A dramatic shift in income distribution occurred between 1976 and 2023; the shift saw the lower-earning 90% of households losing 15.4% of the national income. They were earning 62.4% of all income in 1976, and earned 47% in 2023. The web page RealTime Inequality ( realtimeinequality.org ) produced by Univ. of California Berkeley economists, shows this income distribution shift. Conversely, the top 10% were earning 37.7% and now earn 53.1%. It's ridiculous to think that 10% deserve so much of the national reward for work.We have in the U.S. a crisis of poverty and hardship, of people struggling to get through life without the resources they need. Approximately 42% endure hardship and/or poverty, and even 27% of the population went without some type of medical care in 2023 because they could not afford it. Some 52% of adults say the "Largest emergency expense" they could afford is $2,000. (See the ALICE report for the 42% of U.S. households, and the Fed's report "Economic Well-Being" for the 27% and 52% numbers, pages 31 and 33.) The average income per household is $170,000, and the per capita income of every human after-paying-federal-taxes income is $64,269, and the national income divided by all citizens is $69,143 ($23.2323 trillion divided by 336 million). Therefore, the typical family of four should have an income of $276,572. One would think . . . that a mere $2,000 would be in reach of every adult! But it is not. It's time to revamp our system and toss out our blind acceptance of the invisible hand, or whatever it is, and create a fairer society. That's the gist of this post and web blog.
The 15.4% shift equals $3.556 trillion that once went to the lower 90% of households --- and that amounts to $30,393 per household for 117,000,000 households, all earning less than $200,000. (see Flow of Funds, page 10 for total national income amount).
Imagine 117 million households with $30,000 more income each year. That would look like the U.S. economy in 1976. We did it then, we can do it now. The report from the RAND Corporation also shows such a dramatic shift, Trends in Income from 1975 to 2018. They show the median adult worker earning $26,000 in 1975 and $36,000 in 2018, but the counterfactual income would have been $57,000 had growth been shared equally. The worker at the middle income position saw his annual income grow by $10,000, from $26K to $36K, when it could have grown by $31,000, from $26K to $57K. Each middle or median worker would have $21,000 more income yearly. A two-worker family of course would have seen a gain of over $40,000, at the median income level.
In the 34 years between 1973 and 2007, 58.7% of the nation's economic growth was captured by just 1% of the population. This is the finding of "The New Gilded Age", published by the Economic Policy Institute, page 12. During this 34 year period the "Real GDP per capita" grew by 93%, but of that growth the top 1% received most of the gains; the one percent saw their average income grow by 216%, more than tripling, the study reports. This is tremendous growth. In contrast, during the previous 28 years, 1945 to 1973, the lower-earning 99% captured 95.1% of the growth and saw their incomes increase by 100.1%, while the 1% captured only 4.9% of growth, and increased their incomes by 34%. It's difficult to imagine how crazy and unfair the most recent and unequal result is, and how poorly reported it is. This income distribution shift is called a "market failure", and only government intervention can reset the error. The word socialist crops-up in my mind at this point. Am I a socialist? Economics Without Greed is a slant I believe in. Almost a majority of the nation's families are experiencing a crisis of economic insecurity, it's time to seek solutions.
Very unequal sharing of income leads inevitably to extreme wealth inequality. Now, take a quick look at wealth inequality using the Fed's Distributional Accounts page. The top 10% own 67% of all private wealth, the next 40%, the 50th to 90th percentiles, own 30.8%, and the lower 50% own 2.5%.
In 1989 the total wealth was $20.88 trillion. The nominal national income was $5.6 trillion. I have an instinct now that the reader will soon be lost in a shower of numbers; so, let me explain: I'm about to compare annual national income with total private wealth. The ratio of 'income to wealth' in 1989 was 1 to 3.7. Today's ratio is 1 to 7.0 (see Fed's Flow of Funds, page 2 and 10). Wealth grows much faster than income. It's not that strange. When so much of the nation's surplus, call it profits, is received by a minority who cannot put it into productive enterprise, the result is an inflation of paper financial assets. The same thing happened in the 1920s leading into the Great Depression. This phenomenon is driving today's stock prices. The Dow Jones Index could crumble and only 10% of society would directly lose wealth. But indirectly a huge catastrophe would befall employment and the total economic production.
Adjust the 1989 total wealth figure of $20.88 trillion for inflation, and total wealth in 1989 is $52.48 trillion in 2024 dollars. But in 2024 total wealth is shown at $151.68 trillion (or it's $163 trillion using the Flow of Funds figure, page 2), indicating that total wealth has almost tripled in value, from $54Tr to $151 Tr. Did weekly earnings or wages also triple? No, they increased by 10% since 1979 and by 14% since 1989 (see Fed's FRED graph). But beginning the comparison in 1979 or 1989 is deceptive, because wages fell dramatically from 1973 at their peak to the amount in 1989. Since 1973 wages for the "nonsupervisory" 80% of workers have decreased by 4%. More accurately, since 1973 -- a 51 year period -- wages have fallen by 4%,
while wealth increased by 200% (tripled). And the GDP per capita increased by 157%, or a multiple of 2.57. See GDP/capita here.
