This statistic shows the median household income in the United States from 1970 to 2020, by income tier. In 2020, the median household income for the middle class stood at 90,131 U.S. dollars, which was approximately a 50 percent increase from 1970. However, the median income of upper income households in the U.S. increased by almost 70 percent compared to 1970.

This survey illustrates the differences in satisfaction of the upper, middle and lower class in the United States as of August 2012. 62 percent of upper class respondents stated they feel more financially secure now than they did ten years ago. 44 percent of middle class Americans and 29 percent of lower class Americans agree.

By 2030, the middle-class population in Asia-Pacific is expected to increase from 1.38 billion people in 2015 to 3.49 billion people. In comparison, the middle-class population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to increase from 114 million in 2015 to 212 million in 2030.

Worldwide wealth

While the middle-class has been on the rise, there is still a huge disparity in global wealth and income. The United States had the highest number of individuals belonging to the top one percent of wealth holders, and the value of global wealth is only expected to increase over the coming years. Around 57 percent of the world’s population had assets valued at less than 10,000 U.S. dollars; while less than one percent had assets of more than million U.S. dollars. Asia had the highest percentage of investable assets in the world in 2018, whereas Oceania had the highest percent of non-investable assets.

The middle-class

The middle class is the group of people whose income falls in the middle of the scale. China accounted for over half of the global population for middle-class wealth in 2017. In the United States, the debate about the middle class “disappearing” has been a popular topic due to the increase in wealth to the top billionaires in the nation. Due to this, there have been arguments to increase taxes on the rich to help support the middle-class.

In Sweden, seven million people counts as upper class or above, earning at least the equivalent of the highest 10 percent of global income earners as of 2022 in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. Meanwhile, the share was highest in Norway, and lowest in Finland. The countries are among the ones with the highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita worldwide.

ABSTRACT The article presents a panorama of socioeconomic hierarchies in late Nineteenth-century Brazil. Income analysis of social classes underpins these echelons. Within a theoretical and historical approach focused on social class, the article reckons that the Brazilian Empire was relatively egalitarian in terms of wages. A broad expressiveness of the lower classes, rather than a hypothetical robustness of the middle or the upper classes, explains this equality. The analysis of purchasing power and patterns of consumption made it possible to identify the degree of precariousness of the popular classes, as well as the existence of mainly urban middle classes. Lastly, salary data on the upper classes should not hide concentration of wealth, a main characteristic of the Empire’s decay, which was largely due to a polarized structure of slave property.

Graph and download economic data for Share of Net Worth Held by the Top 1% (99th to 100th Wealth Percentiles) (WFRBST01134) from Q3 1989 to Q1 2025 about net worth, wealth, percentile, Net, and USA.

This statistic shows a forecast of the distribution of urban households across income classes in China in 2022. In 2022, around 54 percent of the Chinese urban households would become upper middle class, while nine percent would be considered as wealthy.

This dataset contains replication files for "The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940" by Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/the-fading-american-dream/. A summary of the related publication follows. One of the defining features of the “American Dream” is the ideal that children have a higher standard of living than their parents. We assess whether the U.S. is living up to this ideal by estimating rates of “absolute income mobility” – the fraction of children who earn more than their parents – since 1940. We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size. Absolute mobility fell in all 50 states, although the rate of decline varied, with the largest declines concentrated in states in the industrial Midwest, such as Michigan and Illinois. The decline in absolute mobility is especially steep – from 95% for children born in 1940 to 41% for children born in 1984 – when we compare the sons’ earnings to their fathers’ earnings. Why have rates of upward income mobility fallen so sharply over the past half-century? There have been two important trends that have affected the incomes of children born in the 1980s relative to those born in the 1940s and 1950s: lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates and greater inequality in the distribution of growth. We find that most of the decline in absolute mobility is driven by the more unequal distribution of economic growth rather than the slowdown in aggregate growth rates. When we simulate an economy that restores GDP growth to the levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s but distributes that growth across income groups as it is distributed today, absolute mobility only increases to 62%. In contrast, maintaining GDP at its current level but distributing it more broadly across income groups – at it was distributed for children born in the 1940s – would increase absolute mobility to 80%, thereby reversing more than two-thirds of the decline in absolute mobility. These findings show that higher growth rates alone are insufficient to restore absolute mobility to the levels experienced in mid-century America. Under the current distribution of GDP, we would need real GDP growth rates above 6% per year to return to rates of absolute mobility in the 1940s. Intuitively, because a large fraction of GDP goes to a small fraction of high-income households today, higher GDP growth does not substantially increase the number of children who earn more than their parents. Of course, this does not mean that GDP growth does not matter: changing the distribution of growth naturally has smaller effects on absolute mobility when there is very little growth to be distributed. The key point is that increasing absolute mobility substantially would require more broad-based economic growth. We conclude that absolute mobility has declined sharply in America over the past half-century primarily because of the growth in inequality. If one wants to revive the “American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility, one must have an interest in growth that is shared more broadly across the income distribution.

