Income and Wealth
Distribution in the U.S.
Phil Martinez
INCOME and WEALTH
One of the recent, major
trends in the U.S. economy is the growing gap between the
poorest and richest sectors of the U.S. population. Depending
upon the measure being used, virtually all studies confirm that
since the early 1970s both income and wealth inequality have
been increasing in the U.S.
Income is the flow of
earnings paid for the employment of a resource. For example,
wages and salaries are paid for the employment of labor;
interest and dividends are paid for the employment of financial
capital; rent is paid for the employment of real estate. Income,
as a flow of earnings from the employment of a resource, is
"turned-off" like the flow of water from a faucet, when the
resource is no longer employed.
By contrast, wealth is a
stock of owned assets. Wealth does not "flow" as income does
from the employer of a resource to the resource holder. Rather,
wealth "accumulates" to the owner of the stock of assets as the
value of the assets appreciate. Furthermore, the assets do not
need to be productive. They maybe speculative since an asset can
be anything that can be sold or liquidated in the market.
The most common sources
of household wealth are houses, cars, appliances and electronic
equipment, and jewelry. Other forms of household wealth include
art collections, precious metals, heirlooms and antiques, and
luxury items, like boats and yachts.
The most valuable
sources of wealth are business assets such as business
ownership, stocks and bonds, trademarks and patents, factories
and machinery, commercial real estate, and natural resources
(e.g. mines, forestland, and water rights).
Note that assets and
wealth can also generate a flow of income separate from the
market value (or price) of the asset itself. For example, a
share of Apple, Inc. stock has a price or value, say $89, and
pays a dividend, maybe $0.05 per share.
Note also that a person
can have high income and little or no wealth, such as a
professional, say a doctor or lawyer, putting her children
through college, and carrying a net debt. She may earn $120,000
but spend $130,000.
Similarly, a person can
have low income and still have wealth, such as a person earning
minimum wage who has inherited $100,000 in stocks and chooses to
keep the stock for retirement rather than cashing it out. WHY INCREASING INCOME INEQUALITY
MATTERS
Income inequality by itself is not a much of a problem. No
one expects every individual, family, or firm to earn exactly
the same income. Additionally, some income inequality tends to
motivate people to work harder in order to earn more. However,
income inequality does become a problem when it
consistently grows for an extended period of time causing the
gap to become so large that threatens the basis of our society
and economy. This is the concern today.
Income inequality is problem for America for two basic reasons.
The first problem is the loss of opportunity. Those people and
families with lower incomes have fewer opportunities in the
economy compared to those who have higher incomes. A market
economy, or capitalism, promises more opportunity for the
population than any other economic system we have known. But ,
if there is growing gap between the rich and everyone else, then
the economy begins to concentrate opportunity and benefits on
those at the top and to restrict opportunities that people in
the middle and bottom have had in the past. This undermines the
promise of capitalism as well as the society's cohesion.
The second problem is that increasing inequality results in
increasing social problems for the society as a whole. The more
unequal societies have higher rates of violence, mental illness,
drug abuse, physical illness, and teen pregnancy. Indeed,
virtually all social problems increase as inequality increases.
Richard G. Wilkinson is Professor of Epidemiology University
College London and a leading researcher in field of the impact
of income inequality on health and social outcomes. See his TED
Talk here: Richard
Wilkinson, How economic inequality harms societies,
Oct. 24, 2011.
INCOME INEQUALITY versus WEALTH
INEQUALTIY
Of these two notions,
wealth is by far more important since wealth generates the
ability to earn more income and generate additional wealth. As
it accumulates (grows) it will eventually generate economic and
even political power. Because the market rewards people based
upon the value of the assets they own, the more wealth one
accumulates, the less likely it is that one will fail in the
market economy. The less wealth one owns, the more difficult it
is to be successful in the market economy.
When the gap grows
between those with higher incomes and those with lower incomes
there is a growing gap between the rich and the poor. However,
there still remains some degree of mobility between income
earners. Some income earners at the low end will have their
income rise over time and some at the high end will have their
incomes fall over time.
