[Phiwise_]

If you had read my graph before commenting, you would have noticed that the bottom 50% had 1.289 million millions in Q3 2022, and have 1.189 million millions in Q3 2023, which is indeed a smaller number.

You should also be aware that consumer sentiment surveys that drill down into concrete sentiments usually find consumers are very negative about the current price of durables, which are indeed quite high compared to historically [1]. They also tend to come down slowly without a inciting crash.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUS0000SAD

[leereeves]

I'm not commenting to dispute your numbers, which I trust are correct.

I'm considering the possibility that the measures you've chosen don't reflect the impact of the economy on people's lives. As GP said "entire generation now has no prospects of buying a house, even renting is hard, etc.".

You've convinced me that the phrase "wealth inequality" is a ghost of the past, a lingering rally cry from 2011, when wealth inequality truly was historically high.

We need a new term for the current situation. The data shows that the wealth of the bottom 50% has recovered - but their lifestyles and happiness have not.

[zaphar]

Shifting cultural norms is a really hard and takes a long time. Lifestyles and happiness are a reflection of culture in combination with environment. We've managed to shift cultural norms in a direction where it's fashionable to dwell on and complain about your current situation.

I think there is a balance to be struck between wishing to make forward progress and obsessing about how far behind you are as compared to someone else. Learning to live within your means while charting a course to a better life is not a core cultural value anymore. This results in more people complaining about their situation and asking their environment to change in some way to make it better.

[TMWNN]

>We need a new term for the current situation. The data shows that the wealth of the bottom 50% has recovered - but their lifestyles and happiness have not.

"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it". —Jeff Bezos <https://sports.yahoo.com/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-explains-2123...>

[fuzzfactor]

>the bottom 50% hold a larger share of the total net worth than they have since 2003

>while 50% are worse off.

Well 2003 is a long time ago so these are not supposed to be exactly simultaneous.

But when you do the math, statistically there is very little chance of either of these statistics being 100% accurate ;)

But the numbers are right there in the most plausible ball park, why else would anyone ever lacking prosperity been envious of "how the other half lives"?

So might as well take the figures at face value anyway.

Well what it tells us is that the bottom 50% is getting a marginal amount more trickling down, which obviously isn't doing any good since it's far too little too late and the full amount they were getting wasn't even enough to give them the economic ballast to keep the ship from capsizing.

Maybe more accurately said to keep the ship from being able to capsize.

One could only hope.