Precarity -- Insecurity -- Anxiety -- the 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%, 40% Problem

 Around 40% of U.S. citizens live with precarious financial-economic instability. The 40% figure occurs in multiple credible studies. This is a rundown of those studies: 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%, and 40%. 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's survey "Making Ends Meet" of November 2024 shows that 42.3% of households could not pay normal expenses after 30 days if they lost their main source of income. The U.S. Census's Pulse Survey reports that 45.6% report "very stressful" the price increases over the last two months in 2024. The United Way's report, ALICE, also says 42% live below their survival budget, which is around $91,000 per year for a family of four. The U.S. Census's Supplemental Poverty Measure, 2025, reports that 41.5% of U.S. households live with incomes below 200% OPL, official poverty level. The Brookings Institute reports, the "Percent of U.S. families with total resources below the family budget, by country and family structure" is 43%. ("How many are in need in the US? The poverty rate is the tip of the iceberg." (June, 2024) Over 40% of U.S. population experiences insecurity and financial hardship.

Repeatedly this portion appears -- 41.5%, 42%, 45.6%, 42.3% and 43%. This confirms a message about financial insecurity in the U.S.A..

We have extreme inequality, and a near majority of citizens experience hardship, insecurity, frustration, and stress. Wealth inequality is the most extreme. The RealTime Inequality web page shows the wealthiest 25,100 adults, the wealthiest 0.01%, possess an average of $617.8 million apiece, for a total of $15.5 trillion, which totals 11.5% of private U.S. wealth. Now, compare that with the least wealthy 50% of U.S. adults, about 125.3 million adults; they possess $9,000 each and a grand total of  $1.1 trillion which is 0.8% of U.S. private wealth. The ratio between their average wealth ($9,000 to $617.8 million) is 1 to 68,000. For every $1 saved by half of U.S. adults the top 0.01% own $68,000.   
If the average savings of half were $1, then the average for the sliver at the top would be $68,000. This is a healthy society? No, this is aristocracy. 

Back to the precarious 40% -- living paycheck to paycheck is normal for many families. In addition to the 40% we can add another 20% who regularly carry their credit card balances forward each month and live paycheck to paycheck, we can call it 60%. The Bank of America claims that 25% of households live paycheck to paycheck; but the PNC Bank claims 67% -- so there is no firm consensus. The Pulse survey has a table about anxiety and worry (Health Tables, Table 1). The inability to control or stop worrying is also at the 44.7% level (see Health Table 1).   

I try to report the accurate, factual conditions of the U.S. economy, and then I prescribe the solutions to this malady --- see my December 2024 essay at this blog. I lay out 10 big ideas. Our condition can be improved with quite a small number of major policy changes.  

When Shaquille O'Neal enters a room the average height greatly increases. Having looked at wealth, now I'll focus on income; the average income looks nothing like the typical. It's almost comical. The average income for the lower half is $18,400, and the average for the top 25,000 adults is $41,800,000, a ratio of 1 to 2,271. For every dollar earned by the lowest-income 125 million adults, the top adults are earning $2,271. (see RealTime Inequality) Should there be a law against this? The Congressional Budget Office published in 2021 it's "The Distribution of Household Income for 2018". Exhibit One shows "Top 0.01%" earning $44.51 million and the lowest 20% earning $20,000. The ratio is 1 to 2,225, almost identical to the ratio RealTime finds for the lower 50%. Both studies show "Income Before Taxes and Transfers".  

In Switzerland in 2013 voters were asked to impose a 1 to 12 ratio between lowest and highest salaries in Swiss corporations. You can read two articles here and here. It failed to pass by a 2 to 1 margin, but such policies have great promise.
Swiss workers enjoy 4 weeks of paid holiday, I learned from the second article. Most countries from Ghana, Brazil, Bangladesh to Germany receive paid holidays. But not in the U.S., no mandated paid holidays.
And, just in passing, recently I read a study comparing daycare for infants and children among 41 rich nations, "Where Do Rich Countries Stand on Daycare?". The U.S. is last among 41 nations.
These last paragraphs have been a little off-topic, admittedly; but they show that a quality life is not wholly determined by the highest GDP per capita. Lastly I'll compare Belgium to the U.S.; in Belgium, the Credit Suisse report on Global Wealth shows (page 144), 43.5% of all wealth is held by the top 10%. In the U.S. the top 10% own 73.5% of private wealth. Is life better in Belgium as a result of sharing the wealth? If the U.S. had this wealth distribution it would add $54 trillion to the net worth of 117 million families; that would add $464,000 to the net worth of all the families in the lower 90%. Life would be radically different. Distribution matters. Distribution matters.  

