PapaSkwat@lemy.lol to conservative@lemmy.world · 22 hours agoOne of these things is not like the other...lemy.lolimagemessage-square39fedilinkarrow-up1307
arrow-up1307imageOne of these things is not like the other...lemy.lolPapaSkwat@lemy.lol to conservative@lemmy.world · 22 hours agomessage-square39fedilink
minus-squarekoper@feddit.nllinkfedilinkarrow-up18·20 hours agoStocks going up mostly benefits the wealthy. We shouldn’t measure success that way.
minus-squarenjm1314@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up41·20 hours agoOn the other hand stocks going down have a habit of affecting the rest of us even more.
minus-squareexplodicle@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up3·15 hours agoIs there any literature on this asymmetry? I thought elasticity was the same in either direction.
minus-squarepebbles@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up7·edit-219 hours agoThis is a curious one. 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10%, so stock going down would lead to less inequality. Yet the top 10% also gets to take out their anger at us. Edit: and only 50% of American house holds have any retirement savings.
Stocks going up mostly benefits the wealthy. We shouldn’t measure success that way.
On the other hand stocks going down have a habit of affecting the rest of us even more.
Is there any literature on this asymmetry? I thought elasticity was the same in either direction.
This is a curious one. 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10%, so stock going down would lead to less inequality. Yet the top 10% also gets to take out their anger at us.
Edit: and only 50% of American house holds have any retirement savings.