Is something WRONG????????????
The graph below shows the collapse of "weekly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers", meaning "employees"; they have fallen by 4% in the past 51 years. The reader should note the difference between the 1973 level, the 1979 and 1989 levels. The RAND Corporation study shows that wage income for men has dropped by 4% during the 43 years (1975 to 2018) of its study.
And did median household income triple? The real (inflation adjusted) 1984 median household income is $58,280, while the 2023 median household income is $80,610, a gain of 38%. (go to Fed's FRED web page, and adjust for inflation at the BLS page). While the median household's income increases by 38%, the total household net worth, or private wealth, tripled, up 200%. And "Real disposable [after tax] personal income" tripled between 1984 and 2023, increasing from $6,000 to over $17,000. To repeat, income per capita nearly triples, total household wealth triples -- the middle income household income rises 38%.
And since Febuary 2009 stocks on the S&P 500 have increased by almost a factor of 8, from 700 to 5700. A factor of EIGHT. What was worth $1 million almost 15 years ago is now worth $8 million (or billion or trillion). For greater accuracy we should adjust for inflation the 2009 $1 million. It turns out that the $1 million is now worth $5.37 million --- stocks quintupled in value in 15 years. The real median household income increased by 18%, not 400%.
When income inequality gets bad, the wealthy have no productive outlet for their increasing wealth; they deposit their over-sized income money into paper assets we call financial assets. The Federal Reserve calls them "nontangible assets". As more and more income pours into the value of paper assets, the total value of "nontangible assets" rises, but does nothing to increase the amount of "tangible" assets. The ratio of total wealth to annual national income is close to a record high in Q1 2024 (Flow of Funds report, Table B.101, line 50, page 140). The Fed's FRED page shows the graph:
We have too much wealth, it produces nothing. It distorts markets incentivizing production for expensive purchasers at the expense of lower-earning purchasers. The housing market is a case in point. Wealth sits idle indefinitely, wasted when it could be serving society, a definition of hoarding. I think of it as sociopathology, a sickness, a worry and anxiety.
Today's ratio of national disposable income to wealth stands at 776%, and this is 49% higher than the historical level (1946 to 1996) of around 520%.
The historical average of this ratio indicates that out of a total $160 trillion in “household net worth” we have about $45 trillion in excess private wealth. The appreciated value of financial assets is often converted into higher housing prices, and then the housing market only serves the wealthy.
The United Way charity publishes the ALICE report each year, Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. It shows that 42% of U.S. adults live with economic hardship or poverty, only 58% are above the hardship level. Other studies show this is roughly the condition of U.S. families. For example the survey from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, December 2023, page 13: "In January 2023, 37.8 percent of households had difficulty paying at least one bill or expense in the previous year." I could find more such reports easily. For instance, the Credit Suisse Databook for 2022 shows the lower 40% own only 0.1% of all U.S. wealth, which amounts to about $1,500 per adult. The top 10% own 75.9%, and that leaves 24% for the 40th to 90th percentile middle 50%. (page 140, Credit Suisse Databook. This Databook has been removed from the web, probably due to the merger of C.S. with UBS Bank.) In 2017 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published a Financial Well-Being report which shows, on page 80, that 54% of respondents have less than $5,000 in liquid savings, 33% have less than $1,000, and 24% have less than $250. And the "average" household savings is $1.2 million. A third of U.S. adults can't find $1,000 in cash!
The Fed's 2024 report "Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households" shows, page 38, that 52% of American adults cannot afford more than a $2,000 emergency expense. This is a nation with an average household income of $170,000, yet half the adults can't find $2,000 in a pinch. This shows the ridiculous imbalance of income and wealth.
Two key stats to remember is that the total national income divided by all households is $170,000 per household; and the average household "net worth" is $1.2 million. Yet the lower-earning 50% of households all earned less than $80,610 in 2023. (I use the figures from the Flow of Funds, page 10, $170,000, and the U.S. Census, 133 million.) $170,000 is average. The lower half is not doing well, and it's a crime rarely described as a crime. The RealTime Inequality site shows some details. Households' "Average Real Factor Income" for the lower 50% is $18,900; and their "Average Real Post-tax Income" is around $39,200 – it more than doubles when social benefit transfers are added. (Those figures are from RealTime Inequality.)
A Ratio of Income Inequality
I find the best mental picture is a ratio from lower 50% to middle 40% to upper 10%. I show the households' ratios.
The ratio for households factor (or market) income is 1 to 6.2 to 33.9.
