nb_cid nb_clickOther -tt-nb this.style.behavior='url(#default#homepage)';this.setHomePage('http://www.aol.com/?mtmhp=acmpolicybanner081514 network-banner-promo mtmhpBanner
14
Search AOL Mail
AOL Mail
Video
Video
AOL Favorites
Favorites
Menu

Wealth gap: A guide to what it is, why it matters

Winter Weather
WASHINGTON (AP) - From the White House to the Vatican to the business elite in Davos, Switzerland, one issue keeps seizing the agenda: the growing gap between the very wealthy and everyone else.

It's "the defining challenge of our time," says President Barack Obama, who will spotlight the issue in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. A Gallup poll finds two-thirds of Americans are unhappy with the nation's distribution of wealth. Experts say it may be slowing the economy.

Why has the issue suddenly galvanized attention? Here are questions and answers about the wealth gap - what it is and why it matters.

Q. Hasn't there always been a wide gulf between the richest people and the poorest?

A. Yes. What's new is the widening gap between the wealthiest and everyone else. Three decades ago, Americans' income tended to grow at roughly similar rates, no matter how much you made. But since roughly 1980, income has grown most for the top earners. For the poorest 20 percent of families, it's dropped. Incomes for the highest-earning 1 percent of Americans soared 31 percent from 2009 through 2012, after adjusting for inflation, according to data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at University of California, Berkeley. For the rest of us, it inched up an average of 0.4 percent. In 17 of 22 developed countries, income disparity widened in the past two decades, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Q. So who are the top 1 percent in income?

A. They're bankers, lawyers, hedge fund managers, founders of successful companies, entertainers, senior managers and others. One trend: Corporate executives, doctors, and farmers made up smaller shares of the top 1 percent in 2005 than in 1979. By contrast, the proportion of the wealthiest who work in the financial and real estate industries has doubled. The top 1 percent earned at least $394,000 in 2012. Through most of the post-World War II era, the top 1 percent earned about 10 percent of all income. By 2007, that figure had jumped to 23.5 percent, the most since 1928. As of 2012, it was 22.5 percent.

Q. How has the middle class fared?

A. Not well. Median household income peaked in 1999 at $56,080, adjusted for inflation. It fell to $51,017 by 2012. The percentage of American households with income within 50 percent of the median - one way of measuring the middle class - fell from 50 percent in 1970 to 42 percent in 2010.

Q. Does it matter if some people are much richer than others?

A. Most economists say some inequality is needed to reward hard work, talent and innovation. But a wealth gap that's too wide is usually unhealthy. It can slow economic growth, in part because richer Americans save more of their income than do others. Pay concentrated at the top is less likely to be spent.

It can also trigger reckless borrowing. Before the 2008 financial crisis, middle class households struggled to keep up their spending even as their pay stagnated. To do so, they piled up debt. Swelling debt helped inflate the housing bubble and ignite the financial crisis. Experts note that the Great Depression and the Great Recession were both preceded by surging income gaps and heedless borrowing by middle class Americans.

Q. Has it become harder for someone born poor to become rich?

A. The evidence is mixed. Countries that have more equal income distributions, such as Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, tend to enjoy more social mobility. But a study released last week found that the United States isn't any less mobile than it was in the 1970s. A child born in the poorest 20 percent of families in 1986 had a 9 percent chance of reaching the top 20 percent as an adult, the study found - roughly the same odds as in 1971.

Other research has shown that the United States isn't as socially mobile as once thought. In a study of 22 countries, economist Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa found that the United States ranked 15th in social mobility. Only Italy and the Britain among wealthy countries ranked lower. By some measures, children in the United States are as likely to inherit their parents' economic status as their height.

Q. So why has income inequality worsened?

A. There's no simple answer. Globalization has created "superstars" and concentrated pay among corporate executives, Wall Street traders, popular entertainers and other financial elite. At the same time, factory workers now compete with 3 billion people in China, India, eastern Europe and elsewhere who weren't working for multinational corporations 20 years ago. Many now make products for Apple, Intel, General Motors and others at low wages. This has depressed middle-class pay. And pay has risen much faster for college graduates than for high-school graduates. These trends have contributed to a "hollowed out" labor market, with more jobs at the higher and lower ends of the pay scale and fewer in the middle.

Social factors contribute, too. Single-parent families are more likely to be poor than other families and less likely to ascend the income ladder. Finally, men and women with college degrees and high pay are more likely to marry each other and amplify income gaps.

