Mon, May 28, 2012, 6:34 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Memorial Day

How the Stinking Rich Ate the Economy

Income inequality is accelerating fastest at the top. Who are the 0.1%?

615 money money photolinc .jpg

photolinc/Shutterstock

"If a $100,000-a-year household thinks itself to be middle class," the neoconservative writer Irving Kristol once wrote, "then it is middle class." This sentiment is widely held, but it makes no mathematical sense. Any family whose income exceeds that of 90 percent of all other families cannot sensibly be called anything but rich. To believe otherwise would oblige you to judge your child mediocre when his teacher gives him an A.

But within the top decile distinctions are nonetheless worth making.

-- The Rich, defined as the top 10 percent, which today means everyone making $109,000 or more, increased their share of national income during the Great Divergence from about one third (34 percent) to nearly one half (48 percent).

-- The top 5 percent (Basically, Undeniably, Really, and Stinking Rich; today, everybody making at least $153,000) increased their share from 23 to 37 percent.

-- The top 1 percent (Undeniably, Really, and Stinking Rich; today, everybody making at least $368,000) more than doubled their share of the national income from 10 to 21 percent.

-- The top 0.1 percent (Really and Stinking Rich; today, everybody making at least $1.7 million) tripled their share of the national income to 10 percent.

-- The top 0.01 percent (the Stinking Rich; today, everybody making at least $9.1 million) nearly quadrupled their share of income during the Great Divergence, from 1.4 to 5 percent.

Notice a pattern? The richer you are, the faster you expand your slice of your country's income. Or as Emmanuel Saez put it to me, "The [inequality] phenomenon is more extreme the further you go up in the distribution," and it's "very strong once you pass that threshold of the top 1 percent."

WHO ARE THE STINKING RICH?

The Great Divergence is a dramatic departure from the status quo that prevailed in the United States from the end of World War II through the early 1980s. Although top income shares are rising in many developed countries, nowhere are they rising as fast as in the United States. Also, nowhere (except Argentina) have top income shares reached the same high level as in the United States. Indeed, if you update income share for America's one-percenters to 2008, the United States pulls slightly ahead of Argentina--not that this is a competition any sensible country would want to win.

Who is it exactly who got rich?

A 2010 study by Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley Heim, economists at Williams College, the U.S. Treasury, and Indiana University, respectively, found that among the Really and Stinking Rich -- the top 0.1 percent, who currently make at least $1.7 million -- 43 percent were executives, managers, and supervisors at nonfinancial firms, and 18 percent were financiers. Together they accounted for the majority. The professions next in line were law (7 percent), medicine (6 percent), and real estate (4 percent).

American chief executives typically get paid two to three times what their European counterparts earn. Such pay levels were not the norm during most of the twentieth century. Pay for top executives declined steeply during World War II, increased gradually from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s, and then took off like a rocket during the 1980s and 1990s. In 1973, a survey of large companies in the United States found that chief executives were paid twenty-seven times more than the average worker. By 2005 that had risen to 262 times.

The 43 percent of the Really and Stinking Rich who run America's nonfinancial corporations were very significant players in the Great Divergence. No other occupational group had a larger membership among the top 0.1 percent. But, incredibly, the quadrupling of chief executives' pay during the 1990s wasn't enough to increase this group's presence among the Really and Stinking Rich once the run-up in top income shares began. Proportionally, its membership actually diminished slightly, from 48 percent in 1979 to percent to 43 percent in 2005.

The group to watch -- the group that expanded its share of the top earners' pie -- was the nation's financiers. Back in 1979, the financial sector represented only 11 percent of the Really and Stinking Rich. By 2005, financiers represented 18 percent. In their 2010 book 13 Bankers, Simon Johnson, an economist at MIT's Sloan School of Management, and James Kwak, a former consultant at McKinsey and Company, describe the financial sector's astonishing growth over three decades through mergers and expansions into new businesses.

Between 1980 and 2000, the assets held by commercial banks, securities firms, and the securitizations they created grew from [the equivalent of] 55 percent of GDP to [the equivalent of] 95 percent ... The growth was faster still for the largest banks. Between 1990 and 1999, the ten largest bank holding companies' share of all bank assets grew from 26 percent to 45 percent, and their share of all deposits doubled from 17 percent to 34 percent.

In effect, Wall Street ate the economy.

Excerpted from The Great Divergence by Timothy Noah, published by Bloomsbury Press, 2012.





