What Are the Types of Family Income Differentiate One From the Other

Res Soc Stratif Mobil. Writer manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December i.

Published in final edited form every bit:

PMCID: PMC2805913

NIHMSID: NIHMS148032

Family unit Income at the Lesser and at the Meridian: Income Sources and Family Characteristics

Lawrence E. Raffalovich

Department of Sociology University at Albany, SUNY

Shannon 1000. Monnat

Department of Sociology University of Nevada - Las Vegas

Hui-shien Tsao

Heart for Social and Demographic Analysis University at Albany, SUNY

Abstract

Attention has recently been focused on wealth as a source of long-term economical security and on wealth ownership equally a crucial attribute of the racial economic divisions in the U.s.. This literature, however has been concerned primarily with the wealth gap betwixt poor and middle-course families, and between the white and black middle course. In this paper, we investigate the incomes of families at the top and bottom of the family income distribution. We examine the sources of income and the demographic characteristics of these high-income and low-income families using family level data from the 1988-2003 Current Population Surveys.

We find that, at the lesser of the distribution, transfer income is the major income source; in detail, income from social security, supplemental security, and public aid. At the top, employment income is the largest component of family unit income. Not-white, female, and non-married householders are disproportionately located at the lesser of the family income distribution. These families consist of both immature and old adults, with high-schoolhouse educations or less, in low-level service occupations. Many are disabled, many are retired. Householders at the top of the income distribution are typically male, white, and married. Householders and spouses at the top are typically middle-age, with college educations, employed in professional service and managerial occupations.

Nosotros find that wealth is not an important source of income for families at the highest percentiles. The highest income families during this period in the U.S. were not a "property elite": their income is more often than not from employment. We speculate, still, that they will bring together the "holding aristocracy" later in the life-course as they retire and receive income from their investments.

The Family Income Distribution: Income Components and Demographic Characteristics Introduction

Until the mid-1990s, nigh all discussions of economic inequality focused on income. Income, after all, is the proximate source of material well-being for the overwhelming majority of families and individuals in most societies, and data on income are easily obtained from a wide variety of sources. More recently, yet, attention has been focused on wealth equally a measure of long-term economic security (Oliver & Shapiro 1997; Keister 2000; Shapiro 2004; Wolf 2002). The distinction between wealth and income is important considering wealth signifies buying of a stock of assets, while income represents a menstruum of purchasing power. "Wealth represents a more permanent capacity to secure advantages in both the short and long term" (Shapiro 2004, 33), while income is a more short-term capacity to acquire goods and services. Wealth and income are positively correlated, because income that is saved and/or invested thereby becomes wealth, and wealth tin exist a source of income: families with more income can thereby amass more wealth, and families with more than wealth can acquire additional income (Wolf 2002; Keister 2000).

The distribution of wealth is exceedingly unequal in the United States, much more unequal that the distribution of income: In 2004, the bottom 50% of families owned only 2.5% of cyberspace worth, while the top 1% owned 33.4%. In contrast, the bottom l% of families received 23.eight% of income, and the top 1% received 13.6% (Kinnickell 2006,Tabular array 11a). The asset nigh equally distributed among families in the U.S. is the family domicile^ane: the bottom 50% of families owned xi.vii% of the value of primary residences in 2004, and the side by side xl% owned over half of that value. It is through home-buying that nigh Americans are able to accumulate wealth.

Oliver and Shapiro (1997) and Shapiro (2004) emphasize that, as a form of wealth, domicile-ownership conveys many of the advantages of wealth-holding, including the power to leverage home equity to provide better opportunities for ones' children, to invest in other assets, and to provide a hedge against spells of unemployment or other economic misfortune. They then contend that racial differences in the distribution of home-buying create a qualitative chasm in life experiences and life chances between the white and black middle class.

In contrast to income-earning assets, however, home-ownership does not produce a flow of additional income, raising the family'south standard of living and, through savings or investment, adding to the family's stock of wealth. Indeed, information technology is these income-producing assets (stocks, bonds, businesses, and real estate other than the principal residence) that gratis families from dependence on the labor market and contribute to economic independence, autonomy, and ability. These income-producing avails are the near unequally-distributed of all: In 2004, the top 1% of families owned over one-half of the value of all directly held stocks, 70% of directly held bonds, 62% of "closely held businesses," and 47% of non-residential existent estate, while the lesser 50% owned less than 1% of these assets (Kinnickell 2006, Table 11a). The unequal distribution of these economical resource is important for several reasons. In market economies, wealth is an important source of economic power, and, in representative democracies, wealth is an important source of political power. As Gates and Collins (2002) suggest, "concentration of wealth and power misconstrue our democratic institutions and economic system and undermine social cohesion." Every bit a effect, the wealthy in America are granted more than political ability and greater opportunities (Cf. Lindblom, 1977).

