 Walton heirs (heirs to the WalMart fortune) control as much wealth between them as THE BOTTOM 30 MILLION AMERICANS. Nothing, not one thing, has been done to reverse any of these numbers. And, as your post makes clear, the situtation is getting worse.

Hope you will consider fashioning an OP out of your reply. If the Democratic Party wants to engage in pathetic, petit bourgois efforts to 'manage' its way out of this crisis of capitalism, then it deserves not to hold power, imho. Better the iron fist of fascism than an iron fist concealed within a velvet glove. At least then we know who our enemies are.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
20. So how did Lehman Brothers go bankrupt?
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 06:53 PM
Jun 2012

Surely if the Fed had "bought all of their mortgage backed securities at face value" they would have taken no losses and still been a thriving company today? Much of the wealth of Lehman executives was tied up in stock that went to zero in the bankruptcy, and they lost millions.

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
24. Lehman bankruptcy happend before the cash-for-trash programs began. The
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 07:17 PM
Jun 2012

LB bankruptcy caused a mini-crash in global markets and inter-bank liquidity began to freeze up. It scared the shit out of the capitalist class and they decided they could not afford any more Lehman Bros.

So when the bailout for AIG was approved, little wonder that a disproportionate share of the proceeds of said bailout went via direct pass-through to Goldman Sachs which was counterparty to many of the CDSes that AIG had written (sold).

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
32. here's one theory:
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:35 AM
Jun 2012

It raises the troubling question of whether the powers to be -- the Treasury and the New York Fed -- played a lethal yet clandestine form of Wall Street triage. To arrive at the point where AIG presented the government and the economy with a systemic risk of bringing down the whole system, could the scenario have been willfully orchestrated whereby everyone was too concerned or frightened to ask hard questions as billions were being dispensed to those with good friends in high places? The specter of disaster was ideally served by the bankruptcy of Lehman, which shook the financial world to its core. And to those who would have suffered billions of losses from an AIG bankruptcy, their exposure to Lehman obligations was as minimal as their exposure to AIG counterparty losses was great had AIG gone the way of Lehman. Lehman provided the ideal head fake, giving all that would be done to 'rescue' AIG an air of timely and necessary intervention.

But wait. Suppose all this was orchestrated first and foremost to spare the billions at risk by those holding AIG counterparty obligations. Would that not be tantamount to fraudulent conspiracy? Earlier in a post here, the question not asked was what were the context of the many phone calls between Hank Paulson,Treasury Secretary and former Chairman of Goldman Sachs, and Goldman Sachs Chairman Lloyd Blankfein, especially at the height of the dramatic events in Sept 2008? Was AIG discussed? Was counterparty exposure discussed? Was the bankruptcy of Lehman discussed? In what terms, and how much was communicated between the lines, the symbolic equivalent of nods and winks, given that both Paulson, with his prior association at Goldman, probably knew as much about Goldman's book as did Blankfein? All conspiracy theory, at worst? I would like to hope so, but with scores of billions at stake, funny things can happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/wall-street-triage-was-le_b_417797.html

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
26. Indeed a GREAT explanation........
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 07:47 PM
Jun 2012

Of the capitalist system and how it's ALWAYS worked in it's natural state.

Any wonder why I'm a commie?

NickB79

(19,258 posts)
3. It was fake wealth to begin with
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 04:44 PM
Jun 2012

Seriously, this report bases the 40% drop in wealth figure primarily on the decline in home values at their peak. However, the run-up in home prices from 2000-2007 was a bubble, and not a good representation of true wealth. It was fake money, only supported by a fake housing boom that turned out to be akin to a Ponzi scheme that millions of Americans got sucked into.

For example, the median household's wealth went from $106K in 2001 to $107K in 2004, but then jumped to $126K by 2007 before plunging to $77K in 2010. It is disingenuous to simply take the 2007 numbers and compare them to the 2010 numbers, because the 2007 numbers are clearly not representative of the true wealth of the family.

