Canadian Household Net Worth Increased 44% between 2005-2012, US falls 40% Between 2007-2010

[Family Guy]

In what is an absolutely "on-topic" post for this newsgroup, I can
report the following:

- Between 2005 and 2012, the Median Net Worth of Canadian households
increased by 44% to $243,800 in 2012.

- Between 2007 and 2010, the Median Net Worth of american households
DECREASED by almost 30% to a paltry $77,300 in 2010.

If anyone can find more recent US numbers (ie - household net-worth for
2012) I dare you to post it.

The american dream - Alive and Well in Canada.

The american dream is a Canadian reality.

The american dream is no longer home ownership. The american dream now
is to collect food stamps and social-security disability.

==============
February 25, 2014

In a report that takes a long view on the state of Canadian finances,
the agency finds that the 2012 medium net worth among family units — of
two or more persons — has risen 44.5 per cent since 2005 to $243,800,
and almost 80 per cent from 1999.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/25/canadian-families-are-getting-wealthier-statistics-canada-study-says-as-net-worth-rises-sharply-since-2005/
===============

Meanwhile in the USA...

===============
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/11/news/economy/fed-family-net-worth/

Income and net worth fell from 2007 to 2010.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The average American family's net worth dropped
almost 40% between 2007 and 2010, according to a triennial study
released Monday by the Federal Reserve.

The stunning drop in median net worth -- from $126,400 in 2007 to
$77,300 in 2010 -- indicates that the recession wiped away 18 years of
savings and investment by families.

The Fed study, called the Survey of Consumer Finances, offers details on
savings, income, debt, as well as assets and investments owned by
American families.

The results, though more than a year old, highlight the marked
deterioration in household finances brought on by the financial crisis
and ensuing recession.

Much of the drop off in net worth -- to levels not seen since 1992 --
was attributable to a sharp decline in housing values, the Fed said.

In 2007, the median homeowner had a net worth of $246,000. Three years
later that number had fallen to $174,500, a loss of more than $70,000 on
average.

Families who reside in the west and south, where the housing market was
especially hard hit by the recession, were worse off than their peers in
the rest of the country.

Making matters worse, income levels also fell during the tumultuous
three-year period, with median pre-tax income falling 7.7% as earnings
from capital gains all but disappeared.

The loss of income and net worth appears to have impacted savings rates,
as the number of Americans who said they saved in the prior year fell
from 56.4% in 2007 to 52.0% in 2010 -- the lowest level recorded since
the early 1990s.
============

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Family Guy
- Between 2007 and 2010, the Median Net Worth of american households
DECREASED by almost 30% to a paltry $77,300 in 2010.

I'm no economist, but I would expect that number to get significantly
worse if/when the mortgage deduction is eliminated or reduced.

[IGot2P]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Family Guy
- Between 2007 and 2010, the Median Net Worth of american households
DECREASED by almost 30% to a paltry $77,300 in 2010.

I'm no economist, but I would expect that number to get significantly
worse if/when the mortgage deduction is eliminated or reduced.

Which I hope is soon but I really doubt that it happens in the
foreseeable future.

[dadiOH]

Post by Family Guy
In what is an absolutely "on-topic" post for this
- Between 2005 and 2012, the Median Net Worth of Canadian
households increased by 44% to $243,800 in 2012.
- Between 2007 and 2010, the Median Net Worth of american
households DECREASED by almost 30% to a paltry $77,300
in 2010.
If anyone can find more recent US numbers (ie - household
net-worth for 2012) I dare you to post it.
The american dream - Alive and Well in Canada.
The american dream is a Canadian reality.
The american dream is no longer home ownership. The
american dream now is to collect food stamps and
social-security disability.

Also to live somewhere where snowfall isn't measured in feet. Not to
mention those invigorating sub-zero temperatures. Here in central Florida
we have neither of those; our weather would be improved, however, if
Canadians would keep their weather north of the border.

And my net worth is a way above the Canadian average, thank you.

[Oren]

Post by dadiOH
And my net worth is a way above the Canadian average, thank you.

Right. And our poor are better off than many middle class in other
nations like Europe.

dadiOH=1

home guy=0

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Oren
And our poor are better off than many middle class in other
nations like Europe.

Speaking as one with relatives in Germany - who we used to visit every
couple years - our relatives were living substantially better than we
ever did.

