Community | August 16, 2009 | 32 comments

Wealthiest 10% of Americans have 50% of total income

Image
Future_America
The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans now have a larger share of total income than they ever have in records going back nearly a century — an even larger amount than during the Roaring Twenties, the last time the US saw such similar disparities in wealth.

In recent years, the fact that differences between rich and poor are the greatest they’ve been since the Great Depression has become a popular talking point among liberal-leaning economists.

But an updated study from University of California-Berkeley economist Emanuel Saez shows that, in 2007, the wealth disparity grew to its highest number on record, based on US tax data going back to 1917.

Study (PDF): http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf

According to Saez’s study, which Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman drew attention to at his New York Times blog, the top 10 percent of earners in America now receive nearly 50 percent of all the income earned in the United States, a higher percentage than they did during the 1920s.

“After decades of stability in the post-war period, the top decile share has increased dramatically over the last twenty-five years and has now regained its pre-war level,” Saez writes. “Indeed, the top decile share in 2007 is equal to 49.7 percent, a level higher than any other year since [records began in] 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s.”

By comparison, during most of the 1970s the top 10 percent earned around 33 percent of all the income earned in the United States.

The contrast is even starker for the super-rich. The top 0.01 percent of earners in the US are now taking home six percent of all the income, higher than the 1920s peak of five percent, and a whopping six-fold increase since the start of the Reagan administration, when the top 0.01 percent earned one percent of all the income.

There is no consensus among economists on whether large disparities in income lead to economic disruption, but it is hard to ignore the correlation between rising income inequality and the onset of economic crisis. The last time the US saw similar differences in income was in 1928 and 1929, just before the start of the Great Depression.

Saez also broke the numbers down by administration, and found that while the wealthiest few saw their incomes rise as quickly during the Bush years as they did during the Clinton years, the same was not true for the rest of the population.

Saez suggests that the economic growth seen on paper during the Bush years was little more than an illusion for the vast majority of Americans, who saw their income grow much more slowly in the 2002-2007 period than they did during the Clinton years.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Current Tonight,   Greatest Depression,   News and Information,   4 more
  2. tags:
    News US Money America 6 more
  3.     
    |

32 comments // Wealthiest 10% of Americans have 50% of total income

  • fdsooner
  • likeitis5050
    • 0
      likeitis5050  
    • WOW....Still demonizing the wealthy...and yet you NEVER hear a peep out of this Administration with regards to reining in lawyers! A multi-trillion dollar industry!!!

      Aren't lawyers a HUGE part of the healthcare problem with all the TORT laws and mandates? I just can't understand why lawyers continually getted passed over when it comes to distributing their massive wealth...unless it could be the fact politicians are all lawyers!!

    • 2 years ago
  • icarus
  • locutus
  • biggranny
    • 0
      biggranny  
    • anyone whom is considering this statistic news has been under a rock. can you really believe that this is what the american dream really is? greed lives on.

    • 2 years ago
  • ThoughtNu
    • 0
      ThoughtNu  
    • Some may be able to accept that society IS on a treadmill, regardless of education, dedication..generation after generation...Now what? I don't mean that facetiously. Many want to get off and make real progress. If a system was put in place, another isn't unattainable. The only 'trick' would be making something that wont insult future generations; the way these stats may insult 90% of the US population; professor and pauper.

    • 2 years ago
  • jaystyx
    • 0
      jaystyx  
    • Americans used to be able to support a large family with only one parent working and the other staying home. Today, two parents have to work to provide the same quality of life for their family.

      Since the fifties, the rich have slowly clutched their greedy hands around the neck of middle class Americans and tightened their grip. We are working harder and not seeing any increase in wealth.

      Fuck the rich and god bless Obama for increasing taxes on those SOBs

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • Image
    • Is America getting poorer? No, just its people, We the Median. In fact, we are producing an astonishing amount of new wealth in the USA. We are a lean, mean production machine. Output per worker in BushAmerica zoomed by 15% over four years through 2004. Problem is, although worker productivity keeps rising, the producers are getting less and less of it.

