The world may be flat these days, but the path to success differs around the globe. In some countries, education and hard work are enough. In others, connections and bribes play a big role. Pew Research surveyed people and asked them which factors are absolutely necessary to get ahead in their nation.
More from CNN.
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Monday, October 13, 2014
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Some Americans Boosted Charitable Giving In Recession; The Rich Did Not
As times got tough in the recent recession, the less well-off of America's citizens became more generous when giving to charity. But at the same time, wealthy Americans cut the proportion of their incomes they donated, according to a new study that analyzed data from tax returns.
NPR's Pam Fessler reports:
"The study was done by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which looked at IRS data showing charitable deductions in 2006 and 2012. The study found that Americans who earned $200,000 a year or more cut the share of income they gave to charity by 4.6 percent, while Americans earning less than $100,000 a year gave 4.5 percent more of their income to charity.
"Those with incomes of $25,000 or less saw the biggest increase. The share of their income that went to charity rose almost 17 percent. Low-income Americans primarily give to religious organizations."
While the wealthiest Americans cut how much of their incomes they sent to charity, the total amount of their donations rose, with the Chronicle saying their donations "increased by $4.6 billion, to hit $77.5 billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars."
More from National Public Radio
NPR's Pam Fessler reports:
"The study was done by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which looked at IRS data showing charitable deductions in 2006 and 2012. The study found that Americans who earned $200,000 a year or more cut the share of income they gave to charity by 4.6 percent, while Americans earning less than $100,000 a year gave 4.5 percent more of their income to charity.
"Those with incomes of $25,000 or less saw the biggest increase. The share of their income that went to charity rose almost 17 percent. Low-income Americans primarily give to religious organizations."
While the wealthiest Americans cut how much of their incomes they sent to charity, the total amount of their donations rose, with the Chronicle saying their donations "increased by $4.6 billion, to hit $77.5 billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars."
More from National Public Radio
Thursday, November 14, 2013
The 40-Year Slump
From The Prospect:
Since 1947, Americans at all points on the economic spectrum had become a little better off with each passing year. The economy’s rising tide, as President John F. Kennedy had famously said, was lifting all boats. Productivity had risen by 97 percent in the preceding quarter-century, and median wages had risen by 95 percent. As economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted in The Affluent Society, this newly middle-class nation had become more egalitarian. The poorest fifth had seen their incomes increase by 42 percent since the end of the war, while the wealthiest fifth had seen their incomes rise by just 8 percent. Economists have dubbed the period the “Great Compression.”
This egalitarianism, of course, was severely circumscribed. African Americans had only recently won civil equality, and economic equality remained a distant dream. Women entered the workforce in record numbers during the early 1970s to find a profoundly discriminatory labor market. A new generation of workers rebelled at the regimentation of factory life, staging strikes across the Midwest to slow down and humanize the assembly line. But no one could deny that Americans in 1974 lived lives of greater comfort and security than they had a quarter-century earlier. During that time, median family income more than doubled.
Then, it all stopped.
Since 1947, Americans at all points on the economic spectrum had become a little better off with each passing year. The economy’s rising tide, as President John F. Kennedy had famously said, was lifting all boats. Productivity had risen by 97 percent in the preceding quarter-century, and median wages had risen by 95 percent. As economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted in The Affluent Society, this newly middle-class nation had become more egalitarian. The poorest fifth had seen their incomes increase by 42 percent since the end of the war, while the wealthiest fifth had seen their incomes rise by just 8 percent. Economists have dubbed the period the “Great Compression.”
This egalitarianism, of course, was severely circumscribed. African Americans had only recently won civil equality, and economic equality remained a distant dream. Women entered the workforce in record numbers during the early 1970s to find a profoundly discriminatory labor market. A new generation of workers rebelled at the regimentation of factory life, staging strikes across the Midwest to slow down and humanize the assembly line. But no one could deny that Americans in 1974 lived lives of greater comfort and security than they had a quarter-century earlier. During that time, median family income more than doubled.