Q. Does wealth distribution follow a similar pattern?

A. It's even more pronounced. A Pew Research Center study found that the wealthiest 7 percent of households grew 28 percent richer from 2009 through 2011. For the bottom 93 percent, collective wealth fell 4 percent. That's largely because wealthy households own far more stocks and other financial assets than others. By contrast, whatever wealth middle-class Americans have is mainly in their home equity.

Since the Great Recession ended, stock-market averages have soared, setting records in 2013. Home values, though, remain far below their peaks reached in 2006. That divergence has benefited the richest and left others struggling.

Q. Where do the 1 percent live?

A. Investor Warren Buffett famously lives in Omaha, Neb. Les Wexner, whose fashion empire includes Victoria's Secret, is an Ohioan. But the wealthy mainly cluster around the largest cities. Of the 515 U.S. billionaires, 96 live around New York City, according to the intelligence firm Wealth-X. Los Angeles is home to 22, Chicago 21, San Francisco 20, Houston 14. Millionaires are more widely dispersed. Maryland has the highest concentration. Of all its households, 7.7 percent have $1 million or more in financial assets. New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Alaska have the next-highest concentrations, according to a report from Phoenix Marketing International.

Q. Is anything being done to narrow the wealth gap?

A. President Barack Obama has made the issue a priority and wants the government to act to reduce the disparities. The president managed to restore higher tax rates on incomes above $398,350 last year. And he's pushed other steps that might narrow the gap slightly, such as a higher minimum wage. But congressional Republicans say those steps could hurt economic growth and have resisted most such measures.

Q. Is everyone concerned about the wealth gap?

A. Some conservative economists question much of the data. They note, for example, that Saez's figures don't include government benefits, such as Social Security or food stamps, or employer payments for health insurance, that benefit the less-than-rich. Yet the Congressional Budget Office did include government benefits and the effect of taxes in its own study and still found a sizable gap: For the top 1 percent, income jumped 275 percent, adjusted for inflation, from 1979 to 2007. For the middle 60 percent of Americans, it grew less than 40 percent.

Q. So what do experts say is the best way to shrink the wealth gap?

A. Most ideas break down along political lines. Liberal economists tend to support a higher minimum wage, greater access to pre-school and college education and more spending on roads, bridges and other infrastructure to help generate good-paying jobs. Most favor higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for such programs.

Conservatives tend to back tax cuts, government deregulation and other steps they say will accelerate hiring and growth and raise living standards for everyone. They tend to focus on the need to advance income mobility.

In a speech this month, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio acknowledged the enormous pay disparity between a fast food company's cashier and its CEO.

"The problem we face is not simply the gap in pay between them, but rather that too many of those cashiers are stuck in the same job for years on end," Rubio said.

Join the discussion

1000|Char. 1000  Char.
bobryl315 January 27 2014 at 2:36 PM

to get rich you must PRACTICE

Flag Reply +2 rate up
coplane January 27 2014 at 8:48 PM

Although raising the minimum wage is currently the popular answer, the net result is not likely to be what everyone hopes. 1) the price of everything- groceries, rent, clothing, etc. will simply rise to keep up with it ( Anyone out there old enough to remember $1 a gallon milk, $3 movie tickets, $300 a month rent??) and 2) even more jobs will be eliminated because they are the easiest way most businesses can cut expenses. Reducing the amount of expensive labor needed is just as logical as reducing the amount of electricity or gas you use as the price of it rises.

Flag Reply +3 rate up
Judy January 27 2014 at 8:50 PM

I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS IN DEBATE! WORK HARD, SACRIFICE, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM CAN BE ANYONES. YOU HAVE TO TRY TO GET AN EDUCATION FROM THE START. IF YOU CAN'T THEN WORK IN MCDONALDS UNTIL YOU DO. STRUGGLING ISN'T A BAD THING. IT BUILDS ON CHARACTER. WHY SHOULD IT ALWAYS COME EASY????

Flag Reply +7 rate up
1 reply
theron Judy January 27 2014 at 9:23 PM

Maybe you should learn that posting in capitol letters is considered yelling. no need to yell at us, we can read.........

Flag Reply 0 rate up
1 reply
rdz69 theron January 27 2014 at 9:39 PM

some of you need to wake up...............

Flag +2 rate up
nnorthcharleston January 27 2014 at 4:05 PM

what is the % of the congress and senate that are in the one % class

Flag Reply +2 rate up
coplane January 27 2014 at 8:53 PM

So we are likely to have a lot of people saying " I would be making $15 an hour, IF I had a job"
Trouble is he was replaced by a scanner or robot that always shows up on time for work, never takes a holiday or vacation, doesn't need a pension, or health insurance, or sick days, doesn't join a union, or complain or need a break.

