How does modern U.S. income and wage inequality compare statistically to 18th-century France’s social stratification?
Executive summary
Estimates of late‑18th‑century France show extreme concentration: one calculation put 20% of people earning 60–66% of national income, and other work claims the top 10% held as much as 90% of wealth and the top 1% up to 60% [1] [2]. By contrast, modern U.S. income shares are less concentrated at the very top by those measures — the top 20% took about 52% of income in 2018 — though some commentators argue U.S. inequality today rivaled or exceeded early American or European historical levels on other metrics [1] [3] [4].
1. How the headline numbers compare: income‑share snapshots
Historical estimates for late‑18th‑century France show an extremely skewed distribution: one study cited by Gigafact reports that 20% of people earned 60–66% of the country’s income [1]. Contemporary U.S. data used in comparisons show the top 20% earned roughly 52% of total income in 2018 [1]. Those parallel income‑share figures indicate 18th‑century France was substantially more top‑heavy by that particular metric [1].
2. Wealth versus income: apples and very different oranges
Some sources focused on wealth rather than annual income and report even starker pre‑Revolution concentration: CADTM cites estimates that in France just before 1789 the top 10% held about 90% of national wealth and the top 1% held as much as 60% [2]. Wealth concentrations and income shares can tell different stories: modern U.S. income shares (top deciles) are lower than those extreme historical wealth shares, but modern wealth inequality in the U.S. has grown and is often discussed separately [2].
3. Different metrics, different narratives: why Gini, shares and percentiles matter
Analysts use multiple measures — income‑shares by quintile/decile, Gini coefficients, top‑1% or top‑0.1% shares — and each yields different comparisons. Gigafact highlights the top‑20% share comparison [1]; other commentators argue that, depending on the metric and adjustments (household composition, taxes, wealth vs income), modern U.S. inequality may look better or worse than historical cases [3] [4]. The choice of metric substantially alters the headline claim.
4. Contextual differences: economy, taxation and social structure
Available sources emphasize that late‑18th‑century France’s social order — feudal privileges, tax exemptions for the nobility, and land‑based wealth — created entrenched concentration of wealth and income [2]. Modern U.S. inequality arises in a very different institutional context: wage labor, financialized capital, progressive taxation history, and social mobility debates. Comparative claims that “America is turning into revolutionary France” highlight political analogies but use fiscal and debt arguments rather than direct income‑share equivalence [5].
5. Competing scholarly views and surprising counterclaims
Some analysts make the provocative claim that America’s present inequality rivals or exceeds 18th‑century levels: The Atlantic reported research suggesting modern U.S. income inequality may be worse than in 1774, even after adjustments like slavery [4]. Other writers and visualizers have presented graphs arguing U.S. lower‑income groups today are worse off than 18th‑century French peasants on certain measures [3]. These competing takes illustrate that the verdict depends on data choices, counterfactuals and what one measures (income vs wealth, pre‑ or post‑tax, household vs individual).
6. What the limits of available reporting mean for readers
Sources in this dossier provide income‑share and wealth‑share snapshots but do not, in the provided material, deliver a single harmonized dataset directly comparing Gini coefficients, after‑tax incomes, or consumption standards between France 1789 and the U.S. 2018 [1] [2] [3] [4]. Therefore definitive claims that “X is worse than Y” require careful metric choice; available sources do not mention a single agreed numeric conversion between historical wealth estimates and modern income statistics (not found in current reporting).
7. Bottom line and caution for policy analogies
By the measures cited here—income share of the top 20% and historical wealth shares—late‑18th‑century France was materially more concentrated at the top than modern U.S. income shares in 2018 [1] [2]. Yet other analysts and visual comparisons argue modern U.S. inequality is historically severe and politically combustible [3] [4]. Readers should treat dramatic historical analogies (e.g., “revolutionary France”) as rhetorical; they rely on selective metrics and omit many structural differences highlighted by the cited sources [5] [2].