Then, it all stopped.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
The Measure of America: states, by well-being
The 2013-14 report Measure of America, under the auspices of the Social Science Research Council, slices and dices America’s performance not just on income, but on various metrics of health and education as well.
The rankings are based on the American Human Development Index, "an alternative to GDP" that aims to summarize not just how rich Americans are, but how we’re doing on the things that we presumably want riches for: a long and healthy life in which everyone can make the most of their talents and interests. The American index is derived from the U.N.’s Human Development Index (on which, by the way, the U.S. currently ranks third in the world, after Norway and Australia).
More HERE.
The rankings are based on the American Human Development Index, "an alternative to GDP" that aims to summarize not just how rich Americans are, but how we’re doing on the things that we presumably want riches for: a long and healthy life in which everyone can make the most of their talents and interests. The American index is derived from the U.N.’s Human Development Index (on which, by the way, the U.S. currently ranks third in the world, after Norway and Australia).
More HERE.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Household Debt in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011 and Measuring the Wealth of U.S. Households
The percentage of U.S. households holding some form of debt declined from 74 percent to 69 percent between 2000 and 2011, according to new statistics released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. At the same time, the median amount of household debt increased over this period from $50,971 to $70,000 (in 2011 constant dollars). These statistics are part of a larger package released today that contains statistics on household wealth, asset ownership and debt.
These statistics come from Household Debt in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011 and accompanying detailed tables that examine the median value of debt and percent holding debt for households, by various characteristics of the householder, such as race and Hispanic origin, age, education and income quintile.
Between 2000 and 2011, the largest increases in median debt were experienced in households with householders age 35 to 44 (to $108,000), 45 to 54 (to $86,500) and 55 to 64 (to $70,000). However, the largest percentage increases in debt belonged to householders 55 to 64 years old (64 percent) and 65 and older (more than doubling to $26,000). Furthermore, people 65 and older were the only age group whose likelihood of holding debt rose over the period (from 41 percent to 44 percent). The opposite pattern was observed for those under 65.
“Those 65 and over became more likely to hold debt against their homes, and their median housing debt increased, as well, which explains a significant portion of the increase in their overall debt between 2000 and 2011,” Census Bureau economist Marina Vornovytskyy said.
During the period, the composition of debt held by households also changed considerably. While the percentage holding credit card debt declined from 51 percent in 2000 to 38 percent in 2011, the percentage holding other unsecured debt, such as educational loans and medical bills not covered by insurance, rose from 11 percent to 19 percent.
“Householders under age 45 experienced the largest increases in both the likelihood of holding other debt and the amount of other debt,” Vornovytskyy said.
Also released was Household Wealth in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011 and associated detailed tables that examine the median value of assets and percent holding assets for households in 2011, by type of asset owned and householder characteristics similar to those explored in Household Debt in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011.
According to Household Wealth in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011, median net worth rose from $81,821 in 2000 to $106,585 in 2005, before declining to $68,828 in 2011 (in 2011 constant dollars). Median net worth excluding home equity has not exhibited the same degree of variability as overall median net worth: it showed no statistically significant change between 2000 and 2005 and decreased by $3,815 (or 18 percent) between 2005 and 2011.
"The changes in overall median net worth observed over the past decade have been driven primarily by changes in one of its major components — equity that American households hold in their homes," Census Bureau economist Alfred Gottschalck said.
Over this same time period, there was significant regional variation in the changes in median net worth. The West experienced the largest changes over the last decade, increasing from $78,999 in 2000 to $146,841 in 2005 and then decreasing to $59,431 by 2011.
Between 2010 and 2011, median net worth showed no statistically significant change. Median net worth excluding home equity increased from $15,546 to $16,942.
These statistics come from Household Debt in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011 and accompanying detailed tables that examine the median value of debt and percent holding debt for households, by various characteristics of the householder, such as race and Hispanic origin, age, education and income quintile.