My wife and I were computer application developers near Philadelphia PA
and the in-laws were truck mechanics about an hour each from Wiesbaden
and Frankfurt.

They had us beat hands-down: vacation time, health care, quality of
houses, education, retirement pay, work week, public infrastructure...
you name it.

People ask "If it's so great, why don't you move there. My only
comeback is "Too many Germans".....

[Oren]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Oren
And our poor are better off than many middle class in other
nations like Europe.

Speaking as one with relatives in Germany - who we used to visit every
couple years - our relatives were living substantially better than we
ever did.
My wife and I were computer application developers near Philadelphia PA
and the in-laws were truck mechanics about an hour each from Wiesbaden
and Frankfurt.
They had us beat hands-down: vacation time, health care, quality of
houses, education, retirement pay, work week, public infrastructure...
you name it.
People ask "If it's so great, why don't you move there. My only
comeback is "Too many Germans".....

I was stationed outside Frankfurt in '71. Interesting place. I was
fascinated by the amount of time the Germans had off each week or
annually. Nothing like the USA.

I suppose now things are different since the European Parliament (EU).
Made of 22 member nations - of a half billions people, over 766 MEP's
seat. Imagine that election process and the variety of parties.

Sounds like Germany is tired of giving money to the lesser nations.
Ukraine wants to join or move to a closer political policy as the West
has.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Oren
I was stationed outside Frankfurt in '71. Interesting place. I was
fascinated by the amount of time the Germans had off each week or
annually. Nothing like the USA.

My take is that, in Germany -and Europe in general - the benefits
productivity increases was at least split between workers and business
owners... but in the USA, the benefits of productivity increases went
exclusively to business owners.

[Bob F]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Oren
I was stationed outside Frankfurt in '71. Interesting place. I was
fascinated by the amount of time the Germans had off each week or
annually. Nothing like the USA.

My take is that, in Germany -and Europe in general - the benefits
productivity increases was at least split between workers and business
owners... but in the USA, the benefits of productivity increases went
exclusively to business owners.

As I understand it, German law requires substantial represnetation from labor on
corporate boards.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Bob F

Post by (PeteCresswell)
My take is that, in Germany -and Europe in general - the benefits
productivity increases was at least split between workers and business
owners... but in the USA, the benefits of productivity increases went
exclusively to business owners.

As I understand it, German law requires substantial represnetation from labor on
corporate boards.

I didn't want to muddy the water by going there.... but my impression is
that just about every worker in Germany belongs to a union.

At one point, my #2 daughter and one of my German nephews worked
essentially the same job: in a travel agency. The nephew, of course,
belonged to a union; and the daughter, of course, did not.

The nephew got paid for overtime, six weeks vacation, lunch breaks, a
living wage, medical coverage, pension plan, and so-on and so-forth.

The daughter had to work overtime but did not get paid for it. Not only
that, but they didn't even get fed at mealtimes.... they just had to
skip dinner and keep working until they were allowed to leave. *Then*
they got to eat.

Needless to say, no vacation time, no medical coverage, and very close
to minimum wage.

[Bob F]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Bob F

Post by (PeteCresswell)
My take is that, in Germany -and Europe in general - the benefits
productivity increases was at least split between workers and
business owners... but in the USA, the benefits of productivity
increases went exclusively to business owners.

As I understand it, German law requires substantial represnetation
from labor on corporate boards.

I didn't want to muddy the water by going there.... but my impression
is that just about every worker in Germany belongs to a union.
At one point, my #2 daughter and one of my German nephews worked
essentially the same job: in a travel agency. The nephew, of course,
belonged to a union; and the daughter, of course, did not.
The nephew got paid for overtime, six weeks vacation, lunch breaks, a
living wage, medical coverage, pension plan, and so-on and so-forth.
The daughter had to work overtime but did not get paid for it. Not
only that, but they didn't even get fed at mealtimes.... they just
had to skip dinner and keep working until they were allowed to leave.
*Then* they got to eat.
Needless to say, no vacation time, no medical coverage, and very close
to minimum wage.

Which is exactly where we're headed if the repubs and their Koch brother
benefactors get their way.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Bob F
Which is exactly where we're headed if the repubs and their Koch brother
benefactors get their way.

My feeling has always been that a balance of power is essential.

