Talk:Wealth in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wealth Inequality and Class[edit]

The statements in this section must certainly be false in 2011, so that this section should either be amended or explicitly disclaimed.

Dstlascaux (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some NPOV issues ("stunning" for instance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.50.137 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "In addition, wealth is unevenly distributed, with the wealthiest 25% of US households owning 87%[2] of the wealth in the United States, which was $54.2 trillion in 2009" reflects a POV and is unclear as to its meaning. If wealth was evenly distributed, there wouldn't be such a thing as wealthy people. Everyone would have the same amount of money. A POV is trying to be implied that there's something wrong with that. What does $54.2 trillion represent? The total wealth of the United States or the amount of money the top 25% owns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.247.107.168 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested sources[edit]

If you are interested in contributing to this article, here are some free information sources:

Thank you. Signaturebrendel 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why include nonprofits and household wealth in graph?[edit]

I don't see the value of the inclusion of household and nonprofit wealth in the graphs. It merely confuses the issue people want to understand, which is household (or individual) wealth distribution. Additionally, nonprofits are never referenced in the article. I recommend the graphs be removed.

Graphic[edit]

Why is a huge graphic on income included in this article? Should it be removed? -THB 08:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's there becuase people may include income in their definition of wealth. While doing so is technically incorrect it seems to be very common for people to fuse income and wealth. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 08:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TNWBSHNO Households and Nonprofit Organizations; Net Worth, Level (TNWBSHNO) Better graphic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.36.132 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The chart is linear and covers a long time span. To get real meaning from the chart it needs to be logarithmic. With a logarithmic chart a straight line indicates steady growth, and deviations from straight indicate increasing or decreasing, depending on the direction. Pretty much nobody can read a linear graph covering such a time span and know which way things have really been going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D58:1C70:EC7F:9BD8:6518:68D7 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Article[edit]

I just wanted to stop by and say Analoguni and BrendelSignature and others have done an excellent job on this article thus far, the text, the graphs are all very informative, thank you both and all. panth0r (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This gap must be closed in order to ensure a healthy economy."[edit]

I flagged this statement as being a possible POV statement because it advocates a specific point of view on two contested issues: the definition of a healthy economy and the necessity of closing the gap between rich and poor to the defined state of health. The article that was cited did not significantly treat either of those questions, so I planted a flag. Svend la Rose (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Net worth of public assets?[edit]

To be a complete picture of wealth in the U.S., shouldn't this article include the net worth of all non-private assets. After all, we all benefit from public facilities, infrastructure, etc... that we don't own. I've not been able to find any information on this. Considering that federal and states' liabilities (debt) would deduct from this, maybe it's negative. However, there must be enormous value in all of the government-owned property, highways, ports, buildings, and so on. Anyway, it would be interesting to know how this compares to privately-held wealth and what the trend is. Wmjohn6217 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STILL Out of Date[edit]

Are there any wealth distribution statistics that are more recent than 2004? johnpseudo 12:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated table with 2007 data. wizengy July 7, 2012. Updated table with 2013 data. wizengy Jan 11, 2015

There is new and better data for 2010. The section, "Changes in wealth after 2007" is deceptive because it combines the data to show growth but fails to indicate that the growth was limited to the top and that the bottom 50% lost wealth just as they had been doing since 1995.

In 1995 the top 10% of the country had 67.8% of the country’s wealth while the bottom 50% shared only 3.6% ($1,912 billion [in 2010 dollars]).[9] The bottom share eroded to 2.5% before the Great Recession of 2007 and by 2010 it had tumbled to 1.1% ($584 billion) – (a 70% loss of $1,333 billion over 15 years). The loss of wealth to the bottom half the country was offset by a 6.7% gain ($3,558 billion) for the top 10%. The bottom 50% have only $3 for every $10 they had in 1995. THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE ROSY PICTURE PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE.