      The gap between what we produce and what we get is widening like an alligator's jaw. The more you work, the less you get. It used to be that as the economic pie got bigger, everyone's slice got bigger too. No more.

      The One Percent have swallowed your share before you can get your fork in.

      AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE SHIT HIT THE FAN !!!

      Screwed: The Undeclared War against the Middle Class ... and What We Can Do about It
      http://www.gregpalast.com/labor-in-america/
      Thom Hartmann, Foreword by Mark Crispin Miller

      Pub. Date: August 2006

      People who put in a solid day's work can no longer afford to buy a house, send their kids to college, or even get sick. This is because a covert war, waged by conservative and corporate forces, is dismantling policies like Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, and fair labor laws.

      The result is the unnatural extinction of the middle class and the economy that Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower envisioned. Under the guise of "freeing" the market, conservatives have enriched themselves and their fat-cat cronies and screwed everyone else.

      By exposing the machinations of those whose greed and irresponsibility is destroying the middle class, Screwed empowers readers to stand up, speak out, and return America to the principles envisioned by its founders.

      EXECUTIVE RESUME

      CHAOS = OPPORTUNITY = $$$$$

      Greed & Fear Unlimited rules under the guise of Mindfuck Inc.

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  
    • WhiteNoise:

      Thanks Whitenoise. Of course they must attack the middle class, because the poor have little left to take. Now the smartest trick is to turn the middle class against the poor, as a diversion from the real source of the problem. By the way, I include most politicians and high ranking beaurecrats, as falling into the "wealthy" class, simple because of the privileges accorded them.

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • Image
    • This is basic class war by any other name ;)

      From : Today's Pig is Tomorrow's Bacon
      http://www.gregpalast.com/todays-pig-is-tomorrows-bacon-a-labor-day-recipe/

      The top fifth of the wealth scale are now gobbling up over half (50.4%) of our nation's annual income.

      While 15.9% of us don't have health insurance, even those of us who have it, don't have it: we're spending 36% more per family out of pocket on medical costs.

      Since the Bush Putsch in 2000, median income has fallen 5.9%.

      Mr. Bush and friends are offering us an "ownership" society. But he didn't mention who already owns it. The richest fifth of America owns 83% of all shares in the stock market. But that's a bit misleading because most of that, 53% of all the stock, is owned by just one percent of American households.

      And what does the Wealthy One Percent want? Answer: more wealth. Where will they get it? As with a tube of toothpaste, they're squeezing it from the bottom. Median paychecks have gone down by 5.9% during the current regime, but Americans in the bottom fifth have seen their incomes sliced by 20%.

      At the other end, CEO pay at the Fortune 500 has bloated by 51% during the first four years of the Bush regime to an average of $8.1 million per annum.

      So who's winning? It's a crude indicator, but let's take a peek at the Class War body count.

      When Reagan took power in 1980, the One Percent possessed 33% of America's wealth as measured by capital income. By 2006, the One Percent has swallowed over half of all America's assets, from sea to shining sea. One hundred fifty million Americans altogether own less than 3% of all private assets.

    • 2 years ago
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  
    • the notion that it is a good thing for a tiny percentage of our population to have such a large piece of the pie is a good thing is ridiculous. i'm sorry but there is no justification for a ceo making 500 times what their employees make. also ridiculous is the notion that everybody can be rich. socialism does not equate to fascism and puts the means of production in the hands of the workers. it is not a freedom to be a wage-slave, being paid less than what the product of your efforts is worth. when opportunity costs money, and you have little (because your bosses pay themselves most of the money), then you have little opportunity to improve your situation.

    • 2 years ago
  • icarus
    • 0
      icarus  
    • I do not believe these numbers to be acurate. I believe the top ten percent take far more than 50% of all income.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jadiee
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • Thats what happens when corporations take over We The People's will at the helm of government & institutions...

      Check these out for size...

      The CORPORATION
      http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=102

      FIVE AUTHORS. ONE WARNING.
      http://www.truthtopower.tv/
      The Warning exposes the dangerous excesses of last eight years and warns against allowing those changes to go unchallenged during the next administration. Five authors, during extensive interviews, uncover the political and economic forces behind this radical transformation of American democracy.

