If all distributed equally among the US population today, that would be $350,000 per person
gscjj on
Would be interesting to see this per capita, the amount of wealth each group gains is probably relative to the amount of wealth they already have.
Chemical-Coconut-831 on
FYI—your assets didn’t increase in value, your money simply became worth less.
overzealous_dentist on
Can we not say „captured,“ as if it were wealth taken from a static pool somewhere and then hoarded, rather than created and promptly invested in other people/the machinery of the economy? Title is unnecessarily misleading
Alarming-Inflation90 on
„Middle 40%“ is not ‚middle‘ if it sits above half of what is measured.
Front-Ask77 on
Fuck yea bottom!! 3 trillion is no small amount!
wwarnout on
Now, let’s see how many people each grouping represents, and the resulting increase per person.
I’ll take a wild guess, and speculate that the bottom 50% did not win.
marigolds6 on
While the story here is the disparity, that’s $45k per household for the bottom 50% still seems high. Median household net worth in the us is only $192k.
The middle 50% gained $662k per household as well, which is probably heavily weighted to the top end but still seems really high for that bracket.
I think using all deciles might actually make a better graphic, because I suspect there is a top heavy skew in each of the lower two groups
Edit: looking at the data, the bottom 50% more than tripled their wealth since 2017. It has been relatively huge gains there.
InquisitorCOC on
The 2008 GFC did enormous damage to the bottom 50%
Many lost their life saving and homes
I know families who spent $300k on a 50% down (to qualify for the mortgages because their income was not high) payment in 2006, then lost their job 2 years later and had their homes foreclosed with no equity left
Just horrible
Real estate bubbles are very very bad things, far more so than equity bubbles
DaddyRobotPNW on
This graphic tells me that long term capital gains should be taxed as regular income.
Epyon214 on
Fiat currency is not a measure of wealth, but of debt. Thus the question is worded poorly. Who captured $118 trillion of US Household debt since 2000.
KAY-toe on
To clarify, this is not a prospective-looking cohort analysis, like it doesn’t say that people who were in the Top 10% *in 2000* captured +81T, it’s just looking at the size of wealth increase in terms of today’s Top 10% vs. 2000’s Top 10%, it doesn’t account for people moving from one group to another over time. I’d be way more interested in a cohort analysis, as many people who ended up in the top group started in the bottom group in 2000 and some people in the top in 2000 then also lost it, but I’ve never seen a dataset that could possibly help illustrate wealth dynamics over time this way.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
![Der seit 2000 118 Billionen US -Dollar in einem neuen US -Haushaltsvermögen in Höhe von 118 Billionen US -Dollar eingenommen hat [OC]](https://www.bytesde.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/9t7tzznrl0if1-1536x1100.png "Der seit 2000 118 Billionen US -Dollar in einem neuen US -Haushaltsvermögen in Höhe von 118 Billionen US -Dollar eingenommen hat [OC]")
12 Kommentare
If all distributed equally among the US population today, that would be $350,000 per person
Would be interesting to see this per capita, the amount of wealth each group gains is probably relative to the amount of wealth they already have.
FYI—your assets didn’t increase in value, your money simply became worth less.
Can we not say „captured,“ as if it were wealth taken from a static pool somewhere and then hoarded, rather than created and promptly invested in other people/the machinery of the economy? Title is unnecessarily misleading
„Middle 40%“ is not ‚middle‘ if it sits above half of what is measured.
Fuck yea bottom!! 3 trillion is no small amount!
Now, let’s see how many people each grouping represents, and the resulting increase per person.
I’ll take a wild guess, and speculate that the bottom 50% did not win.
While the story here is the disparity, that’s $45k per household for the bottom 50% still seems high. Median household net worth in the us is only $192k.
The middle 50% gained $662k per household as well, which is probably heavily weighted to the top end but still seems really high for that bracket.
I think using all deciles might actually make a better graphic, because I suspect there is a top heavy skew in each of the lower two groups
Edit: looking at the data, the bottom 50% more than tripled their wealth since 2017. It has been relatively huge gains there.
The 2008 GFC did enormous damage to the bottom 50%
Many lost their life saving and homes
I know families who spent $300k on a 50% down (to qualify for the mortgages because their income was not high) payment in 2006, then lost their job 2 years later and had their homes foreclosed with no equity left
Just horrible
Real estate bubbles are very very bad things, far more so than equity bubbles
This graphic tells me that long term capital gains should be taxed as regular income.
Fiat currency is not a measure of wealth, but of debt. Thus the question is worded poorly. Who captured $118 trillion of US Household debt since 2000.
To clarify, this is not a prospective-looking cohort analysis, like it doesn’t say that people who were in the Top 10% *in 2000* captured +81T, it’s just looking at the size of wealth increase in terms of today’s Top 10% vs. 2000’s Top 10%, it doesn’t account for people moving from one group to another over time. I’d be way more interested in a cohort analysis, as many people who ended up in the top group started in the bottom group in 2000 and some people in the top in 2000 then also lost it, but I’ve never seen a dataset that could possibly help illustrate wealth dynamics over time this way.