In India, the share of the population that earned at least the equivalent of the highest ** percent of global income earners as of 2022 in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms was ** percent. Hyderabad topped the list with the highest share of middle-class and above category of consumers. Cities from south India topped the list with the first four ranks, followed by the national capital, Delhi.

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 46.900 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 46.400 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 46.000 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 46.900 % in 2016 and a record low of 41.200 % in 1979. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

This table presents income shares, thresholds, tax shares, and total counts of individual Canadian tax filers, with a focus on high income individuals (95% income threshold, 99% threshold, etc.). Income thresholds are based on national threshold values, regardless of selected geography; for example, the number of Nova Scotians in the top 1% will be calculated as the number of taxfiling Nova Scotians whose total income exceeded the 99% national income threshold. Different definitions of income are available in the table namely market, total, and after-tax income, both with and without capital gains.

Disposable Income per Capita: Urban: Middle Income data was reported at 48,508.000 RMB in 2024. This records an increase from the previous number of 46,276.000 RMB for 2023. Disposable Income per Capita: Urban: Middle Income data is updated yearly, averaging 8,678.295 RMB from Dec 1985 (Median) to 2024, with 40 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 48,508.000 RMB in 2024 and a record low of 737.280 RMB in 1985. Disposable Income per Capita: Urban: Middle Income data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Household Survey – Table CN.HD: Income by Income Level. Since 2013, All households in the sample are grouped, by per capita disposable income of the household, into groups of low income, lower middle income, middle income, upper middle income, and high income, each group consisting of 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, and 20% of all households respectively.

In the Middle Eastern region, the share of the population that earned at least the equivalent of the highest ** percent of global income earners as of 2022 in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms was **** percent. The cities of Riyadh and Jiddah in Saudi Arabia, as well as Dubai in the UAE, topped the list with the highest share of middle-class and above category of consumers in the Middle East. In those selected cities, the share of middle class and above consumer share was *** percent.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

To study the social and economic composition of Parliament (1691 - 1693) and the political behaviour of the men who sat in it.
Main Topics:

Variables
Details of attendance at sessions and parliaments, constituency type and size, and political party of respondent. Number of: second reading committee nominations, committees of investigation nominations, tellerships, speeches, areas of service (data were collected for 1st and 2nd sessions).

Please note: this study does not include information on named individuals and would therefore not be useful for personal family history research.

The system of social indicators for the Federal Republic of Germany - developed in its original version as part of the SPES project under the direction of Wolfgang Zapf - provides quantitative information on levels, distributions and changes in quality of life, social progress and social change in Germany from 1950 to 2013, i.e. over a period of more than sixty years. With the approximately 400 objective and subjective indicators that the indicator system comprises in total, it claims to measure welfare and quality of life in Germany in a differentiated way across various areas of life and to observe them over time. In addition to the indicators for 13 areas of life, including income, education and health, a selection of cross-cutting global welfare measures were also included in the dashboard, i.e. general welfare indicators such as life satisfaction, social isolation or the Human Development Index. Based on available data from official statistics and survey data, time series were compiled for all indicators, ideally with annual values from 1950 to 2013. Around 90 of the indicators were marked as "key indicators" in order to highlight central dimensions of welfare and quality of life across the various areas of life. The further development and expansion, regular maintenance and updating as well as the provision of the data of the system of social indicators for the Federal Republic of Germany have been among the tasks of the Center for Social Indicator Research, which is based at GESIS, since 1987. For a detailed description of the system of social indicators for the Federal Republic of Germany, see the study description under "Other documents".
The data on the area of life “Socio Economic Classification and Social Stratification” is composed as follows:

