The Wealth Gap Widens
By Chuck Collins(*)
During the 1920s, the wealthy accumulated such exorbitant stocks of cash,
they
couldn’t spend it all. Instead, they played the stock market, fueling a
rapid run-up
in stock prices. Lower and middle income households, on the other hand,
lacked
wealth enough to meet their needs and were forced to borrow heavily.
Many historians believe that this combination of growing personal debt
and a
widening wealth gap destabilized the economy and precipitated the Great
Depression. A similar fault line underlies today’s economy.
While the media trumpets rising economic growth and soaring Dow Jones,
signs
are emerging that the current boom, like that of the 1920s, is founded
on vast
inequities of wealth and is financed by growing consumer debt.
From 1983 to 1998, stock prices rose 13-fold, so that $100 invested in
stocks
in 1983 would be worth $1300 today. Conventional wisdom has it that everyone
benefits from a rising market. After all, nearly half the population now
owns some
stocks, a much higher proportion than two decades ago.
However, very few have sizable stock holdings. In 1995, the most recent
year
for which detailed data is available, nearly three-quarters of stock-holders
held
less than $5,000 worth, including stock in retirement plans and mutual
funds.
Wealth in the United States is now as maldistributed as it was in 1929.
Financial
assets like stocks and bonds remain concentrated in relatively few hands,
with the
richest 10% of the population owning 88% of stocks and 90% of bonds. The
personal wealth of Bill Gates alone exceeds the combined holdings of 40%
of the
U.S. population. Consequently, when the stock market climbs, a relatively
few
wealthy households reap most of the gains.
Even among the top 10%, wealth is highly concentrated. A mere 1% of
households, each with at least $2.4 million in net worth (assets minus
debts), now
own 40% of the nation’s wealth, twice the share they claimed two decades
ago.
According to economist Edward Wolff of New York University, the
concentration of wealth is even more dizzying if home equity is taken
out of the
equation (wealth in housing is the most widely-dispersed of assets). Excluding
equity in homes, the richest 1/2 of 1% together (about 450,000 households)
now
own 42% of the nation’s financial wealth.
Thanks to a combination of rising profits, high real interest rates, skyrocketing
CEO pay, and a booming stock market, the inflation-adjusted net worth of
the
richest 1% swelled by 17%, between 1983 and 1995. For others, the boom
has
been a bust. Thanks to falling wages, low savings levels to begin with,
and rapidly
rising personal debts, the poorest 40% of households lost an astounding
80% of
their net worth.
While the rich racked up gains measured in the millions, the 40% at the
bottom
saw their average net worth shrink from $4,400 to a meager $900. And despite
endless media cheerleading about the rising Dow making millionaires of
the
middle-class, the middle fifth of American households have actually lost
11% of
their net worth since 1983.
Falling Wages increase the Wealth Gap
Behind the wealth gap lurks the wage gap, the fact that wages have fallen
short of
inflation for the past two decades. Although wages rose in 1997 and 1998,
real
weekly earnings for average workers are still lower than they were in the
1970s.
Had wages risen at the same rate as productivity, hourly workers would
today
earn an additional $5.33 an hour or $11,000 a year — that could be used
to
purchase assets.
Instead, households are borrowing heavily to make up for stagnant wages.
The
U.S. savings rate — the percentage of personal income not spent each year
— is
less than zero, meaning that the typical U.S. household spends more than
it earns.
Debt service now eats up 17% of consumer income, a heavy and potentially
insupportable burden. As a result, nearly one in five households has negative
net
worth, and bankruptcy filings have doubled since 1990.
Consumer advocates also worry about the large numbers of homeowners taking
out home-equity loans on the basis of what may be speculative increases
in their
homes’ value. In an economic downturn, with a rise in unemployment, home
prices could drop precipitously, putting more middle-class households into
bankruptcy and sparking a wave of home foreclosures.
The maldistribution of wealth in the United
States jeopardizes both our economy and our
democracy. To close the wealth gap, we
need policies that raise wages and equalize
earnings. Higher minimum wages and
stronger state and local living wage
ordinances are a first step. But workers
aren’t likely to share in growth and
productivity gains without increased
unionization and tougher state regulations that
limit overtime and outsourcing.
The Wealth Gap: A Political Issue
With personal savings rates at an all-time low
and with the proportion of workers covered
by private pension plans declining, it is likely
that many Americans will retire with little or
no personal savings. In response to public
anxiety about the asset gap, a few Democrats
have made modest efforts to address the
issue.
President Clinton in January proposed
expanding individual savings through the
establishment of "USA Accounts." These
would function like Individual Retirement
Accounts except that lower-income
taxpayers would receive federal matching
funds for any savings that they put aside.
Funds could be withdrawn before retirement
for asset-building activities, like purchasing a
home.
Senator Robert Kerrey (D-NE) introduced
legislation to create what he calls "KidSave
Accounts." The federal government, under
this plan, would provide $3000 to every
child, which, if invested at 7% per year (an
ambitious goal) could increase in value to
$175,000 by age 65. Funds would be
available for retirement and would, hopefully,
reduce the numbers of households with zero
net worth.
Two Yale professors, Anne Alstott and Bruce Ackerman, proposed a more
ambitious asset-building program in their book, The Stakeholder Society.
Under
this scheme, each American upon reaching his or her 20s, would receive
$80,000 — a "stake" to invest in business start-ups, education, or other
asset-building activities. Financed initially by progressive taxation,
the idea is to
level the wealth-building playing field, though $80,000 is still a far
cry from the
$100 billion that Bill Gates’ heirs stand to inherit.
These proposals, with their focus on individual security and market-based
solutions, fail to address the political and economic dangers of the
over-concentration of wealth. Moreover, they are offered in the context
of
privatizing social security and dismantling social safety nets. Progressive
reforms
must address those structures of the economy that foster great inequality
rather
than shoehorning people into individual wealth-building schemes. A bolder
program would include wealth taxation, fairer income taxation, broader
worker
ownership, and the accumulation of public and community-owned assets.
(*) Chuck Collins is codirector of United for a Fair Economy in Boston.
He is coauthor with
Holly Sklar and Betsy Leondar-Wright of Shifting Fortunes: The
Perils of the American Wealth Gap.
Copyright © 1999 The Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.
Retour