Wealthiest Americans concept

February 25, 2025

©StockSnap via Canva.com

The Wealthiest 10% of US Households Now Represent Nearly 50% of Consumer Spending

Despite a turbulent economy and curtailed consumer spending across many different sectors, one metric is now making headlines: The wealthiest 10% of American households now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, the highest number on record since at least 1989, as FOX Business reported.

Citing data from a Moody’s Analytics report authored by Mark Zandi, the news outlet outlined that the richest 10% of U.S. households — defined as making about $250,000 or greater — represented 49.7% of all consumer spending. That’s the highest figure on record since data collection surrounding this metric was first measured by Moody’s, according to Marketplace, which also pointed out that consumer spending is responsible for driving approximately 70% of United States GDP.

In the time frame ranging from September 2023 to September 2024, the highest earners increased their spending by 12%. In contrast, spending by both lower-income and middle-income American households declined during that same period.

“Wealthier households are financially more secure and thus more able and willing to spend their income,” Zandi wrote. “That is, they save less than they would otherwise. This is consistent with our estimates of consumer spending by income group, which shows the well-to-do in the top quintile of the income distribution powering the recent growth in spending.”

Per The Wall Street Journal, about 30 years ago, the wealthiest 10% of American households were responsible for about 36% of U.S. consumer spending.

Salon cited Zandi as stating that the wealthiest earners tend to hold more investments — both in terms of stock and real estate, among other financial instruments — and that this could be spurring a further wealth gap as both of these categories continue to gain significant value.

Wealthiest Americans Splurging on Travel, Luxury Goods

The WSJ, Marketplace, and Salon were united in reportage suggesting that the highest-earning 10% of American households were splurging, particularly on luxury goods and travel.

Salon, relying upon data from Bank of America, wrote: “From designer bags to first-class airline tickets to cruise trips, the top 5% of households spent 10% more on luxury splurges compared to last year.”

Marketplace gestured toward the practice of summering or wintering in vacation hotspots abroad, signaling that this has always been a practice common to the richest demographic. Quoting Michael Brown, principal U.S. economist at Visa, over whether this practice has been on the uptick as of late, Brown appeared to concur.

“When you look at the dynamics I think there certainly is evidence to support that,” Brown said, stating that the spending gulf between the well-off and the middle- and lower-income groups had widened beginning in 2023, particularly during the summer and winter.

“They’re going to Paris and loading up their suitcases with luxury bags and shoes and clothes,” said David Tinsley, senior economist for the Bank of America Institute, as quoted by the WSJ.

The WSJ profiled several wealthy households in tandem with the study results: One family recently splashed out $3,000 on a bike and budgeted $15,000 for a trip to their native India. A second family purchased a new airplane and sketched out plans to purchase a new $1 million home, while a third spoke of a family safari trip that cost them $35,000 in July.

Overall, reports indicate that a severe divide between the so-called haves and have-nots is emerging in high relief. Delta Air Lines and Royal Caribbean are reporting increased sales to wealthier customers, while stores such as Big Lots, Kohl’s, and Family Dollar struggle. JPMorgan Chase analyst Matthew Boss was quoted by the WSJ on the starkly divergent fortunes pertinent to these very different business sectors.

“It’s an extreme bifurcation” between companies like Royal Caribbean and Delta and others that serve middle- and low-income Americans, he said. “They’re all battling for fewer dollars.”

US Economy Has Never Been ‘More Dependent’ on Wealthiest Americans

As a whole, the wealthiest American households have increased spending far beyond the rate of inflation — but the remainder of Americans haven’t, at least not to the same degree.

The bottom 80% of earners spent 25% more than they had four years prior, barely edging out price hikes of 21% over the same period of time. On the other hand, the top 10% of earners spent 58% more.

That could spell danger for the U.S. economy more broadly.

“The finances of the well-to-do have never been better, their spending never stronger and the economy never more dependent on that group,” said Zandi.

Of particular concern? That the stock market’s surging high might soon face a major correction and that heightened tensions over tariffs (and reciprocal tariffs) may end up sapping the valuation of the wealthiest segment’s assets — and their desire, or ability, to continue the flood of spending.

“Given the stretched valuations and the heightened economic policy uncertainty, the risk of a significant correction in asset markets is uncomfortably high and rising, with clear implications for the economy,” Zandi added.

BrainTrust

"The wrecking-ball changes that are being made to the economy carry big risks for the affluent as well…This level of disruption could imperil everyone."
Avatar of Cathy Hotka

Cathy Hotka

Principal, Cathy Hotka & Associates


"The social issue here is the bigger problem. Envy being one of the seven deadly sins…The country needs to figure out a way to unlock the potential of the lower 90%."
Avatar of Mark Self

Mark Self

President and CEO, Vector Textiles


"Discretionary income. The top 10% spends because they can, and the bottom 90% don’t spend because they can’t. Credit maxed out. Delinquencies up."
Avatar of Jeff Sward

Jeff Sward

Founding Partner, Merchandising Metrics


Discussion Questions

Will economic uncertainties facing the U.S. lead to a downturn in spending by the wealthiest households in the near future?