However, when the gap in
wealth grows, those who own more wealth gain greater economic
(and eventually political) power, while those with less wealth
lose economic influence and with it political relevance. Thus,
wealth inequality concentrates the power to change the rules of
the economy and the power to change legislation and the
political process in the hands of very few people. Put simply,
an overconcentration of wealth undermines democracy itself.
Thus, an increasing wealth gap is potentially far more damaging
to a nation's economy, democratic values, and stability than an
increasing income gap. Of course, over a long period of time an
increasing income gap is likely to cause an increasing wealth
gap.
EVIDENCE OF INCREASING INCOME
INEQUALITY: MEDIA REPORTS
The increasing gaps in
income and wealth in the U.S. over the last 35 years is well
documented. The income gap increase is regularly reported in the
U.S. media (although it is often misidentified as a wealth gap).
There is also a wide range of economic studies and reports
identifying both the income and wealth gaps, although most of
the reports regarding the increase in the wealth gap are
academic studies that are not often reported n the U.S. media.
Here is a quick review
of headlines and introductory paragraphs from articles that I
have collected over the years.
Tuesday, July 24, 1990 Los
Angeles Times "Rich-Poor Gap Held Widest in 40 Years" By
Stanley Meisler
The incomes of the richest 1% of
Americans grew by 87% in the last decade while the incomes of
the poorest American households dropped more than 5%, the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported Monday.
Thursday,
October
17, 1991 Los
Angeles Times "As Number of Poor Grows, No Solutions
Seem in Sight" By
Jennifer Toth
The proportion of Americans whose
earnings are below the official government poverty line - the
income level designated by Congress as minimum needed to
sustain a family of specific size -has increased since the
1970s and is growing rapidly.
Sunday,
September
3, 1995 The
Register Guard "Profits climb, not wages, study says" By
The Associated Press
Business profits have soared in
the 1990s largely because the wages of American workers have
been kept stagnant, according to a report released Saturday by
a think tank affiliated with labor groups.
March
21, 1996 The
Register Guard "Rift widens between rich, poor" By
The Los Angeles Daily News
The gap between rich and poor has
continued to widen during the 1990s, according to a new think
tank report…
From
1973 to 1993, the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans saw their
real incomes rise by 22 percent compared to a drop of 21%
among the poorest 10%, according to a study by RAND Corp. in
Santa Monica.
Sunday,
Sept
6, 1998 The
Register Guard "Economic recovery passes by workers" By
Harry Esteve, The Register Guard
Working families in Oregon and
across the United States made little financial headway during
the 1990s, despite one of the longest economic recoveries in
history, according to a report released this Labor Day weekend
by a Washington, D.C. think tank.
Adjusting
for
inflation, pay for median wage earners fell 3.1 percent
between 1989, the peak of the last economic boom cycle, and
1997, the report said.
Sunday,
January
10, 1999 The
Register Guard "Wealth gap keeps getting wider - For 20 years, the poorest 40 percent of
Americans have last ground" By
Scott Shephard, Cox News Service
While all income groups earn more
than they did 30 years ago, most of the increase has gone to
the top on-fifth of earners, That group has increased its
share of national income compared to 1967, while every other
group fell
Sunday, March 12, 2006 Parade
Magazine "While the economy grew in 2005, many
wage earners say they'e wary about their financial future" By
Lynn Brenner
…The U.S. has enjoyed four
straight years of economic growth, but most families have lost
ground: In 2005, more than 80% of American workers saw their
inflation adjusted wages fall for the second year in a row.
While
the economy has been growing since 2001, al the benefits of
that growth have gone to corporate profits, says Mark Zandi,
chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, Pennsylvania-based
consultant firm: "Corporate profits' share of the national
income is at a 60 year high and that has come directly out of
wages and salaries, which are at a record low." And wages of
the top 10% of earners, people making $90,000 a year -
have risen much faster than everyone else's. The average
worker's pay stayed almost flat at $27,000 from 1990 to 2004,
one study finds.
