Is wealth inequality leading to a class war?

Amazon workers and union members picket outside a distribution center in New York. | Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images

A Vox reader asks: What is wealth inequality and class warfare and why is it extra bad at this point in time?

“Wealth” is someone’s net worth — that is, their assets (like savings, stock portfolios, and the value of their property) minus their debts (like student loans). “Wealth inequality” is measured by looking at how total wealth is spread out across the population. The more wealth there is at the top, the more inequality there is because there’s less to go around for everyone else.

Today, there’s a huge gap in incomes between rich and poor. Even though incomes across the board rose at relatively similar rates in the decades after World War Two, incomes at the very top started to grow much faster after the 1970s — a trend that’s driven, at least in part, by shrinking union membership. For instance, CEOs’ compensation has grown by 1,085 percent since 1978 while the average worker’s salary has only grown by 24 percent. 

And though wages at the bottom have grown at a faster clip than those at the top in recent years, that change has not been enough to reverse the overall trend. Since 1979, the top 1 percent of earners saw their wages grow by 182 percent; the bottom 90 percent saw their wages grow by 44 percent. As a result, the concentration of money at the top of the income ladder is at the highest it’s been in nearly 100 years. 

But that’s income inequality, which just looks at the distribution of people’s wages. What’s more extreme is the gap in wealth between rich and poor households. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the bottom half of households have an average net worth of $51,000. Collectively, they own just 2.5 percent of household wealth in the country. By contrast, the top 10 percent of households had an average net worth of nearly $7 million and own more than two-thirds of household wealth — a share that has only been growing over the last three decades.  

There are other worrying aspects of the wealth gap, including racial inequality. On average, for every $1 that white families owned, Black families and Latino families owned 23 cents and 19 cents, respectively.

Class warfare, or class conflict, happens when the tension between social classes comes to a boil. That happens when the interests of different classes diverge, building resentment between them. Oftentimes, this comes in the form of protest or revolt and is generally viewed as a struggle between workers and the ruling class or elites in society. Sometimes this gets violent, as was the case in the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, when workers in multiple states went on strike after railroad workers saw their wages get repeatedly cut. Eventually the rebellion was squashed by the National Guard and private militias, and about 100 people were killed.

Why does this matter?

Part of the reason you might be hearing phrases like “wealth inequality” or “class warfare” more often these days is because the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few has been on full display. In January, for example, Donald Trump, a billionaire, was sworn in as president while being surrounded by other billionaires. (There were many, many millionaires in the audience as well.) So as most Americans who watched Trump’s inaugural address saw it on their screens, a handful of the world’s richest men had a front-row seat. In fact, the combined wealth of everyone at the Capitol that day topped $1.2 trillion.

At its very core, the reason this level of inequality is bad is because it’s deeply unfair. But it’s not just a matter of fairness. It’s also dangerous. The fact that so few people own so much wealth is a threat to democracy.

In his farewell address, former President Joe Biden warned the nation that the United States was becoming an oligarchy — a system of government in which power is only shared by a small group of elites. It’s a warning that politicians like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have been talking about for years, especially after the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

The hoarding of wealth is already having an impact on our government. Since Trump returned to the White House, he’s handed over a lot of power to Elon Musk, who, with a net worth of hundreds of billions of dollars, stands to be the world’s richest man. And while Musk is charged with gutting the federal workforce, he’s not required to adhere to certain government standards. 

Why is it that Musk has been able to evade the ethics rules that typically apply to other government personnel? And why is it, anyway, that Musk — now an unelected bureaucrat — has so much influence over policymaking? The answer is that Musk likely gained access to so much power because he spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the election last year in an attempt to help Republicans win, and his investment seems to have paid off. He operates by different rules than everyone else because he can simply buy his way to the White House.

The concentration of wealth has also degraded some of the country’s institutions outside of government. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, for example, who owns the Washington Post, directed the newspaper’s opinion pages to avoid publishing views that are in conflict with his own, focusing their coverage on “personal liberties and free markets.” Bezos also killed the Post’s endorsement of Kamala Harris last fall.

It’s not necessarily the case, though, that America is on the brink of a class war, despite the fact that there’s so much inequality that billionaires are taking joyrides to space while millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet. In fact, the last election cycle showed that people in different income brackets are becoming less politically divided, with Trump making gains among poorer voters, who historically have overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. 

But if history is any guide, this level of inequality is unsustainable, and the economy might course-correct. Between 1800 and 1920, for example, inequality in the US grew very quickly. But in the 60 years that followed, the gap between rich and poor shrank significantly. During that period, the wealth of the average family grew 40 times its size while the wealthiest Americans saw their fortunes double.

It’s hard to say how the situation will improve this time. But chances are, at some point, that the rich will push their luck and the rest will say enough. 

Related articles

California voters pass Gavin Newsom’s scheme to fight back against Trump’s gerrymandering



California voters handed Democrats yet another victory on an already action-packed election night, passing Proposition 50.

