The most powerful chart of the last decade: Globalisation as an Elephant. @BrankoMilan pic.twitter.com/txJ4x1NJvO — (((Toby Nangle))) (@toby_n) April 28, 2016

A chart has been making the rounds among the wonky corners of the internet. Nicknamed the elephant chart because of its peculiar shape, it has a big hump showing rising incomes for the world’s middle class, leading into a deep trough for the world’s upper middle class, then rising into another peak for the world’s wealthiest. To make the shape more obvious, some people on the internet have even drawn feet and ears on the graph.

But it isn’t meant to provoke laughs. Made by Branko Milanovic, an economics professor at the City University of New York, the chart forcefully shows how incomes for the middle class have risen in emerging economies like China and fallen for the lower middle class in advanced economies like the United States.

It’s a remarkable chart. But what would those contours look like for just the United States? While we’ve seen many reports on the income growth for the richest 1 percent of Americans, most prominently through the academic work of Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, much less has been written about the dynamics of the bottom 99 percent. Using data from the Census Bureau, we’ve created our own charts for all adults for each state and for the country as a whole between 1990 and 2014.

United States change in income for each percentile +75% +50% Between 1990-2000, income growth was widely shared between rich and poor +25% 1990-2014 no change But between 2000-2014, the poor and middle class gave up all their gains -30% 5 50 99 Poorer Income Percentile Richer United States +75% change in income for each percentile +50% Between 1990-2000, income growth was widely shared between rich and poor +25% 1990-2014 no change But between 2000-2014, the poor and middle class gave up all their gains -30% 5 50 99 Income Percentile Poorer Richer United States change in income for each percentile +75% +50% Between 1990-2000, income growth was widely shared between rich and poor +25% 1990-2014 no change But between 2000-2014, the poor and middle class gave up all their gains -30% 5 50 99 Poorer Income Percentile Richer

The contours of inequality in the United States are much different than the world’s. These charts illustrate something that is all too familiar: the past 24 years of depressed incomes for the country’s middle class and poor.

When you change the yardsticks to include changes only from the 1990s, the “rising tide lifts all boats” maxim that economists like to talk about seems to hold true. Incomes grew almost across the board, poor to rich; they sag only for the upper middle class.

Unfortunately, a receding tide can do the opposite. This is largely what occurred between 2000 and 2014, a period in which the country weathered one mild recession and one calamitous one.

But those are national averages. They mask the more interesting stories that occur across state lines. By looking at the state level, we’re delineating the rich and poor within that state. Which is to say that the 90th percentile of personal income in Arkansas will not be the same as the 90th percentile of personal income in New York. This calculation helps us avoid making unfair comparisons of income between places with different costs of living.

In contrast with income trends nationally, poorer states like Louisiana and Mississippi saw their incomes rise, especially among lower-income percentiles. These states’ contours are the most “elephant-like.” Arkansas Louisiana Montana Mississippi Kentucky +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Oklahoma South Dakota West Virginia Wyoming +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Arkansas Kentucky +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Louisiana Mississippi +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Montana Oklahoma +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile South Dakota West Virginia +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Wyoming +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 Percentile Arkansas Louisiana Montana Mississippi Kentucky +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Oklahoma South Dakota West Virginia Wyoming +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile

For a few states like Iowa and Minnesota, income gains were more even. Except for the rich. Colorado Iowa Minnesota North Dakota Nebraska +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Colorado Iowa Minnesota North Dakota +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Nebraska +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 Percentile Colorado Iowa +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Minnesota North Dakota +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Nebraska +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 Percentile

Other states, like Missouri and Wisconsin, saw less change. Arizona Illinois Kansas Missouri Utah Wisconsin Pennsylvania Virginia +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Arizona Illinois Kansas Missouri Pennsylvania +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Utah Wisconsin Virginia +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Arizona Illinois +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Kansas Missouri +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Wisconsin Virginia +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile

In a handful of states, like Texas and Michigan, the middle class really sagged. These were the only percentiles that saw no growth or even negative income growth. Alabama Idaho Indiana New Mexico Ohio South Carolina Tennessee Texas Michigan +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Alabama Idaho Indiana New Mexico Michigan +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Ohio South Carolina Tennessee Texas +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Alabama Idaho +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Indiana Michigan +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Texas +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 Percentile