Income and wealth are jointly determined. Income can exist accumulated equally wealth, and wealth is a source of boosted income. We expect, therefore, that the highest income families are those with the near substantial wealth holdings and thus the highest income from wealth. Opportunities for the acquisition of both income and wealth in the United States accept historically been determined, in office, by race. Blacks' history of slavery, by and present discrimination in employment and housing, and extremely high levels of residential segregation take all served to create and maintain inequality in the distribution of schooling, jobs, home-ownership, and the ownership of other avails (Shapiro 2004). Therefore, we also look that families with the highest incomes are predominantly white.

In add-on, considering that approximately i-one-half of all Blackness households are headed by women, the economic condition of Blackness women in the United States is an important predictor and major force between the consistent and broad-spread disparity betwixt Black and White households (Brown 1997; Rivlin 1992). We therefore await that black women are almost likely to be located at the bottom of the family income distribution.

In what follows, we investigate the distribution of family income by income source, and the demographic characteristics of families at the summit and the bottom of the family income distribution. Specifically, we focus on the bottom 10% and 25%, and the summit 10%, 1%, and 0.5%. We pay special attention to the very meridian because of our interest in wealth and income from wealth: as nosotros will prove, simply those at the very height receive substantial income from wealth. In this paper, nosotros neglect the bottom i% considering their median income is nether $1.00 for the entire sample catamenia. On closer test, the bottom one% appears to be comprised of two very different populations: poor families with very low incomes, and others with big negative property and self-employment incomes. This is consequent with Lenski's (1984, p. 191) suggestion that households with large negative incomes and large positive incomes are, in fact, very similar (e.thousand., entrepreneurs). We also examine what Lenski (1966, p. 340) calls the "holding elite": those whose income from wealth exceeds twice the median income from all sources.

Information and Methods

Data are from the Current Population Survey, Annual Demographic Supplement, 1968-2003. The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly household survey conducted by the Census Bureau and the Agency of Labor Statistics. The CPS collects monthly economical, social, and demographic data on all persons in the 50,000-threescore,000 sampled households (Current Population Survey, 2002); in addition, the Annual Demographic Supplement (ADS), collects employment and income data for the previous calendar year. Data are available at the person-, family-, and household-level. Technical details are available in the CPS Technical Newspaper 63RV (Current Population Survey, 2002). We extracted family unit-level income data for 1988-2003 from the 2004 CD (CPS Utilities, 2004)². For each year, nosotros aggregated families into the family income percentiles noted above. For each, we calculated the median income for each income source. Detailed income sources were aggregated into v wide categories: Employment (wages and salaries), Self-employment (cocky-employment and farm), Holding (dividends, involvement, and rents), Transfer (alimony, kid-back up, worker's compensation, didactics, financial assistance, public aid and welfare, retirement, supplemental security from regime, survivor benefits, social security/railroad retirement, unemployment compensation, and veteran's benefits), and "Other". Nosotros did not include the earned-income tax credit (EITC) in any of our income categories. The documentation for this variable states that the actual dollar amount received past families is non the value reported for this variable. It is, instead, a simulation of what the family would have been eligible for, non what they really received. In that location is no way to know in the CPS how much the family actually received from the EITC (CPS Utilities, 2004).

The CPS top-codes all incomes at the individual level, and these top-codes changed over time. Nosotros recoded all top-codes to the 1988 values earlier we aggregated private incomes into families.³ Income is expressed in constant 2003 dollars using the Demography Bureau's Consumer Price Index Research Series (CPI-U-RS)⁴. We use the ADS family unit weights for all analyses (Due north=1,039,305 families).

