Be in the top 1% at every age: How much money do you need to earn?

Advertisment

Income disparity in the US has grown unwaveringly critical over the past decade.

As the countries, affluent people get even richer, and the share of individuals under the poverty line boosts, America’s middle class has been gradually disappearing. A recent analysis by economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman mentioned by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business discovered that the bottom 50% of Americans saw zero revenue increase over the past 35 years.

One way to know that difference is to examine what annual salary a man currently requires to be in the best 1% of earners their age.

Business Insider applied current US census data to prepare that categorization. At 25, you’d have to be gaining at least $116,000 a year to be in the top 1% of earners. By 64, that figure increases to $473,000.

Business Insider examined data from the 2015 American Community Survey, an annual poll by the US Census Bureau that aims to question about 1% of all US households about various economic, demographic, social, and housing components.

Specifically, we used specific-level data from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, a project of the Minnesota Population Center at the University of Minnesota, which enabled us to determine the cutoffs for being in the top 1% of earners between full-time, year-round operators for each age in 2015.

It’s worth noting that this method has its limits — examinations like the ACS have been found to have trouble identifying people with extremely high returns, and some researchers favor to use alternative modes of data, such as tax records when considering those at the top of the wealth and property divisions.

Being in the top 1% of incomes also doesn’t indeed mean someone is in the top 1% of total capital since money takes into account a variety of sources. Still, the large sample size of the ACS gives us a good opinion of what it needs to strike the top 1% — and shows just how productive “rich” really is.

6 COMMENTS

Comments are closed.