Income redistribution in the United States 1913-2011 (2 graphs)
from David Ruccio
The Great Recession in the United States only depressed top income shares temporarily and, based on data through 2011, will not undo any of the dramatic increase in top income shares that has taken place since the 1970s. Indeed, excluding realized capital gains, the top decile income share in 2011 was equal to 46.5 percent, the highest ever since 1917.
This is what average incomes for the top decile and the rest—the bottom 90 percent—look like over the entire period:
Leave a comment Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Real-World Economics Review
WEA Books
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Lost opportunities?
- The problem with electric vehicles
- There ain’t no libertarians, just politicians who want to give all the money to the rich
- Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- Weekend read - A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- With a modest financial transactions tax, Jim Simons would not have been superrich
- Comments on RWER issue no. 69
- Distribution and redistribution of wealth in USA
- Econometrics and the art of putting the rabbit in the hat
- Weekend read: What caused the stagflation of the 1970s? Answer: Monetarism
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein
Regular Contributors
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- David Harold Chester on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- David Harold Chester on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- sackergeoff on With a modest financial transactions tax, Jim Simons would not have been superrich
- CBASILOVECCHIO on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- David Harold Chester on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- pfeffertag on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- CBASILOVECCHIO on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- Arbo on Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- spamletblog on Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- bckcdb on Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- David Harold Chester on Real-world economists take note!
- Patrick Newman on Real-world economists take note!
- deshoebox on Real-world economists take note!
- felipefrs on The non-existence of economic laws
- Seeker on The non-existence of economic laws
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- More WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
Nice work. But could you please try the first graph with an added indicator? The Top 1% earners. We shall see that 10% of the 13% gain from like 32% share of all US income to 45% was created by the Top 1% earners. You are involving the top 9% of US population which did not see that much of an increase.
Transition in the financial system coupled with the unipolar world building, after the fall of Berlin wall, could explain the acceleration of the inequality process in the 90s. Need for a welfare state around the world have fallen into peaces as the wall.
So was possibly made the stance of the End of the History and the reign of the happy few and the elites…
Economy has political and strategic motivations. Piloting economy is quite well known along major pieces of work in economics ; problems have arisen from resurgence of class conflicts and the ability to capture resources in a global world.
Mystification of economic rhetoric, thanks to rational expectation (denying uncertainty) was the main strategical tool. Experts and economists were trapped in dishonest propaganda and academic reviews are dishonorably testimonies of the process. We are still waiting for self-criticism in the professional arena before more economic disruptions would be recorded and societies destroyed.
Very interesting data.
One could add another important dimension in income distribution, namely the capital/labor divide. According to one study, labor’s share of income decreased from 75 percent in 1979 to 67 percent in 2007 (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf).
Translating this within the Marxian conceptual framework, one might say that the rate of exploitation has increased from 1/3 to about ½ — that is roughly a 50 per cent increase in exploitation between 1979 and 2007.
(See also: http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2012/2012-13.cfm)
Check this out: Top 1% Increase Share of US Income 120%
Using 2007 post-tax dollars, the wealthiest 1% of the US population increased their share of the nation’s income 120% between 1979 and 2007. The top 20% grew their share about 30%, while every other income group decreased their share. Most notably, the bottom 20% lost about 30% of their share of the nation’s income.
Americans Misperceive Wealth Distribution
Read more:http://www.marketingcharts.com/direct/wealthiest-americans-dramatically-increase-income-16296/
Another interesting point:
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 2 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).
Read more:http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
DO YOU THINK WE ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG??
Justaluckyfool says, “The Wealth of a Nation is in HOW it redistributes its Wealth”.
pretty clear no one knows what equitable means…….
if the rich want it all….then the “99%”….should live for free…..be housed, fed, clothed, entertained……
Is there a model which can explain this trend? Based on this data, can econometric model predict what would happen in the nearest future?