by Jim Rose in economic history, entrepreneurship, human capital, industrial organisation, labour economics, labour supply, occupational choice, survivor principle Tags: Canada, CEO pay, creative destruction, entrepreneurial alertness, super-entrepreneurs, superstar wages, superstars, top 0.1%, top 1%, working rich

Piketty and Saez (2003) concluded that a substantial fraction of the rise in top incomes was due to surging top wage incomes. They concluded that top executives (the ‘working rich’) replaced top capital owners (the ‘rentiers’) at the top of the income hierarchy.

That conclusion still holds for both the USA and Canada. The largest portion of the top 0.1% in both countries have become those earning wages. The top 0.1% are top wage earners who work for their livings founding, building or directing businesses.

Figure 1: percentage of top 0.1% with wages, salaries, pensions or entrepreneurial incomes, USA, 1916 – 2013

Source: Alvaredo, Facundo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, The World Top Incomes Database .

Figure 2: percentage of top 0.1% with incomes from interest, dividends and rents, USA, 1916 – 2013

Source: Alvaredo, Facundo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, The World Top Incomes Database .

Figure 3: percentage of top 0.1% with wage salary and pension incomes, business incomes and professional incomes, Canada, 1946 – 2007

source : Alvaredo, Facundo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, The World Top Incomes Database .

Figure 4: percentage of top 0.1% with dividend, interest or investment incomes, Canada, 1946 – 2007

Source: Alvaredo, Facundo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, The World Top Incomes Database .