March
29, 2007 The
New York Times "Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows" By
David Cay Johnston
Income inequality grew
significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans,
those with incomes that year of more than $348,000, receiving
their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of
newly released tax data shows.
The
top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also
reached a level of income share not seen since before the
Depression.
While
total
reported income in the United States increased almost 9
percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is
available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent
dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172,
or 0.6 percent.
March 10, 2008
The Register Guard "Study: Middle class sees
little progress in past five years" By Hope Yen, The Associated
Press
... a majority of all Americans said they haven’t
progressed in the past five years. One in four, or 25
percent, said their economic situation had not improved,
while 31 percent said they had fallen backward. Those
numbers together are the highest since the survey question
was first asked in 1964.
...Middle-class prosperity overall also lagged compared with
richer Americans. From 1983 to 2004, the median net worth of
upper-income families — defined as households with annual
incomes above 150 percent of the median — grew by 123
percent, while the median net worth of middle-income
families rose by just 29 percent.
January 26, 2010
The Register Guard "Oregon wage gap widens"
... the state's wealthiest are not only earning
more, but the rate
at which their incomes are growing far outpaces people
earning less. Middle class earners continued to have sagnant
wagesfor much of the past decade.
...Inflation adjusted annual wages for Oregon'ss top 2
percent of earners ... (was) up 29.5 percent from 1990.
...Workers at the 50 percentile, meanwhile, earned ... an
increase of just 2.4 percent over 1990 after adjusting for
inflation.
November 23, 2010
New York Times "Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last
Quarter"
Americna business earned profits at an annual
rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a
COmmerce Department report released TUesday. That is the
highest figure recoded since the government began keep
records over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or
noninflation- adjusted terms... ...As a share of gross domestic product, corporate
profits also have been increasing, and they now represent
11.2 percent of total output.
February 2, 2011 Wall Street Journal "On Street, Pay Vaults to
Record Altitude"
In 2010, total
compensation and benefits at publically traded Wall Street
banks and securities firms hit a record of $135 billion,
according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal. The
total was up 5.7% from $128 billion in combined
compensation and benefits by the same companies in 2009.
October 27, 2011 The Register Guard "The rich get
richer"
In its
report, the budget office found that from 1979 to 2007,
average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275
percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest
income. For others in the top 20 percent of the population,
average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.
By
contrast, the budget office said, for the poorest fifth of
the population, average real after-tax household income rose
18 percent.
And for the three-fifths of people
in the middle of the income scale, the growth in
such household income was just under 40 percent.
November 14, 2011 Los Angeles Times "America fails wealth gap test"
The gap between the wealthiest Americans
and the poorest is bigger than at any time since the
1920s — just before the Depression. According to an
analysis this year by Edward Wolff of New York
University, the top 20 percent of wealthy individuals
own about 85 percent of the wealth, while the bottom 40
percent own very near 0 percent. Many in that bottom 40
percent not only have no assets, they have negative net
wealth.
In our
survey, Americans drastically underestimated the current
gap between the very rich and the poor. The typical
respondent believed that the top 20 percent of Americans
owned 60 percent of the wealth, and the bottom 40 percent
owned 10 percent.
Americans
wanted the top 20 percent to own just over 30 percent
of the wealth, and the bottom 40 percent to own about
25 percent. They still wanted the rich to be richer
than the poor, but they wanted the disparity to be
much less extreme.
January 29, 2012
Los Angeles Times "Faces of Poverty"
...While
productivity has grown by more than 80 percent over the
last 30 years, wages effectively have been flat for 80
percent of Americans, So although we're making stuff
faster and more efficiently, the benefits of of that hard
work have not trickled into the pockets of the people who
do it.
Evidence of Increasing Income and Wealth Gaps: Academic Studies
In the past the Income Gap
has shrunk overtime in the U.S. economy. On average the
lowest income earners have slowly gained compared to
middle and high income earners. As reported below in a study by
United for a Fair Economy, a
labor funded think tank, from the end of WWII until 1979 bottom
95% of all households increased their income more rapidly than
the top 5% of income earners, with the poorest families
receiving the largest percent increase. While the wealthiest
families increased their income by an average of 86% all other
families increased their incomes by 100% or more, with the
poorest 20% of families increasing their income by 116%. Thus,
the income gap between the highest income earners and lowest
income earners shrunk over this time period.