Unions want to bleed the employers dry by not working and taking every
dime.

OTOH employers (at least corporate employers...) in their heart of
hearts want to work people 24-7, feed them just enough to get the right
amount of work out of them, and then sell the bodies for fertilizer.

Sanity lies somewhere in the middle and you need unions - however bad
they might be - to achieve that balance of power.

Otherwise we're going to continue on the long slide down that we're
already on.

[Kurt Ullman]

Post by (PeteCresswell)
Sanity lies somewhere in the middle and you need unions - however bad
they might be - to achieve that balance of power.
Otherwise we're going to continue on the long slide down that we're
already on.

Since unions topped out as %age of workers 60 years ago and has been
downhill ever since and since the best time for workers was arguably in
the 70s and 80s, it is really hard to suggest unions had all that much
to do with it.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Kurt Ullman
Since unions topped out as %age of workers 60 years ago and has been
downhill ever since and since the best time for workers was arguably in
the 70s and 80s, it is really hard to suggest unions had all that much
to do with it.

I'm just looking at the contrast between people in my family doing the
same jobs in the USA and in Germany (where unions are pretty much
universal).

The difference in pay, working conditions, and benefits is just huge.

I had my own little experience working for a large electric company. We
had a vote on whether to unionize and the workers voted unions down.

Before that, the company had unionization hanging over it's head and
life was pretty good - mainly, I think, because they didn't want to give
employees a reason to unionize.

Once unionization was no longer on the horizon, things deteriorated
quickly. Before they made me an offer I couldn't refuse, we were all
made to understand that, among other things, we were expected to work no
less than 50 hours a week - for 40 hours pay.

There's plenty more in that vein, but the bottom line is that once they
knew there was no danger of a union coming in, they tightened the screws
without mercy - and kept tightening them.

But that was just one anecdote from one person. The USA-Germany thing
is what really formed my opinion.

[Kurt Ullman]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Kurt Ullman
Since unions topped out as %age of workers 60 years ago and has been
downhill ever since and since the best time for workers was arguably in
the 70s and 80s, it is really hard to suggest unions had all that much
to do with it.

I'm just looking at the contrast between people in my family doing the
same jobs in the USA and in Germany (where unions are pretty much
universal).
The difference in pay, working conditions, and benefits is just huge.

A lot of that is related to the fact that these aren't (American)
unions. They tend to be part of the board (that hasn't ended well in the
US see one of the many United Airlines), there is much less of an
adversarial stance on both sides, they work together instead of both
being out to get as much (or as little) as possible without any real
interest in the long term health of either.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
There's plenty more in that vein, but the bottom line is that once they
knew there was no danger of a union coming in, they tightened the screws
without mercy - and kept tightening them.

Which is exactly when the union talk should have started back up.
This isn't a one and done type of thing.

Post by (PeteCresswell)
But that was just one anecdote from one person. The USA-Germany thing
is what really formed my opinion.

[c***@snyder.on.ca]

Post by Oren

Post by dadiOH
And my net worth is a way above the Canadian average, thank you.

Right. And our poor are better off than many middle class in other
nations like Europe.
dadiOH=1
home guy=0

I was going to say 40% of an american net worth is a lot more than
40% of a Canadian net worth, because at the same earning level, the
American pays a lot less tax, and buying a home is , generally
speaking, a lot cheaper in the US - and the interest paid on the
mortgage is tax deductible - which it is NOT in Canada. Retail prices
of many things, including high end purchases like cars are also lower
south of the Can-Am border.

[Oren]

Post by c***@snyder.on.ca
I was going to say 40% of an american net worth is a lot more than
40% of a Canadian net worth, because at the same earning level, the
American pays a lot less tax, and buying a home is , generally
speaking, a lot cheaper in the US - and the interest paid on the
mortgage is tax deductible - which it is NOT in Canada. Retail prices
of many things, including high end purchases like cars are also lower
south of the Can-Am border.

Much of the cost of a home purchase (fees/taxes/interest etc) have
also been tax deductible. Credit card purchase interest fees were
deductible years ago. Ronald Reagan stopped the credit card interest
deduction. My last newly purchased car and truck got a tax deduction
for taxes, fees and tag registration cost. NV will exempt my tag
registration taxes, now, as a veteran.

I still pay for my sin taxes :)