An income and wealth distribution (“wealth gap”) of this extreme has not been seen in the U.S. since the Great Depression of 1929 (when unemployment was also as bad). Economists don't seem to know if there is a causal connection between income and wealth inequality, and recession or depression.

See Levin, Linda, ["An Analysis of the Distribution of Wealth Across Households, 1989-2010"], Congressional Research Service, 17 July 2012 248TaxBlend (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They always got RICH by good LUCK (or illegally)[edit]

Ferdinand Lundberg said in "The Rich and the Super-Rich" "Nobody, first of all, would be rich if he had not been favored by circumstances. Favoring general circumstances in the United States have been: a naturally rich virgin continent, an enlarging widely skilled population, a basic law designed to facilitate private property under earlier purely agrarian-mercantile circumstances, an expanding technology that took multiplied advantages of agrarian-mercantile law and a plethora of PURCHASABLE officials!! ... Had Henry Ford been a Swiss, operating under Swiss law, he could never, no matter how shrewd, have developed the Ford Motor Company... Had Rockefeller been a citizen of England, France, Russia, or China, functioning in any of those countries, he could never, by whatever hook, crook, or cleverness, have developed the Standard Oil Company...If the rich are entitled to their fortunes,as apologists say, one cannot go on to argue equal cleverness in their heirs! ... In the United States it is now quite common for heirs (sometimes quite stupid) to come into estates, largely UNTAXED, that make the inherited dukedoms decried by eighteenth-century republicans and democrats seem microscopic. No grand duchy ever came near the proportions of many American corporations and banks. The United States is the most exaggerated case of plutocracy in all history, eclipsing all others COMBINED!" How about adding that here? Stars4change (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Wealth[edit]

It would be interesting to update the article taking in changes since the burst bubbles of real estate and the stock markets in 2008.

As mentioned in the original article, the wealth of the top quartile is comprised of real estate and securities (and collectibles), which lost significant market value over the last couple of years, likely erasing a considerable amount of the reported recent rise.

Thus, many of the assets of the wealthy are very volatible, nearly imaginary, and not real unless realized, only potential purchasing power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmconoley (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading construction of a key sentence needs correction.[edit]

This sentence..."In addition, wealth is unequally distributed with the wealthiest 25% of US households owning 87% ($54.2 trillion, in 2009)[2] of the wealth in the United States[3][4].

It makes it sound like 87% of the wealth is equal to 54.2 trillion, but in reality 54.2 trillion is the total nation's total. The mistaken reading is all over the web.

It should read...In addition, wealth is unequally distributed with the wealthiest 25% of US households owning 87% of the wealth in the United States[3][4]($54.2 trillion, in 2009)[2]

I would have corrected it myself, but I was afraid I would mess something up.

Hope someone who can correct it reads this. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill N Ellis (talk • contribs) 00:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Very true, this sentence is badly written. I will look into correcting it. I think with the "wealth is unequally distributed" part, the person who wrote it is trying to promote political/economic propaganda (cough...socialism...cough). Here is a news flash for that person: Wealth is unequally distributed in every country. It should be written more like "skills and knowledge are also unequally distributed" with some people simply being smarter, harder-working, luckier, etc than others. Thus is life so please learn why socialism failed and will never succeed. It is a system of losers and bums who want the stupid, lazy, drunk factory worker to get the same pay as the vice president and managers who, on the other hand, spent their whole life working hard, studying, and learning to get that extra salary that they deserve. However, just to clear out, I will look into correcting that first paragraph, but I can't change the first sentence as it is a fact. But, if we are to follow these same guidelines, then we ought to write "wealth is unequally distributed" about every country and region that has an article about it here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.75.34 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aosxseedx (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brookings Institute resources[edit]

Concentrated Poverty, Opportunity and Well-being, Cities, U.S. Poverty METROPOLITAN OPPORTUNITY SERIES, Number 26 Elizabeth Kneebone, Senior Research Associate, Metropolitan Policy Program (Brookings.edu)