The ballot measure, passed and championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, is a response to President Donald Trump's push for GOP-controlled states to rig their congressional district maps to give themselves extra seats and eliminate Democratic representatives — plans which have already been passed in Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina.

Under Proposition 50, the state's nonpartisan redistricting commission is temporarily suspended until the next Census, and a map is passed that seeks to eliminate five Republican congressional districts in California.

The measure was supported by a number of lawmakers and groups that generally oppose partisan gerrymandering, as an emergency measure to prevent Republicans from being able to block voters from voting out their majority in next year's midterm elections.

Trump-loving ICE fan charged with threats to White House over fiancée’s visa problems



A Florida man who voted for Donald Trump and supports his immigration crackdown was charged with making threats against the White House and federal agents because his Colombian fiancée was facing delays in getting a visa.

Tristen Elijah Giroux had been calling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to complain about the visa process and became impatient when he was unable to reach a live service representative. A criminal complaint shows that his frustration boiled over into violent threats on the recorded line, reported The Independent.

“I’m gonna burn down the White House,” Giroux said on the recording, according to the affidavit. “I’m gonna go choke out every ICE member I see. Kill them all.”

The 30-year-old Giroux had called USCIS on Oct. 24, in the midst of a government shutdown, from his mobile phone, which the FBI identified after the Department of Homeland Security forwarded an electronic tip about his threats, and he admitted to agents that he had trouble navigating the system's interactive voice recognition system.

“He explained that he called USCIS to try to resolve an issue he was having with his upcoming marriage between him and his paramour, a Colombian national, for whom Giroux was seeking a K1 visa,” the affidavit states. “Giroux had sent in the documents regarding their intended marriage, but USCIS had sent them back without explanation. Giroux explained to me that he was running out of time to get the paperwork squared away and was extremely frustrated that he was unable to get a hold of an actual representative and kept getting routed to the automated system.”

The man confessed to investigators that he'd made threats against ICE agents and the White House in an effort to draw attention to his fiancée's issues, which he said eventually happened, according to the affidavit.

“Giroux advised that he did eventually speak with a representative, who was helpful, and he was able to get the situation straightened out,” the affidavit states.

He insisted that he “had no intention of harming anyone,” and told agents “how stupid it was that he had said those things and that he regretted it.”

“Giroux said that he is a supporter of President Trump,” the affidavit added. “Giroux said he has seen the ICE protests on the social media platform TikTok, and that they disgust him because he is supportive of ICE’s efforts. Giroux explained that he is trying to handle the immigration of his paramour in the right way, and it is so difficult, while in the meantime, people are entering the country illegally.”

He was arrested Oct. 27 and charged with one count of transmitting a threat to kill in interstate commerce. He was released from custody later that day on a personal recognizance bond.

If convicted, Giroux faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

‘That is the fear’: Analyst hears Dem governors ‘whisper’ about new Trump worry



Democratic governors are quietly sharing worries that President Donald Trump intends to disrupt next year's congressional elections, according to a political insider.

The president told U.S. troops this week that he was prepared to send "more than the National Guard" into American cities as he escalates a confrontation with Democratic-led local governments, and MSNBC's John Heilemann told "Morning Joe" that high-ranking officials are growing concerned about whether free and fair elections would take place in 2026.

"Trump has essentially taken the attitude and pursued policies in line with the attitude of, 'I'm the president, I can do whatever I want," Heilemann said. "You know, we've talked for years about the expanding purview of executive power in America, but Trump is so far at the extreme of that. This is clearly one of the largest areas where that's the case."

"You know, when Trump decided to nationalize the National Guard, to federalize the National Guard in California, in Los Angeles, the first of these moves, it was the first time that a president had overridden the wishes of a governor of a state since back in the civil rights era, when troops were federalized to try to integrate some of the schools in Alabama and other states in the South. So there is a not in our lifetimes precedent for this, and Trump has not just done it once, but is now doing it pretty much everywhere."

Those aggressive moves against Democratic-led states and cities have provoked some dark fears among the president's political opponents, Heilemann said.

"That is raising the specter you're talking about, which is, in the medium term, is this part of a strategy to try to steal, effectively, or at least put your thumb very, very firmly on the scale of the 2026 midterm elections, but also with the normalization project," Heilemann said. "We're not even a year in, and we've had multiple cities where we've seen this happen.

"In the course of the next three years, is the longer term objective to get to a place where troops on American streets have become so normalized that not only have the 2026 midterms been affected, but that the 2028 presidential election could be affected, with Trump basically saying, 'The whole country is in a state of emergency and I'm going to declare martial law and not have the 2028 presidential election.'"

"That is the fear of a lot of people in the progressive camp, that this is where it's going," he added, "and I don't mean just wild-eyed progressives, I mean a lot of Democratic governors are already starting to whisper that and say that to reporters, that that's where they think this is really headed over the course of the next three years."

Host Jonathan Lemire said he's been hearing the same concerns in his own reporting.

"That sentiment is out there, a terrifying one, and one that will be worth obviously keeping an eye on in the months and years ahead," Lemire said.


- YouTube youtu.be