NickB79

(19,258 posts)
9. Very true. I'm not arguing that there wasn't a big drop
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 05:15 PM
Jun 2012

Still a devastating blow, but it wasn't 40%, since that's based on the 2007 numbers.

boppers

(16,588 posts)
35. Only if you think housing wasn't already in a bubble in 2001.
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:44 AM
Jun 2012

Of course, nobody want to think that they're the dumb sucker who actually *believed* that their house was actually worth the insane price they "paid" for it, and the resulting debt they now have.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
7. A bank lending against that fake value would have disagreed
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 05:06 PM
Jun 2012

I agree with you up to a point, insofar as 2007 valuations were unsustainable. But that doesn't make the effect of the drop much less important.

What if the average hourly wage went from $10.60 in 2001 to $12.60 in 2007, and then dropped to $7.70 in 2010. Would you say that most of that pay-cut was fake and shouldn't be counted? What would the basis be for calling the previous wage gains fake?

Say that congress jumped the minimum wage to $12.60 and then cut it back to $7.70. Would that action be okay because the gain had been arbitrary to begin with?

More to the point, would the economy care? It wouldn't. The economy sees the drop in demand and that drop in demand has roughly the same economic effect whether the previous level of demand was sustainable or not.

The average wage in India or China is probably much, much higher than it was in 1980. If wages there returned to 1980 levels would we shrug and say, "Those wage gains were not sustainable anyway."

The Great Depression followed a major bubble, yet I never hear anyone say, "Meh... A lot of those people who lost their farms had no business owning farms in the first place."

The state/locality taxes you on the assessed value of the house as it sits. That is not done with stocks, which are taxed on profits only, and only when sold. What is the basis for taxing obviously "fake" value? Do the property owners get a rebate on their 2007 taxes because they were based on fake value?


And so on.

boppers

(16,588 posts)
31. Wages are not wealth, or worth.
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:33 AM
Jun 2012

Worth is calculated based on current market prices, wages are not.

girl gone mad

(20,634 posts)
11. The only the thing fake about it is that it was built on Ponzi bank credit.
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 05:24 PM
Jun 2012

What the bubble proved was that our economy is equipped to manage a much greater level of economic activity than our currency-issuing government was supporting. The houses that got built were real and real people earned real income from all of this housing activity.

The lesson to be learned is that banks are too powerful and fractional reserve lending is not an effective substitute for sound fiscal policies from the federal government.

NickB79

(19,258 posts)
12. I have a different take on it
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 05:40 PM
Jun 2012

The Great Recession showed me that our economy is NOT equipped to manage a greater level of economic activity because as the economy fired up, so did energy and food prices. $140/barrel oil prices, rising electricity rates and huge jumps in food prices all had major impacts on the economy, with some economists citing them as key triggers that helped push us over the edge. When the economy crashed, so did the prices on these commodities. And, as the economy slowly picked up steam again, they spiked a second time. Now, we're seeing ANOTHER drop in global commodities like oil as the economy sours.

This was all predicted by those people who think we're reached the limit to growth due to overpopulation and overconsumption of natural resources. Peak Oil proponents say we've hit the limits of easy oil, and those concerned with global warming say we've hit limits of cheap food due to changing weather. I tend to agree with them. I don't think we can maintain our current system as it is, no matter how we reform our banking system. The issue lies far deeper than that, in the very way we view economic activity as demanding never-ending growth in a world of finite resources.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
13. Any time you hear about "overpopulation" remember one thing
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 05:49 PM
Jun 2012

It's the poor and working class whose population will be controlled. The Plutocracy will have ZERO skin in that game.

NickB79

(19,258 posts)
14. Who's talking about controlling overpopulation?
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 06:01 PM
Jun 2012

Humans by and large aren't going to take steps to control their populations voluntarily, that much is obvious. Based on global carrying capacity, we're already several billion people past that.

No, we're going to let Mother Nature take care of it for us, which is unfortunate because Mother Nature is a uncaring bitch when it comes to species overpopulating their habitats. We're going to see the human population drop by billions over the next century, and most of them will be lost due to starvation, disease and war over limited resources. It will not be pretty.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
34. In 2009, world total fertility rate was 2.47 births per woman. It's likely lower today (recession/
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:40 AM
Jun 2012

depression does that). we're already approaching zpg.

girl gone mad

(20,634 posts)
16. Speculation drove these bubbles in commodities.
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 06:18 PM
Jun 2012

This is another argument against allowing the financial sector to become so powerful in lieu of sound fiscal policy and strong regulatory structures.