99.109.125.146 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty poor[edit]

Apart from looking like it's been slapped together from two op-eds from opposing points of view, we don't mention basic demographic changes like the increase in single-parent households which has driven much of the increased difference between household and per capita economic measures outside the high end of the upper class. Nevard (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article is a mess, and has a lot of short sections that don't really flow into each other. One particularly large problem at the moment is that there is a lot of material on income inequality that isn't directly relevant to the topic; perhaps this should be moved to a more appropriate page? For the remaining parts, perhaps it would make sense to consolidate to a section on current total and distribution, a section on changes in distribution over time, and then a section on caveats in interpretation of the statistics (to the extent that these can be found from verifiable sources). It may also make sense to include a section on politics of wealth distribution if we can do so without turning the article into a smoking crater. Populus (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First figure is problematic[edit]

The figure showing total household wealth 1. is not adjusted for inflation and 2. is not on a logarithmic scale, which makes earlier years virtually unreadable. A log figure with points for nominal and inflation adjusted dollars (with the method used for inflation adjustment specified) is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.75.108 (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to the out-of-date tag stuck on the article[edit]

I appreciate the difficulty of finding decent statistics, but the ones in the article and on the charts are 5+ years out of date . . . plus you have to remind yourself that the data used in the 2007 statistics is a year or so out of date by the time it is transformed a "statistic". So what is here is 6-7 years out of date. Ick. What's written here is no longer a reliable "snapshot" of wealth in the US in late 2012. Steer clear of this article. BillWvbailey (talk)

2007 is definitely very stale, especially considering the recession started in ~2008. However, there is now data available at least for 2010, so we should really re-work these graphs. A lot has changed!
-SColombo (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richistan[edit]

Hey, I'm sure the Richistan book is good, but is putting only that as further reading really kosher with the rules for promoting books? I vote that we add some more relevant books or delete this one. Crasshopper (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same with the "Americans underestimate inequality". There's a separate article on wealth inequality and I still feel like this page is unfairly promoting some pieces that already got good press. Deleting until someone can add more sources of ≥ quality and greater diversity. Crasshopper (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth Distribution[edit]

There is a "Wealth Distribution" section in the 2-4-8 Tax Blend article with an updated table and analysis. EugenePatrickDevany 15:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)

US family wealth[edit]

The US median family income is very different from what most people think. Here is some information for the article:

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "total wealth of the United States" the privately held figure?[edit]

Is the estimated $118 trillion "total wealth of the United States" the amount of privately held wealth, or does it also cover government holdings (i.e., state and federal buildings, parks and lands, military bases and equipment)? bd2412 T 16:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

citations are messed up[edit]

Citation #2, "'Americans' net worth up for 3rd straight quarter'. U.S. Federal Reserve. 2010-03-11. Retrieved 2010-03-11" used to cite the information in this line, ", wealth is unevenly distributed, with the wealthiest 25% of US households owning 87%" is from a figure in citation #3, "'Growing Wealth, Inequality, and Housing in the United States.' Zhu Xiao Di. Feb. 2007. Joint Center for Housing Studies."

There are many sources for the "dead link" of number 2 on the internet, including the Wayback Archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.24.220 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wealth in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merged[edit]

Maybe this should be merged with Affluence in the United States? Benjamin (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this should be merged Affluence in the United States, because this article discuss only one aspect and other article discuss several. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your proposition. A lot of the information on this page is redundant with the information presented in Affluence in the United States. Wealth and affluence are roughly the same, so there is no reason to have two separate topics.--Frosticious (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update or eliminate[edit]

This article is so hopelessly out-of-date that its title has become inappropriate. One table has been updated to 2013, but nearly all the charts only go up to 2007. It's now 2018.

If it can't be updated, it should be either merged into some article with "history" in the title, or eliminated completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F91B:E101:94DF:F9AB:70C8:DA24 (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wealth_in_the_United_States&oldid=1199921889"