The Survey of Consumer Finances Chartbook 2007 provides these quantiles* for Net Worth:
- Bottom Quartile (25%),
- Second Quartile,
- Third Quartile,
- Next 15% and
- Top Decile (10%).
(*Quantile is the generic which includes percentiles, deciles, quartiles, quintiles, and any other aggregation within a distribution, including small fractions of a percentile. If you're curious about quantiles smaller than the top decile, you can find 2007 data on the top 1%, next 4% and following 5% in Part 1. That's where the action is.)
The Chartbook collects the results of the past 7 SCF's. It provides means and medians for various quantiles and demographics. Each table appears on its own page, and the Chartbook runs to about 1200 pages. I've selected a very small number of the pages; the data here comes from two pages.
The data is on Net Worth; that is, the total assets of a
family minus its debts.
Table 1 shows the Mean Value of Net Worth for families with holdings. Notice that the average in the bottom 25% is negative, and that in the second quarter of families the average is under $60,000 in 2007. (The mean of any income distribution is higher than the median: the median represents the middle person or family -- half have more, half have less. The mean today seems to be about equal to the 80th percentile, which means that, unlike Lake Wobegon, most of us are below average. Ironic when you consider that 19% of us consider ourselves to be top 1%ers!)
|
Table 1: Mean Value of Net Worth for families with holdings (000's of
2007 dollars) by Net Worth Quantile |
|||||
| Quantile of Net Worth | |||||
SCF year |
Bottom 25% |
Second 25% |
Third 25% |
Second 15% | Top 10% |
| 1989 | (1.0) | 37.0 | 143.3 | 363.8 | 1,999.3 |
| 1992 | (0.8) | 36.8 | 131.1 | 316.3 | 1,807.9 |
| 1995 | (0.2) | 41.4 | 134.7 | 322.6 | 1,943.2 |
| 1998 | (2.4) | 45.7 | 163.7 | 410.1 | 2,468.4 |
| 2001 | 0.1 | 51.9 | 195.6 | 528.3 | 3,235.7 |
| 2004 | (1.6) | 51.7 | 204.0 | 580.7 | 3,427.6 |
| 2007 | (2.2) | 58.1 | 227.7 | 588.6 | 3,985.9 |
| 2007
SCF Chartbook, page 73 |
|||||
Multiplying the average holdings per family within each quantile by the size of the Net Worth quantile, Table 2 shows the relative size of the holdings of each quantile group:
|
Table 2: Total Value of Net Worth for families with holdings (2007
dollars) by Net Worth Quantile |
|||||||
| Quantile of Net Worth | |||||||
|
Bottom 25% |
Second 25% |
Third 25% |
Second 15% |
Top 10% |
|
Total | |
| 1989 |
(25) | 925 | 3,583 | 5,457 | 19,993 |
|
29,933 |
| 1992 |
(20) | 920 | 3,278 | 4,745 | 18,079 |
|
27,001 |
| 1995 |
(5) | 1,035 | 3,368 | 4,839 | 19,432 |
|
28,669 |
| 1998 |
(60) | 1,143 | 4,093 | 6,152 | 24,684 |
|
36,011 |
| 2001 |
3 | 1,298 | 4,890 | 7,925 | 32,357 |
|
46,472 |
| 2004 |
(40) | 1,293 | 5,100 | 8,711 | 34,276 |
|
49,339 |
| 2007 |
(55) | 1,453 | 5,693 | 8,829 | 39,859 | 55,778 | |
Source:
2007 SCF Chartbook, page 73, and author's calculations. Each quantile
group's mean holdings (see Table 1) is multiplied by the percentage in
that quantile. Thus, the totals from year to year do not reflect
increases in population. Note also that since not all families have
holdings, the value of the bottom quantile's holdings may be overstated! |
|||||||
Table 3 is calculated from Table 2, and shows the shares of aggregate net worth held by the various quantile groups. The top 10% of Net Worth holders had 66.8% of the total Net Worth in 1989; by 2007, their share had risen to 71.5%.
| Table 3: Shares of Aggregate Net Worth for families with holdings (2007 dollars) by Net Worth Quantile | |||||||
| Quantile of Net Worth | |||||||
| Bottom Quartile | Second Quartile | Third Quartile | Second 15% | Top Decile | Total | ||
| 1989 |
-0.1% | 3.1% | 12.0% | 18.2% | 66.8% | 100.0% | |
| 1992 |
-0.1% | 3.4% | 12.1% | 17.6% | 67.0% | 100.0% | |
| 1995 |
-0.0% | 3.6% | 11.7% | 16.9% | 67.8% | 100.0% | |
| 1998 |
-0.2% | 3.2% | 11.4% | 17.1% | 68.5% | 100.0% | |
| 2001 |
0.0% | 2.8% | 10.5% | 17.1% | 69.6% | 100.0% | |
| 2004 |
-0.1% | 2.6% | 10.3% | 17.7% | 69.5% | 100.0% | |
| 2007 |
-0.1% | 2.6% | 10.2% | 15.8% | 71.5% | 100.0% | |
| point
change, 1989-2007 | n/c | - 0.5 pts | - 1.8 pts | - 2.4 pts | + 4.7 pts | ||
| source: SCF chartbook,
my calculations | |||||||
So how is our middle class* doing? And how are those whose economic situation can't be stretched to describe them as middle class doing?
Let's look at some possible definitions of "middle class," based on Net Worth holdings (and the SCF data structure):*See the last paragraphs for why I'm focusing on Middle Class here.
