Article image
Dean Baker
Published: Thursday 14 June 2012
“Between the 2007 survey and the 2010 survey, the typical family had lost 38.8 percent of their wealth.”

Fed Survey Shows Middle Class Took a Big Hit

Article image

The Federal Reserve Board’s newly released triennial Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) confirmed what most of us already knew: The middle class has taken a really big hit. It showed that between the 2007 survey and the 2010 survey, the typical family had lost 38.8 percent of their wealth. In fact, the wealth of the typical family was down 27.1 percent from where it had been a decade ago in 2001. This is in spite of the fact that the economy was more than 15 percent larger than in 2010 than it had been 2001.

It wasn’t just wealth that had dropped; the survey showed that income had fallen as well. Median family income in 2010 was down by 7.7 percent from its 2007 level and 6.3 percent from its level a decade ago.

There is not much surprising about these numbers. The SCF is picking up the impact of the collapse of the housing bubble. For the vast majority of middle-class families, their home is by far their largest financial asset. For decades they were encouraged to believe that it was a safest way to save for the retirement or other purposes. 

This clearly was not true when house prices became inflated by a bubble. In the years when the bubble reached levels that were clearly unsustainable, from 2002-2007, housing was just about the worst possible place to keep wealth.

Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans listened to experts like then Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who assured the country that there was no housing bubble. According to press accounts, Mr. Greenspan has a very nice pension and a job that pays more than $1 million a year.

It is difficult to read through the survey results and not get angry at the wreckage from a completely preventable disaster. If the Fed had acted responsibly and taken steps to rein in the housing bubble before it had grown to such dangerous levels, as some of us urged at the time, we need not have been in the situation.

Alan Greenspan could have used his enormous stature to warn of the dangers to homeowners of buying over-valued houses. He could have warned lenders of the risks of issuing mortgages on over-valued property. And he could have used the massive research capacities of the Fed to document without question the fact the existence of a bubble and the damage that its collapse would cause. He also could have used the Fed’s regulatory power to crack down on the epidemic of mortgage fraud that the FBI had highlighted as early as 2004.

It seems almost inconceivable that if the Greenspan Fed had used these bullets to shoot at the bubble that it would have continued to grow. But if all else failed he could have raised interest rates. To make his interest rate hikes even more effective, he could have told the markets that he was explicitly targeting the bubble. For example, he could have promised to raise rates until nationwide house prices fell back to their 2000 level.

Greenspan’s failure is history now, but we should demand that the Fed take asset bubbles more seriously in the future. There is nothing more important that the Fed can do.

There are other lessons here. It should be apparent that housing is not a safe asset, even when we are not in a bubble. Those who advocate that everyone should be a homeowner are displaying their ignorance. Homeownership in many markets can be like putting all your savings in your employer’s stock. Ask an autoworker in Detroit if this is not clear.

Another important take away from this survey is that older workers are extremely ill-prepared for retirement. The median wealth for families between the ages of 55-64 is $179,400. For families between the ages of 45-54 it is just $117,900.  

This sum includes everything they own. That means all their savings, their retirement accounts and the equity they have in their home. This means that the typical retiree in the next two decades will be almost entirely dependent on their Social Security check. Remarkably, in Washington all the important people think the most pressing matter is finding ways to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Finally, this new Fed report should further focus attention on inequality. Most people in the country are hurting badly, but the very rich have largely recovered from the downturn. The public should not tolerate an economy where the rules are rigged to redistribute income upward. We need an economy that is designed to benefit everyone, not just the wealthy elite.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Dean Baker
Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is the author of several books, including Plunder & Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy, The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer and The United States Since 1980. He was the editor of Getting Prices Right: The Debate Over the Consumer Price Index, which was a winner of a Choice Book Award as one of the outstanding academic books of the year. He appears frequently on TV and radio programs, including CNN, CBS News, PBS NewsHour, and National Public Radio. His blog, Beat the Press, features commentary on economic reporting. He received his B.A. from Swarthmore College and his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan.

Top Stories

10 comments on "Fed Survey Shows Middle Class Took a Big Hit "

CorPARAnoid

June 14, 2012 10:14pm

This is so true.

I've been a little luckier than my siblings who are living paycheck to paycheck. If something ill happens they know who they can come too for help. My 401K reduced to a 201K, and our house lost at minimum 33% of its value. But it's slowly improving with prudent investment choices and we bit the spending bullet on unnecessary stuff (especially made in China) & processed food items. Using a Debit card helps too!

I agree with D Miller that this was all planned. I believe it has roots with the Nazi's who were allowed into this country after WWII and their elite American / Nazi sympathizers. Their treasoness acts were allowed to be hidden under 'National Security'. We should have had Corporations & these elites on trial here in the US. Instead we allowed these elite families and their corporate interests, their view of the NWO to take an even bigger chunk of the World pie. Thus reducing the 'free' AMerICAN middle class to 'Corp servitude'.