To underscore the Belgium -- U.S.A. difference, the latest Global Wealth report shows (page 18)  average adult and median adult amounts. Here's the comparison between the U.S. and Belgium: 

                                            Belgium                                 U.S.
average adult wealth           $349,404                            $620,654

median adult wealth            $253,539                           $124,041  -- could be $447,000

              median is                72% of average                 20% of average 
If the U.S. median was 72% of average it would be    $447,000, a gain of $323,000 at the median. 
I suggest readers tackle my Solutions essay. The last solution has to do with taxing wealth. 
Would 42% of adults report they are unable to pay normal expenses after 30 days if they lost their main source of income if they had over $100,000 of net worth? Of course they would not. 

The U.S. national income stands at $25.6 trillion shows the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds report, page 10, January 9, 2026. Divide that by total households we arrive at the average income of over $191,000. As for wealth, total "household net worth" divided by all households shows average household savings at $1.355 million. The average and the typical are far apart. The typical or median  household income is around $83,700; the median household net worth is $192,084 (see here). 

Average income $191,000, median income $83,730.  --------- the median is 44% of average.
Average household net worth $1,355,000, median net worth $192,084.
                                                                                      --------- the median is 14%of average. 

The Credit Suisse bank's Global Wealth report shows the lower-saving 40% of U.S. households owned about 0.1% of the nation's wealth, which equals an average wealth holding of about $2,300 per adult  (according to the Credit Suisse bank's Global Wealth Databook, page 143, year 2023). While the wealthier 10% own 68.1% says the Federal Reserve. The top 10% own 73.1% says the Credit Suisse report. And RealTime shows 71.5% is owned by the top 10%. Therefore the average savings for the top 10% is either $9.2 million per household or $10.1 million. The figures for the lower 50% of household vary, but one thing is clear, inequality in the U.S. is severe. Economic 'precarity' is well-known but few politicians propose serious programs to relieve it. Belgium has the lowest percentage of wealth owned by the top 10%, shows the Credit Suisse report. If the U.S. had the distribution of Belgium all households in the lower 90% would add $464,000 more to their net worth, to repeat myself. 

             Income Growth Over the Decades    

How many know that men's incomes were only 1% higher in 2025 than in 1979? The total economy grew by 117% and men's incomes did not move at all. I think that this issue is the top concern for the U.S. nation. 
Most workers had higher incomes in 1973 than in 2025. The "average weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers", about 82% of all full-time workers and 83% of all workers including part-time workers, was higher in 1973 than in 2025. See the BLS web page. I have fallen into the habit of calling this a disaster. 

The "Median usual weekly earnings" for full-time workers grew by 12% since 1979, shows the Federal Reserve's graph. See here. If their graph had extended to 1973 we would see a smaller gain than 12%.  
The real wages for men have grown by 1% since 1979, shows this graph. The economy grew by 117%.
The real cost of housing has grown by 72%, from $238,400 to $410,700. The costs of housing,  healthcare, higher education, and childcare are the main drivers of higher costs in general. 
See this 2016 article by David Madland and the American Center for Progress. 

While the overall economy since 1973, Real (inflation adjusted) per capita, increased by 142%. 

The RealTime Inequality web page, a product of University of California, Berkeley economists, shows that from 1976 to 2023 great gains for a minority, virtually no gains for a majority. Between 1976 and 2023
the lower-earning 50% of U.S. adults saw their pre-tax incomes grow by $3,000, from $15,500 to $18,500.
The middle group, from 50% to 90%, incomes grew by $34,700 from $57,400 to $92,100.
The top 9%, from the 90th to 99th percentile, incomes grew by $146,000 from $123,000 to $269,000. The top 1% saw their incomes grow by $1,429,000, from $481,000 to $1,900,000. 
Up $3,000, up $34,700, up $146,000 and up $1,429,000. The alarm sirens are shrieking. 

