Source?
According to the 2017 US Census, only 32% are saving in a 401k. [1]
[1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-...
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we...
If we exclude children and people who are already retired, only 26% are without retirement savings[2]. The ability of these people to retire is linked to stock performance.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/civilian...
[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we...
Also, the vast majority of people shouldn't give two licks about keeping the market high today because the vast majority of people are more than a decade out from retirement. What should have been an event that allowed people to build wealth instead became one to preserve the wealth of those who already have it.
This is like letting your neighbor’s house burn down because you’ve always wanted to buy the land under it.
Whatever that number is, it's going to be much smaller after a stock market crash.
If this isn't a wake up call that individuals have no business managing their own retirement, I don't know what is.
That $18,000 check would have given me the ability to pay off my medical debts immediately, and have complete economic security and peace of mind through COVID.
More importantly people would have stayed home and so we could have tamed the virus which would mean the economy opens up quicker and safer.
This is a people issue and not an economic issue. Dealing it like that would have saved the economy better IMO. Our politicians and companies would never let a good crisis go wasted without appropriating money for themselves.
Take it a step further: All economic issues are really people issues, in one way or another.
The economy exists to serve people. We do not exist to serve it. Whenever there are measures that are "to help the economy", but which are detrimental to ordinary workers, they're not really to help "the economy"—they're to help the people at the very top, at everyone else's expense.
We need to refocus on what helps actual people—what helps the most people—rather than on the misleading abstract of "the economy."
I am assuming you don't know a single person in the 40% that don't have $400 saved up for emergencies.
>it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move.
It isn't without merit...until you look behind the curtain at OZ. The stock market was already in a bubble and we just inflated the bubble even more. P/E ratios in the public markets are beginning to make revenue-less tech unicorns look reasonable.
>a majority of Americans have a 401k
Ok, so they have a conflict of interest in the matter (25% of Americans have no retirement). Of those with a 401K aged 35-44 the median balance is $22k (so its pretty much a wash for them). Then on the very harsh side of things, the free market side, you risked your money by investing, if a portion of your portfolio includes stock in overvalued companies with runaway P/E ratios that didn't have cash reserves to whether the storm, you invested poorly and you should expect taxpayers to bailout your poor investments.
This is an oft misunderstood stat[1][2]. The actual stats from the survey show that 61% of Americans would choose to pay a surprise $400 bill in cash. The remaining people would prefer to use a credit card or other ways of paying. Only around 12% of respondents said they would actually have a hard time paying the bill.
> Ok, so they have a conflict of interest in the matter (25% of Americans have no retirement). Of those with a 401K aged 35-44 the median balance is $22k (so its pretty much a wash for them). Then on the very harsh side of things, the free market side, you risked your money by investing, if a portion of your portfolio includes stock in overvalued companies with runaway P/E ratios that didn't have cash reserves to whether the storm, you invested poorly and you should expect taxpayers to bailout your poor investments.
I think you're moving the goalposts a bit. I could just as easily say "Why should tax payers bail out your poorly chosen career? Just work from home." The point my parent was making is that $6T was allocated for relief but too much of it went to the stock market. My point is that stimulating the stock market has benefits for all. The individual checks sent out should have been bigger, but the question is "Money has been allocated for relief, should a significant amount go towards the stock market?" and the answer is definitely "yes".
If you believe the government should not "bail out" citizens when they need it, that's fine, but be consistent.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...
[2 (non-paywall)] https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2019/06/americ...
An economic depression is bad for everyone. Therefore avoiding an economic depression is good for everyone. Quantitative easing has been shown multiple times to alleviate / avoid massive economic downturns. Therefore QE is beneficial to all.
This is inaccurate. Your savings don't increase until your portfolio is liquidated. If it's liquidated at a time there is blood in the streets, you might has well have taken everything out ahead of time, paid your taxes and been done with it.
The only reason it's "good" to avoid Depressive price movements is because every single academic has demonized the creative destruction resulting from pruning overly wasteful business models. It's unthinkable that people should have all their money anywhere else but in the hands of people virtually guaranteed to not be interested in improving your local community.
Stimulating the stock market was not the right move. You want to talk about putting the money and letting the market do it’s thing, give it to people and let them decide where to put.
Putting the money in the stock market has only benefited those already in the stock market and those with the money to enter it.
Quantitative easing has been shown time and time again to alleviate and avoid economic downturn. Do grocery baggers and bar tenders benefit from an economic depression? Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing.
People need groceries even during a depression. Its often said alcohol is recession proof, in fact alcohol sales seem to thrive even during a pandemic.
I'll tell you what isn't
>Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing.
Actually Bush took out a Stimulus of ~$800-900B before he left office and then Obama took our another $800-$900B when entering office. And I would say the vast majority of people I speak with would rather have seen the banks fail rather than taxpayers bailing them out (for massive fraud they perpetrated to issue bad loans/mortgages and then package them up and sell them to others knowing they were "toxic assets"). Banks used taxpayer money to buy their competitors to concentrate the market and fund foreclosure litigation to foreclose on the taxpayers that bailed them out. In hindsight most people agree the Bush/Obama bailouts should have gone directly to the homeowners, but it was considered a "moral hazard" encouraging bad behavior in the future, whereas ironically they didn't see the moral hazard in rewarding the banks that bear the most responsibility.
Does anyone think that? Bailing out mismanaged financial dinosaurs was a monumentally poor decision. He didn't even have W's excuse: high suggestibility due to low intelligence.
We live in a bubble. There are VAST SWATHES (millions and millions) of people whose ENTIRE NET WORTHS are less than $18,000.
0 - https://www.inquirer.com/news/albertsons-acme-ipo-lubert-202...
1 - https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/why-a-booming-stock-...
"The typical household approaching retirement had $135,000 in combined 401(k)/IRA assets. These assets will provide $600 per month in retirement, an amount whose purchasing power will decline over time with inflation. Moreover, only half of house-holds have any 401(k)-related holdings." [1]
[1] http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/IB_17-18.pdf
You are living in a confirmation bubble, one easily disproven by data. I'm a career engineer and I don't even have a 401k
False. The stock market has zero connection to the health of the actual economy right now, and is only enriching the privileged. Propping up the stock market was a political farce to make it look like the economy is doing fine when it clearly is not.
Everyone I know would choose their entire retirement fund over a one time check of $18,000 . I understand your sentiment, and it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move.
Another depression wouldn't help anyone, and a majority of Americans have a 401k. The idea that only the super rich benefit from a good stock market is plain wrong - most people depend on it.