Alot of these corporations made record profits, with a reduced workforce, and reduced salaries, bonuses, benefits & retirement plans for their existing workforce. All while ensuring golden parachutes and cross-pollination of Board of Directors - round robins to benefit their schemes in every industry sector / cross-sectors win/wins. Sometimes making money with little product or a 'no value' product... off of other people's money or fiat loans.

Privatizing Social Security is like a 101K , and further wealth loss to WE THE PEOPLE. It benefits only the elite and corporations who will prosper with their 'computerized - global shell games' at a rate we can't even imagine.

Let's AUDIT the FED and get to the truth. Let's stop corruption in Congress and all Government agencies and HOLD these greedy unethical people accountable. Or does that only happen in Heaven?

Brian Glennie

June 14, 2012 9:23pm

Phew! For a minute I thought you said the upper class took a loss. They would have heart palputations if they thought for a minute that they took a loss. Poor boys

dmillerfla

June 14, 2012 3:15pm

The destruction of America is a planned event courtesy of Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. When Clinton signed NAFTA, GATT and the new WTO agreement, America was doomed. We cannot survive without our manufacturing economic base and it has been completely shipped offshore. The RepDems are both responsible for this and they must all be removed from office. Obama is particularly troublesome as he was put in place to drive the final nail in our coffin.

greghilbert

June 14, 2012 1:37pm

Outstanding interpretation of the facts. Having lost my high-income employment AND my home to the avoidable burst of the bubble, -and now watching the wealthy financial elites including Greenspan grow wealthier while still enjoying the Bush tax cuts, I become enraged every time I read of threats to Social Security.

Now 62, I was forced to take early SS retirement to survive. I'll not live long enough to get back all that I and my employers contributed, but I'm not complaining, as I recognize my moral obligation to indirectly help those who did not have my many years of high earnings.

So, I'm not enraged about threats to Social Security for my own sake but for others to come. Future shortfalls can easily be avoided by raising the income ceiling on SS tax withholding, in stages as needed, as was done throughout my working life-time.

Nowhere is the complicity of both the Repub and Dem elite with the wealthy and powerful more conspicuous than in the juxtaposition of pushing cuts to social security while failing to repeal the portion of the Bush tax cuts still going to the wealthy. I remain astonished the 99% (or more accurately the 80%) are not screaming bloody murder!

BLOODY MURDER! BLOODY MURDER!!

Carolynmikula1

June 14, 2012 12:44pm

Why does Republicans call SS an entitlement? Wrong it is insurance. We paid for this out our checks it is ours when we retire.No one should take this away from those who put into it.l

Carolynmikula1

June 14, 2012 12:44pm

Why does Republicans call SS an entitlement? Wrong it is insurance. We paid for this out our checks it is ours when we retire.No one should take this away from those who put into it.l

Sageman69

June 14, 2012 11:38am

This is the kind of information that should be widely distributed and discussed. Thank you for spelling it out so clearly!

Carolynmikula1

June 14, 2012 12:47pm

Thankyou for your reply.

aratinga77

June 14, 2012 11:31am

Not only has income decreased. There is also substantial inflation, even though the Fed denies it. I am not talking about interest rates, although savings no longer return any interest to speak of. If you look at the real prices of commonly purchased items, you may find small increases in the marked price, but enormous reductions in the amount of the product. For instance, Tropicana orange juice: "In early 2010, Tropicana decided to reduce the size of its traditional 64oz carton to 59oz in the USA and maintain the current price level. This represented a 7.8% increase in price per ounce for consumers." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropicana_Products) And they went from the usual half-gallon container to an elegant plastic bottle that is much taller.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to drink Tropicana; it was just a shining example of the type of inflation that is not reflected in the dollar's floating against the euro and the pound, or the interest rates at the bank.

greghilbert

June 14, 2012 7:16pm

I very much agree, and have read data making it plain that the CPI does not measure the price of what the typical person buys. The monthly grocery bill is under-represented, and that bill has been rising sharply. As you point out, the extent of it is being masked by reductions in package contents and similar tactics. Grocery chains, for example, are now routinely jacking-up the regular prices on select items before putting them on sale. Smaller portions of some products are being promoted as "healthy portions" to conceal the increase in cost per ounce. In any event, as you say, the decreased incomes are aggravated by the higher cost of food that is not reported in the most-widely watched and reported inflation index, the CPI.

It reminds me of the distorted picture presented by GDP. Small overall gains have obscured the reality that a few are gaining a lot, while the majority are losing ground. There's a reason political leaders and corporate media don't publicize or obsess over the wealth-transfer data.