Half saw a $3,000 increase, and 1% saw a $1,429,000 increase -- that in a nutshell is the problem.  

The RAND Corporation also has two reports on Income Trends --
The first is here, the second is here. The first is far more detailed and covers years 1975 to 2018. The second is shorter and updates to the year 2023.   
The latest RAND report states ". . .  if we had the income distribution from 1975,  the majority of workers (the bottom 90 percent by income) would have made an additional $3.9 trillion dollars in 2023." (page 4) |
With a worker base of 160 million, 90% is 144 million. Each of the 144 million would have $27,083 more income "if we had the income distribution of 1975". That is huge! The RealTime Inequality web page shows much the same income shift. I calculate a gain of over $30,000 for all in the lower 90%. 

The Federal Reserve's web page shows the real national GDP per capita since 1973 increased by 142%. 

Yet in the same 52 years years wages for 80% decreased by 2%. This is a sick economy.

There are other sites on the web that underscore this fact. Washington Center for Equitable Growth is dedicated to the phenomenon. It has an array of graphics well worth exploring, for example:
                 

          

Now, I have to admit, if I were reading this essay I would never have read this far. All these really depressing numbers and facts. I apologize. I just want to hammer my point, because a hammer seems necessary. There are so many dull, stupid and lunatic deniers and indifferent even callous ignorers.

I'm really trying to hit someone on the head with a sledge hammer. I admit the abuse. 

Look, it's no fun harping on this mess. 

Make America Great Again does not mean giving big tax cuts to the wealthiest and cutting labor power, worker income, and household stability. The list is long explains a study from the Economic Policy Institute:

47 ways Trump has made life less affordable in the last year

                           That formula is MAW, Make America Worse    

I usually say at this point: STOP, don't go further. So, again: stop. I'm going to add some more data, but I congratulate your forbearance , endurance, tolerance, and incredible fortitude for having survived this tirade of bad news. 

Hope you enjoyed it at some level. 

Let's get together and laugh a little, when we get our act together and stop fighting among ourselves.  !!  

Yours, Ben Leet. See my profile for a little more about me. 

________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile, the following: 
"Had that bottom 90 percent continued during the past half-century to make the same share of the national income they’d had in 1975, RAND calculates that by 2023 they would have made an additional $79 trillion. [over the period 1975 to 2025, Today the total private wealth stands at $180 trillion, for a comparison.] Just in the year 2023, they would have made an additional $3.9 trillion. As the size of the bottom 90 percent of the U.S. workforce is roughly 140 million people, that means that the average earner would have made about $28,000 more in 2023 than they actually did."

That's one paragraph from the American Prospect magazine article "The $79 Trillion Heist" by Harold Meyerson, December, 2025. 

The RAND Corporation published "Trends in Income from 1975 to 2018" in 2021. Page 11 shows that in 1975 the median worker income was $42,000 and it grew to $50,000 by 2018. But had it grown at the rate of the total economy's growth rate it would have reached $90,000  --  an additional $40,000 per year for the middle or median worker. Would that make a difference in the quality of life? Would poverty be eliminated? Would America be Great Again? Not necessarily, but if not great, better. Author Meyerson got his $79 trillion figure from the RAND reports. 

I calculate, using the web page RealTime Inequality, that the lower 90% of households would have around $30,000 more every year had the income growth of the lower 90% matched the overall growth of the total economy. This is quite a conceptual shift, the society would be improved  -- poverty would be eliminated, insecurity, precarity, anxiety about income needs, etc., would be eliminated. The crime rate would drop, people toting guns in holsters in the supermarket would be eliminated. It would be a different USA. 

We have the Economic Policy Institute, the MIT (Massachusettes Institute of Technology), and the ALICE survival budget; all give estimates of the minimum income needed for a four-person household. 

The Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator says $89,260 is needed for a family of 2 adults and 2 children.  

The MIT amount is $$83,000. 

The EPI Family Budget Calculator is $89, 260.

The ALICE amount is $96,480. 