      “Washington has become Versailles. We are ruled, entertained and informed by courtiers. The popular media are courtiers. The Democrats, like the Republicans, are courtiers. Our pundits and experts are courtiers. We are captivated by the hollow stagecraft of political theater as we are ruthlessly stripped of power. It is smoke and mirrors, tricks and con games. We are being had.” - Chris Hedges

      "The only difference between the GOP & DEMs is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock at the door." - Ralph Nader

      "How to get people to vote against their interests and to really think against their interests is very clever. It's the cleverest ruling class that I have ever come across in history. It's been 200 years at it. It's superb." - Gore Vidal

      NEW WHITE NOISE WEB SITE
      http://whitenoiserants.webnode.com/

      You say yer life's a bum deal
      'N yer up against the wall...
      Well, people, you ain't even got no
      Deal at all
      'Cause what they do
      In Washington
      They just takes care
      of NUMBER ONE
      An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU
      You ain't even NUMBER TWO

      - Frank Zappa The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing

      They call it the 'American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • Image
    • It's not about who has the money, it's about how they got it. In a free society, people are not economically equal and economically equal people are not free. The question is, have these industries been oligopolized to the bone by government over the decades (yes) and have they been given protectionism, tax benefits, increased entry to barriers for their competition, of course......SO, the real question is...why do we not have a free market anymore that would force the rich to compete for our dollar? Why do we continue to support this fascist system while blindly and falsely blaming it on the free market when government injections and negative externalities have been the ultimate cause of these bubbles? It is just so sad when I look around and everyone is brainwashed into thinking wrongly that Hoover was a laissez-faireist or that a lack of government was the problem. We are all just blind slaves to a bureaucratic system that is hell bent on oligopolizing industries while usurping the constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.....if you support Bush, Obama, McCain......then you are the uneducated problem in this country....and there are TONS of them. Going back to the original point, it's not about who has the money.....it's about how they got it. In a freer market where the rich were forced to fight for our dollar versus this democratic corporate welfare system, the ultimate rich would have much less money because they would have to compete in the market versus bailouts, protectionism, government killing small competition, and other forms of Keynesianism.....the gap between rich and poor is not bad, it just is....HOW people got this money is a different story. Rich people are not the problem, I want everyone to be rich......not everyone being enslaved to poverty through fascist/socialist measures. A free society also protects individual choice whereas the socialist/fascist tinged system is against free choice and individual liberties and rights.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
  • ThoughtNu
    • 0
      ThoughtNu  
    • btw America was in a recession years ago... call this what it is...

      a DEPRESSION.

      Just who's sensibilities are being protected by using any other phrase other than that which properly describes the situation?

      The wealthy have more to lose and the 'poor' have less... than ANY other time. Numbers that have not been seen since the 'great' depression are being revealed each month...

      This is far past any 'economic downturn' or even the recessions of the 80's /90's. Besides isn't there a perpetual state of economic downturns in every market, every day? Reminds me of 'war on terror' ... no clear ending.

      Please stop acting as if 'media' got your tongue... if it quacks like a duck , walks like a duck...call it a duck!

    • 2 years ago
  • LinaP
    • 0
      LinaP  
    • Everybody is fighting the recession in one way or another. (Except for rich people – but they don't deserve sympathy.) Part of fighting the recession is handling layoffs, and for some, having to go job hunting. It's never easy, and learning how to be marketing yourself effectively is a must, but with slim prospects, you have to find out how to come up with some cash in the mean time. Some have moved back in with their parents, and many find odd jobs to earn a little extra. Don't give up searching – ever. You can't give up looking. It's hard to cope with fighting the recession with no installment loans to back you up, but don't stop the good fight.

    • 2 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • Krisard,

      If your central point is that the rich are no more inherently "evil" or "bad" than are the poor or the middle class, I quite agree with you. I have lived in all three conditions, and there are good, bad and seriously ugly at each "place."

