Chart of the Day: Middle Class Incomes vs. the Rich, 1946-2014

I’m pretty sure I’ve posted a chart like this one before, but no matter. This one is better. It’s from David Leonhardt, and it shows income growth for various income levels over two periods of recent history:

As we all know, incomes of the working and middle classes rose steadily in the decades after World War II. Then, in the mid-70s, their income growth suddenly slowed down. Finally, after 2000, their income growth went from sluggish to completely stagnant. Between 2000 and 2014, median household incomes didn’t increase by a single penny.

There are several reasons we had such robust middle-class income growth in the 50s, 60s, and 70s: strong unions, cultural norms about executive pay, catchup growth from the Great Depression, Democratic control of Congress, weak international competition, financial repression, and so forth. As those things disintegrated in the late 70s and 80s, the rich were able to siphon off bigger and bigger shares of economic growth. And they did.

That’s a familiar story. But this chart illustrates two other things as well:

  • In the postwar era, incomes of the working and middle classes actually grew faster than the incomes of the rich.
  • However, income growth was relatively evenly spread, ranging from about 3 percent per year for the poor to 1.5 percent per year for the rich.

That second point is easy to miss. We look at the chart, and the first thing that catches our eye about the gray line is that it’s going down. But it doesn’t go down all that much. Pretty much everyone is doing well.

In the post-1980 era, that changed dramatically. It’s not just that things turned around, it’s that the red line isn’t anywhere close to flat. The poor and working class have seen virtually no income increase at all. But the rich have seen gigantic increases, and even among the rich, the billionaires have done far better than the mere millionaires.

That dynamic started around 1980, and has grown since then. However, it’s only since 2000 that it’s spiraled out of control. That’s when middle-class incomes stagnate completely and the income growth of the rich starts to skyrocket past 3 percent. In the recent American economy, 1973 was the first watershed year and 2000 was the second watershed year. The start of the 21st century is when our economy suddenly changed and became crazy. But I still don’t think that anybody knows why.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate