Dan S. forwarded a post by Matthew Yglesias in which he presents recent data from the OECD Factbook (larger version at the link). It is another interesting way to think about income inequality.
First, we can look at a comparison of how much median income earners in the U.S. make compared to other countries (in U.S. dollars). Luxembourg is the standout at the far right, with the U.S. not far behind, showing the fourth highest median income alongside some Scandinavian countries. Mexico, Turkey and some Eastern European countries have the lowest median incomes.
A story starts to emerge, however, if we look at the median income of the bottom 10% of earners. Suddenly the relative position of the U.S. shifts way to the left; the bottom 10% of earners in the U.S. make less than the OECD average. Notice that the relative placements of the other high income and low income states don’t shift very much. This means that while people in the U.S. are doing relatively well overall, the poorest people in the U.S. are doing worse than the poorest in about 2/3rds of the other countries:
Then, if you look at the median income of the top 10%, the relative position of the U.S. moves all the way to the right; that is, the top 10% of U.S. earners make more than the top 10% of earners in any other OECD country. We even beat out Luxembourg:
Most other countries retain their relative position, more or less, with the exception of Sweden, which drops way down. So the richest Swedes are, relatively speaking, not that rich.
The lesson is that income inequality–the difference between the incomes of the high earners and low earners–is significantly more severe in the U.S. than it is in other OECD countries (and that may be an understatement).
See this post for another graphic showing that income inequality is larger in the U.S. than in most other industrialized countries. Also, the top 1/100th of a percent in the U.S. brings home a larger proportion of the total earned income in 2007 than they have since 1913. And here is the percent of total U.S. income that went to the top 1% of earners (23% as of 2006). Also see our posts breaking down CEO compensation, on the disproportionate tax burden by social class, and on class inequality across U.S. states.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 43
Amy — January 21, 2010
Not to be nitpicky, but you state in your second paragraph "with the U.S. not far behind, showing the fourth highest median income alongside some Scandinavian countries." Norway is the only Scandinavian country shown alongside the US.
Duran2 — January 21, 2010
Here's a question.
Is the concern really with income inequality between top 10% and bottom 10%, or is it with the quality of living of the bottom 10%? (I fully agree that the quality of living of the bottom 10% in the USA is not nearly where it should be.)
The reason I ask is that when people go on about income inequality, it comes off as class-ist, rivalrous, and economically unsound. It frankly does not matter how much the top 10% make, as long as the bottom 10% have a good quality of living.
The real problem is that some people in the USA don't have a good living standard, -NOT- that some people in the USA make tremendous amounts of money.
Jeff — January 21, 2010
It should be noted that the second two charts are for average income of the top and bottom deciles, not median.
Duran2, boo hoo, let me shed a few tears for the poor, elite upper class, getting attacked all the time. It's not classist to point out that rich people in america are too goddamned rich. Even if we had proper safety nets in place to create a better standard of living for the bottom decile in the US, you'd still have two separate realities for the rich and poor, and we'd still live in a classist society- that is, one in which the *rich* are oppressing the *poor*.
The problem isn't that nobody should have wealth, it's that everyone should have it, and your socioeconomic position should not determine things about your life such as expected lifespan, probability of being arrested, etc etc. The economic system we have in place *right now* is the one that's economically unsound.
Jeff Kaufman — January 21, 2010
Population and diversity make this more complex than it looks. Imagine you were to make a new country by merging france and spain. When you did this their average income would end up somewhere between the two but their top and bottom decile averages would more or less be the top decile of france and the bottom decile of spain. Big diverse countries are going to appear less equal than small homogeneous contries just by being big. You could put individual US regions on this chart, or lump europe into one "euro-region" but unless you correct for size it's just going to be confusing.
There's a lot more information on this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_metrics
AR — January 21, 2010
On the subject of comparative economics, the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom is out. The United States has now been surpassed by Canada in their ranking of economic freedom, and is now only being called a "Mostly Free" country.
Pauline — January 21, 2010
Well I was happy to see that Australia sat in roughly the same position for all three graphs. I didn't really care much about what the US was doing - surely everyone knows that it's a country with a huge difference between the low income earners and the high income earners. Probably contributed to in huge part by the ridiculously low minimum wage, which (from an outsider's perspective) seems to be only as low as it is because the country promotes this whole 'tipping' farce.
Income Inequality and the United States « Think Socially — January 22, 2010
[...] Income Inequality in International Perspective [...]
DJ — January 22, 2010
There is an extreme lack of the spirit of egalitarianism in the US... with the "I got mine" crowd at the top.
A-Z 1-9 — January 23, 2010
This is simply the end result of capitalism - U.S. style.
So what's the surprise?
Charles — February 4, 2011
To those to blame capitalism outright without analysis, I suggest really studying it and learning economics first before you make a hasty judgement.
To those who blame the rich for simply being rich, you have no basis for your assumption. I make about 10k a year, working part time, in retail. I have a college degree which I can't reasonably use. Yet I don't blame the rich because they haven't done anything to me. The government however, has.
The general consensus for economists is that the income disparity comes from government programs, designed to help the poor, but do the exact opposite. The minimum wage is such an example because was designed to help the poor but it resulted in large unemployment in the African American community. Two people, A being experienced, and B being inexperienced and uneducated, are forced by law to be paid the same. The only thing B can do to get that job is to underbid A by asking for a lower wage. However that is against the law. Instead of B being underpaid, yet having the opportunity for promotion, they are now unemployed.
Government tax breaks for homeowners artificially created demand for the housing market, causing prices to rise, which in turn kept poorer people from owning homes. The government then created housing projects with good intent to give those people a place to live, but picked undesirable land and segregated them away from centers of business. Some had to resort to dealings in the black market to get by. Because of the government's war on drugs, those trying to survive in squaller created by the government were arrested and thrown into government prisons.
Government student loan subsidies created a demand for college education, which increased prices, keeping poorer people out of what would have been a relatively cheap education. The trend continues as the demand is stimulated by the government and taxes pay for public institutions. Those institutions have no reason to keep costs down, so they charge what they want, knowing that people will pay.
In summary, it's not capitalism that people should be angry about. Capitalism is a completely voluntary system, founded on the idea of mutual benefit. Government intervention in economic issues has historically had undesirable repercussions. The best way to fix the system is not to rely on a monopolistic institution that uses force as a means to do business, and instead allow market forces, which have historically taken people out of poverty, to fix the problem.
Mira Kuru — March 17, 2012
Capitalism is supposed to have extreme income inequality, that is the point, why is it a bad thing?
It's good when people can safely accumulate wealth and not worry about it being taken away by taxes and the government because a bunch of people were jealous.
Do the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor? | Journalism From Mars — May 26, 2015
[…] Data by OECD […]