Income Inequality

The rise in inequality experienced in the United States in the past three-and-a-half decades is not just a story of those in the financial sector in the greater New York City metropolitan area reaping outsized rewards from speculation in financial markets. While many of the highest-income families do live in states such as New York and Connecticut, IRS data make clear that rising inequality and increases in top 1 percent incomes affect every state.

The rise between 1979 and 2007 in top 1 percent incomes relative to the bottom 99 percent represents a sharp reversal of the trend that prevailed in the mid-20th century. This earlier era was characterized by a rising minimum wage, low levels of unemployment after the 1930s, widespread collective bargaining in private industries, and a cultural and political environment in which it was outrageous for executives to receive outsized bonuses while laying off workers. Today, millions of Americans feel tremendous anxiety about their grasp on the American Dream.

In 2013, income inequality was much higher in many states, metropolitan areas, and counties than for the United States overall. In 2013 the top 1 percent of families nationally made 25.3 times as much as the bottom 99 percent (Sommeiller, Price, and Wazeter 2016).

Publications

Benchmarking 2018: Utah vs Idaho

The goal of the Working Families Benchmarking Project is to identify economic and related issues affecting Utah families and examine them through a comparative lens, evaluating Utah using a peer state as a benchmark. Many existing economic comparison studies and rankings look at the economy as a whole or at its impact on specific sectors or on employers. This project seeks to augment those very useful comparisons by focusing on how the economy is experienced by moderate- and lower-income families. It is these families whose children are most at risk of not achieving their potential in school and later in the workplace. Thus, how they experience the economy is of particular interest to Voices for Utah Children.

The Gay Pay Gap in Washington and Impacts of Misogyny on LGBT Wages

  • June 12, 2018
  • Matthew Caruchet

Data show that men in same-sex marriages make less money than men in opposite-sex marriages, and women in same-sex marriages make more than women in opposite-sex marriages. This is consistent with finding from numerous national and international studies, which has found the trend to hold true even for people within the same occupation.

As with the gender pay gap, part of this is due to societal pressures and stereotypes placed on LGBT people. Gay men are pushed into feminine roles, and lesbians into masculine roles. As femininity is financially penalized in the United States and masculinity is incentivized, gay men suffer and lesbians profit (but not to the extent that straight men do).

New Hampshire’s Economy: Strengths and Constraints

New Hampshire has experienced a relatively robust economy in recent years. Growth has returned to rates similar to those from before the Great Recession, and the unemployment rate has remained below three percent since late 2015. Incomes appear to have increased for workers, with many middle- and low-income workers finally returning to near pre-Recession levels of income. However, job creation has been strongest in industries with wages below statewide averages and has been uneven in different regions of the state, while both housing and workforce constraints are likely limiting economic growth.

The New Hampshire economy is strong and growing, yet there are challenges to economic growth and to improving livelihoods for all the state’s residents. This Issue Brief explores New Hampshire’s overall economic output, areas of employment growth since the Recession, changes in income for workers and poverty rates, indicators of workforce constraints, and county-level data.

Tending to the Nest Egg: Plan Could Help Nonprofit Workers Build Retirement Security

In late 2017, Massachusetts launched a state-administered 401(k) plan that small nonprofits — those with 20 employees or fewer — can join5. The plan is administered through the Office of the State Treasurer and Receiver General, which will take on the bulk of the administrative responsibilities. This assists employers with some of the challenges that deter them from offering plans to their workers. And, because of economies of scale, the plan sponsor is better equipped to offer lower fees and expenses than typical private plans.

Massachusetts is one of the only states that has successfully implemented retirement reform and has a program up and running6. This plan — known as the Connecting Organizations to Retirement (CORE) Plan — can begin to address some of the barriers to retirement security for workers in the nonprofit sector.