Republican strength in congress aids super-rich, president's affiliation has no effect

Oct 01, 2012

Republican strength in Congress increases the share of income held by the top 1 percent, but the president's political affiliation has no effect, suggests a new study in the October issue of the American Sociological Review that looks at the rise of the super-rich in the United States.

"This points to the central role that Congress has in the legislative process," said study co-author Thomas W. Volscho, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at CUNY-College of Staten Island. "The president has limited ability to make the sort of legislative changes necessary to affect the top 1 percent without the support of Congress, making Congress the central actor here."

According to the study, "The Rise of the Super-Rich: Power Resources, Taxes, , and the Dynamics of the Top 1 Percent, 1949 to 2008," following years of relative stability post , the share of the top 1 percent grew rapidly after 1980—from 10 percent in 1981 to 23.5 percent in 2007, a 135 percent increase. The income share of the super-rich dropped to about 21 percent in 2008, likely as a result of the financial crisis that had begun, Volscho said. By way of comparison, the income share of the top 1 percent was 11.7 percent in 1949.

"We found evidence that congressional shifts to the Republican Party, diminishing union membership, lower top tax rates, and financial asset bubbles in stock and real estate markets played a strong role in the rise of the 1 percent," said Volscho, who co-authored the study with Nathan J. Kelly, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Tennessee. "From the early 1980s to 2008, these measures saw major shifts after relative stability in Democratic dominance of Congress, union membership, , and prices of stocks and real estate during the postwar era of the late 1940s to the late 1970s."

While Volscho and Kelly found that Republican strength in Congress was associated with higher levels of inequality, the link between politics and inequality was not merely due to redistribution, as the study was based on income, including capital gains, prior to taxes and transfers.

"Democrats are more favorable than Republicans toward social programs that redistribute income, but the parties also differ over what the economic rules of the game should be," Volscho said. "Based on our analysis, Democrats appear to favor an economic system that produces more egalitarian outcomes even before any redistribution occurs."

From 1949 through 2008, the impact of a one percentage point increase in the share of seats (just over five seats) held by Republicans in Congress raised the top income share by about .08 percentage points, according to the study.

"At first glance, this might seem negligible, but that's really not the case," said Volscho. "Given that the estimated national income in 2008 was more than $7.8 trillion, an increase of only 1 percent in Republican seat share would raise the income of the top 1 percent by nearly $6.6 billion. That equates to about $6,600 per family in the top 1 percent."

In terms of labor unions, over the course of the study period, Volscho and Kelly found that a one percentage point decrease in union membership among private sector workers was associated with more than a .40 percentage point increase in the income share of the super-rich. According to Volscho, private sector union membership was 34.9 percent in 1949, but had dropped to 7.6 percent by 2008.

Based on the estimated 2008 national income, the effect of a one percentage point drop in private sector union membership would transfer $33.4 billion to the top 1 percent, Volscho said.

"As union membership has decreased, a greater share of income has shifted toward the top 1 percent," Volscho said. "With a decrease in , workers' wage bargaining power diminishes and this can increase firms' market value and their profitability. A higher market value often translates into higher stock prices and executive compensation, thereby shifting income toward the top."

The study also found that the effect of a percentage point decrease in capital gains and income taxes was similar in magnitude to the effect of a percentage point increase in the share of seats held by Republicans in Congress. Additionally, based on the estimated 2008 national income, a 100 point increase in the (inflation adjusted) Standard & Poor's 500 composite stock market index over the previous year would transfer about $39.6 billion to the top 1 percent and a 10 point (inflation adjusted) increase in Robert Shiller's real historical home price index would shift $34.1 billion to the top 1 percent, Volscho said.

The study relies on data from a variety of sources including a paper, "Income in the United States, 1913-1998," in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, online updates to the paper, the U.S. Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract of the United States, Unionstats.com, the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center, Standard & Poor's 500 composite stock market index, and Robert Shiller's real historical home price index.

Explore further: Research reveals Germans born after the fall of the Berlin Wall suffered from bad parenting

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Personal income up, but are we better off?

Mar 31, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Although U.S. personal income per capita has risen 5.7 percent since 2000, an increase in tax-exempt benefits provided by the government and employers accounted for all of the income growth in the past decade, ...

Middle class better off than previously thought

May 02, 2012

Long portrayed as stagnant, the income growth of the U.S. middle class may be more than 10 times greater than previously suggested by some economists, according to a new study at Cornell.

Recommended for you

How people respond to a catastrophe on social media

22 minutes ago

When an earthquake hits, it makes more than just seismic waves. Extreme events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and terrorist attacks also produce waves of immediate online social interactions, in the form ...

Making cities more accessible for everyone

32 minutes ago

Ron Buliung's interest in urban design initially started with his travels to Europe and India where he saw how different cities dealt with issues such as space, wealth, poverty, street life, congestion and ...

