mean while, all their existing investments plummets. Unless you see them pull out of their investments prior to the crisis, there's very little evidence to support this claim that a financial crisis is good for the wealthy.
If the wealthy has any choice, they would overwhelmingly choose not to have a financial crisis.
That's not a huge problem if you can cut expenses and live off the dividend income and your other assets for a few years.
> The top 1% had an average income of $1.26 million in 2014, a 19.1% decrease compared to $1.56 million in 2007, according to an analysis of tax data from researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Paris School of Economics. It’s even worse news for the top 0.01%, whose average income fell to 27.4% from 2007 to a mere $29 million in 2014.
http://money.com/money/4264052/great-recession-impact-rich-1...
Saying "you should google ..." is not a source. If you want to provide a source for your claim about some group, back it up. You're not making meaningful contribution to the discussion.
Yes, the very wealthy have a variety of sources of income (e.g. stocks) and those dropped greatly in value. Unemployment peaked at maybe 10% during the crisis. So some percentage of people lost jobs while the wealthiest who have most their wealth in capital that dropped 30%.
Ironically, having tax exempt investments hurts when your portfolio drops in value as you won't be able to write those off.
That's not to say the pain felt was greater or even the same as those with less, but it is simply not true that somehow the wealthy remain unscathed from financial crisis. It doesn't even make sense at face value considering they have a large percentage of their wealth in the market and likely have a higher risk tolerance. In fact financial crisis reduces wealth inequality precisely because it affects the wealthy capital owner more
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/j...