Income Inequality During The Gilded Age

The gilded age is a time period in american history between 1870 1900.

Income inequality during the gilded age. If we judge from his writings on the web he thinks the gilded age properly ended with the stock market crash of 1929. We have now returned to gilded age levels of inequality the cbo report revealed some other stark facts. The jim crow laws enforced segregation between blacks and whites. The top 1 percent captured half or more of all income growth in nine states.

Several new development worsened blacks position in society. An economics paper says that the wealth gap in america is as high as it s been since before the great depression as income inequality grows. Racial inequality was prominent during the gilded age. During this time period there was a boom in the united states economy and population.

The median income of households headed by people under 35 years old has dropped precipitously from 40 900 to 35 100. Even households headed by people with college degrees have experienced falling incomes from a median income of 83 100 in 2001 to a median income of 73 000 in 2010. Economic insecurity and downright poverty ran high especially in urban areas and crowded unsanitary crime riddled tenements were essentially a sad fact of life for many during the gilded age. How american inequality in the gilded age compares to today.

Moreover the same economy that gave corporate titans the ability to amass among the largest fortunes in the history also required a massive amount of. In 2015 a family in the top 1 percent. They couldn t serve on juries. While incomes did rise up and down the ladder the explosive growth for the top 1 percent so vastly outweighed the expansion further down that the top 1 percent s share of the nation s total income more than doubled to just over 20 percent.

Gilded age inequality 891 words 4 pages. Income inequality has risen in every state since the 1970s and in most states it has grown in the post great recession era. And it s not just a matter of the poor getting poorer. Unfortunately during this time period there was a lot of financial corruption and inequality which caused the rich to become very wealthy.

Understood in this way krugman s thesis is well a bit of a reach but not flat wrong. From 2009 to 2015 the incomes of the top 1 percent grew faster than the incomes of the bottom 99 percent in 43 states and the district of columbia.