The ratio for households post-tax income is 1. to 3.2 to 12.8.
In dollar amounts for factor income it is $18,900 to $117,900 to $640,800.
For post-tax income it is $39,200 to $127,000 to $503,500.
Half of households receive $40K, the next 40% $130K, the last 10% $500K.
$1 -------------- $3.25 ------- $12.5
I maintain this is a disaster, pure and simple.
Taxation and social benefit programs make life liveable for the lower 50%.
Some Solutions
We need policies to raise incomes and lower costs; that would entail support for the PRO Act and the RewardWork Act to reshape the architecture of the largest corporations. Other lesser improvements would be a much higher minimum wage, a larger Earned Income Tax Credit, and a refundable (universal) Child Tax Credit. To further raise incomes we need a public employment program along the lines proposed by Philip Harvey. As I suggest in my previous blog post, we could also implement a national corporate charter for the largest 2,000 national companies and impose a mandatory employee bonus each year. These companies employee about a third of all workers.
To lower prices we need Medicare for All. The recent Commonwealth Fund report shows, again, the failure of our healthcare system. We need a very large public housing program along the lines proposed by Bernie Sanders. We should expand the Child Tax Credit, and include a universal child care and pre-K learning program, and provide a cancelation of student debts. The list goes on. Mostly our minds are paralyzed by the idea we have not enough money to create these benefits -- But $170,000 is the average household income, and $1.2 million is the average savings -- we have the money.
How high was the highest personal tax rate? The IRS has the data, and the BLS has the inflation adjustment calculator. The tax rate on the highest personal income -- 1948 incomes higher than $5.3 million in 2024 dollars, and in 1964 incomes above $4,000,000 -- the rate was 90% on income in excess of $4 or $5 million. There are 1 million tax payers with incomes above $1,000,000 shows the Joint Committee on Taxation, May, 2024. They earn 15.5% of all income; they are 0.6% of all taxpayers; their average income is $3.3 million; they pay an effective tax rate of 30.4% (on income above $600,000 they pay a rate of 37%). And their taxes equal 23% of all tax revenues. (page 38)
That's a welter of numbers. Probably they avoid a lot of taxes through evasion and under-reporting. We could also raise the capital gains tax and the corporate tax. A wealth tax should be explored. Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax on estates above $50 million. The Center for Budget and Policy also advocates for higher tax revenues. Out of 38 developed nations only 7 take in less in taxes (as a percentage of GDP) than the U.S. If the U.S. raised 42% more tax revenue we would equal the OECD average; 42% equals $1.8 trillion new taxes. We tax $4.3 trillion; we could tax $1.8 more bringing in a total of $6.1 trillion -- then we would be average among developed nations. In short, we can tax our way out of the national debt problem and the expanding need for social benefit programs. I wrote an essay about Trump's One Good Idea. "‘Personally this plan would cost me hundreds of millions of dollars, but in all honesty, it's worth it,’ Trump said." Personally, this plan would not cost me a penny, it's one of Trump's few good ideas. It's at my old blog. He proposed taxing wealth and paying off the national debt.
But mostly we need higher wages for low-earning workers. The lower-earning 55% of U.S. full-time workers, 60 million workers, have an average income of $36,563/year (see the Job Quality Index). Boosting the pay of full-time nonsupervisory workers would also boost the incomes for 28 million part-time workers. Therefore, the target is to raise incomes for 88 million workers, or about 55% of all workers. 88 million workers is a majority of workers.
Looking at the wage income report from the Social Security Administration for 2022, 54% of workers earned less than $45,000 in 2022, their average annual income was $20,226. (The RealTime Inequality page shows an average income of $25,200 for this 50%.) Living off just $20,226 or $25,200 per year income is very difficult, and unhealthy for all of us. It may challenge the reader's comprehension but the total collective wage income earned by the lower-paid 54% of U.S. workers is $1.887 trillion, which is 18% of all wage income and 9% of the national income (see page 10). I am sure only geniuses can remember detailed facts like that -- suffice it to say, wage income for over half of all workers is very low -- the take home pay for half of all workers is just 9% of the total national income -- and should be raised.
There are many, many ways to restore income balance. ---------- Marjorie Kelly latest book Wealth Supremacy takes on the imbalance of wealth. Her studies will lead to economic justice and a richer society for all. The first hyperlink above leads to an interview with Laura Flanders.
Kelly objects to the imbalance of power that great wealth creates. As I've laid out above, we have an inordinate surplus of savings, which are resources wasted. Kelly says that in the 1950s total financial assets were approximately equal to the annual GDP, and today they are 5 times GDP -- this is excessive savings, sometimes referred to as hoarding. (Attempting to be accurate, I looked up the total value of financial assets, $122.516 trillion, and the total national income, $23.094 trillion. The financial assets' total is 5.3 times greater.) (See Fed's Flow of Funds, Tables B.101 and F.3)
So what? Paper assets do not clothe, house or feed anyone. Financial assets simply scour the earth attempting to increase their value -- this condition activates and creates an extractive, parasitical economy that Marjorie Kelly talks about.
