Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
11. For balance: ''Who Rules America?''
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 08:03 PM
Oct 2014
Wealth, Income, and Power

by G. William Domhoff
University of California Santa Cruz

This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.

Some of the information may come as a surprise to many people. In fact, I know it will be a surprise and then some, because of a recent study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) showing that most Americans (high income or low income, female or male, young or old, Republican or Democrat) have no idea just how concentrated the wealth distribution actually is. More on that a bit later.

As far as the income distribution, the most striking numbers on income inequality will come last, showing the dramatic change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.

First, though, some definitions. Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (see Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."

We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)

This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)

CONTINUED w/links, sources, charts, etc...

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


Oh, thank god! I was getting worried about them for a bit. smirkymonkey Oct 2014 #1
Here's some new job openings perfect for those who like to look after them. Octafish Oct 2014 #12
Let them live on their libertarian castles, they'll end up like the kids in Animal Farm. Dont call me Shirley Oct 2014 #27
Do not let the label "video game" fool you DonCoquixote Oct 2014 #37
Those will be very easy targets to hit. hifiguy Oct 2014 #50
But hey, if you work hard - you too can be a billionaire! Rex Oct 2014 #2
I know it, right? Octafish Oct 2014 #13
We will always owe the company store. Rex Oct 2014 #35
+1 woo me with science Oct 2014 #42
Yeah. Things could always be worse. Octafish Oct 2014 #59
It's a vacuum now. orpupilofnature57 Oct 2014 #3
Who stepped in to fill the void with dollars? The Washington Greenrefs. Octafish Oct 2014 #58
+1000 !!!! orpupilofnature57 Oct 2014 #63
I don't understand economics or physics that well, but it seems to me logosoco Oct 2014 #4
Well hey now, I'm starting to think this whole "trickle down" thing NuclearDem Oct 2014 #5
Oh, I feel the trickling down. progressoid Oct 2014 #45
How are they supposed to survive on a paltry 2.29 trillion? LeftofObama Oct 2014 #6
You already are...The $32 Trillion Hidden Offshore Needs IRS Attention. Octafish Oct 2014 #38
So "trickle down" should kick in real soon now. Just be patient. 20-30 more years, tops. Trust us. Scuba Oct 2014 #7
Oh, I am so stealing that.... daleanime Oct 2014 #19
Possibly the end to the greatest middle class democracy in history and the rhett o rick Oct 2014 #8
That's quite something to ignore. nt woo me with science Oct 2014 #43
Oh, now you've done it! KamaAina Oct 2014 #9
For balance: ''Who Rules America?'' Octafish Oct 2014 #11
Wow. Excellent resource. woo me with science Oct 2014 #40
You deserve a big thank you for all the great data and articles you post. THANK YOU!! rhett o rick Oct 2014 #48
So? daleanime Oct 2014 #18
We used to have a poster who reposted from WSWS constantly. KamaAina Oct 2014 #24
For that? daleanime Oct 2014 #25
He must have made some other faux pas. KamaAina Oct 2014 #46
Looks to me like America JEB Oct 2014 #10
Let's put them in the 99-percent tax bracket. It's a fate worse than death for the greedhead. Octafish Oct 2014 #57
That's a lot of loot. JEB Oct 2014 #60
Thank you for the heads-up, JEB! Octafish Oct 2014 #61
When is the ship of state going to capsize and will the captains of industry go down with the ship? xocet Oct 2014 #14
Once they git AWLL of it-- it'll be trickle-down city! johnnyreb Oct 2014 #15
Damn, just missed the top 400...... Uben Oct 2014 #16
K&fuckingR.... daleanime Oct 2014 #17
K&R. We must hold both parties accountable for this, and we need a revitalized union. liberal_at_heart Oct 2014 #20
When do we break out the pitchforks and torches? Initech Oct 2014 #21
Wow, that's a lot of moolah to leave behind! Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #22
Yes but you can have a lot of buildings and maybe an small city flamingdem Oct 2014 #23
Whoop-dee-doo! Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #29
Mine might be a shack flamingdem Oct 2014 #30
I'd like to have 1 very large flourescent sign on mine. Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #32
I'm there! Sounds like a party flamingdem Oct 2014 #33
Oh, man, can't have a drum set up in it. Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #34
These billionaires all suffer from severe mental and emotional illness, Sociopathy/Psychopathy. Dont call me Shirley Oct 2014 #26
Sick folks, eh? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #28
Sociopaths are highly functioning people often charming and able to delegate authority. Dont call me Shirley Oct 2014 #41
That floating castle thing may not be such a bad idea Duer 157099 Oct 2014 #31
My first thought is: Pirate submarines LongTomH Oct 2014 #53
Shiver me timbers, hifiguy Oct 2014 #54
time to kill the greenspan FICA CAP NOW, they can fucking pay SOMETHING. pansypoo53219 Oct 2014 #36
Hope and Change! woo me with science Oct 2014 #39
Kick n/t Oilwellian Oct 2014 #44
I wonder what the graph will look like after 100 more years of this librechik Oct 2014 #47
United States of Oligarchy, woo me with science Oct 2014 #49
This is probably a significant underestimate. hifiguy Oct 2014 #51
".....doing absolutely nothing" is too right! LongTomH Oct 2014 #55
I'm sure that if you ask them, they'll tell you that they need more. notadmblnd Oct 2014 #52
Bipartisan oligarchy. Bipartisan corruption. woo me with science Oct 2014 #56
Since I have you on ignore Ichingcarpenter Oct 2014 #62
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wealth of richest 400 Ame...»Reply #11