Re: "What I'm saying is that the crash of 2000 hit the rich in particular(except for, naturally, the new unemployed), because a greater percentage of their wealth is in equities. For instance, according to Forbes, the 400 richest Americans lost $283 Billion in 2000, and $67 Billion in 2001 (though Forbes also lists the loss as $80 billion in 2001 - probably counting the losses of those who's net worth dropped so much, they fell out of the 400)."
>>> Yes. But we can't know if this is the only recession in history to adversely affect the 'rich' more than the 'poor' unless we also know how much wealth has been lost - and earnings forgone - by the 'poor' and middle classes... which information you have not presented.
>>> "1/2" of the argument does not answer the question.
>>> Also - and this is very important - it is important to measure wealth changes over the entire economic cycle. At the end of recessions, 'cash is king', and those with the means can buy assets for pennies on the dollar... springboarding themselves into greater wealth.
>>> Many on that 'Forbes 400' list may be able to play this game... while many of the poor won't have investable assets at the bottom.
>>> In addition, equity ownership in the late '90s was at highs not seen since the '20s... so the decline undoubtedly hurt the middle classes worse than a 'typical' recession.
>>> I would say that I have seen no evidence yet that the long-term trend of 'the rich getting richer, and the poor not adding wealth as fast' has been broken or reversed.
>>> In other words: the wealth gap is likely still rising.
>>> If you have evidence to the contrary, please present. |