In nearly 20 other states, the poor and middle class in particular have seen their incomes fall, some precipitously (like in Connecticut and Massachusetts). Alaska Alaska California California Connecticut Connecticut Delaware Delaware Florida Florida Hawaii Hawaii Massachusetts Massachusetts Georgia Georgia +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 Percentile Maine Maine North Carolina North Carolina Nevada Nevada New York New York New Hampshire New Hampshire Maryland Maryland New Jersey New Jersey Oregon Oregon +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 Percentile Rhode Island Vermont Washington +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile California Connecticut +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Florida Georgia +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Hawaii Massachusetts +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Maine Maryland +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Nevada New Jersey +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile New York Oregon +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 50 99 5 50 99 Percentile Alaska California Connecticut Delaware +75% +75% +75% +50% +50% +50% +25% +25% +25% no change no change no change -30% -30% -30% 5 5 5 50 50 50 99 99 99 5 5 5 50 50 50 99 99 99 5 5 5 50 50 50 99 99 99 5 5 5 50 50 50 99 99 99 Percentile Percentile Percentile Maine North Carolina New Hampshire Maryland +75% +75% +50% +50% +25% +25% no change no change -30% -30% 5 5 5 50 50 50 99 99 99 5 5 5 50 50 50 99 99 99 5 5 5 50 50 50 99 99 99 5 5 5 50 50 50 99 99 99 Percentile Florida Hawaii Massachusetts Georgia +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 Percentile Nevada New York New Jersey Oregon +75% +50% +25% no change -30% 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 5 5 50 50 99 99 Percentile

The 1990s were a period of growth for most states up and down the income ladder, with large gains in percentage terms for the poor. The last 14 years have been a period of decline, with the largest losses concentrated among the poor. To a certain extent, the large moves at the bottom of the distribution reflect that the poor earn very little to begin with, so even small changes in the level of income resulted in major percentage swings.

With the incomes of the top 1 percent, on the other hand, it takes considerable increased income to get the same percentage gains. That makes those percentage changes in income for each state even more eye-popping.

What’s also intriguing about these charts is that between 1990 and 2014, the states that we tend to think of as economic engines for the country -- like New York, California and New Jersey -- are the ones where inequality has grown the most. By contrast, states that have lagged economically -- like Arkansas and Mississippi -- are the ones where economic inequality has narrowed the most.

Other research has found a similar result. In a working paper, Roy van der Weide, an economist at the World Bank, and Mr. Milanovic calculated that the five most unequal states in the 1960s were Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama and North Carolina. By 2010, the most unequal states were California, New York, Texas, Arizona and Georgia.

“The geography of U.S. inequality has really changed,” Mr. Milanovic said. “The most unequal places are no longer the South but the West, the Southwest and New York.”

It some ways, it makes sense that some of America’s most productive states have become its most unequal. As the country’s competitive advantage leans ever more heavily on highly skilled services, the returns for those skills grow greater. And as those skilled workers gravitate toward urban areas where they can be most productive, the states with those urban areas are going to have a class of people whose incomes grow out of touch with everyone else’s.

What about the South? How did it become so much more equal? One reason is that the poor in the South were very poor indeed. “In terms of income levels, we’re one of the poorest,” said Greg Albrecht, chief economist for Louisiana’s legislative fiscal office. “Between us and Mississippi, we fight for the bottom.”

That means that federally funded social programs will have a greater impact on the lower percentiles of income in the South in percentage terms. And in fact, between 1990 and 2000, the two states with the greatest reductions in poverty rate were Mississippi at 10.8 percentage points and Louisiana at 6.4.

Another factor is migration. One difficulty in studying these data is that it’s hard to know whether people’s incomes are changing or whether poorer people are being swapped out for richer ones and vice versa. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities produced a chart that compares the average income of people moving into a state with the incomes of people in households who didn’t. While the income definition they used is different than that of the census, it showed that the average pretax household income of people who moved to California was $12,600 less than the household income of people who were already living there. In Massachusetts, that difference was nearly $14,000.

For California the decline in incomes may be because it has the largest inflow of undocumented immigrants in the country. But Jason Sisney, chief deputy legislative analyst for the California Legislature, suggests that extraordinarily high housing costs may be involved as well. As housing costs rise in coastal cities, low-skilled or middle-skilled workers have been pushed to inland cities, where pay is lower but life is more affordable. Essentially, people are trading higher wages for cheaper rents.

“Higher-income coastal areas are the slowest growing, while inland areas are by and large our faster-growing areas,” Mr. Sisney said. “That frames how we think that income distribution has shifted.”

For Louisiana, the migration story is reversed. According to Mr. Albrecht, Hurricane Katrina displaced many people, most of them poor. They moved to other cities like Houston or Atlanta and never came back. “Katrina took low-income-percentile people out of the state and left us with higher-income-percentile people,” Mr. Albrecht said.

Other states literally struck oil. North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana, for example, have ties to a shale oil boom that has done a lot to reduce inequality. In the case of South Dakota and Montana, it has reduced the decline of incomes that other states experienced between 2000 and 2014. In North Dakota, in the heart of shale mining country, it generally made everyone richer.