Analyses

Median family unit income and income sources for the lesser 10% of families are presented in Figure 1. Median income for these families declined from just over $v,000 in 1988 to under $4,000 in 2003. The only income source with a non-zero median is transfer income, which declined from under $3,000 in 1988 to zero past 1999⁵. Other data (not shown) betoken that much of these transfers consisted of social security, supplemental security, and public assistance⁶. The demographic characteristics of these families are presented in Table 1. Half of the householders are between 25 and 61 years old, with a median age of 40. Householder'due south spouse (for those with a spouse) have a somewhat college median age, and a narrower historic period range. Xx-nine per centum of householders are non-white, and over 63% are female. Well over fourscore% are non married, and more than than xx% have unmarried children nether eighteen living with them. Half of householders did not complete 12 years of schooling, but half of spouses did.

Median Family Income and Components- Lesser 10% of Family Income

Table 1

Characteristics of Families at the Top and Bottom of the Family unit Income Distribution

	Bottom 10% (North=103,379)				Bottom 25% (Due north=248,526)				Top 10% (Due north=101,743)
		Md	Q1	Q3		Doctor	Q1	Q3		Doctor	Q1	Q3
Age
Householder		40	25	61		45	28	69		47	39	55
Spouse		47	32	60		51	33	66		45	38	53
Didactics (years)
Householder		11	eight	12		12	8	12		16	12	eighteen
Spouse		12	ix	12		11	viii	12		14	12	16
Race (% White)
Householder	71.3				76.5				91.6
Spouse	79.8				81.1				89.6
Sex (% Male)
Householder	36.half dozen				39.3				78.iv
Spouse	22.ii				20.3				xix.0
Marital (% Married)	12.ii				17.1				88.two
Children <6 (%one+)	12.2				11.five				15.ix
Children <18 (%1+)	22.0				21.0				42.five
Employment: (%)
Householder
Employed	25.ix				33.i				83.7
Not at Work/Laid off	ane.6				1.viii				iii.0
Unemployed	five.viii				4.4				1.1
Unable/Disabled	12.1				9.8				0.5
Retired	17.4				24.8				6.5
Other	37.2				26.1				5.i
Spouse
Employed	23.1				22.1				72.5
Not at Work/Laid off	1.6				1.four				3.2
Unemployed	3.5				ii.8				0.eight
Unable/Disabled	vi.vii				7.iv				0.5
Retired	20.four				24.four				4.8
Other	44.7				41.eight				18.2
Modal Occupations	Nutrient Srvc Pers Srvc Retail				Food Srvc Retail Pers Srvc				Exec/Admin Mgmt Superv/Sales
Modal Industry	Retail/Const				Retail/Const				Prof/Ed Srvc

	Pinnacle ane% (Due north=ten,163)				Top 0.five% (North=five.047)				Property Aristocracy (North=5,668)
		Md	Q1	Q3		Md	Q1	Q3		Doc	Q1	Q3
Age
Householder		50	42	57		l	43	59		61	50	71
Spouse		48	41	55		48	41	56		58	48	68
Instruction (years)
Householder		16	xv	xviii		16	15	eighteen		xvi	13	18
Spouse		16	xiii	17		16	xiv	17		xiv	12	16
Race (% White)
Householder	93.4				93.3				95.4
Spouse	91.iii				91.0				94.two
Sex (% Male)
Householder	78.viii				79.7				73.6
Spouse	20.2				19.2				17.five
Marital (% Married)	90.7				90.half-dozen				75.ione
Children <six (%1+)	14.0				thirteen.1				5.eight
Children <18 (%ane+)	38.4				36.1				18.2
Employment: (%)
Householder
Employed	82.9				82.4				49.7
Not at Work/Laid off	3.4				three.4				2.vii
Unemployed	0.9				0.seven				0.8
Unable/Disabled	0.four				0.4				1.0
Retired	half-dozen.6				vii.1				36.9
Other	5.8				5.9				8.9
Spouse
Employed	70.6				70.6				40.ii
Not at Work/Laid off	three.8				3.5				2.8
Unemployed	0.8				0.viii				0.6
Unable/Disabled	0.four				0.4				1.1
Retired	5.ii				5.6				28.2
Other	xix.1				19.0				27.ii
Modal Occupations	Exec/Admin Med/Law Teachers				Exec/Admin Medicine Insure/RE				Exec/Admin Sales/Finance Teachers
Modal Industry	Prof/Health/Ed Srvc				Prof/Health/Ed Srvc				Prof/Health/Ed Srvc

Merely about a quarter of householders and spouses were employed during the calendar week prior to the survey, although their unemployment charge per unit of 5.8% for householders is not much to a higher place the national average of v.five% during these years, and the unemployment rate of 3.5% for spouses is below the national average (Agency of Labor Statistics 2009). Fully 2/3 of householders and 72% of spouses were out of the labor strength, the majority for reasons other than disability and retirement. The modal occupations of those who were employed (both householders and spouses) are Food Services, Personal Services, and Retail. The modal industries are Retail Trade and Construction.