Scientists show IQs on the rise

1 hour ago

(Phys.org) —Human intelligence is thought to improve with each generation and a unique study of people born and raised in Aberdeen has proved that those in north-east Scotland are getting smarter.

User comments : 12

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2012
The president has limited ability to make the sort of legislative changes necessary to affect the top 1 percent without the support of Congress, making Congress the central actor here

Last I checked the president wasn't part of the legislative branch.
So while the results of the study point to a rather sad state of affairs in US politics that part is pretty much as it should be.
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2012
Most Americans don't understand how their government operates. They should outsource important decision making to Germans and Russians.

As for the efficacy of the President, all one need do is look at the legacy of Ronald Raygun and a generation of corporate yuppies that created the situation the US now enjoys. Arguably these executive structural changes don't happen in one election cycle. Fundamental programs begun by US presidents seem to live for a century. The successor simply sculpts more detail, as Obama refines the Patriot Act, CISPA, Gitmo and Bush's wars.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2012
They should outsource important decision making to Germans and Russians.

I dunno. The Putin-style doesn't strike me as a particularly viable alternative, either.
tadchem
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2012
If there is truth in this thesis, one would expect the 'super-rich' themselves would have been the first to know. This begs the question: "Why do so many of the super-rich contribute so generously to the Democratic party?"
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012
Why do so many of the super-rich contribute so generously to the Democratic party?"

What do you mean by 'so many'? That's a typical fuzzy-phrase used to insinuate that there are many (as compared to those who gave to the Republicans.
http://wiki.answe...ionaires

That some millionairs do support Democrats may just be an indication that not all millionaires are purely money-driven?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2012
They should outsource important decision making to Germans and Russians.
I dunno. The Putin-style doesn't strike me as a particularly viable alternative, either.
Yes 4% GDP growth this year isn't for everyone.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2012
Sure. But in Russia the rich are getting richer (and much faster than in the west) while the massive amounts of poor are getting ever poorer (also much faster than in the west). GDP isn't the measure it's cracked up to be in how well a country is doing (and how stable its society is).

http://www.guardi...r-poorer

What kind of social dynamic that breeds I think no one has to tell to a russian.

Starts with an 'R' and ends with 'evolution'.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2012
Sure. But in Russia the rich are getting richer (and much faster than in the west) while the massive amounts of poor are getting ever poorer (also much faster than in the west). GDP isn't the measure it's cracked up to be in how well a country is doing (and how stable its society is).

This is a common misconception among Westerners. Russia requires a strong central authority otherwise regional governors will have their way with their constituents and the country can fall apart with breakaway regions like Chechnya. It is nothing for a governor to steal revenues leaving people to freeze all winter, as happened in Siberia. You can see what the Israeli-backed spring revolutions have done for the Middle East. Now Israel has tripled her potential adversaries in only a few years.

Russians understand revolution is fraught with bloodshed. That's why the strong central authority system is preferred by most Russians. You remember what the Bolshevik revolution brought.
Pressure2
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012
If there is truth in this thesis, one would expect the 'super-rich' themselves would have been the first to know. This begs the question: "Why do so many of the super-rich contribute so generously to the Democratic party?"

Why do most of the blue states which receive less from the federal government then they pay in taxes support the democrats while the red states who receive more than they contribute support the "Tea Party" republicans types who would slash the federal budget reducing their take from the federal government?

Go figure, maybe most people in the blue states care about the fellow man while people in the red states don't even understand what is in their own best interest.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2012
If there is truth in this thesis, one would expect the 'super-rich' themselves would have been the first to know. This begs the question: "Why do so many of the super-rich contribute so generously to the Democratic party?"

Why do most of the blue states which receive less from the federal government then they pay in taxes support the democrats while the red states who receive more than they contribute support the "Tea Party" republicans types who would slash the federal budget reducing their take from the federal government?

Go figure, maybe most people in the blue states care about the fellow man while people in the red states don't even understand what is in their own best interest.


It's "What's The Matter With Kansas?" authored by Thomas Frank.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2012
Russia requires a strong central authority otherwise regional governors will have their way with their constituents and the country can fall apart with breakaway regions like Chechnya.
Russian people doesn't need Chechnya at all in the same way, like the Americans don't need Afghanistan. President Amadinejad explained it well before years already. Recently Barroso expressed his wishes to union the Europe into federation. It's the powerful people of this world, who need to to embrace and extent their dominions, not the ordinary people.
RealScience
1.5 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2012
@pressure2 - I have wondered the same thing myself.
But regarding your explanation, it is also plausible that the small-government folks care about their fellow man enough that they want to reduce government even though their states receive government benefits.

From my experience talking with people from all walks of life, both groups think that what they propose benefits their fellow man!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.