- The Middle Class is the middle 50% of the Net Worth distribution -- those between the 25th and 75th percentiles.
- The Middle Class is the 65% of us between the 25th and 90th percentiles.
- The Middle Class is the 40% of us between the 50th and 90th percentiles.
| Table 4: Shares of Net Worth by Net Worth Quantile,
1989 to 2007 |
|||
| Net Worth Quantile |
|||
|
Bottom 25% |
Middle 50% |
Top
25%
|
|
| 1989 |
-0.1% | 15.1% | 85.0% |
| 1992 |
-0.1% | 15.6% | 84.5% |
| 1995 |
-0.0% | 15.4% | 84.7% |
| 1998 |
-0.2% | 14.5% | 85.6% |
| 2001 |
0.0% | 13.3% | 86.7% |
| 2004 |
-0.1% | 13.0% | 87.1% |
| 2007 |
-0.1% | 12.8% | 87.3% |
| point
change, 1989 to 2007 |
n/c |
- 2.3 pts |
+ 2.3 pts |
| source: SCF
Chartbook, my calculations | |||
2. Defining the Middle Class as the 65% of us between the 25th and 90th percentiles, we find that the Middle Class's share of Net Worth has fallen from 33.3% to 28.6% between 1989 and 2007. This is about 14%. All has flowed upwards.
| Table 5: Shares of Net Worth by Net Worth Quantile, 1989 to 2007 | |||
| Net Worth Quantile |
|||
|
Bottom 25% |
Middle 65% |
Top 10% |
|
| 1989 |
-0.1% | 33.3% | 66.8% |
| 1992 |
-0.1% | 33.1% | 67.0% |
| 1995 |
-0.0% | 32.2% | 67.8% |
| 1998 |
-0.2% | 31.6% | 68.6% |
| 2001 |
0.0% | 30.4% | 69.6% |
| 2004 |
-0.1% | 30.6% | 69.5% |
| 2007 |
-0.1% | 28.6% | 71.5% |
| point
change, 1989 to 2007 |
n/c |
- 4.7 pts |
+ 4.7 pts |
source: SCF Chartbook, my calculations | |||
3 Defining the Middle Class as the 40% of us between the 50th and 90th percentiles of Net Worth, we find that the Middle Class's share of America's Net Worth fell from 30.2% to 26.0%, while the share of the bottom 50% fell from 3.0% to 2.5%.
| Table 6: Shares of Net Worth by Net Worth Quantile, 1989 to 2007 | |||
| Net Worth Quantile | |||
|
Bottom 50% |
Middle 40% |
Top 10% |
|
| 1989 |
3.0% | 30.2% | 66.8% |
| 1992 |
3.3% | 29.7% | 67.0% |
| 1995 |
3.6% | 28.6% | 67.8% |
| 1998 |
3.0% | 28.4% | 68.5% |
| 2001 |
2.8% | 27.6% | 69.6% |
| 2004 |
2.5% | 28.0% | 69.5% |
| 2007 |
2.5% | 26.0% | 71.5% |
| point change, 1989 to 2007 | - 0.5 pts | - 4.2 pts |
+ 4.7 pts |
| SCF Chartbook, my calculations | |||
The SCF Chartbook provides another set of data points: the median Net
Worth within each quantile -- that is, the situation of the middle
family within each group:
| Table 7: Median value of net worth for families with holdings | |||||
| Percentile of net worth | |||||
| Year | Less than 25 |
25-49.9 | 50-74.9 | 75-89.9 | 90-100 |
| Level (thousands of 2007 dollars) | |||||
| 1989 | 0.3 | 33.9 | 139.4 | 338.4 | 1,108.5 |
| 1992 | 0.7 | 34.1 | 126.8 | 295.3 | 962.0 |
| 1995 | 1.3 | 38.1 | 128.6 | 299.0 | 923.7 |
| 1998 | 0.6 | 41.6 | 153.4 | 394.8 | 1,141.2 |
| 2001 | 1.4 | 47.8 | 184.7 | 503.9 | 1,529.6 |
| 2004 | 1.9 | 47.9 | 187.8 | 560.0 | 1,570.6 |
| 2007 | 1.2 | 54.3 | 220.3 | 573.8 | 1,892.5 |
Among the bottom 25% of us, in 2007, half had total Net Worth of less
than $1,200, and half had more than that. Among the next quarter of
our families, half had total Net Worth of less than $54,300, and half
had more. Among the third quarter of our families, half had total Net
Worth of less than $220,300, and half had more. Among the next 15% of
our families, half had more than $573,800, and half had less. Among the
top 10% of families, half had nearly $1.9 million in Net Worth, and
half had less. As Ed Wolff's work a few years ago pointed out, a
shockingly small portion of American families had sufficient assets,
outside of home equity, to live for even 3 months at the poverty level.
Incidentally -- no, not incidentally -- the fact that I've focused here on "middle class" does not mean that I am not concerned with those whose net worth and/or income falls below anyone's definition of middle class. My focus on various definitions of "Middle Class" is intended to show that our much-talked-about MC, by any definition, has a smaller portion of the return on labor than most people seem to realize. And our underclass has almost nothing, despite many working long and hard at jobs without which our society could not function. But it isn't our underclass (sorry -- I don't like that word, but I haven't found another I like better) that is squeezing our middle class. Wealth is not flowing down or trickling down; it is concentrating.
As Henry George told us in Progress and Poverty, there is an immense wedge being driven through society. Those above it are buoyed up, those below it are pressed down. Look at the data here, and see what you think.
Comments