Median family unit income and income sources for the bottom quartile of family unit income are shown in Figure 2. Full family unit income for these families increased slightly over the sample flow, from about $9,500 in 1988 to but nether 10,000 in 2003. As with the lesser 10%, the just income source with non-naught median income is transfer income, which declined from about $iv,500 in 1988 to $2,000 by 2003. Boosted analyses (not shown) indicate that, like the bottom 10%, the important transfers are social security, supplemental security, and public assistance. From Tabular array 1, we see that these families have a wide age range (the middle fifty% of householders are between 28 and 69, the middle 50% of spouses are between 33 and 66). 61% of householders are female person and simply 17.i% are married. More than a 5th alive with their unmarried children nether 18. One-half of householders had completed the equivalent of a High Schoolhouse education, and over half of spouses had not. Similar to the bottom 10% of families, nearly householders and spouses were not employed during the week prior to the survey, despite an unemployment rate well below the national average. As with the bottom ten%, the majority of householders and spouses were not in the labor force. About a quarter were retired, and some other 26% of householders and 42% of spouses were not in the labor force for "other" reasons.^seven Of those who were employed, the modal occupations and industries are the aforementioned as for families in the bottom x%: Service occupations in Retail and Construction. Compared to the bottom 10%, families in the lower quartile are slightly older, and more likely to be employed or retired.

Median Family Income and Components- Bottom 25% of Family Income

Median family unit incomes at the top of the distribution differ in important respects from those at the bottom. The top 10% of families are shown in Figure 3. Median family unit incomes are more than ten times those of the bottom quartile, and labor income accounts for over 80% of the total. Furthermore, median incomes take steadily increased over the flow from just nether $120,000 in 1988 to only over $140,000 in 2003. Property income appears every bit a very small-scale component (ane-2%). These families are very different from those at the bottom of the income distribution (see Table 1). Householder and spouse are about the aforementioned median age every bit families at the lesser of the distribution, but the historic period ranges are considerably narrower. The middle 50% of householders are between 39 and 55, their spouses between 38 and 53.

Median Family Income and Components- Meridian 10% of Family unit Income

These families are overwhelmingly white (xc%) and married (88%). Compared to families at the bottom of the distribution, they are more likely to take children under xviii at home (42.5% vs 22% and 21% for families at the 10^th and 25^thursday percentiles, respectively). More three-quarters of householders are male (near twice the percentage of families at the 10^th and 25^th income percentiles). Half of householders have 4 years of pedagogy across high schoolhouse (the median is xvi years) and one-half of spouses have 2-4 years of education across high schoolhouse.

Over 80% of householders were employed during the calendar week prior to the survey every bit were almost three-quarters of spouses. Very few householders or spouses were unemployed (1.1% and 0.8%, respectively), and relatively few were not in the labor forcefulness (12.1% of householders, generally retired; 23.v% of spouses, mostly for "other" reasons). Modal occupations for both householder and spouse were Executive and Management positions in Professional person and Educational Services.

Median incomes for families in the top 1% are almost twice every bit high as for families in the height 10%, and, as with the top 10%, almost (between 75% and 85%) are from earnings. Property income is about 10% of family income at the start of the menstruum, but declines to virtually 2% by 2003. There is a sharp increase of virtually 33% in labor income (and almost 25% in the total) between 1995 and 1996.⁸ The same rapid rise in labor incomes at the aforementioned time, and the same slow decline in property incomes were observed in entirely unlike data (income tax data for households) by Piketty and Saez (2006), who interpret this pattern equally a sharp increment in executive compensation: "top executives…replaced top capital owners …at the top of the income hierarchy" in the U.S. (p. 204. Cf. Piketty and Saez, 2003; Kaplan and Rauh, 2007). Our data are not sufficiently detailed to confirm or refute this explanation. We note that our information exercise not show "capital letter owners" at "the top" of the income distribution, but there are few extremely high earners in the CPS (Kaplan and Rauh [2007] report incomes in the tens of millions of dollars). Because our results are for medians of top-coded data, the abrupt ascension we find is consequent with this interpretation.

