The richest 10% are getting richer across the country by Bob Bryan on Sep 28, 2015, 8:20 AM Advertisement
 There's been an increased focus on the gap between the have and the have-nots and how much each group makes. According to a new study, the chasm between the two is getting even wider. J. Chris Cunningham at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics conducted a study on wage growth between 2003 and 2013, and found that those that were in the top 25% for wages saw what they made rise over the decade. In contract, those in the bottom 75% actually saw their real wages drop over the 10 years. "The highest paid 10% of wage earners in the United States earned at least $88,330 per year, while the lowest paid 10 percent earned less than $18,190 per year," said Cunningham. "Therefore, by this measure, the “90–10” ratio in the United States was 4.86 in 2013, compared with 4.54 in 2003, an increase of about 7 percent over that 10-year period." We pulled out some of Cunningham's most interesting, and startling, findings along with quotes from the study. SEE ALSO: The case for redistributing wealth in America is losing support from 2 demographics Real wages for low-wage earners decreased, while high-wage earners saw their wages grow. "As can be seen in the figure, in general, real annual wages increased for the highest paid workers and decreased for the lowest paid workers, a pattern that holds for most metropolitan areas. Nominal wages for both measures increased, but the 90th percentile grew faster than the 10th percentile."
The wage gap got worse in larger cities. "As can be seen in figure 5, the 90–10 ratio increased for all MSA size categories over the period, but it increased much more in the larger areas (those with employment of 1 million or more)."
Here's the growth for the 90th and 10th percentiles for differently sized cities. "The figure also shows that the 90th-percentile wages in the smaller areas grew faster than those in the two middle size categories, but the 10th-percentile wages also grew faster in the smaller areas, which helps explain why the 90–10 ratios grew more slowly in the smaller areas than in the larger areas."
See the rest of the story at Business Insider |
0 comments:
Post a Comment