The Big Money in Today's Economy Is Going To Capital, Not Labor (wsj.com) 97
The American economy's most valuable companies are now worth trillions of dollars more than their predecessors were a generation ago, yet they employ a fraction of the workers -- and a new analysis by the Wall Street Journal argues that this widening gap between capital and labor is the defining economic story of our time.
Labor received 58% of gross domestic income in 1980; by the third quarter of 2025, that figure had fallen to 51.4%. Corporate profits' share rose from 7% to 11.7% over the same period. Nvidia, the most valuable US company in 2026, is nearly 20 times as valuable as IBM was in 1985 in inflation-adjusted terms and employs roughly a tenth as many people. Since the end of 2019, real average hourly wages have risen 3% while corporate profits have climbed 43%.
Household stock wealth now equals almost 300% of annual disposable income, up from 200% in 2019. Yale economist Pascual Restrepo predicted that AI integration will shrink labor's share of revenue further, just as factory automation did for blue-collar workers in decades past.
Labor received 58% of gross domestic income in 1980; by the third quarter of 2025, that figure had fallen to 51.4%. Corporate profits' share rose from 7% to 11.7% over the same period. Nvidia, the most valuable US company in 2026, is nearly 20 times as valuable as IBM was in 1985 in inflation-adjusted terms and employs roughly a tenth as many people. Since the end of 2019, real average hourly wages have risen 3% while corporate profits have climbed 43%.
Household stock wealth now equals almost 300% of annual disposable income, up from 200% in 2019. Yale economist Pascual Restrepo predicted that AI integration will shrink labor's share of revenue further, just as factory automation did for blue-collar workers in decades past.
News? (Score:2, Troll)
This has been the last 50 years. How is this news at this point? It was stuff that matters 50 years ago.
Re:News? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's getting exponentially worse.
the optimal fix is workweek, not taxation. (Score:1)
the wealth taxes proposed In NY, WA and NYC are bad paths.
https://www.scry.llc/2025/09/0... [scry.llc]
"The large IT companies are now in a consolidation phase accelerated by AI, as evidenced by continuous layoffs for the past three years. The average recession length is less than a year, this is structual change, not inventory adjustment. I'm curious if the Republicans will figure this out before the economy forces their hand."
adjusting the workweek is the optimum long-term fix.
Re: (Score:2)
adjusting the workweek just means people are even less employed, shut the hell up
Re: (Score:2)
adjusting the workweek just means people are even less employed, shut the hell up
It means more people are less employed. If you could get 80% of your wages (with full benefits) to work four days per week, would you? A lot of us would, without a moment's hesitation. And even if only one in five people did it (and thus added about 5% to the number of people employed), that would still be enough to completely wipe out tech unemployment.
Re: the optimal fix is workweek, not taxation. (Score:2)
I would lose my family home on 80% on my wages.
Re:the optimal fix is workweek, not taxation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Raising corporate profit taxes, income taxes, and inheritance taxes is the way to go. Much of the distribution problem is a result of tax changes that benefit the wealthy which have been the policies of every Republican administration since Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
Raising corporate profit taxes, income taxes, and inheritance taxes is the way to go. Much of the distribution problem is a result of tax changes that benefit the wealthy which have been the policies of every Republican administration since Reagan.
Amazing that the "taxes are just wealth redistribution" or "taxes are theft" crowd never seem to get where the taxes are being redistributed to.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love a shorter workweek, but that doesn't address how top-heavy America is right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw you. We need not merely national wealth taxes, we need an international wealth tax, so they can't get away.
But, go ahead, you'll never be rich, but defend their right to underpay and overwork you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: News? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:News? (Score:5, Informative)
This is the change: comparing 45 years ago to now.
In summary, labor received 6.6% less of the gross income, while corporate profits increased by 4.7%. So, 3/4 of the decrease in money paid to labor was moved to corporate profits.
Not terribly unexpected; the labor force dropped because of increased amounts of automation of production.
Re: (Score:3)
So many people are paper multi-millionaires now. I wonder if all this 'wealth' will be worth anything when we all go to spend it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's my concern. Ordinary people have their retirement plans largely in stocks. There will be a way to raid that.