The U.S. Census Official Poverty Level is $32,150 for 2025 for a family of four, meaning it takes 3 times OPL to achieve the ALICE survival level. It takes 2.7 times to achieve the EPI's basic level. And 2.5 times to make the MIT level.     

The ALICE 2022 survival budget is $96,480 -- they chose an example in Ohio, Franklin County. "For a family of four with an infant and a preschooler, the budget (including tax credits) increased from $75,156 to $91,284, more than three times the 2022 FPL of $27,750. Excluding tax credits, costs for a family of four totaled $96,480 in 2022, up from $90,360 in 2021."  

In my search for a more detailed understanding of the labor market and pay levels, I look at the Job Quality Index from Buffalo NYU. 

We see what the average nonsupervisory worker is earning (nonsupervisory workers total 111 million workers, or 82% of the full-time workers), We all see the average weekly pay (and yearly pay) for all 111 million, and also for the 45% who earn above the average for all, and we see the average incomes for the 55% who are below average for all --  currently the three are, respectively: $56,020 - average for all, and $76,544 the average for 45% and $38,786 the average for 55%. That covers 111 million non-supervisory workers.  

$56,020 -- $76,544 -- and $38,786. The average for the higher 45% is about double the average for the lower 55%. 

Two average low-wage workers will earn about $79,000. And if one is a part-time worker, then that household's income would be $20,000 plus $37,786, or $57,786/year. Both amounts are well under the survival budget of MIT, EPI, and ALICE.    

And the total national income, says the Fed's Flow of Funds, recent Jan. 9, 2026 report: $25.613 trillion. Divide that by 134 million households: $191,000 average household income/year. And average wealth is $1.35 million per household (same report, see pages 10 and 2).  

The Supplemental Poverty Measure, 2024, shows 41.5% of households have incomes below 200% (double) the Official Poverty Level (OPL). (page 12, Sept 2025 report for year 2024)

Moreover, the U.S. Census shows in the Pulse Survey of Sept. 2024 that 45.6% report "very stressful" regarding the "level of stress caused by price increases over the past two months". 45.6% report "very stressful", another 25.7% report "moderately stressful", and 21.8% report "mildly", and only 5.8% report "not at all". As a society we are not doing well. 

Reinforcing this pattern is the "Making Ends Meet" survey from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Nov. 2024. It reports that 42.3% of households could not pay normal expenses for more than 30 days, they "do not have the savings or ability to borrow to protect themselves from an income fall in the future" (page 18) Add to the list the Brookings report and the Pulse survey: 

40%, 40%, 40%, 40%, 40%. Seems like a lot of agreement about "personal financial insecurity". Precarity -- Insecurity -- Anxiety!  

Let me add something a little crazy. The CBO report on Income in 2018 has a graph, Exhibit One, that shows visually the incomes of different citizens. The top 0.01% are shown in a small box, below. If the graph had been true to facts the line showing the top 0.01% would extend about 24 inches off the right side of the page. 
You see the top 1% extends to $2 million, but the top 0.01% extends to $44.5 million, about 24 inches off the right side of the page. Curious, isn't it. It's the 1 to 2,225 ratio I mentioned earlier. The lower-earning 20% earn $20,000, the top 0.01% earn $44,500,000. This is a 1 to 2,225 ratio. The average weekly earnings of 24 million part-time workers (15% of all workers) in 2024 was $380 per week, which is $19,760 per year. (See the BLS page) There are 24 million who earn 1/2,225th what the 25,000 (or 0.01%) multi-millionaires earn.    
                     

 

Tax Cuts Will Harm Most American Families

 I prefer readers read my most previous articles, May, April 2025 and December 2024. But since we are facing an ugly proposal of tax cuts for the wealthy, I'm posting this "letter to the editor" that the Mariposa Gazette published on June 5, 2025. It's short. The better choice is to read the most previous articles (postings) and get a broader understanding of the entire economy: the inequality of income and wealth distribution, the extent of poverty and hardship affecting at least 40% of U.S. citizens, and the solutions available -- (the December 2024 essay, most importantly a method to force the largest corporations to pay much higher wages). Start at the "solutions available" essay.  

