50% of the population has some money in the stock market

[scheming daemons]

...401K plans, pensions, and such.

Just some numbers for the half of you that this matters to:


Dow Jones on 1/20/1993: 3241
(Clinton Inauguration)

Dow Jones on 1/20/2001: 10588
(Bush Inauguration)

The Dow GREW 227% during Clinton's term

Dow Jones on 1/20/2009: 7949
(Obama Inauguration)

The Dow SHRUNK by 25% during Bush's term

Dow Jones on 12/31/2009: 10428

the Dow GREW by 31% during Obama's FIRST YEAR


--------

To put it in plainer terms:

For every $1 you had in the market when Clinton took office, you had $3.27 when he left

For every $1 you had in the market when Bush took office, you had $0.75 when he left

For every $1 you had in the market when Obama took office, you have $1.31 now

--------


Like I said... half of the population has some money in the market. The half that doesn't is indirectly benefited when companies are doing well because it means they're expanding and that means hiring.


Over the 100 years, the stock market has grown an average of 10% per year during Democratic administrations and 4% per year during Republican administrations.


Remember that the next time you're looking at your 401K statement... or your kids' 529 plans... or your other investment statements.


Democrats are better for the markets than Republicans. It's been proven over the past century.

[Lasher]

1. The Worst President Ever presided over a S&P 500 net loss

That dismal failure was the worst performance since inception of the index.



Democratic Superiority, by the Numbers

[Political Heretic]

2. That's a bullshit statement, and I've got hard data for you:

The top 1% control the overwhelming bulk of stock wealth, not ordinary American families.







Total share of households owning stock work $6,000 or more (which would include 401ks (indirect holdings) - averaged at about 35%, not over 50%, in 2004. Some money? We shouldn't be talking about people who have a few hundred bucks in a half-started mutual fund. Serious investments - 6000k or more - total much less. And also represent







The stock market is of the rich and for the rich, and the "meme" that stock market is somehow a key part of middle class wealth or stability is an absolute joke. Provably so.

And by the way, this:

Like I said... half of the population has some money in the market. The half that doesn't is indirectly benefited when companies are doing well because it means they're expanding and that means hiring.

The first sentence is misleading, as the people with $500 in some gift started fund shouldn't be counted in the same breath as people with retirement income invested. For people with 6k or more directly or indirectly invested, about 35% of ALL households - with no maserument of income bracket - have money invested. But then, we see that the overwhelming majority of stock is owned by the weathiest ONE PERCENT of Americans. Meaning the actual number of ordinary middle or working class Americans with significant stock investments is incredibly small. Stock remains the wealthy person's game.

And your second sentence is channeling Ronald Reagan. You could have quoted him directly talking about trickle-down economics and it would have sounded exactly the same. Trickle down economic is a proven farce invented by rulers to justify their own society dismantling greed.

[MindPilot]

4. Of course the wealthy own the bulk of the stock.

The wealthy probably own the bulk of the mansions, yachts and private jets too. That tells us nothing except that the wealthy are wealthy. The chart also shows that the poor and working class own very little stock, again no surprise there.

The OP's point is that a majority (or close to a majority) of people have money in the market, either directly or through various savings and retirement instruments and therefore have an interest in the market doing well. Something which to no one's real surprise happens more under a Democratic president.

[Political Heretic]

11. The majority of people don't have money in the market, as the data shows.

At the under 6k level, i.e. trivial money, you have 49%.

At the over 6k level, meaning people with actual investment money with long term value - you've got 34%. That's thrity four percent of all families from richest to poorest. The dispertion of that 34% skews overwhelmingly toward the super rich. So of that total 34%, you've got like 90% of it coming from the super wealthy.

The result? Hardly any middle class or working class families have any significant investment in the stock market. It's a rich person's game, and is then spun as some sort of "bastion of middle class savings" which is a straightforward lie.

[TexasObserver]

9. His data are correct and so are yours. They're not incongruous.

It's a fact that 50% of the population is invested in the stock market.

It's also a fact that 80% of the stock market is controlled by those we might call "wealthy."

Your attack is misdirected. It's noteworthy to show that the bulk of the investment in the stock market is owned by the wealthy, but such fact does not negate the importance of that stock market to that 20% of the stock market NOT made up of wealthy people, but made up of John and Jane Public's savings and retirement.

You make a good point, but you diminish it by making your post an attack on one aspect of the OP, and your attack is wrong. In spite of your data, you do not disprove the statement in the OP.

[Political Heretic]

13. Slightly under 50% have trival money in stock. Only 34% have 6k or greater invested in stock.

Of that number - number of households with 6k or more invested in stock, something like 90% of those households are super rich.

The middle class overwhelmingly touches the stock market at trivial levels or not at all. The working class and poor don't even trivially touch it. It's overwhelmingly a rich man's game.

[Laelth]

14. Agreed. The "ownership society" meme is Republican propaganda.

It is designed to make us all act in ways that benefit the rich. Personally, I could care less about the gambling (stock) markets.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Hannah Bell]

3. but most of them don't have much in it, & folks at the top own most of it.

For most people, a raise (or job) would contribute more to their economic health than a rise in the market.

With 10% unemployment & falling wages, the bump in the market is not helping most people.

The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. (Federal Reserve Bank data in Left Business Observer, No. 72, Apr. 3, 1996, p. 5).