More From The Atlantic
 

12 comments

  • rosconow  •  Kelowna, Canada  •  3 months ago
    Haven't you people figured it out yet? The governments of the day work for the corporations, plain and simple. I'm not exactly sure of the particulars but, didn't the British try to outlaw corps in the 1700's? Let's not forget what J.P. Morgan so brashly stated, Give me controll of the money, and I care not who controlls the government (paraphrased).
  • Puzzled  •  Mississauga, Canada  •  3 months ago
    the really sad part about this is it was the American worker that got thrown under the bus by the executive class in pursuit of the economic imperative: efficiency,profit and making bonus by doing whatever it takes. It was easily predictable by anyone wanting to see through the 80's and 90's but now its undeniably showing up in the numbers as America's income distribution looks more like a 3rd world country than most 3rd world countries. Sad. According to the GOP these are the beloved "job creators" possibly the most offensive phrase I've heard in some time as these have enriched themselves by doing the exact opposite.
  • A Yahoo! user  •  3 months ago
    Government standing idle while the CEO's and Boardmembers enrich themselves. Government really need to step in and stop these CEO's of these companies from paying themselves and the boys retarded amounts of money that could have been used instead to hire hundreds of thousands of workers that are unemployed because of CEO's cutting costs for higher bonuses. The pay structure doesn't make sense at all.
    • Peter 3 months ago
      They are bed-fellows, no matter what they tell you!
  • Dave  •  Charlottetown, Canada  •  3 months ago
    So you can see why Obama is having such a hard time taking these people on... he'll be lucky to escape in one piece frankly, but good luck to him.
    • coolman 3 months ago
      Businesses should never be given bailouts. The basic "trickle down" monetary policy is flawed. Obama gave too much to businesses hoping that they would use the profits to invest. Instead these busineses have realised that the working class will work for less (and take on more work) just to keep the jobs. So they are not hiring locally but saving their $$ for CEO compensations and outsourcing. Now you see why Obama was not able to get more jobs created inspite of bailouts. Sadly, he is doomed since the Tea Party and the Republicans will never allow the working class to get better economically.
  • Naiscoot  •  3 months ago
    Make mergers illegal because b ig is not better once that happens they take the business offshore creating massive unemployment and do they care, it eliminates competion therefore they can set their own salaries and bonusses and stock options etc etc etc.....obscene
    and they're getting away with it........
  • mmb46  •  3 months ago
    And how much did each of these groups give back in taxes (as a group)... and much did the bottom 50% of income get in social assistance....

    Just wondering... not commenting one way or another. Some of these articles are so badly written, its almost written to piss people off !!!
    • Peter 3 months ago
      I don't know where you were when some prominent wealthy people like Buffet and others mentioned that they do NOT pay their fair share in taxes!
    • Peter 3 months ago
      Another thought, if the CEO and execs took those millions in pay/bonuses and instead gave it as better wages to the workers, how many fewer people on social assistance would there be as those workers spend the money locally as opposed to on toys and overseas. The issue is not poor people not paying tax, but why there's so many poor. The below does not make for local employment. You can't have a few pulling all the money out of a system and then going, "but why am I the only one paying?". It's self explaining.

      "Porsche SE (PAH3) has better-than-expected orders for the revamped 911 sports car and its biggest backlog ever. Buyers of the 263,000-euro ($335,667) Lamborghini Aventador may have to wait more than a year for delivery..." All luxury car makers are at record levels.
    • mahjongg 3 months ago
      You are right, they do write this crap to piss off the people. The bottom 50% want what the other 50% has. The top 50% didn't just sit on there butts, they studied and worked for it.
  • ...FIGHT  •  3 months ago
    Are We the People & the Governments such Fools to let so Few Take so Much Out of a Company , Away from The Shareholders & Eventually into Bankruptcy !!!!!!!!! Look at the World's Financial Crisis , Were did the $$$ Go !!!!!!!! Into the Greedy 1% & the Governments Scrambling to Replace & Refinance this Missing $$$$$ !!!!!!!!!!
  • Tim  •  3 months ago
    for the first time in my life I think this "golden" road of world capitalism which was supposed to be the liberator of mankind is instead becoming its enslaver. In europe democracy is falling by the wayside for the protection of the "institution" of the statas quo of who has what. Unelected economic "Leaders" pop out of the woodwork who demand national governments stop elections or that elected leader do it right or step down no less. I don't blame the people who are rich but I do blame the system that accepts that there are no other voices but interest of established wealth and power. Its time for a change in my opinion . lets start with policy of democractic sanctiity first
  • Wordwarrior7  •  Dallas, Texas  •  3 months ago
    Amazing, Sad, Pitiful. America - lets retake our country, for the people, by the people!!
    • David 3 months ago
      There will always be the rich, and always be the poor. There always has been.

      If you take from the rich today, tomorrow someone else will take it from you.

      Wealth equity is impossible.
    • ...FIGHT 3 months ago
      The Greed is Pure Evil !!!!! When is Enough Enough !!!!!!!!!
    • Stacey 3 months ago
      Greed is human nature. Get used to it. Look at your statement...its called envy, aka greed. You want what they have.
  • poirier_wilfrid  •  3 months ago
    Capitalism requires both rich and poor, in order to form the famous "pools" of capital for investment. so the "pools" just expand and expand. .......duh............
  • Stacey  •  3 months ago
    Could be worse. We don't starve to death here.
    • swiftgoose 3 months ago
      No, instead we become overweight, cholesterol ridden slugs on diets of cheap fructose with little to no nutritional value thanks to the corn lobby.
    • Stacey 3 months ago
      Good point! The uber rich don't our buy groceries for us! We do...we're such good decision makers.
  • Peter  •  3 months ago
    As some mentioned, Corps running Government. Hollywood VS Gov...
    "Consumer group Public Knowledge on Friday accused the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its head, former Sen. Chris Dodd, of trying to intimidate lawmakers into supporting a pair of controversial anti-piracy bills.

    In recent days, Dodd and other top Hollywood figures have threatened to cut off campaign donations to politicians who do not support their effort to crackdown on online copyright infringement.

    ** and here's the biggie **
    "Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," Dodd said on Fox News on Thursday.""

    Actually said live on the news. So bribing your local politician is so not an issue, we can discuss the fact they won't stay brought as an issue.
 
Recent Quotes
Symbol Price Change % Chg 
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
 
Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.

Trading Center

Yahoo! Finance on Facebook

  YAHOO! FINANCE ON TWITTER