Hillary Clinton reportedly commented during a meeting with economists that the US needed a “toppling” of the 1%. The comments were said to have come when the Democratic presidential candidate saw a chart of changes in real income.
Looking beyond just the real incomes of the 1%, several other measures show that inequality in the US has been rising for the past few decades.
We put together a dozen charts and maps that show some of the core issues of inequality.
Income inequality in the US has gone up over the past 40 years.
The Gini index is a standard measure of inequality, ranging from 0 to 1. The index measures how far away the income distribution in a population is from a completely egalitarian distribution. An index of 0 corresponds to a distribution in which everyone has the same income, and an index of 1 is a distribution in which one person gets all the income and everyone else gets nothing. The Gini index has steadily risen in the US since the late 1960s.
Inequality varies geographically across the country.
Gini indexes in metropolitan areas and areas around midsize towns range from a fairly egalitarian 0.36 in Juneau, Alaska, to a highly unequal 0.55 in Ruston, Louisiana. Business Insider compiled a list of the most unequal large metro areas based on US Census data.
America’s high Gini index is rare among developed countries.
Among OECD countries, only Chile, Mexico, and Turkey have more inequality by this measure.
Another way to look at inequality is to consider how much of the national income goes to the top of the distribution. Here’s the share of income for the top 10% in the US over the last century or so.
According to a 2013 paper by Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, at the start of the century through the roaring ’20s, the top of the heap got an outsize share of income. After the New Deal and World War II, that share dropped precipitously in a period often referred to as the “Great Compression.” From the early 1980s to the present, the share of those with the highest income has started to skyrocket back to where it was at the start of the 20th century.
But just looking at the top 10% doesn’t tell the whole story. Here’s that group broken into smaller components.
The top 1% is responsible for most of the top decile’s gains, while the rest of the top 10% saw much more modest increases.
This is even starker when looking at the extreme top.
The top ten-thousandth of earners — the top 1% of the 1% — took in about 5.4% of total income in 2012.
In addition to seeing an ever-larger share of income, those in the top 0.01% have also had their real income grow by nearly 500% over the past three decades, while real incomes for the bottom 90% have been stagnant.
The swings in inequality over the 20th century are even more dramatic when looking at wealth, rather than income.
The wealth share of the top 0.1% has more than doubled since the 1980s, according to a recent study based on estimating wealth from income tax returns done by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.
One aspect of increasing wealth inequality is that the superrich save much more of their income than the middle class.
People in the bottom 90% frequently don’t have enough extra income to keep saving.As Business Insider’s Shane Ferro put it: “People need somewhere to live, and they have to keep up with increasing tuition if they want to go to college. Necessary fixed costs increased while incomes stagnated, so saving gave way to debt in order for people to maintain the same lifestyle they had in previous decades.”
One interesting aspect of wealth inequality is that Americans vastly underestimate the degree of inequality.
A 2010 survey showed that both Americans’ ideal and estimated wealth distributions were far more equitable than the actual wealth distribution.
Another important part of looking at inequality is how easy or hard it is for people to move around the income distribution between generations.
This chart, based on data from the Equality of Opportunity Project, shows that the higher up on the income ladder a parent is, the more likely their child will end up in the top part of the income distribution. A child whose parents are already in the top fifth is more than three times as likely to stay at the top as a child from the bottom fifth is to get there.
Intergenerational mobility varies highly across the US.
This map shows a measure of intergenerational social mobility from the Harvard Equality of Opportunity Project. “Absolute Mobility” describes where an average child starting in the middle of the bottom half of the income distribution will end up in the income rankings as an adult. Counties on the map with lighter shading have more intergenerational mobility; counties with darker shading have more children ending up in the same part of the income distribution as their parents.
This article is published in collaboration with Business Insider. Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.
To keep up with the Agenda subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Author: Andy Kiersz is a quant reporter at Business Insider.
Image: A woman holds a cluster of U.S. flags during a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services naturalization ceremony in Oakland. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith.