Intergenerational mobility: employed people in the upper service class without intergenerational mobility, employed people in the lower service class without intergenerational mobility, employed skilled workers and technicians without intergenerational mobility, employed unskilled workers without intergenerational mobility, employed self-employed people without intergenerational mobility, employed people in agricultural professions without intergenerational mobility. Social mobility: proportion of class-homogeneous marriages among men and women in the upper service class, proportion of class-homogeneous marriages among men and women in the lower service class, proportion of class-homogeneous marriages among men and women - skilled workers and technicians, proportion of class-homogeneous marriages among men and women - unskilled workers, share of class-homogeneous marriages among men and women - self-employed, share of class-homogeneous marriages among men and women with agricultural professions. Socio-economic breakdown of the population: Number of private households according to participation in the working life of the reference person, share of private households according to participation in the working life of the reference person, number of private households according to the occupational status of the reference person, share of private households according to the occupational status of the reference person, share of the population earning a living through employment , share of the population earning a living through unemployment benefits and assistance, share of the population earning a living through pensions, share of the population earning a living from family members, share of self-employed people in all employed people, share of helping family members in all employed people, share of civil servants in all employed people, share of employees in all employed people , proportion of workers in all employed persons, employed people in the upper service class, employed people in the lower service class, employed people - skilled workers and technicians, employed people - unskilled workers, employed people - self-employed, employed people with agricultural professions. Subjective class classification: Population according to subjective class classification (working class, middle class, upper middle and upper class, none of these classes).

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section...Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, for 2010, the 2010 Census provides the official counts of the population and housing units for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns. For 2006 to 2009, the Population Estimates Program provides intercensal estimates of the population for the nation, states, and counties..Explanation of Symbols:.An ''**'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''-'' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''-'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''+'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''***'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''*****'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. .An ''N'' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small..An ''(X)'' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available..Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..While the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the December 2009 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..The Class of Worker status "unpaid family workers" may have earnings. Earnings reflect any earnings from all jobs held during the 12 months prior to the ACS interview. The Class of Worker status reflects the job or business held the week prior to the ACS interview, or the last job held by the respondent..The methodology for calculating median income and median earnings changed between 2008 and 2009. Medians over $75,000 were most likely affected. The underlying income and earning distribution now uses $2,500 increments up to $250,000 for households, non-family households, families, and individuals and employs a linear interpolation method for median calculations. Before 2009 the highest income category was $200,000 for households, families and non-family households ($100,000 for individuals) and portions of the income and earnings distribution contained intervals wider than $2,500. Those cases used a Pareto Interpolation Method..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey

In the Middle Eastern region, the share of the population that earned at least the equivalent of the highest ** percent of global income earners as of 2022 in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms was **** percent. Saudi Arabia topped the list with the highest share of middle-class and above category of consumers in the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia the share of middle class and above consumer share was 100 percent.

A democratic model in which the preferences of all citizens are equally reflected in government policies, rather than the preferences of any particular group, is widely held to be ideal. However, a comprehensive study examining the extent to which South Korean government policies reflect the preferences of all citizens has yet to be conducted. This study investigates the differences in policy preferences according to economic class and explores how these preferences are reflected in government policies. The study estimated the policy preferences of different economic groups based on public opinion polls conducted by the Korean government from 1995 to 2021 and the Gallup Korea from 2013 to 2021. The study then analyzed how these preferences have influenced policy changes. The results show that the preferences of the upper class are more reflected in policy outcomes than the preferences of other classes. However, due to the limitations of the data, additional analysis to rigorously verify this was limited, and a clear conclusion remains a task for follow-up research. The study also found that the policy preferences of different economic groups varied significantly across different policy areas and revealed inconsistencies.