Being in the top 1% of earners in the U.S. means making at least $389,436. To citizens of some states, that number might actually seem low.

A new report on income inequality from the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, shows just how different the incomes are of the top 1% in each state.

The report, from economists Estelle Sommeiller and Mark Price, and Keystone Research Center intern and Cornell University student Ellis Wazeter, shows that although income has grown in the U.S. almost 4% between 2009 and 2013, that growth largely happened for those in the top 1% of each state, whereas those in the bottom 99% showed smaller gains in their incomes, or even losses in some states.

The authors analyzed state-level tax data from the Internal Revenue Service to determine the incomes of the top 1% in each state, and how their incomes have changed in recent years, noting that their analysis doesn’t include nontaxable compensation, such as employer contributions to retirement funds, or health-care benefits. Yet they said they don’t believe those benefits make a material difference in the gap between the highest earners and the rest of the population.

Citizens of North Dakota, for example, saw their incomes grow more than 25% overall from 2009 to 2013, the most of any U.S. state. The oil-producing state benefited from the U.S. oil boom, until falling oil prices led to job losses, and its economy started to contract in 2016 (the EPI report’s numbers stop at 2013).

But for the top 1% of earners the growth was much higher than those in the bottom 99% — 61.7% and 20.0%, respectively. In Nevada, overall incomes fell 5.1% during that period; for the top 1%, income actually grew more than 25%, but for the bottom 99%, income fell more than 13%. (A struggling U.S. economy hurt the state, which relies on tourism and gambling for much of its income. Nevada’s nearly 14% unemployment rate was the highest in the country in 2009.)

The authors noted that the disparity in income growth between the 1% and remaining population isn’t a recent trend. They tracked similar patterns in income growth between 1979 and 2007; the income of the 1% during that period grew more than 200%, whereas for the 99% it grew just 19%.

To explain the gap between the highest and lowest earners, the authors pointed to a period between 1928 and 1979, when the share of income held by the top 1% actually declined in every state but Alaska, noting that during this time, the U.S. saw low levels of unemployment, collective bargaining in industries including manufacturing and transportation, and a “cultural and political environment in which it was outrageous for executives to receive outsized bonuses while laying off workers.”

Now, they said, unionization and bargaining levels are at lows not seen since before 1928, the federal minimum wage can purchase fewer goods and services than it did in 1968 and executives earn bonuses even when their companies perform poorly. High pay for CEOs and finance executives has set a “new norm” for other jobs, including college presidents and coaches, surgeons and lawyers, they wrote.

The report also shows the total income a citizen would need to be in the top 1% of each state. Connecticut had the highest threshold, $659,979, and New Mexico had the least, at $231,276.

Curious what it takes to be in the top 1% of each state? Here are the numbers, according to the EPI report (in 2014 dollars).