Mariposa Gazette, letter to editor,    May 31, 2025,  

Why the Trump/GOP Tax Cuts Make No Sense  

It’s well known among economists that the tax cuts for the wealthy make no sense. Since 1973 the average yearly income of the nonsupervisory worker, commonly known as the “employee”, and involving 80% of all who work in the U.S., the average income for this worker was higher in 1973 than in 2025. So, think about it. The average wage income for 80% of U.S. workers was higher 52 years ago.

The median household income was $82,316 in 1973, and it was $83,730 in 2024; an increase of less than 2% over 51 years. That's an average of 0.034% per year. Nothing. "Disaster" is the best descriptor for this performance. I suggest to professional economists that they take stock of this. The presumption of most economic advisors is a slowly improving economy benefitting everyone -- but the truth is far from that.  

During the 52 years 1973 to 2025 the per capita income, inflation adjusted, increased, by 151% (Federal Reserve, FRED, Real Disposable Personal Income: Per Capita (A229RX0)) From January 1973 to April 2025, an increase from $20,904 to $52,589, up 151%.

Eighty percent of workers had no income gains, the per capita economy expands by 151% -- who do you think reaped the benefit? Therefore, what sense does it make to cut taxes for the very wealthy whose incomes have exploded, which is essentially what the Trump tax cuts are all about. These are all documented facts, by the way.   The next graph shows the growth of households' incomes, the top line is the top 1% of households whose incomes increased from $795,200 in 1976 to $2,800,000 in Feb. 2023, increasing by a multiple of 3.5. or 252%. (From RealTime Inequality, Household Income, Factor Income, Real Income Growth).

To the majority of working America the cuts simply hand more power to the wealthy few. Many economists call our era the “New Gilded Age”, the age of new robber barons. These economists have it right. Here’s a quote from a study (page 12) with that title:  
 
"The average inflation-adjusted income of the bottom 99 percent of families grew by 100.1 percent between 1945 and 1973. Over the same period, the average income of the top 1 percent of families grew by 34.3 percent. Faster income growth for the bottom 99 percent of families meant that the top 1 percent captured just 4.9 percent of all income growth over the period. (Data are shown in Appendix Table B7.) 
 
The pattern in the distribution of income growth reversed itself from 1973 to 2007 as the income of the bottom 99 percent of families grew much more slowly (by just 15.4 percent) compared with the top 1 percent, whose average income grew by 216.4 percent. As a result, over half (58.7 percent) of all income growth in this period landed in the hands of the top 1 percent of families. (Data are shown in Appendix Table B8.)" (See “The New Gilded Age” by E. Sommeiller and Mark Price, EPI.org, p.12) 

My next quote comes from David Madland in a 2016 article published at the Center for American Progress:  
“Wages for the typical private-sector worker, adjusted for inflation, are still about where they were in the 1970s, even as the costs of core middle-class goods such as housing, healthcare, child care, and higher education have grown rapidly. Economic output per person has nearly doubled over the past four decades, but the vast majority of these gains have gone to those at the very top.” (see “A Path Forward for the Middle Class and the Country”, Nov 6, 2016) 

From the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, “Roughly 68% of the tax cuts go to the richest 20% in the U.S. . . . For working-class Americans, the tax cuts in the House bill are extremely modest, and overall taxes would rise for these families when the impact of tariffs are accounted for.” (See “Federal Tax Debate 2025” at ITEP.org)

How did the highest earning 20% do over the past 40 years or so? They did better by far than any other sector of the population. The Congressional Budget Office published the report “Trends in the Distribution of Income After Transfers and Taxes, 1979 to 2018", and it shows that the highest earning 20% increased their post-tax and post-transfer income by $132,800, from $111.1K to $243.9K over 39 years. Their pre-tax income grew by $169,400, from $152,3000 to $321,700.