The ultra wealthy seem to leverage many more kinds of asset - art, property, IP, companies they privately own etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole reason other people don't have money is those people do not intend to spend it, ever. Their entire project is to sit on money that they intentionally make increasingly useless until everyone else is starved to death.
Re: News? (Score:2)
It's even simpler. The entire point of capital hiring labor is that labor can produce more of value than they are paid. And over the years, capitalists have gotten an increasing discount. Although I would like to see this calculates with the total compensation, including employer's portion of healthcare. Probably won't move the number much though.
Re: (Score:2)
Lowering labor costs has been a quarterly sport for 50+ years.
Equilibrium (Score:2)
yes, we're watching an historical cycle play out so answers already exist.
https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/2... [scry.llc]
"Production equals consumption in an ideal economy. Both are bound by finite time. If production increases, consumption must increase, too. Ergo, time spent on production must fall, which is what happened during the last two depressionary eras. 1873-1897 and 1930-1940. I'm fairly sure that AI is the last straw which breaks the forty-hour workweek"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Production equals consumption in an ideal economy.
Production equals consumption plus investment in an ideal economy. Investment has a multiplicative effect on the productivity of labor (either labor decreases holding productivity constant, or productivity increases when labor is constant. The actual result is somewhere between those two endpoints.)
Socialist policies actively discourage investment, either through taxation or outright seizure, and as such act as a brake on improvements in the standard of living of the population as a whole.
While not news to some of us (Score:2)
It bear repeating as long as people remain in denial.
exists because of immigration (Score:1, Troll)
The gig economy exists because of immigration, and more so because illegal immigration.
We need to fix the wage gap! You can tinker all you like with labor laws and regulations but ultimately supply and demand win.
If want to continue to have an America where upward mobility is possible, and we have a robust middle class work needs to pay. That simply will not happen when you have damn near unlimited supply of below market rate labor streaming over the boarder, while also collecting subsidies for housing and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that facts bear out your hypothesis. But you did manage to find a minority group to hate. You fell for the propaganda of the Rich.
Re:exists because of immigration (Score:5, Informative)
Facts bear out that immigrants bump our GDP, and contribute more than they take.
If you are concerned about housing prices, and want a real fix, look at how the very wealthy own large percentages of housing, and keep jacking up the rent on working people.
Re: (Score:3)
Rent prices have gone up because, for a variety of reasons, there has been a supply shortage [clevelandfed.org] of new homes.
We just don't build 'em like we used to.
re: housing shortages (Score:2)
Whenever I hear the moaning about housing shortages causing rent prices to shoot up, I have to temper that with the big "depends" ... location.
I live in the Midwest and I can tell you that right in my own city in southern Illinois, for example? We have literally hundreds of homes that are either vacant or up for sale by people who used to own them as part of portfolios of dozens of properties they rented out in the past.
There's no shortage to be found anyplace around here. The main issue is that much of our
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a very reason for that.
There's even less economic opportunity in Southern Illinois than everywhere else. Sure, get a cheap house in a depressed area where your best grocery options are gas station hotdogs, and the locals are dangerously critical of any outsiders moving in. Good luck with that.
You've got the same thing in meth'd out towns in Ohio and upstate NY: vacant homes for sale, cheap. Sometimes they're meth houses - if they're anywhere near the average price of a home from 2020. They're still
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about two different situations, apparently.
We have several local grocery stores in town. 3 are big name chain grocers, and then one is a local mom and pop that's been in town for over 60 years. I won't lie... we have some issues with meth and other drug addictions, here and there. But that's not exclusive to a Southern IL city or town by any means.
I'm talking about housing stock like good "starter homes" with 2 or 3 bedrooms and maybe 1,200 sq. feet or so of space going for as little as $28,00
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, it says
"Home construction hasn’t been keeping up with population growth since the 1970s, said Schuetz, a housing policy expert at Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic foundation."
Then when you look at the numbers as according to chatgpt:
"The Shift to Immigration (2020–Present): Due to declining birth rates and rising deaths, natural increase plummeted during the pandemic. By 2022–2023, immigration accounted for 100% of all U.S. population growth for the first time since 1850. In 2024, ne
Re: (Score:3)
GDP isn't real, not for anything anyone cares about. It has zero bearing on the lives of anyone except the corporate owners and their profit margins.