Families in the height 1% are similar to those in the top 10%: overwhelmingly white, married, two-earner families with children under 18 at abode (See Table 1). They are slightly older and better educated (median schooling for both householder and spouse is four years beyond high school). Every bit with the top 10%, over eighty% of householders are employed, as are 70% of spouses. Likewise similar to the height 1%, about 1/eight of householders and i/4 of spouses are not in the labor force. The majority of these householders are retired, and the bulk of these spouses are out of the labor force for "other" reasons. Modal occupations are Executive and Administrative, Medicine, Law, and Teaching. Modal industries are Professional person, Health, and Educational Services.

Families in the tiptop 0.v% appear most identical to those in the top1% (see Figure five and Tabular array 1). They have somewhat college total incomes but comparable labor incomes. Labor income is a smaller proportion of the full. Property income makes upwards the difference, though its contribution is relatively modest. Trends in income components are the same as for income components of the top i%, a large jump in labor income between 1995 and 1996, and slowly declining property income. Bated from their college holding income, not much distinguishes families in the top 0.five% from those in the top 1%. Age and educational distributions are the same, equally are distributions of gender, race, marital status, children nether 18, and employment condition. Modal occupations differ only in that there's a slight shift away from Police force and Teaching and a corresponding shift into Insurance and Existent Estate.

Median Family Income and Components- Acme 0.v% of Family unit Income

Median family income and income sources for the "Property Elite" are presented in Figure 6. Following Lenski (1966), this elite includes families whose income from wealth is at least twice the median family unit income from all sources. This elite comprises 0.5% of the families in our information, but these are not the families at the 99.5 percentile of family income. From Figure 6, we run across that median family unit income is considerably lower, that labor income is a much smaller component, and that property income is a much larger component (over half) of the full. Transfers are a very small (2-3%) source of income for these families, mostly social security and retirement income. Labor income rises throughout the flow, reflected in a small-scale upward trend in the total.

Median Family Income and Components- Lenski's "Property Elite"

It is particularly notable that, dissimilar the incomes of the top 1% and 0.v%, labor income does not showroom the sharp rise betwixt 1995 and 1996, and belongings income does not showroom the irksome pass up. If Piketty and Saez (2003, 2006) are correct in their interpretation of these patterns, the "property aristocracy" are not well-compensated executives, the "working rich," merely more closely approximate the "coupon-clipping rentiers" (Picketty and Saez, 2003, p. 17).

These families are considerably older than those at the meridian of the family income distribution (25% of householders and spouses are over 71 and 68, respectively). Like families at the top, these families are white (95%), married or widowed (86%)⁹, with fewer children at habitation. In contrast to families at the top of the income distribution, but nether half are employed (50% and 40% of householders and spouses, respectively). Virtually of those not employed are retired. This may account for the relatively large share of property income that they receive. These families study the same occupations every bit families at the top of the distribution, suggesting that the "property aristocracy" are the meridian-income families a decade later.

Summary

Our test of the lesser and top of the family unit income distribution institute:

At the Lesser

Looking at medians, transfer income is a major income source for families in the x^th and 25^thursday percentiles. Transfer income was largely from social security, supplemental security, and public help.

Families in the 10^thursday and 25^th percentiles are about 25% non-white, over 60% of householders are female, less than 20% are married, and just over xx% included children under xviii. The inter-quartile historic period range of householders and spouses is quite wide, approximately xxx years. In terms of historic period, these families are quite various, consisting of both younger and older adults.

Typically, householders and spouses have, at most, a high-schoolhouse education. Less than a 3rd of householders and spouses were working in the week prior to the survey. Many are disabled (7-12%), many are retired (17-25%), virtually are non in the labor force. Typical jobs are depression-level service or sales occupations.

At the Top

For families at the top of the income distribution, the major income source is employment. Property income is a relatively small and failing component of income for these families. In 1996, labor income sharply increased from the previous year, in both amount and equally a proportion of the total, for families in the top 1% and 0.5%, but not for families in the elevation ten% of the income distribution.

Families in the top ten%, 1%, and 0.5% are overwhelmingly white and married, with two income earners. Half of householders were in their early 40s to late-50s. About xl% have children under 18 (and 13-xvi% have children under vi). Most accept a college-level education and most are employed. Typical jobs for the acme 10% of families are Executive and Direction occupations; typical jobs for the top 1% and 0.5% are in these occupations, and also in Medicine, Law, and Education.

