Income Inequality: Top 1% Myths

Time magazine recently named “The Protestor” the person of the year. No doubt this year we saw complaints between the bottom 99% and the top 1%. However, although many people in the bottom 99% may be complaining I would question whether they have all their facts. According to Federal Reserve data 33% of the people in the top 1% in 2007 were no longer in the top 1% in 2009. Note that this is only over a two year time horizon. Less than 15% of people on the Forbes 400 stay on the list for over a 21 year period. Also it is important to note that inherited wealth is in fact the minority of people on the Forbes 400 list. What is even more interesting is that according to the Edward Wolff of NYU is that the percent of inherited wealth has been decreasing. In 1989, 23% of the top 1% inherited their wealth. By 2011, this percentage decreased to 9%. Also it is interesting that income inequality is lower now than where it was in 1995. Also the concentration of wealth in the top 1% is lower now than where it was in 1998.

People will always want more. This desire is part of human nature. What seems puzzling is why people are envious of other people who work harder, longer, and smarter than themselves. To me if someone wants to work 80-100 hours per week earn all that money and contribute to society more power to them. As long as they are not asking for government money everyone should be fine with this arrangement. We could of course cure income inequality by having recessions. Everyone would feel more equal yet it would come at the price of growth and expansion. One point people forget is that the top 1% often take the most risks. This is known what Robert Frank describes as the “high-beta rich”. Frank makes an interesting argument that the top 1% has more because they took more on more risk. This is common sense. Often people who have large amounts of wealth have most of their net worth tied up in their stock options or their business. The majority of Americans don’t have stock options and live off their paychecks. Since a large percentage of people in the top 1% have their net worth in one asset they have to constantly worry about what happens if that asset implodes. This means that the super rich have much more volatility in their net worth than say the average person. One year you might have $200 million and then the next $50 million if the stock market drops.

Income inequality should make people want to work harder (if they decide they want more money). Complaining about why other people are successful does nothing for any individual. Everyone wants more money yet very few people want to do what is required or necessary to get there. We can’t forget that people are paid on value creation and productivity.

Special thanks to Robert Frank for giving me the idea for this post.