That's why the corporate money consistently backs open immigration.
People are critical of the 'trickle down' economic model, then fail to see the similar effects caused by depressing wages, increasing the cost (decreasing availability) of housing, and so on. It's confounding to me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you've also fallen for the propaganda of the Trump administration.
The vast majority of the people being pulled off the streets to make Miller's quotas have legal status.
ICE [Re:exists because of immigration] (Score:5, Informative)
The economic impacts of ICE operations in MPLS and other target locations also proving it. Places are closing up because they don't have workers, they don't have workers because they illegals won't turn up for shifts.
Partly true, but also legal immigrants aren't turning up for shifts because of fear of ICE. ICE has been very indiscriminate about who they detain, and also have been doing things like taking people who are legally in the US, changing their status, and deporting them.
Re: (Score:2)
If a place can't find workers willing to work for a wage that would make the business profitable, that business should not exist. "Illegals" are bound to the same reality as everyone else: they need to eat, and they need money to buy food, and they need jobs to get money. If you think this does not apply to them, and they are somehow getting a better deal than you are from the government, you should just do what they do and don't provide any documentation to the government about your citizenship when you
Re:exists because of immigration (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a tactic that owners of capital have been using for a very long time going all the way back to the slave plantation owners.
The vast majority of people in the American south could not afford slaves (let alone a plantation!). In order to cover for the fact that a tiny minority (maybe 1% of the population) controlled 99% of the wealth, they institute a system where whites were considered superior so that the working class could be convinced they weren't being screwed and would participate in the continuation of free labor for the plantation owners. After the civil war, they used Jim Crow to perpetuate the same system, albeit with slave wages rather than literal slavery from the designated underclass.
Once the Civil Rights era came about, it became no longer tenable to use African Americans as the designated underclass to keep the working class in line. It's no accident that immigration became a hot button political issue right around the time the civil rights era ebbed. Immigrants from Latin American became a convenient replacement. It was more socially acceptable to ostracize outsiders who spoke a different language and because of immigration laws, you could legally discriminate against them the way people used to discriminate against African Americans. The ginned-up outrage over "crime" and "sending rapists" mirrors how society used to talk about African Americans before that ceased to be acceptable.
The group that is the designated underclass has changed, but the result is the same: owners of capital get cheap labor. The underclass does the worst least-paid jobs with no real protections while the working class is distracted from the fact they only getting the crumbs from the capital owners. They are trained to blame those under them in the social order rather than the ones who have created the system. Note: having "illegal" immigrants is a feature, not a bug in this system. Undocumented immigrants still work, but only off the books. This means they will work for sub-minimum wage and the true employer can officially disclaim ever employing them (by hiring via a contractor). You also don't have to pay them social security or Medicare benefits down the line, but they often do pay into these systems.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no accident that immigration became a hot button political issue right around the time the civil rights era ebbed.
Maybe, but I think a different explanation is more likely. It's related to the changes in immigration over the last few decades. This article [cis.org] has lots of statistics about it. This sentence is the key:
Traditionally, the American South received relatively few immigrants, but from 1980 to 2025 the foreign-born population in that region grew an astonishing 578 percent.
What you're seeing is people who aren't used to immigrants suddenly having lots of immigrants in their communities. The reaction in the South today is very similar to the reaction in other parts of the country a century or more ago. If you were Irish in New York or Japanese in California in the late 1800s,
Re: (Score:2)
I think the changing immigration patters are part of why it works, but not the root cause. It's not an accident that conservative media is constantly pushing anti-immigrant propaganda. I live in a very immigrant heavy city, but you can still live most of your life without interacting much with immigrants (especially in the more conservative far suburbs and exurbs).
Most people wouldn't be giving much thought to immigrants if they weren't getting daily news feeds about the horrors they supposedly bring. Once
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a very immigrant heavy city, but you can still live most of your life without interacting much with immigrants
That's why the propaganda works. If you tried to tell people in California, "Look out for the scary Japanese who are invading," most of them would laugh at you. Because those scary Japanese are their friends and classmates and coworkers who they've known for years. On the other hand, if you tried to tell them, "Look out for the scary Martians who are invading," they would just get confused and wonder what Martians you were talking about.
