• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Average 30 year returns, DJIA and Russell 2000

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Ending in December 2018, average return over 30 years:

DJIA: about 7.8%

Russell: about 10%

Using the rule of 72, time to double your money based on above returns:

DJIA: 9.2 years

Russell 2000: 7.2 years

If you can sit tight during the worst years (like 2007/2008) you would have doubled your money about 3 times in the DJIA and 4 times in the Russell 2000.

If you had started out with a one time investment of $10,000 in 1988, today you would have:

DJIA: $80,000

Russell 2000: $ 160,000
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Ending in December 2018, average return over 30 years:

DJIA: about 7.8%

Russell: about 10%

Using the rule of 72, time to double your money based on above returns:

DJIA: 9.2 years

Russell 2000: 7.2 years

If you can sit tight during the worst years (like 2007/2008) you would have doubled your money about 3 times in the DJIA and 4 times in the Russell 2000.

If you had started out with a one time investment of $10,000 in 1988, today you would have:

DJIA: $80,000

Russell 2000: $ 160,000

Our Trump-led Trumped-up economy has enabled record high stock market valuations.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The Republican tax reform package that was supposed to raise wages and spur hiring has instead funded a record stock buyback and dividend spree, benefiting investors and company executives over workers.

Companies used Trump's tax cut for record stock buybacks, not wages

Eh, buybacks would increase the price of the stocks but it'd also increase the value of stocks that normal folks held.. lol

The sad truth is -- if the corporations make money, so do their workers... many of whom have 401(k)'s and stock options. Sure, the rich get richer here but so does everyone else.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
This thread is about a 30 year trend, not something as short term as Trump.

Some ****ing people have to make everything about politics. Get lost losers!
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Eh, buybacks would increase the price of the stocks but it'd also increase the value of stocks that normal folks held.. lol

The sad truth is -- if the corporations make money, so do their workers... many of whom have 401(k)'s and stock options. Sure, the rich get richer here but so does everyone else.
Gosh don't tell them the truth.

It might blow their minds and cause egregious injury.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
The Republican tax reform package that was supposed to raise wages and spur hiring has instead funded a record stock buyback and dividend spree, benefiting investors and company executives over workers.

Companies used Trump's tax cut for record stock buybacks, not wages

"Real average hourly earnings increased 0.6 percent, seasonally adjusted, from December 2018 to December 2019."

Real Earnings Summary

saupload_median-household-income-in-the-21st-century-year-over-year-growth-rate-200101-201901.png
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Wages increased slightly because the min wage went up significantly in several democratic states
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Wages increased slightly because the min wage went up significantly in several democratic states

The minimum wage has increased also in some Republican states like Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Missouri, Ohio, and South Dakota. ..:)
 
Last edited:

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Wages increased slightly because the min wage went up significantly in several democratic states
Wrong.

“The statistics show that the relationship between being a low-wage worker and a low-income family is very weak. In fact, data from CPS suggests that the majority of poor families with heads of household of prime working age simply don’t work, so a minimum wage has no impact on these families.

What’s more, a sizable proportion of low-wage workers are new entrants to the labor force, such as teenagers, who are not necessarily in low-wage families. Taking these facts into consideration, basic calculations indicate that a sizable share of benefits derived from a minimum wage increase does not go to impoverished families.

In fact, if the federal minimum wage was hiked from $7.25 to $10.10, only 18 percent of resultant increases in income would go to poor families (based on 2010-2014 data), meanwhile 32 percent would go to families with incomes more than three times the poverty line. With a $15 minimum wage the corresponding figures would be 12 percent and 38 percent, respectively.

Several studies have analyzed changes in the poverty rate between states that increase the minimum wage versus those that don’t. The conclusion these studies reveal is that there is no statistically significant relationship between raising the minimum wage and reducing poverty.”

Minimum wage hikes fail to benefit low-income families

You have repeatedly aped this liberal talking point. It isn’t true.
 
Top