"Holding Aristocracy"

The "belongings aristocracy" are high income families who receive most half of their income from wealth. Unlike the top 10%, 1%, and 0.5%, labor income is a relatively minor, merely increasing, proportion of the total. These families besides receive transfer income, in the form of social security and retirement. Their median family income is higher than that of the top 10%, but lower than the pinnacle 1% and 0.v%.

Families in this "property elite" are typically older than families in the highest percentiles of the income distribution but, like them, are predominantly white and married (if one includes the widowed). They have fewer children living with them, and a larger proportion were not working in the week prior to the survey. Most of those are retired.

Conclusions and Implications

As anticipated, families at the bottom of the income distribution are disproportionately non-white, female, and non-married. These families consist of both immature and old adults, with high-school educations or less, in depression-level service occupations. Many are disabled, many are retired. Much of their income is in the form of transfers.

Also every bit anticipated, families at the top of the income distribution are typically white and married. Householders and spouses are typically centre-age with college educations, employed in professional person service and managerial occupations. Although not direct comparable (families at the top of the income distribution are not the same as those at the top of the wealth distribution), these findings are consistent with Keister'southward (2000, Table 4-4) findings with respect to the wealth distribution: the wealthiest 1% of households are predominantly white, heart aged, with at least a college education.

Not anticipated is the small-scale contribution of holding income to the total family income at the top, and the correspondingly large contribution of income from employment. Our findings do not back up the statement that wealth is a primary source of income for families at the highest percentiles. The top 0.v% of families received a median of around $40,000 in property income in 1988 (of a median family income of $240,000), but this declined to $5,000 by 2003 (of a median family income of almost $300,000). The "property elite" do receive over half of their median family income from wealth, just that is past construction. Importantly, the highest income families during this period in the U.S. were not the "property aristocracy".

The decline in holding income and increment in labor income amidst the highest income families does support the claim of Piketty and Saez (2003, 2006) that executive bounty has increased rapidly in contempo years, while income from wealth has gradually declined. The pass up in belongings income is too consistent with Keister'due south (2000) finding that mean financial wealth of the tiptop ane% declined between 1989 and 1995 (Table 4-ane), and median internet worth for families with income of $100,000 or more than declined from 1983-1995 (Tabular array 8-v).

How are we to understand the differences between families in the pinnacle 10%, 1% and 0.5% of the income distribution? Those in the top one% are slightly older and ameliorate educated than those in the height 10%. We can speculate that those in the top 1% are perhaps further along in their careers and occupy college executive positions. This would be consistent with Picketty and Saez's (2003, 2006) explanation of the rapid rising in labor income for the top ane%.simply not for the top decile. Alternatively, the summit 1% may be more likely to be in the contained professions (Medicine, Law). The only notable difference betwixt families in the tiptop one% and 0.v% are occupational. We tin speculate that the top 0.5% of families are more than likely to exist self-employed instead of salaried, or simply higher-upwards in the executive bureaucracy. These are areas of time to come inquiry.

Our finding that age and retirement status are the major distinctions between the "belongings elite" and those at the very meridian of the family unit income distribution is unexpected. It is, withal, consistent with Keister'southward (2000, p. 232) finding of a life-cycle procedure whereby salaried and/or entrepreneurial professionals and executives invest loftier earnings during their careers, then draw income from these investments after retirement. Is this life-bicycle process consistent with the theoretical pregnant of "property elite"?

Lenski (1966, p.340) uses "property elite" to "understand the political activities of the propertied class [those who control economic resources]" in market systems. These "elite" are a "tiny minority" whose wealth constitutes an important source of economic and political power.

From this perspective, the farthermost concentration of wealth in the U.Southward. has suggested that, despite the trappings of electoral republic, real political power is concentrated amidst a minor class of wealthy individuals and families (Domhoff 2002, Affiliate 3; Lindblom 1977, Chapter 17). But the composition of this class is contentious. Does this class consists of a discrete set of individuals with a common class civilisation that reproduces itself from one generation to the adjacent, (e.g., Domhoff 2002), or of a fix of positions with mutual interests in property rights and "free enterprise," that replicate over time along with other societal structures (e.g., Lindblom 1977)? It seems to u.s.a. that a life-cycle process is consequent with either conceptualization. Families use their wealth to advance their children'south prospects – east.g., through institutional mechanisms described by Domhoff (2002). Alternatively, careers accelerate through merit or through luck..