      At the same time, I don't think one would want to go overboard with praise for the rich in general simply because their greater habits of consumption necessarily involve a certain downstream effect or what many of the rich would refer to as "crumbs." I mean, is society better off with a small group of rich leaving crumbs for the rest...or with an ecomonmic system that operates to distribute that wealth a little more broadly to begin with.

      I am certainly no wild-eyed communist seeking to redistribute society's wealth...took me nearly 50 years to build my small firm and gain a toe hold of financial security....I would REALLY prefer not to have to start over again...

    • 2 years ago
  • Krisard
    • 0
      Krisard  
    • It is very counterintuitive to be able to see how the rich benefit everybody and not just themselves, regardless of their intentions. Many rich people create wealth by delivering goods or services which are of high quality and/or at a low cost. That is how they got rich. They provide a valuable service and in exchange people give them cash. There are of course some who do not provide a valuable service such as those who lobby for certain regulations in order to eliminate competition or to get funding from the gov't. I think most cases this is not true. People need to realize that the rich are not taking a bigger piece of the pie, but making the pie itself bigger.

    • 2 years ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • Krisard:

      Unfortunately that is the "trickle down" theory and it has been disproved since those 10% have forgotten their responsibilities and only focus on their rights to make profits.

      By shipping jobs overseas and making deals like mergers and aquisitions that sell off the assets of the companies to ruin their stability.

      They nullify that "valuable service" by extracting the wealth and leaving none of it for the rest

    • 2 years ago
  • FightOn
    • 0
      FightOn  
    • Krisard:

      I agree Krisard. America's rich have only been getting richer, but the quality of life has been going up for everyone. I see teenagers with iPhone and cars-- luxuries my parents couldn't enjoy for most of their life.

      Rich people are only going to get richer. They work hard, continually improve themselves, and constantly grow. If you make $8/hour at K-Mart, there's a reason (lots of people can do the same thing). When your a Sergey Brin or Bil Gates, people pay you billions (not a lot of people can come up with amazing companies).

    • 2 years ago
  • hombre76
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • hombre76:

      Good idea since the poor don't taste too good.

      GnL probably has a lot of tender juicy parts especially since the cranium doesn't get much use it ought to be nice and ripe

    • 2 years ago
  • nostress
  • tbowman131
  • GodsnLiberals
  • ThoughtNu
    • 0
      ThoughtNu  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      As a disabled veteran i would like to bring to your attention that not ALL 'potheads' at the 'poverty level' don't understand 'service' . Some of us are reminded every day we wake without the variety of uses for our bodies. I don't think I am the only person you have offended.

    • 2 years ago
  • lifestudentno83
    • 0
      lifestudentno83  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      Nu, GnL says inflammatory things like that all the time. It's best to ignore him because there's no reasoning or debating with him.

      For some reason, he has a fixation on correlating potheads and society's ills. He has been asked several times to view research on it which he has apparently refused or neglected.

      I fail to see what smoking weed has to do with unequal wealth distribution, but apparently GnL sees something I don't.

    • 2 years ago
  • alvihau
    • 0
      alvihau  
    • Where are the statistics that show these are the same people who provide or support the jobs. Do we really want to take the money from them and give it to the government to redistribute. They handle tax money so well!

    • 2 years ago
  • AnotherEducatedWhiteGuy
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • AnotherEducatedWhiteGuy:

      Ummmm...O.K., I'll bite in what POSSIBLE way is this article evidence that Democrats do not believe in distribution of wealth? PLEASE don't tell me that if the Democrats really believed as such that Congress or President Obama should have taken all (or some sizeable portion) of that money from the wealthy and redistributed it. That is called "conversion," and it is illegal.

      Besides, what Democrats typically believe in is greater equality of OPPORTUNITY as well as a fairer distribution of the costs of government services. President Obama is working on small steps to make the tax code more progressive for people with incomes over $250,000. I am not opposed to that step in principle, though I would like to see exactly what its impact will be on my total tax bill before it becomes law (mostly I want to be sure the increase doesn't ding folks in that 200,000 to 400,000 range and then miraculously disappear for the $10 million a year and up gang...the Bushies (and Reagan before them) had a real gift for making that sort of thing happen in the tax code...

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:

top videos