U.S. Wealth Concentration: How Today’s “Second Gilded Age” Compares to the Past
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” --George Santayana
There is power in education. In learning how things really work. In seeing past headlines and surface narratives to understand the deeper structures underneath. That’s my only real goal in writing this: to help more people start their own journey of understanding this moment in time.
Because what we’re living through isn’t just a time of rising prices and shrinking margins. It’s a moment of staggering wealth concentration, widening instability, and growing distrust in nearly every institution we once counted on. And it won’t fix itself.
The Current Picture: A Wealth Divide Measured in Trillions
As of early 2025, the richest 1% of Americans hold nearly 31% of all household wealth. The top 0.1% alone control almost 15%. Meanwhile, the entire bottom 50% of the population owns just 2.5% of the wealth.
Let that sink in.
That means the top 0.1%, roughly 130,000 people, own more wealth than 165 million people in the bottom half combined. Their wealth comes largely from equities and private businesses. In contrast, the bottom half mainly holds value in homes and consumer durables, and owns just 1% of all equities.
It wasn’t always this way.
A U-Shaped History of American Inequality
Back in 1913, the wealthiest Americans controlled nearly 40% of national household wealth. That number peaked in the 1920s. But after the Great Depression, inequality dropped for decades thanks to progressive taxation, labor rights, and broad homeownership policies.
By the late 1970s, the U.S. hit a low point in inequality. Then came deregulation, lower top tax rates, the weakening of unions, and a rising financial sector.
Since 1989, wealth held by the top 1% has surged again, doubling the gap between them and the bottom 50%. Today, we’ve looped back toward a distribution that looks more like 1929 than 1985.
What Changed: Five Forces Fueling the Surge
Asset inflation outpacing wages. The wealthy gained from rising stock and bond prices, while median wages stagnated.
Tax code shifts. Marginal tax rates on top earners dropped from 70% in 1980 to 37% today. Capital gains and estate tax preferences reward the already-rich.
Labor's decline. Union membership fell by half, suppressing wage leverage for most workers.
The legal coding of capital. Corporations and intellectual property law increasingly allow massive scale with minimal labor input.
Rising household debt. Student loans, inflated housing costs, and medical bills eat into whatever middle-class wealth remains.
Today vs. the Gilded Age: What Rhymes, What Doesn’t
This moment shares a lot with the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A small class holds a massive share of national wealth. Fortunes are being built on explosive asset growth, then it was railroads and oil, now it's technology and financial platforms. And once again, political systems feel increasingly influenced, if not captured, by elite interests and lobbying power.
But there are also key differences. Today, more Americans own homes, though that is changing rapidly for younger generations priced out of the market. Our financial system is far more complex than it was during the original Gilded Age, with inequality now amplified by technology, automation, and global capital flows. And while social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare exist, they are under increasing strain and were not part of the fabric of society back then.
Why This Moment Feels So Unstable
High inequality isn’t just a moral concern. It destabilizes economies, stifles broad-based prosperity, and weakens the very foundation of democracy. When large segments of the population feel excluded from ownership, opportunity, or progress, the sense of injustice festers. It leads to populist uprisings, conspiracy thinking, and a growing distrust in nearly every institution, from media and higher education to government and even capitalism itself. And to be clear, these institutions have not done much to help themselves. Their response to growing inequality and discontent has often looked more like opportunistic capitalism, or in some cases, outright greed and self-interest, than the actions of trustworthy, stabilizing forces in society. When the playing field is seen as rigged, people naturally stop playing by the rules.
We have seen this before. The late 1920s were marked by both soaring inequality and a collapse in public faith in the system. What followed was not just economic depression but political upheaval, including the rise of authoritarian movements in parts of the world. Even in the U.S., the chaos of inequality gave way to radical policy shifts. Historically, inequality this extreme tends to end in one of two ways: reform or rupture. Whether through a New Deal-style realignment or a prolonged period of civic and institutional fracture, the outcome hinges on what we choose to do with the awareness we have right now.
No Easy Answers, But Ignoring It Isn’t One
This post isn’t a blueprint. It isn’t a policy pitch. I’m not claiming to have the fix.
But I do think we owe it to ourselves, our kids, and each other to at least understand what’s happening. To get curious. To stop looking away.
So if anything here surprised you or sparked a thought, I hope you’ll dig deeper. Ask questions. Explore the sources referenced in this post to learn more:
Visual Capitalist: The 1%’s Share of U.S. Wealth Over Time (1989–2024)
Federal Reserve DFA Tool: U.S. Distribution of Financial Accounts
Brookings: Has Rising Inequality Brought Us Back to the 1920s?
Talk about it. Share it. Push the conversation forward.
And if you want to share your thoughts with me, I’m all ears. Have a great weekend everyone!