By contrast, the report shows that
since 1979 the Income has not only grown, but the bottom income
earners have actually had their real income fall (when adjusted
for inflation). From 1979 to 2003 the highest 5% of all families
had their income grow by 75% compared to the poorest 20% of all
families who actually had their incomes fall by 2%. Note also that
each income level is pulling away from the income earners below
them, but are falling behind the those income earners above them.
Thus, rather than building a strong middle class we are stretching
out and separating all income classes. The wealthiest 1% of all
income earners are gaining income at a faster rate than the top
5%, who are gaining income at a faster rate than the top 10% who
are gaining income at a faster rate than the top 20%, et cetera.
IMPACT of the GREAT RECESSION on INCOME INEQUALITY
Income Distribution (Bottom 98% of U.S. Households
2005), by Visualizing Economics
HOW U.S. INCOME DISTRIBUTION CHANGED OVERTIME
Here is a very interesting interactive graph
that illustrates the amount of gains and losses of income
absorbed by the bottom 90% of income
earners compared to the top 10%, 5%, and 1% from 1917 to 2008.
There are
potentially many causes for inequality. One important cause is
the need for competitive innovation and initiative. However,
the question of how much inequality is functional for
competitive purposes and how much is too much, such that it
begins to erode the efficiencies and independence of the
market itself, or worse erodes the foundations of a democratic
system is extraordinalriy important. That is the concern of
the those who are measuring and evaluating current trends in
equaltiy.
Along these lines two important reports have recently been
published. The first, is a detailed 10 part series summarizing
the best economic data and analysis on the inequality. It is
written by a journalist, Timothy Noah. His analysis follows
immediatley below.
The second publication is entitled Capital in the
Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty . This book is
being described as the second most important economics book
written in the last 100 years. It is summarized at the end of
this page.
The
Great Divergence (Income Inequality in the
United States) - Timothy Noah, Slate,
September 3 - 19, 2010.
In September 2010, journalist Timothy Noah, published an
excellent summary of current academic studies on the
state of inequality in the United States. This is a 10
article series that reviews all of the major
controversies and possible causes of increasing
inequality. Below is the series' summary of the impact
of various likely causes of inequality.
Below
is a simple summary of Noah's conclusions based upon
his discussions with and reading of the various
economists and political scientists cited in his
series:
Race and gender are responsible for none of it, and
single parenthood is responsible for virtually none of
it.
Immigration is responsible for 5 percent.
Computerization as a transformative technology is
responsible for none of it.
Tax policy is responsible for 5 percent.
The decline of labor (i.e. the loss of unions in the
labor market) is responsible for 20 percent.
Trade is responsible for 10 percent.
Wall Street and corporate boards' over-compensation
of the wealthiest is responsible for 30 percent.
Various inequities in our education system are
responsible for 30 percent.
Capital in the Twenty-First Century,
Thomas Piketty, 2014.
Piketty's argument, very briefly, is that market economies
inherently concentrate income and wealth at the top because
profits and income from asset ownership (e.g. financial
investements) consistently grows more rapidly than wages,
which is what the vast majority of the population earns. The
return to the owners of capital (i.e. owners of financial
assets) grows more rapidly than the growth rate of the economy
as a whole.
He highlights three improtant facts. First, this is a long
term trend in all market economies, dating back over hundreds
of years.
Second, this rise in inequality was reversed during the
twentieth century, between 1910 through roughly the 1970s due
to the combination of three historic anomolies, all which
destroyed existing capital, thereby benefitting labor: WWI,
the Great Depression, and WWII. However, both income and
wealth inequality have grown over the last 30 years returning
to the highest levels ever documented.
Third, the increase in inequality is being led by the U.S.
which is now more unequal than both other developed nations,
especially Europe, and many developing nations. Inequality in
the U.S. is now as high as the highest inequality ever
produced in Europe, which had the highest inequality ever
documented in 1910.