3:55pm... DOW at 11,000.75

[scheming daemons]

Sell, sell, sell!

LOL

;-)

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. nice! Climbing back towards 14,000 slowly

[RagAss]

12. I'm getting out at 12.5

[A HERETIC I AM]

23. Just for you:

[virgogal]

2. Who's got anything to sell? Not me for sure.

[Raineyb]

3. Still pushing that fantasy that what's good for Wall Street is good for the rest of us?

Wake up will ya?

[NJmaverick]

4. It's certainly good for all those pensioners living off their 401Ks

older workers who are hoping to retire on their 401Ks and anyone that owns stocks or mutual funds.

[Hannah Bell]

5. 1/3 of retirees have only social security. for 2/3, social security provides at least half of their

income.

only the top 10% "lives off" a 401K.

the average worker has something like $4000 in their 401K.

mainly because the average worker makes $15/hr.

[NJmaverick]

6. so 2/3 of retirees are using 401Ks to live on to some degree

what's your point?

[Hannah Bell]

7. unwarranted assumption.

[NJmaverick]

8. so you claim

[Hannah Bell]

18. so i *know*, since 401ks didn't become a fixture until the 80s. They're a neglible part of

retirement income for current retirees.

and 2/3 of retirees get more than half their income from social security.

it's only to a small percent of the electorate that the stock market means diddly.

apparently you belong to that fraction.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Got A Source For That?

I know plenty of retired people...far from the "Top 10%" who live off their investments...401k and other retirement funds that are indexed to the rise and fall of the stock market.


I'd sure like to see a valid source for what you just posted...then I can go and tell them they're living in the top 10%.

[Hannah Bell]

17. most people don't have "investments". possibly you don't know most people.

Fact #4: For two-thirds of the elderly, Social Security provides the majority of their income. For one-third of the elderly, it provides nearly all of their income.

In 2002, Social Security provided 50 percent or more of the income of 66 percent of elderly people (those age 65 or older). Social Security provided 90 percent or more of the income of 34 percent of elderly people. For 22 percent of seniors, Social Security is the sole source of retirement income.<6>

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=531

Reference #6 = <6> Social Security Administration, Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2004.







and as investments recently tanked along with home values, i expect if there's any change in those stats since 2004, it's more people dependent on ss, not fewer.


The Role of Benefits in Income and Poverty

Social Security is the major source of income for older Americans. About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older received Social Security in 2008. For two out of three of those beneficiaries (66 percent) Social Security was more than half their total income.

Social Security is a large share of income because many Americans age 65 and older lack significant income from other sources.

Pensions (from private or government employment) were received by about half of married couples (from either the husband's or the wife's career).

Among the unmarried, 42 percent of men and 34 percent of women had pensions.

Social Security is the sole source of income for about one in five (21 percent) people aged 65 and older.

Certain subgroups are particularly reliant on Social Security. Of those age 65 and older, Social Security is the sole source of income for 43 percent of Hispanics, 40 percent of African Americans, 21 percent of unmarried women and 28 percent of Asian and Pacific Islanders.

Social Security plays an important role in keeping older Americans out of poverty. The poverty threshold was $10,400 for an individual and $14,000 for a couple in 2008. About one in 10 Americans age 65 and older is poor, by this measure.

If they had to rely only on their income other than Social Security, nearly half would be poor.

http://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/benefits-role

[KharmaTrain]

19. 52.7 Million Investment Households....

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_Americans_own_stock

The Mutual Fund Industry group - Investment Company Institute - has a lot of data on this subject. Its 2002 study, http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_02_equity_owners.pdf showed that 49.5% (or 52.7 million) of US Households owned equities in some way shape or form in 2002. However, only 21 million (less than 20%) owned individual stocks outside an employee sponsored plan.

There is an important distinction here. When politicians talk about eliminating the capital gains tax, it is only these 21 million households who will pay lower taxes, because retirement investments are tax deferred while you hold them, and then taxed at regular income tax rates when you take the money out.

Other sites I googled showed an even higher number. I didn't say that people live solely on their investments (a pipe dream for all but that upper 10%), but many retirees do live on a combination of SSI and their investments. Yes, without those investments they'd still have the SSI but live at a substantially lower standard and probably require additional assistance. Social Security has always been a suplement...not a full paid retirement fund...an incentive for people to save and invest and not rely totally on the government.

So even by your own numbers above, it's more than 10% who rely on the markets, not just an exclusive number like you're trying to portray. Methinks you're the one who needs to get out and meet the real world...

Cheers...