The lower 20% increased their post-tax post-transfer income by $18,000, from $19,700 to $37,700. 1979 to 2018, pre-tax pre-transfer income grew $6,400, or 40%, from $16,100 to $22,500. To be noted: the post-tax income in 1979 was $3,600 higher than the pre-tax income; and in 2018 post-tax income was $15,200 higher than pre-tax income. This demonstrates the growth of social benefit programs aiding the lower-income group. The middle 60% income group increased their post tax post transfer incomes by $25,600. 1979 to 2018, pre-tax pre-transfer income grew $21,800, or 37%, from $59,000 to $80,800. The top 20% increased their post-tax post-transfer income by $132,800 1979 to 2018, pre-tax pre-transfer income grew by $169,400, or 111%, from $152,300 to $321,700. Just looking at pre-tax pre-transfer we see this reality: The top 20% has about 14 times more income than the lower 20%; and it has about 4 times more the income of the middle 60%. Taxes and social transfers reduce this enormous inequality; the top 20% has about 6.5 times more income than the lower 20%; and about 3.3 times more income than the middle 60%.

The average income of all households in the lower four quintiles (below 80%) would be $22,710 higher in 2025 if we had the income distribution of 1979. I went to "Data Underlying Exhibits", searched Exhibit 6 and found that a 9.6% of total income shifted from the lower 80% of households to the top 20%. That equates to $22,710 income loss among all households in the lower 80%. I did the same calculation at RealTime Inequality, (see share of total income, factor income, households) and found a 15.4% shift of income between 1976 and 2023, which equates to a loss of $33,000 of income for all households earning less than $200,000 per year, the lower 90%. The economy has shifted its distribution seriously to create dysfunction and perhapscatastrophe if it continues shifting income away from the lower-earners.

Inequality writ large. This is unsustainable. Maybe Mexico can exist this way, but the U.S. economy could easily crash and become like Mexico.

The harm that the tax cuts will do is well documented at CBPP.org and CAP.org and EPI.org.  Therefore, if you wish to damage the U.S. population, then support the tax cuts; otherwise, you can call or write a letter to the President and his team in Congress.   

Ben Leet, resident of Mariposa                   Economics Without Greed, Part Two  ____________________________________________________________________________________    

Short is beautiful. I encourage the reader to read these 3 articles: From CBPP -- Several essays describe cuts in food aid, healthcare subsidies, cuts to rural communities, etc. -- all the victims of this ugly tax cut bill. This one summarizes the negative effects of the OBBB. The article by Nick Gwyn proposes 8 improvements to raise incomes of low income workers.

From CAP.org -- a frightening article about rising costs due to the cuts in programs, a brief quote: "A 60-year-old couple making $85,000 per year who hope to stay on their same marketplace plan would see their annual premium costs skyrocket by $15,400, from about $6,900 to about $22,300.

From EPI.org -- To quote: "Under this legislation, the bottom 40% of households would lose income and resources while the top 1% of households—those making nearly $800,000 a year—would gain enormously."

Inequality report from the Congressional Budget Office, 2021

The previous two blog posts -- the December 2024, the April 2025 -- and this one comprise a summary of what I have been saying since I began blogging over a decade ago. They work together. The main problem has been no growth in wages since 1973. The solutions are multiple. That's the outline for this posting and the previous two. Societal happiness on one hand or societal distress and lost dreams hang on the outcome of money issues. Survival itself. The economy is complex, the solutions defy simplicity. 

The first, here, is about income distribution. The next explains and 'proves' that 40% of U.S. society have been left out of prosperity and damaged by our malfunctioning economy. And the December one is about Solutions. And it's long; I offer about a dozen solutions. 

            The CBO Report on Inequality                                                "Distribution of Household Income, 2018" is the title, but it covers the period between 1979 and 2018, a 39 year period. My focus will be on  Exhibit 22 (page 32), as it demonstrates the unequal gains the top 20% made during the 39 year period. The CBO title for the pdf report is "Trends in the Distribution of Income After Transfers and Taxes, 1979 to 2018" from the Congressional Budget Office.  

The graph below appears on page 32, and below this graph is a link to the data source where we uncover the details, see "Data Underlying the Exhibits". I find the details inflamatory, a conclusive set of evidence that our economy has failed. The table shows 3 groups' average incomes over 39 years; the groups are the lowest earning 20%, the middle 3 quintiles or middle 60%, and the top quintile or 20%.