The South is currently balanced between these states. There are eno
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that facts bear out your hypothesis. But you did manage to find a minority group to hate. You fell for the propaganda of the Rich.
True. The myth of trickle-down economics [theguardian.com] has long been debunked. But the idea that the rising tide of GDP will raise all boats is still peddled by many politicians and parts of the mainstream media,
Re: (Score:1)
Let's finally enact laws that make hiring illegals SO ONERUS that no US employer would dare hire them.
Dry up the market for illegals and they'll leave....and then US citizens can take those jobs, that housing,, possibly lower taxes to keep from paying inflated education and safety net expenses.....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: exists because of immigration (Score:1)
Why does the gig economy exist? [Re:exists bec...] (Score:5, Informative)
The gig economy exists because of immigration,
No. The gig economy exists because it is a work-around capitalism has found to employ people without treating them as employees, and hence not giving them the benefits of employees.
and more so because illegal immigration.
Partly true. The illegal immigration part of the gig economy is primarily farm-work: seasonal labor hired by the hour (or by the bushel) to do things like picking crops. This is because this kind of work can be paid under the table with no records. But hiring migrant farmworkers, no questions asked, has been part of the underground economy for generations, although it's not what we usually think of when we think of the gig economy.
Re: (Score:1)
The gig economy exists because it is a work-around capitalism has found to employ people without treating them as employees, and hence not giving them the benefits of employees.
The gig economy is a work-around for wage and benefit taxation. Gig workers are basically sole proprietor businesses. Who (if they are smart) can take advantage of the tax and other regulations which have an admittedly anti-labor, pro-business bias.
I don't want to be an employee. The tax and other economic advantages of being self employed are just too great. But the federal government and my (blue) state conspire to make that difficult. People keep telling me "Oh, but you really WANT those yummy benefits
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just a wild divergence from reality. You have stated nothing to support your position. For example, here in Washington State, Democrat legislators tried to stop the practice of hair stylists from working as independent contractors by renting booths in salons by making that practice illegal [wa.gov]. The stylists mounted a protest, backed by a public initiative campaign to basically tell the state to f** off. And the state did (for the time being). The state's arguments were much the same as those made for ot
Re: (Score:2)
The gig economy exists because of immigration,
No. The gig economy exists because it is a work-around capitalism has found to employ people without treating them as employees, and hence not giving them the benefits of employees.
This, the gig economy exists because some companies found a method of employing people without having to say they're legally employed, ergo skirting employment laws, taxes, denying them benefits and being able to get rid of them if they dare challenge the management.
Its like companies that pay cash to hire people without putting them on the books... except they've found a way to do so in plain sight and have courts back them up.
Re: (Score:2)
below market rate labor
The market rate is by definition the rate the market pays. The problem is you expect people already living here to be paid above market rate to do things that are economically not worth doing in the first place.
Re: exists because of immigration (Score:3)
More labor equals more economic activity.
Legalize immigrants, they are already healthy working age adults and aren't the economic drain that children and the elderly are.
If your nation hasn't kept its birthrate up, then the only option to avoid economic decline is to import the labor pool.
And America has been doing this for hundreds of years. We bring immigrants in, insert them in the lowest rung. And push most other Americans up, now that they are freed from trying to demand higher wages for unskilled labo
Illegal Immigrants barely impact housing (Score:3, Insightful)
If want to continue to have an America where upward mobility is possible, and we have a robust middle class work needs to pay. That simply will not happen when you have damn near unlimited supply of below market rate labor streaming over the boarder, while also collecting subsidies for housing and everything pushing prices higher.
Look at history, things were even worse before WW2. The gov introduced significant regulation to counterbalance robber barons in order to win WW2 and we saw a golden age of economic prosperity. And predictably, the robber baron class whittled down regulation to ensure a new gilded age. Housing didn't get affordable in the post war period based on supply and demand alone. Gov regulations and the GI bill played a huge role. Unions, with all their flaws, ensured workers could afford to buy homes.