A final comparison of Ratios, Income to Wealth
As you might suspect, I compared some ratios, this time the ratio between National Income and total private savings, years 1987 with 2024. I am trying to show that we have too much wealth today. I used the Federal Reserve graph pages here and here.
Finding: in 1987 the ratio of income to private savings was 3.61.
in 2024 the ratio was 5.51.
If the national income to national savings ratio were equal to 1987's, then instead of having $151 trillion in savings we would have $99.365 trillion. About a third of savings, $50 trillion, would be converted back to income for the lower 90%. The federal budget is about $6.1 trillion in 2024.
Now I'll look at the RealTime Inequality page and compare the 1987 income-to-wealth ratio with 2024 ratio. This is not rocket science, anyone can do 6th grade math on a calculator.
Conclusion: we have about $57 trillion more savings than needed. If we had the same ratio as 1987, national savings to national wealth, then instead of having $138.5 trillion savings we would have $81 trillion. RealTime and the Fed do not always agree, but mostly agree.
By chance today I went to the RAND Corporation report of 2021 about inequality of income since 1975 to 2018. From the first paragraph, this sentence: "Furthermore, over the 43-year period from 1975 to 2018, the population below the 90th percentile would have earned $47 trillion more had their incomes grown at the pace of overall per capita economic growth."
I find it interesting that the $47 trillion figure shows up, almost $51 or $57 trillion.
Having excessive savings is a sign that the minority wealthy are super-wealthy, and a lot of resources are going to waste, absolute waste; they will never manifest as a benefit to our citizens. Tax waste is a good slogan, excess wealth is waste, tax it. --------- I'm cutting things short, and short is confusing enough.
__________________________________________________________
Here are a few factoids worth adding to one's economic data collection:
First from "The New Gilded Age", published at Economic Policy Institute, authors Sommellier and Price, (page 12 of the pdf version):
"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.)
RAND Corporation report, "A New Approach to Measuring Income Inequality Over Recent Decades" ----- Published Apr 29, 2021
"Furthermore, over the 43-year period from 1975 to 2018, the population below the 90th percentile would have earned $47 trillion more had their incomes grown at the pace of overall per capita economic growth."
"For workers at the 25th percentile of income, actual income in 1975 was $28,000 per year. Had income growth for this group matched the economic growth rate, their income would have risen to $61,000 by 2018, but it actually rose to only $33,000." Instead of rising by $33,000, doubling, it rose by $5,000. They are reporting on full-time year-round workers, at the 25th percentile. If they had included part-time workers, the 25th percentile earned around $13,000, not $33,000. (See SSA report on wage income for year 2018.)
Dollars
and Sense Magazine, July 2024, John Miller --
"Higher
stock prices especially benefit the richest 1%, who owned 49.4% of stock by
value at the end of 2023, according to the Federal Reserve Board."
And 93% of all stock is owned by 10% of households, states an article at Yahoo Finance.
The S&P 500 average increased by 7.9 times between Feb. 2009 and July 2024 -- an index fund of $100,000 is now worth nearly $800,000 -- nearly an 8 fold increase in 15 years. Adjusting for inflation the S&P 500 "real" average increased by a multiple of 5.3 times or by 430%; $100,000 invested in 2009 is now $530,000. Have wages increased for nonsupervisory workers, 80% of all workers? Yes, by a multiple of 1.11, or by 11%. -- compare 11% with 430%.
This is not the picture of fairness.
Total household "real" net worth between March 2009 and June 2024, 15+ years, doubled plus, it increased by a multiple of 2.2 or by 122%, inflation adjusted. In other words, it doubled plus. (Federal Reserve Flow of Funds, Table B.101, March 2009 and March 2024).
The rich get richer, the not-rich watch prices for everything climb higher and higher.
A major cause of recent inflation, out of many, is corporate price gouging. In four years the share of the national income going to corporate profits doubles; the share increases from 6.0% to 11.5%. The Fed's Flow of Funds report, page 10, shows the share of national income going to pre-tax profits for "domestic nonfinancial" corporations was 6.0% in 2019 and 11.5% in Q1 2024 (see the Flow of Funds, page 10, for both 2009 and 2014).
One has to analyze this. How do profits double while inflation increases by 22%? During inflation a corporation has to pay more for its inputs and its labor. How then does this increase of expenses allow for a doubling of profit? Price gouging is a simple answer. The writings of Servas Storm and Isabella Weber with Evan Wasner analyze this free-market defying process.
Do I need to say again, "The system is broken."?
No comments:
Post a Comment