The table shows that the lowest 20% increased their post-tax and post-transfer real (inflation adjusted) incomes by $18,000, from $19.7K to $37.7K. This is a 91% gain, mostly caused by government transfers of in-kind services (Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, housing subsidies, etc.) or income (Social Security, Earned Income Credit, and cash assistance). This graph above is post-tax and post-transfer income.

The middle 60% grew their income by $25,600, from $48,200 to $73,800. This is an 88% gain. 

The top quintile grew their income by $132,800, from $111.1K to $243.9K, an increase of 119%. 

It's illustrative to also compare the pre-tax-and-pre-transfer incomes, by looking at Exhibit 3 (again see Data Underlying Statistics). By my calculation the lower-earning quintile received only 3% of all growth, the mid 60% group 27%, and the top 20% received 70%.
The Pre-Tax Income:
The lower 20% pre-tax income increased over 39 years from $16,100 to $22,500 (a gain of $6,400 and up 40%, but post-tax average increased from $19.7K to  $37.7K, up 91%);
the mid 60% pre-tax income increased from $59,000 to $80,000 (a gain of $21,000 and up 37%, but post-tax income increased from $48.2K to $73.8K, a gain of $25.6K and up 53%),
and the top 20% average pre-tax income grew from $152,300 to $321,700 (a gain of $169,400 and up 111%, but post-tax increased from $111.1K to $243.9K, up 119%). Therefore, the lower 20% gained greatly from transfers, and the middle 60% and the higher 20% gained from lower tax rates.
More importantly, though, the top earners gained from the wage freeze of the lower-earners; that is, the income gains withheld from lower-earning workers was confiscated by the wealthy. This "confiscation" was disguised as efficient market results. It resulted in the  impoverishment of millions.  

Not to make it too complicated, in 1979 the lower 20% pre-tax-and-transfer income was $16,100 and a post-tax post-transfer income of $18,000 -- only a gain of $1,900. Social benefit transfer were meager.  
But post-transfer income greatly increased by 2018; in 2018 the pre-tax and pre-transfer average income for the lower 20% was $22,500, and post-tax-transfer it was $37,700 (a gain of $15,200 or 66%). Clearly the in-kind social benefit transfers aided the lower 20% households enormously. 

The following graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that "average weekly earnings" for about 80% of full-time workers were slightly higher in 1973 than in 2025, higher by 4.3%. The overall economy per person grew by 138%. Prosperity did not touch the average income of 80% of workers.  

Perhaps this is the most important graph I've encountered in all the years of looking around. Note the precipitous drop from Feb. 1973 to  May 1993, a drop of 29.9% between the two dates. If the average was $50,000 in 1973, the average fell to $35,050 in May of 1993. The 1973 peak has not been re-achieved after 52 years. In Feb. 2023 weekly earnings still lag the Feb. 1973 peak by 4.3%. How much did the economy (GDP/capita and inflation adjusted) grow in 52 years? By 138% (see the Fed's FRED).
                                

The CBO reports that 58% of growth, post-tax-transfer, went to the top 20%, and 34% went to the middle 60%, and 8% went to the lower 20%. This finding is similar to the finding from a study by the Economic Policy Institute, "The New Gilded Age". This study reviewed  disparate growth favoring the lower 99% between 1945 and 1973, and a switch to disparate growth favoring the richest from 1973 to 2018. On page 12, pdf version, we learn the staggering differences,  

"The average inflation-adjusted income of the bottom 99 percent of families grew by 100.1 percent between 1945 and 1973. Over the same period, the average income of the top 1 percent of families grew by 34.3 percent. Faster income growth for the bottom 99 percent of families meant that the top 1 percent captured just 4.9 percent of all income growth over the period. (Data are shown in Appendix Table B7.)

The pattern in the distribution of income growth reversed itself from 1973 to 2007 as the income of the bottom 99 percent of families grew much more slowly (by just 15.4 percent) compared with the top 1 percent, whose average income grew by 216.4 percent. As a result, over half (58.7 percent) of all income growth in this period landed in the hands of the top 1 percent of families. (Data are shown in Appendix Table B8.)"

If the reader finds his head awash in a sea of floating numbers, do not despair. The main idea is very clear -- growth overwhelmingly benefitted the top earners -- period. 