Accord
1960 called, they wan't their headline back. (Score:3)
EOM
Re: Dumb comparisons (Score:1)
Capital per employee (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's because of policy (Score:3)
IMO the workers used to have a voice, policy would be created in their favor. Now big money is all the politicians hear, if there was better policy preventing money from going to the top of the economic food chain and better serving workers, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Re: (Score:1)
Dear lordy it's not policy, but (financial) physics. Life depends on water -- right? Throw a lead weight ( say unions or SPH ) into a lake and the weight sinks to the bottom. But, throw a balsa-wood block ( t-shirt sweatshops or 996 ) into a lake and it floats like a hooker-on-coke. Been that way since Pharaohs servants were buried with him or Sythian kings were buried in gold chariots.
Any way to beat
Re: (Score:2)
The financial physics favor monopolies.
Labor is becoming irrelevant. (Score:4, Interesting)
It used to be workers had some leverage because they were essential to keeping the gears of the economy turning. Now, it's only the machines, databases, and AI that matter. The small amount of labor required to keep businesses functioning means workers are quickly becoming an irrelevant component of the economy. Good luck with that next wage negotiation.
concentration of wealth (Score:5, Informative)
Inflation is stubbornly high in the USA, the ridiculous tariffs are hugely damaging, housing costs have soared, it's hard to find a decent job, and consumer confidence has soured. The federal government is malicious and untethered.
Nonetheless, if you've had money invested in the stock market over the past couple of years you've made out like a bandit. My portfolio is up 8% just since the beginning of the year and its all just index funds. VYMI (international value category) is up 40% since this time last year, I should have been all in.
It seems completely uncoupled to the underlying economy, defying gravity. But that's where the obscenely wealthy keep much of their money, and if you have some surplus income you get to come along for the ride. If you don't, like so many people today, all you can do is watch from the sidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
One just has to study a bit of history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Is this an argument for socialism? (Score:5, Informative)
That's communisim (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think you could run a company?
Yes. Most people who run companies are not particularly skilled or smarter than average.
Do you think you could, along with your fellow citizens, elect someone among you to run a company?
Yes.
Also it doesn't matter who owns means of production.
That's what this article is about. Increasingly, owning production is not about hiring labor, it's about capitol. So production will be controlled by those who own the capitol, not by labor.
What matters is consumption. How much you get to consume.
Those who control the capitol have shown that they are not interested in allowing anyone else to consume. They want to consume it all.
When farming efficiency massively increased did the extra farmers starve because they were out of work?
Yes, lots of farmers starved, lost their homes, killed themselves, etc. The transition was terri
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuela could not fix broken oil equipment because of sanctions that prevented them from getting the needed parts. Think about it, if all the stores around you stopped selling to you, how long could you survive?
Capital is productive - this is good (Score:2)
Do people know what makes labour valuable? (Score:2)
The most anyone, without coercion, will pay you is the marginal value you add to their product.
If you make something that can be used many times or by many people you are more valuable than someone who makes a single product. So a software developer who's code can run on many computers and be sold many times, or Taylor Swift who can write a single song that is listened to billions of times, is more valuable t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. The labor of a lot of people isn't valuable. Does that mean as the cost of living rises above the value of their labor they should be left to rot in the streets?
You can have a social safety net. Tax those who consume more on themselves and divert that consumption to those who can't consume as much.
But don't distort the labor market to force some companies to pay more than the market value. That stifles innovation and the creation of better paying jobs.
Until 50 years ago the easiest way to earn more was to move to an area with better employment opportunities. Unfortunately there are many high paying jobs in places like California or New York that people can't
I had a bit of a realization about all of this... (Score:3)
It's easy to look at this situation though the lens of doom; corporations are going to control and own it ALL. The average American worker won't be able to make ends meet anymore.
But there's at least one other angle here. If you want to make money, you need to market to/sell to the people who HAVE the most money.
Working for these corporations just means you get pennies for the dollars you help them generate for themselves. But selling products or services to them means you can charge a lot more than you'd get from your peers who are also struggling to stay gainfully employed.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing is how the art world works. Believe me, it's not rosy. Catering for the super-wealthy, whether they're physical people or mega corporations, is really deeply alienating. Even more so because you have the illusion of mastering your own life - while you're really just their disposable puppet. Even worse, you have to pretend that you are the master of your own life, because the moment you'll complain about being a slave to them (whether you complain directly to them, or to your peers wit
No Shit Sherlock! (Score:2)
BS (Score:2)
The only thing that has changed is that the US has outsourced labor, mainly to Asia. In the example they give, Nvidia actually builds its products in Taiwan, but IBM built them in the US. So, the Taiwanese labor doesn't count as US investment in labor for some reason, even though it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Also the money supply was disconnected from reality so now banks can print as much money as they want and the rich can borrow that money to buy things that go up in value, making them insanely rich.
