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 Reply Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
RWER 26,369 subscribers
Regular Contributors
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Chicago economics — the triumph of empty formalism
- The war against scientific economics continues
- Sameness is just wrong
- Confusing statistics and research
- To prevent the resurgence of the pandemic, can we talk about open-source research?
- The leap of generalization
- Richard Werner on the Ideal 'European' Central Bank
- The World Economic Forum is planning the “Great Reset” to prevent it from happening
- Re-estimating wealth inequality in the United States
- Lock Step: How the Rockefeller Foundation wants to implement its autocratic pandemic scenario
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
- Yoshinori Shiozawa on Sameness is just wrong
- Ken Zimmerman on Want to reverse inequality? Change intellectual property rules
- Ken Zimmerman on Forecasting errors
- pfeffertag on AI and democracy
- Ken Zimmerman on Excessive stimulus and other things Larry Summers worries about
- Ken Zimmerman on January 6th, one month on
- Ken Zimmerman on Dealing with a pandemic as if human lives mattered
- evidencebasedeconomics on Sameness is just wrong
- Christian Mueller on Sameness is just wrong
- larrymotuz on The war against scientific economics continues
- larrymotuz on The leap of generalization
- Lars Syll on Say ‘consistent’ one more time and I …
- pfeffertag on Information take two
- davetaylor1 on Keynes on the methodology of econometrics
- Yoshinori Shiozawa on Beyond mathematical modelling
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- Forthcoming 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
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
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?