Podcast Summary: "Has there been a $50 trillion wealth transfer to the richest Americans?"

Podcast: More or Less
Host: Tim Harford, BBC Radio 4
Guest: Carter Price, RAND Corporation
Date: November 15, 2025

Overview

This episode investigates the widely-circulated claim that, since 1975, between $50 to $80 trillion has been "transferred" from the bottom 90% to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Tim Harford and guest Carter Price, a senior mathematician at RAND and author of key studies behind these figures, unpack the origins, methodology, and meaning behind these eye-catching statistics often cited in political debates, including by Senator Bernie Sanders.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origin and Popularity of the Claim

• The claim has gained public traction, spearheaded by Senator Bernie Sanders and is based on reports authored by Carter Price at RAND.

  • Reference:

    "The claim appears to have been popularized by left wing Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders." (Tim Harford, 01:47)

  • Sanders uses a $50 trillion figure; other sources cite $80 trillion.

2. How the Figures Were Calculated

a. Comparing Pay Growth to Economic Growth (02:12 - 04:36)

• The analysis tracks how the incomes of the bottom 90% would have grown if, after WWII and up to the mid-1970s, all workers' pay had kept rising in line with the overall economy—mirroring earlier patterns of broad-based wage growth.

  • Quote:

    "There was a time, perhaps an unusual time, when this relationship was very stable…people’s wages went up with the economy, more or less across the board." (Tim Harford, 02:41)

  • In the mid-1970s, this pattern broke:

    "Beginning in the mid-70s, the top of the income distribution started to pull away and that expanded over time..." (Carter Price, 03:33)

• Carter Price calculated the annual difference between actual income and hypothetical income if that equitable trend continued, summing the gaps across years to reach figures of $50 trillion (up to 2018) and $80 trillion (up to 2023).

  • Quote:

    "We did that for each year…then we added it all up to get the $50 trillion or the $80 trillion." (Carter Price, 04:15)

b. Interpreting the Numbers (04:36 - 05:34)

• These sums do not represent literal transfers or direct redistribution, but rather “foregone income”—what the bottom 90% would have earned under the older trend.

  • Quote:

    "This is the total income that everybody in the bottom 90%…would have made if the economy grew evenly as it used to." (Tim Harford, 04:36)

• The current gap is $3.5–$4 trillion annually, or about $30,000 per full-time worker.

  • Quote:

    "In 2018, it was about 2, 2.5 trillion was that gap…since then that gap has grown to more than 3.5, almost $4 trillion each year." (Carter Price, 05:16)

3. What Do These Numbers Mean?

a. Visualizing Inequality, Not Determining Causes (05:34 - 07:01)

• The claim powerfully illustrates the magnitude of rising inequality but does not explain its causes, nor does it argue for a specific policy fix or suggest the counterfactual was possible.
  • Quote:

    "It’s certainly a fresh way of visualizing the magnitude of the increase in inequality. What it doesn’t tell us is what caused the increase, nor whether we could actually have tweaked some policy..." (Tim Harford, 05:34)

b. The Productivity-Wage Debate (07:22 - 08:12)

• Sanders’ narrative: Productivity rose, but only elites captured these gains.
  • RAND's data supports this in part: Most workers’ pay stopped matching productivity increases, while executives' compensation soared.
  • Quote:

    "You did not see most workers pay growing with the rate of productivity, but the top…saw their wages growing much faster." (Carter Price, 07:51)

c. The Role of Taxes and Policy (08:12 - 08:47)

• The findings are based on pre-tax, pre-transfer incomes and do not account for the impact of changing tax policies.
  • Top marginal tax rates fell from 70% in 1975 to 37% in 2023.
  • Quote:

    "In 1975, the top rate of income tax in the US was 70%. In 2023 it was 37%." (Tim Harford, 08:47)

  • Carter Price observes these changes “in some sense…exacerbated that change.” (08:41)

4. Is It Really a 'Wealth Transfer'? (08:47 - 09:47)

• Crucial Clarification: Despite frequent use of terms like “wealth transfer,” the research measures income, not wealth, and does not track actual assets.
  • Quote:

    "That’s certainly not the language I use…It’s not wealth. It's income in some sense..." (Carter Price, 09:19)

  • Over decades, cumulative changes in income would relate to wealth, but directly calling this a wealth transfer is misleading.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the extraordinary scale of the gap:

  "You sum something up over 50 years. Half these people are dead and the other half have been born. I mean, it’s such a long period of time, but $4 trillion a year I can get my head around." (Tim Harford, 05:34)

• On the purpose of the numbers:

  "It’s a fresh way of visualizing...but it doesn’t tell us what caused the increase." (Tim Harford, 05:34)

• On the use of ‘wealth transfer’ language:

  "That’s certainly not the language I use...It’s income...correlated with wealth, but it is not wealth." (Carter Price, 09:19)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:27] – Introduction of the '$80 trillion transfer' claim
• [02:12] – Carter Price explains report methodology
• [03:33] – Income growth divergence post-1970s
• [04:15] – Summing up the gaps to reach trillions
• [05:16] – Annual shortfall of income for the bottom 90%
• [07:22] – Productivity v. wages
• [08:47] – Tax system impact and change from income to “wealth” language
• [09:19] – Carter’s clarification on terminology

Tone and Style

The episode is analytical but accessible, with Tim Harford’s characteristic blend of curiosity, skepticism, and relatable metaphors. Carter Price’s input is precise yet clear, focusing on methodology and avoiding politicization of the findings.

Takeaway

The oft-cited "$50 trillion transfer" refers not to literal redistribution but to massive, compounding differences in income growth for the bottom 90% versus the top 1% since the 1970s—a compelling visualization of increasing inequality, but one that needs careful interpretation, especially regarding its causes and the use of terms like "wealth transfer."