And how, if at all, should policy makers respond? The United States has million people—in million households, as viewed by the Internal Revenue Service. That means 1. The top 0. The income share of the top 0. In terms of the rate of increase, the 0. After-tax income tells a similar story. For the top 0. And posttax income for the 0. Posttax income for the entire US population rose by only 61 percent during this time, the study demonstrates.
They say the share of total wealth of the top 1 percent has increased steadily, from below 25 percent in to 42 percent in The share of total wealth of the top 0. Not everyone slices the data the same way, or draws the same conclusions. This would challenge the notion that wealth is increasingly concentrating at the top. All three groups saw their income shares and inflation-adjusted incomes peak in , and those shares have yet to recover to those pre—Great Recession levels, he points out.
They get their income from very different sources. They live in different parts of the country. There is a huge amount of diversity, even within a group that we think is small but is actually very big, which is the top 1 percent. When discussing the super-rich, many bring up family dynasties such as the Waltons of Wal-Mart, or the Rockefellers and Koch brothers of energy fortunes.
But who is actually in the 0. Researchers are developing a better understanding of how people in various rungs of the 1 percent make their money. And some research suggests business income plays a big part. This income is broad-based among the 1 percent. These are talented managers: the researchers find that profits of companies run by these 1 percent-ers are far higher than those of businesses owned by people in the top 5-—10 percent.
To reach the top 0. In the top 0. Heim find that one-fifth of the primary taxpayers in the top 0. The latest data used in this study are from , before the —10 financial crisis altered the landscape. In the rest of the 1 percent, health care is the most represented sector. Since , Forbes has compiled an annual list of the wealthiest Americans, using public information, private interviews, and valuations of comparable assets. While many individuals and households in the U. Ranking by net worth is a more useful way to determine the top one percent than using household income.
Think of it as the difference between accumulated wealth and current disposable income. And those are numbers — expect the numbers to increase with the releases. In other words, net worth has a more extreme spread than income does. The data does support some correlation between income and net worth, but it can change with age. Americans 55 and older hold 3 times the wealth of millennials. Based on multiple studies with nearly 1, married, heterosexual male participants, Desai and colleagues in found that men in traditional marriages with stay-at-home spouses had more negative and biased views toward women in the workplace.
These negative stereotypes could make it more difficult for ambitious women, who often are married to successful men, to advance professionally or secure coveted positions such as those in elite financial or law positions. Rivera and Tilcsik , for example, found that elite law firms were less likely to call back highly qualified women for job interviews than comparable men, in part, because lawyers perceived that higher-class women were less committed to full-time careers.
Taken together, traditional gender norms in the home and gendered biases in the workplace may act as a reinforcing cycle that curtails even really successful and ambitious women from attaining substantive positions of power.
The fact that an inordinate amount of economic resources and power is concentrated among a small subset of households is a major societal problem and one that needs addressed. Simply diversifying the breadwinners in the one percent i. Nevertheless, greater diversity at the top may have significant implications for politics and beyond. Indeed, identifying who has access to political power and influence is important because if more women made it to the one percent based on their own income, they might exercise it differently than elite men.
First, although there is no research evidence regarding ideological differences between elite women and men, we speculate that high-income women, on average, have more liberal beliefs than their male counterparts for several reasons.
Also, women who make it to the one percent based on their own income tend to have relatively high educations, often advanced degrees, and extensive job experience. Research indicates that women with these educational and labor force characteristics have higher rates of feminist attitudes than men with similar characteristics and that women consequently tend to vote more often for Democratic candidates than men. Diverging life views may increase the likelihood that women help and lobby on the behalf of groups other than their own i.
Second, high-income women and men contribute differently to political causes and campaigns. Notably, all three of these PACs promote and lobby for more liberal and progressive policies; two of them specifically lobby for greater political representation of women and for gender equality. Likewise, the US Trust Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy—a nationally representative random sample of 1, wealthy households—shows that high-net worth women are more likely to donate to organizations that focus on gender-related issues, like violence against women and reproductive rights.
Taken together, this work suggests that high-income women could potentially exercise influence in more liberal ways than high-income men. Similar arguments could be made if more people of color occupied top income positions in the United States, given that they particularly African Americans tend to hold, on average, more progressive viewpoints than whites on issues surrounding economic policies and inequality. Although we need additional research to confirm these speculations about the one percent, it is reasonable to assert that perspectives from women and people of color remain substantively missing from the ideological lobbying efforts and political contributions of the one percent.
In this piece, we highlight that white, heterosexual, married men earn most of the income in one percent households, a population that is critical to the structure of inequality. Because the one percent controls disproportionate quantities of resources, it follows that these men have disproportionate power both in and out of the household.
Moreover, one percent households are more traditional in their financial and work arrangements than other households at lower income levels. As we explained, these patterns have significant implications. It means that a small group of homogenous men likely exercise the majority of corporate and political power associated with economic elites.
These traditional dynamics could have ripple effects into other spheres, affecting gender relations in the workplace and conservatizing the political and corporate policies that elites champion. Ely, Robin J. Gilens, Martin. Khan, Shamus Rahman. Heerwig, Jennifer A. Lisa A.
0コメント