[Hannah Bell]

22. SSI isn't social security, for starters, it's supplemental security income, a welfare program.

I gave the data documenting that:

1. 1/3 of retired persons rely on SS for 90-100% of income.
2. 2/3 of retired persons rely on SS for more than half of their income.
3. about 80% of stocks are held by 10% of the population


You haven't challenged any of these figures, you just insist that "almost half of households own stock" is a meaningful statistic.

Let's turn it around: "More than half of households own *NO* stock."

"Most stock-owning households' holdings are worth less than $10K."

MM: A couple years ago there was a great deal of talk of the democratization of the stock market. Is that reflected in these figures, or was it an illusion?

Wolff: I would say it was more of an illusion. What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.

By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.

But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.

So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn’t been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.

As a result, the stock market boom of the 1990s disproportionately benefited rich families. There were some gains by middle class families, but their average stock holdings were too small to make much difference in their overall wealth...

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html



I repeat: to a majority of the US population, the fortunes of the stock market mean diddley.

Jobs & social security are much more important for the majority.

[eridani]

27. Utter bullshit. No one sane in that age group is living off of 401ks

WE are living off of pensions and Social Security, and have long since converted our 401ks to annuities.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. No, it's great when the stock market crashes. That's great for everyone.

Actually, I forgot- when the stock market crashes, it's proof that the world is ending.

Unlike when the stock market goes up, which is proof that the world is ending.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. I'm confused. Who are you arguing with?

"To pretend that what's going on on Wall Street is indicative of how the majority of people are doing is asinine."

It may well be. If I find someone who is doing that, I will be sure to tell them.

In the meantime, I only have one question: if it's not good news when the stock market goes up, is it good news when it goes down? For that matter, is anything ever good news?

[spanone]

29. wall street uses a lot of people's money in the form of investment & retirement

also seniors who live off their investments will be helped greatly.

[orwell]

9. Hey Rick Santelli...

...Are YOU listening?

Rick spewed his famous rant on or about Feb 19, 2009 just about two weeks before the final price bottom in the Dow (around 6600.) When Rickie vomited up his elite Wall Street opinion to the roar of the equally clueless mob on the floor, the Dow was in the 7300 range.

In other words, Slick Rick and his maters of the universe minions were panicking right before the price bottom. So much for their "super secret" insider status. So much for their "trading acumen."

These buffoons shouldn't be allowed near anyone's money. They are continually rewarded for failure.

Hey Rick, how about an apology to the President for pulling your weak willed ass out of the fire?

I didn't think so.

Hey Rickster, where are your customer's yachts?

[Taitertots]

10. There is no sound economic justification for these gains

You should sell.

The drop in the DOW reflected a return to the appropriate price levels. These new gains are just rebuilding the bubble.

[onenote]

14. anyone who looks to DU for investment advice...

Well, let me put it this way. One of my favorite DU posts was the one that predicted, after the market first climbed back above 8000, that it was a "dead cat bounce" and that the market was going to drop back below 6500 in a couple of months.

[Born_A_Truman]

15. Nearly 50% of all families have money invested in the stock market

So yes, it is important to them.

[Hannah Bell]

21. i.e., a minority of households, less since the market tanked & unemployment surged,

and most of them through workplace retirement plans, not directly.

besides which, average holding of this minority = < $10K.

most of the stock market is held by the top 10%. The bottom 90% of the population owns about 19% of the market.

Same with all financial assets.

For the bottom 90%, their putrid 401Ks are *nothing* v. a steady job & social security.


Ownership of stocks and mutual funds:

Top 1 percent: 38.3%
Next 9 percent: 42.9%

Bottom 90 percent: 18.8%

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


Please don't generalize your own situation to "everyone".

Hispani

[CBR]

25. I got my first quarter statement today. I was happy to see the gain. nt

[eridani]

28. The amounts invested by the vast majority are utterly meaningless

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1

Stock, bond and mutual fund ownership 2007
Top 1%--50.9%
90-99%--39.4%
50-90%--9.3%
Bottom 50%--0.5%

[tjwash]

16. How dare you be optimistic. That's against GD rules.

:hi:

[Confusious]

20. So?

I don't see no jobs.

[TexasObserver]

24. It's good news.

It's one more step in the right direction. It's not jobs, but it's something to build on.

I'm fairly optimistic. The short term will continue to a problem for jobs, however.

[DailyGrind51]

26. GNMA Bonds are paying 4.5% interest usable in "real time"!

The GNMA series pays interest that can be paid directly into your savings or checking account. The bond is as secure as Treasury Bonds, but terms are only stated as "average", meaning indefinite maturity date.

[aikoaiko]

32. You're making all the DUers who wanted the Dow at 5k very sad.

hehe.

[doc03]

33. Why aren't the Republicans blaming Obama for that? n/t