Adjudication of these conceptualizations of a propertied class requires detailed information on wealth mobility, and on inheritance processes. Nosotros know of no existing data adequate for this purpose, but hope that continued interest in wealth research volition promote the development of longitudinal wealth databases. .

​

Median Family Income and Components- Top 1% of Family Income

Acknowledgments

Nosotros thank Don Hernandez, Kate Strully and 2 anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous draft.

Footnotes

ⁱKinnickell (2006) includes vehicles as assets, merely we regard these equally consumer durables instead. The lesser 50% of families endemic 26.8% of the value of vehicles in 2004 (Kinnickell, 2006, Table 11a).

^twoDetailed income sources are not available prior to 1988.

ⁱⁱⁱDetails of the aggregation are available on request.

⁴These were retrieved from <http://world wide web.demography.gov/hhes/income/income03/cpiurs.html> on 1/xiv/07.

⁵The large gaps between median total income and the sum of the median sources of income is due to the fact that the median of a sum is not the same equally the sum of medians.

⁶Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which took consequence in 1997, may be partly responsible for the sudden driblet in transfer income for the lesser 10% after 1997.

^seven"Other" includes armed forces, unemployed and not looking for work, and other.

⁸In 1996, the CPS inverse some aspects of its sampling procedures, but this discontinuity remains after adjustment for sampling proportions using the family weights included with the data.

⁹x.6 percent are widowed (non shown).

A previous version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association in Boston, August iv, 2008.

Publisher'southward Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accustomed for publication. As a service to our customers nosotros are providing this early on version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before information technology is published in its last citable form. Please note that during the product procedure errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Lawrence Due east. Raffalovich, Department of Folklore University at Albany, SUNY.

Shannon M. Monnat, Department of Sociology University of Nevada - Las Vegas.

Hui-shien Tsao, Center for Social and Demographic Assay University at Albany, SUNY.

REFERENCES

• Browne Irene. Explaining the Black-White Gap in Labor Force Participation amidst Women Heading Households. American Sociological Review. 1997;62:236–252. [Google Scholar]
• Agency of Labor Statistics [Retrieved 6/25/09]. 2009. http://world wide web.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf.
• CPS utilities [electronic resource]: March files. Unicon Enquiry Corporation; Santa Monica, CA: 2004. [Google Scholar]
• Current Population Survey Pattern and Methodology. Technical Paper 63RV. [Retrieved 1/14/07]. 2002. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.
• Domhoff Grand. William. Who Rules America? Fourth Edition McGraw-Loma; Boston: 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Gates WH, Sr., Collins C. Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why Americans Should Taxation Accumulated Fortunes. Beacon Press; Boston: 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Kaplan Steven N., Rauh Joshua. Wall Street and Main Street: What Contributes to the Rise in the Highest Incomes? [retrieved one/14/07]. 2007. NBER Working Paper 13270. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13270.
• Keister Lisa A. Wealth in America: Trends in Wealth Inequality. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2000. [Google Scholar]
• Kennickell Arthur B. Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989-2004. [Retreived ane/14/07]. 2006. http://world wide web.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2004.5.pdf.
• Lenski Gerhard. Income Stratification in the United States. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. 1984;iii:173–205. [Google Scholar]
• Lenski Gerhard. Power and Privilege. McGraw-Hill; New York: 1966. [Google Scholar]
• Lindblom Charles. Politics and Markets. Basic; New York: 1977. [Google Scholar]
• Oliver Melvin L., Shapiro Thomas M. Black Wealth/White Wealth: a New Perspective on Racial Inequality. Routledge; New York: 1997. [Google Scholar]
• Piketty Thomas, Saez Emmanuel. Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2003;98:1–39. [Google Scholar]
• Piketty Thomas, Saez Emmanuel. The Development of Top Incomes: A Historical and International Perspective. American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings. 2006;96:00–205. [Google Scholar]
• Rivlin AM. Reviving the American Dream: the Economy, usa, and the Federal Government. The Brookings Plant; Washington, D.C.: 1992. [Google Scholar]
• Shapiro Thomas. The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality. Oxford; New York: 2004. [Google Scholar]
• Wolf Edward N. Top Heavy. The New York Press; New York: 2002. [Google Scholar]

whitewayinshound.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805913/

Share this post