[laughingliberal]

5. +1 nt

[JDPriestly]

6. Problem is, the money in the stock market is not invested in creating jobs in the U.S.

and employing Americans at decent wages. That money goes overseas. We get cheap products back -- and the opportunity to place ourselves further and further in debt.

That's the only real opportunity we get -- to put ourselves in debt.

As a nation, for every dollar we gain in the stock market, we lose many more in terms of the cost of servicing our debts held by the countries in which the money in the stock market is invested.

In terms of how the average American is doing, the performance of the stock market is irrelevant.

While 1/2 of Americans may have some investment in the stock market, the invested 1/2 does not own anywhere near 1/2 of the value of the stock market.

The most important investment of the ordinary American is his or her home. Those of us who still have equity in our homes have seen it decline, and many have lost their homes altogether. Even if we still have a minuscule investment in the stock market, it doesn't begin to make up for the losses in our home values.

So, Democrats are better for the markets than Republicans. But to be better for ordinary Americans, we Democrats will also have to show that we are better for jobs and the housing market. I know that is a lot to ask considering the damage that Republicans did to all aspects of our economy. But the American people are not going to really feel the improvement until there are more jobs and higher housing values.

So, Democrats who set our economic policy need to focus more on jobs and the housing market (stopping foreclosures) and less on the stock market.

[SoCalDem]

12. Yep.. look at the Dow Jones during the US's heyday.. the 50's & 60's

it was LOW..but back then company profits were usually put back into the companies...and not immediately divvied up between the stockholders. Companies back then were focused on being longterm, solvent companies, and on growing their businesses and being job-engines/community-supporters.....

Sure wages were "low" then, BUT so were actual costs.... and since there were fewer "choices" we did not buy as much "stuff".... or "need" mega-homes to store all the "stuff".

[Zynx]

19. Bad analogy. The market did very well in the 1950s and 1960s.

Average annual returns were well into the double digits. If you are referring to the overall level of the market, that is not a good comparison. Overall economic output was much lower than it is now and stock market values are tied in the end to economic growth.

[TexasObserver]

7. Bush lost 25% of the total value of the stock market he inherited.

And while most of the stock market is owned by the wealthy, about 20% of it is made up of the lifetime savings and investments of ordinary citizens.

There is simply no question that Democratic administrations are better for the stock market than are GOP administrations. This is something like saying that children of parents who make sensible rules and enforce them turn out better kids than parents who let the kids run wild and do anything they want. Because Democratic administrations are not run exclusively to coddle the wealthy and the powerful, they actually help the wealthy more than the permissive GOP administrations.

Of course, it is the overall economic health - of which the DOW, Nasdaq and S&P are three indicators - that helps the nation and its citizens. We don't applaud the stock market gains because it's good for the wealthy, but because it's good for eventual job formation.

It would be great if the economy could turn around all at once, but it can't. We didn't get in this mess in a year and we won't get out of it in a year.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. I guess its time to privatize social security

Thanks Newt for the tip.......sucker

[TheWatcher]

10. The Markets have nothing to do with the general health of the REAL economy.

And you should know better.

Maybe that's why you have been silent as a cricket when hard data was posted, proving as such.

Look, I really don't have anything against you, and I mean that. You mean well.

You really believe in this Kool-Aid Paradigm you post about.

But don't expect the rest of us to drink it.

We aren't thirsty, and we know better.

Simple as that.

Happy New Year.

(And by the way, you may be right about 50% having SOME kind of money in the Market, but the percentage of those who actually BENEFIT from it? Well, that's an embarrassingly lower number.)

People really, truly need to stop looking at the Dow as an indicator of ANYTHING other than how well the top 5% are doing with their Casino Bets in the most manipulated, artificial shell game ever devised by man.

[KharmaTrain]

15. The Direct Affect Of The Bailouts...

Yep...those with investments saw them turn around bigtime starting last March. Many saw their portfolios that took a major hit in 2008 begin to recover. While the bank execs took their cut, much of the money they got went to propping up those accounts.

Democrats have been the best for the markets beyond doubt. When you look at periods of economic growth in the past 50 years, the only rushpublican who saw the markets and employment climb was Eisenhower. The rest were bust-outs...especially Raygun and the boooshies.

Things could have been a lot worse...the "stimulus" money kept a lot of retired people from having to go dumpster diving.

[enid602]

16. ownership

I worked 22 years for a heartless company that treated their employees like shit. There was a layoff program announced every 4 to 6 months, for the entire 22 years I worked there. I never felt secure, and knew the lousy pension plan would not provide for my future, especially given the company´s tendency to 'encourage' people to retire early. Long story short, I couldn't take it any more after turning 50. Luckily, I´d always participated in the 401K, and given the tax effect (including the saver´s credit given by the IRS every 4/15), my 8% yearly contribution only shrank my monthly paycheck by 3%. Luckily, my employer matched 100%. Believe me, that was the only nice thing they ever did. Now I wake up each morning, glad to be alive. Without 401K participation, I fear I would be a writhing, twitching psychotic mess. Do I resent these plans because they were sponsored by Republicans who promoted the ownership society? Of course not.

[grahamhgreen]

17. Just remember, most of the companies in the original DOW are no longer in it or bankrupt. Expand SS!

[enid602]

18. portable

The money you contribute to your 401K are YOURS; the company can´t touch it, so you needn´t worry about their financial state. The money is also portable, so you roll it over into an IRA, and take it to your next job.