Are We the World's Most Anti-Worker Nation?

[Karee 4,190]

It's not hard: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=credit+suisse+global+wealth+data+book+2013

Second link from the top takes you right to it.

Here's how it works (Or should work anyway) You or one of your commie buddies make an assertion and back it up with evidence. You don't make an assertion and then expect someone else to do your work for you. Well, wait a second. That's exactly they way it works on the left. Someone else does the work and you expect to paid for it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Here's how it works (Or should work anyway) You or one of your commie buddies make an assertion and back it up with evidence. You don't make an assertion and then expect someone else to do your work for you. Well, wait a second. That's exactly they way it works on the left. Someone else does the work and you expect to paid for it.

That the title of the publication you referenced was off by exactly one digit from the publication that the author of the OP referenced should have given away that maybe it's an annual report that Credit Suisse produces. I thought that was too damn obvious but apparently not.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

The link has a report which has the reason for Australias numbers:

"Interestingly, the composition of household wealth in

Australia is heavily skewed towards real assets, which averaged

USD 319,700 and form 60% of gross household assets. This

average level of real assets is the second highest in the world

after Norway. In part, it reflects a large endowment of land and

natural resources relative to population, but it is also a result of

high urban real estate prices."

The article in the first post is horrible by the way. The arguments put forth and the numbers they chose to use - fantasy.. Look at page 46 for the US and then page 57 for Australia to see the real numbers without the bias skewing games.

We do have wealth disparity in the U.S. and it is getting worse which will not be good for the economy as a whole down the line - the real erosion of the middle class that will continue is that we have seven billion people and rising, not everyone can be middle class so as we even out the bottom it lowers what is possible for the rest of us. This will continue as major economies intermingle.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The link has a report which has the reason for Australias numbers:

"Interestingly, the composition of household wealth in

Australia is heavily skewed towards real assets, which averaged

USD 319,700 and form 60% of gross household assets. This

average level of real assets is the second highest in the world

after Norway. In part, it reflects a large endowment of land and

natural resources relative to population, but it is also a result of

high urban real estate prices."

The article in the first post is horrible by the way. The arguments put forth and the numbers they chose to use - fantasy.. Look at page 46 for the US and then page 57 for Australia to see the real numbers without the bias skewing games.

We do have wealth disparity in the U.S. and it is getting worse which will not be good for the economy as a whole down the line - the real erosion of the middle class that will continue is that we have seven billion people and rising, not everyone can be middle class so as we even out the bottom it lowers what is possible for the rest of us. This will continue as major economies intermingle.

I'd buy into this argument if it wasn't for the pesky little fact that global wealth is growing much faster than global population. Average net worth per adult was $51,600 in 2013 - not only the highest it has ever been but some 40% higher than a decade earlier in 2003. World population, on the other hand, has grown only about 10% in that same time frame. So wealth has grown at 4 times the rate as population. That would support a broader middle class. Globally, I would argue, we're seeing that broadening of the middle class.

Not so in the US, however. That is not for a lack of growing wealth. Aggregate wealth has grown from $28.9 trillion in 2000 to $40.2 trillion a decade later. That's a healthy 40% increase in wealth over that time frame. US population has grown much more modestly from 282 million to 312 million or less than 11% over that same time period. So, really, the growth patterns of wealth vs. population in the US very much reflect the global patterns. Only here, the middle class is getting smaller while globally, it is getting bigger - as it should given the growing total wealth.

They twist and turn this as the inevitable global phenomenon. That's not what it is. The global trends diverge from US trends. No, what's at play here is good old American greed that's going to end just as it did early in the second quarter of the last century. I would not be surprised one bit if it fell into about that time frame this century as well.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog