JF Ptak Science Books Post 2469
It is always difficult comparing value of objects over periods of time--this is especially so when trying to compare the value of wealth, in general. And so I won't be tempted to much to do this while relating the data of this interesting and tiny handout, The Distribution of Wealth in the United States, 1910. It was published in 1912 by Edward G. Hewitt (who curiously locates himself in "Brooklyn Borough", rather than just "Brooklyn" or the "Borough of Brooklyn", the incorporation taking place 14 years earlier) and presented in a bit of an odd way, at least to me, dividing the wealth into groups of families. It makes it a little hard to understand, even if there are only 22 divisions to the analysis.
What attracted my attention in this was the number of millionaire families, which was 7,737 in the total of 18,434,837 families--or about .4%--with an aggregate wealth of $26.9 billion, which was a 22.6% share of the national wealth stated at $115,000,000,000. That millionaires club would be about $24 million in 2014 dollars, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.
Secondly, the much-discussed 1% here totaled 189,237 families with wealth of over $62,500, or about $1,494,545 or so in 2014 dollars.
Since "wealth" really isn't defined here it is difficult for me to extrapolate the differences between the 1% of 1910 and the 1% of 2015--especially so since I've seen several different current interpretations of what the modern 1% actually means.
In 1910 there were 7,737 families of millionaire status--today there are something like 5.4 million millionaires in the U.S., though that is counted as individuals, or about 1.6% of the population compared to .4% in 1910. And as my friend Jeff Donlan points out, it would be more useful to talk about the 24-millionaires club than simple millionaires, but I don't have access to that data, at least not for this half-hour post.
It is interesting that The Economist in 2012 stated that the average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data. I find it very surprising that the 1910 1% (adjusted by BLS) comes in at $1.49m.
Again, this is all sorts of problematic, but even though stumbling around like I am here with these numbers it is very curious to see how closely those 1% numbers from 1910 and 2014 come together. It feels like this is wrong on many or all levels, and the 1910 data might all be junk for all I know, and that it is like saying that the stars are all the same size because that's what it looks like here on Earth, but it is strange about how those numbers worked out--at least here, using the stated data. I'm not saying that what I'm saying above has any value beyond indicating that there may be something interesting here...
Comments