Give the rich the ability to buy anything in the real world with money printed from nothing and pretty soon they'll own everything. Seems pretty obvious to me.
Politics (Score:2)
Forget that there are about as many houses per person as ever. Forget that immigrants contribute more money
I have a solution! (Score:3)
**C**ommunity
**U**nity,
**B**alanced
**A**bundance
Now, what country wants to volunteer?
Why feed NPCs (Score:1)
And the worst part ... (Score:2)
... is you can't even buy stock in those companies!
Oh, wait. You can. And if you are like most employees, and have a 401k or an IRA, then you do, even if you don't know it.
Gonna be plump and tasty. (Score:2)
When we eat em.
Everyone. Must. Invest. In. Capital. (Score:3)
Let me put it this way . Most people here would probably agree that a person in a modern society needs to have a state ID, a bank account, a mailing address, and probably an email account and maybe a credit card. If I don't have these things, I'm basically operating with handcuffs on. Without these, it's almost impossible to buy anything, or sell anything, or save any money, or hold a job, or find a place to live, or prepare food, or do just about anything else. Getting ahead in life is almost impossible. Without those things, I'm basically living off the grid, and surviving until the end of the day is about all I can hope for.
In a capitalist society, *owning capital* should be part of that list. People will grumble that only the billionaires hold the capital. Untrue. That's why we invented the stockmarket. Nowadays, you can buy a $10 fraction of a share, if that's all you have to spare. Every single person above the poverty line should own an investment account.
I'll only speak about the US. If you're an adult in the US, above the poverty line, and you don't own stocks/equities, you're voluntarily not participating in the greatest economic engine that humanity has ever invented. Is it any surprise that other people seem to be pulling ahead of you?
I totally understand that it's not easy. It can be really frikkin hard. And it's certainly not fast. You need to put as much money as you can into investments, and you need to do it for decades. Literally. Decades. Or maybe even more than generation if you happen to get along with your family members. Oh, you're not willing to wait that long? Well, that's on you, buddy. Who's keeping you down, the *man* or your own impatience? Nowadays, the stock market is basically an app on your phone, and it's returned (a very noisy) 8 percent per year for the last 75 years. What are you waiting for? Buy as much garden variety low-fee equity ETF or mutual fund as you can, keep doing it every month, and don't even look at it until you're near retirement. The recipe for success here is *very* simple.
Downmod in 3,2,1.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to vote you down, it's an interesting point you are raising. But, please read "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" from Thomas Piketty and be educated about why this can't work. Common folks can't invest in capital because they have no money. And this is in super-rich countries, not third-world countries. The bottom part of society (which makes actually a high percentage of the population) does not have savings - they have debt. You can't invest if you're in debt. The main form of "capital" which l
Re: Everyone. Must. Invest. In. Capital. (Score:2)
I think parent makes a good point. Perhaps not for the bottom 50%, but many middle class people don't realize the need to invest in stocks. I saw this particularly with my family in France. My sister stubbornly refused to invest ar all, citing risk. She paid cash for her house when our farher died and she inherited. Interest rates were very low back then.
Now, she still owns the house, but has essentially zero other assets.
My morher on the other hand listened to me, and made a bundle investing in index funds
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, I think that the market economy creates more wealth distribution than you think. Apple is nearly 50 percent small and retail shareholder owned. Another large chunk is owned by pension fun
I fostered a puppy (Score:2)
The poor guy thought he could live on eating his own poo.
Same thing here.
We take everything (Score:1)
new ? (Score:2)
and a new analysis by the Wall Street Journal
Sorry, what? A NEW analysis? A solid decade in this? Took them a while, didn't it?
No shit (Score:2)
It's called capitalism, not laborism.
You don't get rich by working hard, you get rich by being rich.