I find it strange but conclusive that the "58%" figure occurs in both the New Gilded Age report and in my calculation of the CBO report. Perhaps it is accurate? But the  CBO report attributes the 58% growth to the top 20%, the EPI report refers it to the top 1%, and the dates are slightly different. Another report from the RAND Corporation shows similar if not exact figures; the conclusion of RAND only reinforces the other conclusions. The Introduction to the RAND study states, "aggregate income for the population below the 90th percentile over this time period would have been $2.5 trillion (67 percent) higher in 2018 had income growth since 1975 remained as equitable as it was in the first two post-War decades." 

The average weekly earnings (converted into annual income) for the 82% of all workers, the nonsupervisory worker, is $54,640 (see BLS Table B.8). RAND says the counterfactual average income would be $91,248/year (67% higher). Social conditions I argue would be much differrent had growth continued to be equally shared. The average household income is around $185,000, believe it or not, but in actual fact the middle-earning household income, the median, was $80,610 in 2023. (Divide national income, $24.472 trillion by 132 million households = $185,000).  

The Federal Reserve provides (here, here, and here) data showing growth between June 1979 and June 2018: 1) Real Disposable Personal Income grew by 102%; 2) Real Gross Domestic Product per capita grew by 93% during the 39 year period, and 3) Real Personal Consumption Expenditures grew by 108%. This is somewhat consistent with the growth figures for post-tax incomes. 

The pre-tax incomes -- not post-tax -- of the 3 groups are shown in Exhibit 3. Comparing the pre-tax with the post-tax shows that the post-transfer distributions were greater in 2018 than in 1979, especially for the lowest 20%, and the tax burden was lower in 2018, especially for the higher incomes. It shows that the pre-tax income of the lowest 20% in 1979 was $16,100, and post-tax it was $19,700, a gain of $3,600 or of 22%. This changes radically by 2018. The pre-tax average is $19,700 and post-tax it's $37,700, a gain of $18,000 or 95%. While their pre-tax  incomes in 39 years grew by only 40%, from $16.1K to $22.5K, their post-tax income grew from $19.7K to $37.7K, a 91% increase. Government transfers increased greatly for the lower-earning group.   

And for the highest earning 20%, their federal tax rate dropped from 27% in 1979 to 24% in 2018, even though their incomes had increased by 119%, by $132,800,  from $111.1K to $243.9K. I believe the tax cuts occured under Reagan, Bush 2, and Trump. We can check that at this article from the Center for American Progress, "Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio."   

I visualize the economy from the CBO report as the 10 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 70 income distribution economy. Roughly, the lower 20% receives 10 dollars, the next 3 quintiles receive 60 dollars, and the last 20% receives 70 dollars; the total for all is 140. The top 20% receives about half. The CBO report states that the top 20% receives 48% of all post-tax and post-transfer income, and that reflects roughly the 10-20-20-20-70 picture I paint. This is a social disaster, in my opinion, if you hadn't already guessed. 

   The RealTime Inequality Comparison   
Let's compare the CBO's chart with the RealTime Inequality graph. This shows percentage of income growth 1976 to 2018. The top red is the top 10%, the dotted white is the average growth, the blue the middle 40%, and the orange is the lower 50% of households, post-tax and post-transfer income movement. First graph is growth:  

The next shows RealTime's graph on "Average Real Income" for the 3 groups and the dotted white for all groups , 

This graph indicates, 1979 to 2018, the households in the lower 50% grew their real post-tax and post-transfer income by $8,200. The middle 40%, between the 50th and 90th percentiles, grew their incomes by $30,500, and the top 10% grew their incomes by $239,100. This is really grotesque! 

I can't understand how anyone would not be disgusted. 
I understand why many people are disgusted with the status quo. 

The CBO shows the lowest 20%, then the middle 60%, and the top 20%.
The RealTime shows the lowest 50%, then the middle 40%, and the top 10%. 
Both indicate the top income growth and total income levels far surpasses the growth and incomes in the lower-earning household population.   

 I think the above argument and graphs are central to understanding how distressed the U.S. population is about the malfunctioning economy. The lion's share goes to the richest and the crumbs go to the poorest.