Between 2000 and 2011, the largest increases in median debt were experienced in households with householders age 35 to 44 (to $108,000), 45 to 54 (to $86,500) and 55 to 64 (to $70,000). However, the largest percentage increases in debt belonged to householders 55 to 64 years old (64 percent) and 65 and older (more than doubling to $26,000). Furthermore, people 65 and older were the only age group whose likelihood of holding debt rose over the period (from 41 percent to 44 percent). The opposite pattern was observed for those under 65.
“Those 65 and over became more likely to hold debt against their homes, and their median housing debt increased, as well, which explains a significant portion of the increase in their overall debt between 2000 and 2011,” Census Bureau economist Marina Vornovytskyy said.
During the period, the composition of debt held by households also changed considerably. While the percentage holding credit card debt declined from 51 percent in 2000 to 38 percent in 2011, the percentage holding other unsecured debt, such as educational loans and medical bills not covered by insurance, rose from 11 percent to 19 percent.
“Householders under age 45 experienced the largest increases in both the likelihood of holding other debt and the amount of other debt,” Vornovytskyy said.
Also released was Household Wealth in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011 and associated detailed tables that examine the median value of assets and percent holding assets for households in 2011, by type of asset owned and householder characteristics similar to those explored in Household Debt in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011.
According to Household Wealth in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011, median net worth rose from $81,821 in 2000 to $106,585 in 2005, before declining to $68,828 in 2011 (in 2011 constant dollars). Median net worth excluding home equity has not exhibited the same degree of variability as overall median net worth: it showed no statistically significant change between 2000 and 2005 and decreased by $3,815 (or 18 percent) between 2005 and 2011.
"The changes in overall median net worth observed over the past decade have been driven primarily by changes in one of its major components — equity that American households hold in their homes," Census Bureau economist Alfred Gottschalck said.
Over this same time period, there was significant regional variation in the changes in median net worth. The West experienced the largest changes over the last decade, increasing from $78,999 in 2000 to $146,841 in 2005 and then decreasing to $59,431 by 2011.
Between 2010 and 2011, median net worth showed no statistically significant change. Median net worth excluding home equity increased from $15,546 to $16,942.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
America's richest cities in 2013
From MoneyWatch:
Real estate is all about location, location, location -- especially when you're wealthy. After all, when you can afford to live anywhere you want, you won't settle for anything less than perfection.
Recently released census data suggests which cities have the greatest appeal for rich people. These metropolitan areas have the highest percentage of households with high income (defined as income levels in the top 5 percent of national income distribution). That represents an annual household income of at least $191,469.
All average listing prices from Trulia.com
Real estate is all about location, location, location -- especially when you're wealthy. After all, when you can afford to live anywhere you want, you won't settle for anything less than perfection.
Recently released census data suggests which cities have the greatest appeal for rich people. These metropolitan areas have the highest percentage of households with high income (defined as income levels in the top 5 percent of national income distribution). That represents an annual household income of at least $191,469.
All average listing prices from Trulia.com
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Pew Analysis of Census Data Demonstrates Wealth Gaps
From APDU
A recently released Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation demonstrates that the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households. Access the report, Twenty-to-One: Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, and associated coverage in The Washington Post.
A recently released Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation demonstrates that the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households. Access the report, Twenty-to-One: Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, and associated coverage in The Washington Post.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
It's the Inequality, Stupid
Eight charts that explain everything that's wrong with America.
— By Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot in Mother Jones
— By Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot in Mother Jones
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Inheritance and Wealth Transfer to Baby Boomers
Source: MetLife Mature Market Institute
The figures, drawn from national survey data, say the wealthiest Boomers will be given an average of $1.5 million, while those at the other end of the spectrum will be left $27,000, an amount that represents a larger percentage of the latter group’s overall wealth. Two-thirds of all Boomers stand to receive some inheritance over their lifetimes.
The figures, drawn from national survey data, say the wealthiest Boomers will be given an average of $1.5 million, while those at the other end of the spectrum will be left $27,000, an amount that represents a larger percentage of the latter group’s overall wealth. Two-thirds of all Boomers stand to receive some inheritance over their lifetimes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)