There was an abundance of oil available on the world markets throughout the run up in 2007. There was so much oil, banks had to hire supertankers to store all of the oil they were accumulating in their leveraged bets. After the margin calls hit, prices collapsed because the genuine supply was far in excess of the genuine demand.

While I agree that resource and productive capacity constraints represent the true obstacles to economic growth, if you really believe we are now bumping up against energy constraints and resource constraints, wouldn't the best solution be for the currency-issuing government to spend money developing clean, renewable energy sources, updating our infrastructure, investing in transportation alternatives, growing sustainable local economic movements, etc.?

It seems that what you propose is for tens of millions of people to simply accept unemployment, a poor quality of life and greater levels of economic inequality in the hopes that we can delay addressing environmental and ecological concerns. That amounts to giving governments and financial elites a free pass on their societal obligations. I don't believe that this represents the best option. Economic growth does not have to come at the expense of the environment and it does not have to directly correspond to growth in energy consumption. Refusing to invest in education, energy and infrastructure now while allowing our productive capacity to wither away will lead to costly results down the road.

NickB79

(19,258 posts)
25. Speculation can only do so much
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 07:32 PM
Jun 2012

You can't speculate and drive the price of a commodity through the roof that's widely available and abundant. There must be a strong underlying demand for the commodity in order for speculators to take it and run with it. While speculation did play a role in the 2007 oil price run-up, take it out of the equation and you still had $140/barrel oil with an underlying demand price point of $100/barrel. In the run-up to the Great Recession, there was indeed a large and growing demand for new oil from China and India, who's economies were growing at 10%/yr. The reason oil prices fell as low as they did wasn't just due to margin calls; the majority of the drop was due to demand destruction as countries and consumers simply couldn't afford to buy as much oil and it's derivatives as they used to. As far as using supertankers to store oil, you've got your dates mixed around. The oil companies were storing oil on tankers AFTER the price collapsed, hoping to re-juice the markets: http://seekingalpha.com/article/113846-super-tankers-and-super-volatile-oil-prices Before the crash, countries with booming economies were eager to secure as much of it as possible, signing long-term contracts and invading certain countries with lots of untapped reserves (cough, cough, Iraq War, cough).

As to what I propose, I guess that in a way I do believe we need to accept a lower standard of living. After all, if the entire planet lived the way Americans lived, we'd be so far over our carrying capacity that we'd burn through the planet's resources in no time. It would be unfair (and impossible) to tell the rest of the world that they can't have what we have. The American way of living is entirely unsustainable, and will come to an end this century, no matter what we do about it. If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry. I agree with you that we need to build as much renewable infrastructure as possible, but the capital, time and resources needed to build out enough of it to support an expanding economy are probably out of our grasp at this time. I'm just hoping we can keep the lights on and the trains running for food transportation. We've pretty much passed the tipping point with regard to climate change, and are locked in for 6C or better of warming by the end of the 21st century. The changes this will bring to our society in the form of wild weather and food disruptions will bankrupt nations as they try to fight it.

girl gone mad

(20,634 posts)
28. "You can't speculate and drive the price of a commodity through the roof that's widely available"
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:10 AM
Jun 2012
 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
30. no, what you saw was the result of too much money chasing too few real investment opportunities =
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:30 AM
Jun 2012

commodities speculation.

it was a bubble, just like the real estate bubble -- pumped up with cheap money.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/07/23/has-the-commodity-bubble-popped/

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
36. Since 2001, every decile of the income distribution lost wealth except the top 10%.
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:26 AM
Jun 2012

Bottom 20% = -36%

20-40% = -44%
40-60% = -15%
60-80% = -27%
80-90% = -11%

Top 10% = + 17%

The gap between the haves and the have-nots exploded, IOW.

and i'd say that explains a bit about the current political climate. the top 20% is the most politically engaged part of the electorate; they vote more, they participate in local politics more, etc.

And the bottom of the top 20% lost wealth while the top of the top 20% gained it. The bottom of the top feels themselves getting poorer in comparison to their top 10% peers -- the folks they compare themselves with.

That's a formula for reactionary politics.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Brutal Recession Destroye...