Debt, lower wages clip net worth growth
 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/23/pf/c...ex.htm?cnn=yes

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) – Americans' net worth grew between 2001 and 2004, but not nearly as strongly as it did between 1998 and 2001, according to the Federal Reserve's triennial Survey of Consumer Finances released Thursday.

...

Net worth: Median net worth rose 1.5 percent, to $93,100, meaning half of all households had a higher net worth. By contrast, between 1998 and 2001, the median net worth increased 10.3 percent.

...

Income: A decline in wages also helped account for the slow growth in net worth.... The growth in income was the slowest since the Fed's 1992 survey, when median income actually fell.6.7 percent, to $35,100, between 1989 and 1992.

Savings: The percent of families who said they'd saved in the preceding year fell 3.1 percentage points, to 56.1 percent.

Two words.....Dot Com

Yeah, a lot of numbers that come out about the late nineties were fake. How is net worth calculated, anyway ? Is it all assets minues all debts ? If so the rise is house values would bring down the net worth as so many people have bigger loans, a debt, now, even though they're affordable due to low interest rates.

This is worth pointing out :

"The percentage of families investing in stocks, directly or indirectly through mutual funds, fell 3.3 percentage points, to 48.6 percent."

I assume the drop is due to people being scared after the big drop after 9/11 but, regardless, just about 50% own stock in one way or the other. So when all the libs are whining about corporate profits and the stock market only helping the big boys, guess what . . . it helps half of the country.

This is pathetic :

"The percent of families who said they'd saved in the preceding year fell 3.1 percentage points, to 56.1 percent."

I know some people can't, but come on. No wonder I'll have to support everyone on social security when they retire. Come on, people.

I think investment dropped more as a result of the dot.com phenomenon that Bush's economic policies didn't maintain (as we switched to an old industries mentality) than a result of 9/11.

Also, liberals do not object to corporate profits, but do object to white collar abuse (such as Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Andersen, Halliburton, Walmart, etc.).

I think you might be mixing up liberals with communists, the same type of confusion as when liberals mix up Republicans with fascists. You can find some similarities, of course, in that liberals do favor economic policies that benefit working people, but the differences are far greater.

It doesn't take much effort to find liberals complaining about corporate profits. Note all the references to "big oil" and their recent profits.

Ah, I see, you're defending the oil companies. I think the oil companies should have to help the families of deceased soldiers if they want Iraqi oil; I think the oil companies should explain why the so-called oil shortage led to not only increased prices for the consumer, but massive increases in profits for the oil companies. Unlike you, I'm against corruption. You're probably one of those who's more concerned with the Katrina victim using government aid to get a $450 tattoo than with an oil company exploiting our soldiers to get an extra billion dollars.

Mike, neither was I but I'm doing what I can to get what savings I can. That means maxing out my 401K and bypassing niceties like new cars or a bigger house. Or going out drinking twice a week.

That's a loser's mentality. I've never made "big bucks" but I put my $400 or so in a month. Put $400 a month (and I know not everyone can) in at 8% (which is reasonable historically) and you come out with $600K after 30 years. At $100 a month you end up with $150K. No, you can't retire on that but it's better than the $36K it would be if it just sat under your mattress. And most people could squeeze out $200 to $300 a month if they were honest with themselves.