Flag Reply +2 rate up
jhare58307 January 27 2014 at 4:02 PM

We need more jobs. What happened to the President's job committee that never met? I think the plan is to manifest subsistence dependency to exacerbate the chasm of the haves and have nots.

Flag Reply +3 rate up
anitaper January 27 2014 at 4:02 PM

Under obama the wealth has pushed up to the 1% when we use to have a middle class, a upper middle class, a wealthy class, a rich class a filthy rich class and the 5% er's ! Now there is just the poor, the poorer and the really poor and the 1% er's ! Never give the power to the working class, all you get is more working class and less wealth as in communism!

Flag Reply +3 rate up
tbrnnn3 January 27 2014 at 3:58 PM

social security is NOT a benefit
i paid good money in and now i am getting a handout?????
someone needs to get educated

Flag Reply +3 rate up
2 replies
rpatchell tbrnnn3 January 27 2014 at 4:13 PM

It is you who need the education. Social Security is NOT an investment system and courts have ruled over and over that you do NOT have ownership rights to any current or future benefits. It is welfare entitlement systemand is a pay as you go system where people currently paying in are soupporting the people who are drawing benifits. It is just broader based than the tax system so people like you feel like they are invested in it. There is nothing wrong with that feeling and it would be better if most people paid income tax for the same reason.

Flag Reply +1 rate up
danrocks tbrnnn3 January 27 2014 at 4:25 PM

The money you put in has long been spent, you are being paid by current workers. You will take out more than you put in, so you can call it whatever you want.

Flag Reply +1 rate up
pizzageogh January 27 2014 at 9:05 PM

Like I said in an earlier post I do not know the answer, but I would like to comment on some of the posts that are upset with companies taking their plants to other countries. Here is the problem they want to survive! It is a global economy and the companies in the United States compete with companies from all over the world for sales. If they pay $15 an hour to make the same product that the guy in China is paying $2 an hour you can not compete. The great days of employment in this country was when we led the world in industrialization, we exported way more than we imported. You used to go into stores and find it hard to find products on the shelves made in other countries. Now it is hard to find some that are made here in the United States. So I ask, are all of the people complaining about no jobs and low pay, are you willing to pay 20%, 30%, 40% more for an item and only doing that for, oh say, 20 years or so? If so problem solved, lots of higher paying jobs and everybody is happy.

Flag Reply +5 rate up
1 reply
kingwilltile pizzageogh January 27 2014 at 9:09 PM

survive? did you read the article? profits for the wealthy are up 275%LOL $2 an hour in China, try $2 a week maybe. So slave labor is ok to you?

Simple answer buy American, increase minimum wage, benefits for evryone(got this one thansk to Obama)

Flag Reply +1 rate up
3 replies
William January 27 2014 at 8:45 PM

Anyone can read this article and come to one conclusion....the wealthy aren't to blame for anyones wealth but their own. It's become a liberal lie to blame those that have wealth for the fact that some do not. But the liberals aren't blaming Warren Buffet, or Bloomberg....and they certainly are at the top of the 1%. Hard work has been replaced with envy by liberal "victims" who are intent of blaming the wealthy for all of the economic problems. Income inequality has nothing to do with what you are worth, it's about how you handle the opportunities given to you. And liberal politicians only offer one opportunity...."vote for me and get entitlements". And now 5 years of "Hope and Change" have been 5 wasted years....wasted on blaming, complaining, denying and lying to the very voters who put him in office. All of you who still believe these lies deserve exactly what you have...empty promises. But because of you, half the country is living the same disaster. It's funny that when you talk about the richest 10% owning half the wealth you forget that they also pay for every entitlement you get.

Flag Reply +6 rate up
2 replies
bbeckbass William January 27 2014 at 8:58 PM

Couldn't have said it any better. You hit the nail on the head. Too bad the people who need to hear what they don't want to hear are deaf to it. Bill Cosby was right. He's a black guy, right? But blacks don't want to hear that from one of their own, because they'd have to work and quit having illegitimate chilluns. I saw this week one gal who doesn't look over 36 who has FIFTEEN children. No father, of course. She said, and I quote, "Someone needs to be helpd accountable and pay for myu kids." Absoultely mind-boggling that someone ELSE needs to be help accountable.

Flag Reply +5 rate up
rdz69 William January 27 2014 at 9:41 PM

well said William.

Flag Reply +1 rate up
aol~~ 1209600

Voting...

Back to School Deal

1408551686578

A new item every day in August
Back to School deal

More From Our Partners