What levers can be pulled in order to prevent, or at least mitigate, any potential consequences from reduced consumer spending coming from higher-earning U.S. households? What can retailers and service providers do to incentivize further spend from the middle- and lower-income households?

Which brands are best positioned to take advantage of the increased spending power and desire of wealthier American households? Are these companies fully capitalizing on potential to earn spend?

Poll

19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Saunders

This isn’t all that surprising. It has been the case for quite some time that wealth accumulation for the top income cohorts has accelerated far faster than the middle and bottom. Over the past few years, inflation has exacerbated this trend and has left lower-income households with far less money for discretionary spend. A tipping point has now been reached where this is very visible in the share of spending. The question is how this plays out in retail. There are positives for some – such as the strong growth in value. And negatives for others – the pressure on the middle market. 

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

80% of earners spent 25% more than they had four years prior, barely edging out price hikes of 21% over the same period of time

And, yet, “barely” or not (even ) this segment saw increases; which is to say the hand-wringing about “struggling” retailers seems poorly supported. But more to the point, the thought process behind this post eludes me: after telling us the spending by the top is going thru the roof, we’re supposed to throw our angstmobiles into Reverse to worry about a(n utterly) hypothetical decrease. Sorry, no: I’m far more worried about the bottom 90%.

Last edited 11 months ago by Craig Sundstrom
Mark Ryski

The high concentration of consumer spending is risky. While the high spending levels help fuel growth, and this demographic can absorb some uncertainty, this group also rolls with stock markets, and if they turn negative, I suspect the spending growth will dissipate. Stability would be good, but that’s not going to happen and this will test the consumer.

Cathy Hotka
Cathy Hotka

The wrecking-ball changes that are being made to the economy carry big risks for the affluent as well. “Safe” industries like automotive could face dramatic problems after tariffs, affecting investments. This level of disruption could imperil everyone.

Paula Rosenblum

Well, Walmart is still the largest retailer so while there’s great drama in the percent, I think unit sales are more interesting. Having said that, this cannot continue. This is a very, very bad and unstable situation

Last edited 11 months ago by Paula Rosenblum
David Biernbaum

A retailer might want to consider tiered discounts or loyalty programs with greater savings based on frequency of purchase.
To cater to budget-conscious shoppers, retailers could offer exclusive sales events or bundle deals.
Customers will also feel assured they are getting the best deal by implementing a price matching policy.
Also, retailers can introduce rewards programs that offer cashback or points for purchases, which can be redeemed for discounts in the future.
Likewise, shoppers looking for maximum savings can benefit from free shipping on orders over a certain amount.

Mark Self
Mark Self

Nothing to see here, just 90% of American households not having an impact…this is both disturbing (as in a current problem) and positive (think of the upside once you get the 90% moving!).
The social issue here is the bigger problem. Envy being one of the seven deadly sins, and this headline feeds it.
The country needs to figure out a way to unlock the potential of the lower 90%, or else that will be a bigger problem than what brands stand to prosper.

Scott Norris
Scott Norris
Reply to  Mark Self

I’m more worried about the top 10%’s greed, gluttony, pride, lust, and sloth. Anything the private equity market gets its fingers into seems to fall apart (such as Southwest Airlines and Joann Fabrics just this week) – it doesn’t grow industries or build communities. The wrath bit should be keeping the top 10% awake at night.

Dick Seesel
Dick Seesel

To the poll question — will economic uncertainty lead to a spending downturn by the wealthiest households? — I’d say “not to worry” unless there is a major correction to their sources of wealth (investments and real estate). What I’d worry about is the well-being of the other 90%, who in many cases have embraced a populist political movement while now witnessing the rich getting richer. The “bottom 90%” drive most retail sales, and the economic risks of this kind of disparity should cause some sleepless nights among business leaders.

Melissa Minkow

This is about to be even more the case with the upcoming tax cuts for the higher income brackets.

Joel Rubinson

Trying to figure out if the glass is half full or half empty here…if the bottom 90% are spending above inflation and the top 10% have increased their percentage of retail, perhaps this is a story of wealth creation? Don’t these statistics imply business growth which means more jobs?

Gene Detroyer

“US and Jobs and Economy Have Never Been ‘More Dependent’ on Wealthiest Americans.” This is a very serious issue for the economy. There is a direct correlation between economic success and the minimization of income and wealth inequality.
Simply, if $1,000,000 is added to the economy, how does it add to the country’s success, spending, and jobs? If that $1,000,000 goes to one household versus that $1,000,000 goes to 20 households, which generates more economic value? And, when money is spent, there is a multiplier effect of six to eight times for that $1,000,000.

Gary Sankary
Gary Sankary

Given the tax cuts passed last night, the short answer to this question is no impact. In fact, I suspect it will become even more acute. Short of a systemic meltdown of the financial system, this group has typically enjoyed being insulated against the macroeconomic factors that affect the bottom 90%. The bigger question is how sustainable is this. Resentment is growing.

Bob Amster

Some would say that this is how trickle-down economics works (those who have money to spend feed the economy end employ lesser-income people) while others might ask ‘does that mean that the middle and bottom don’t have enough money to spend to live comfortably?’

Jeff Sward

Discretionary income. The top 10% spends because they can, and the bottom 90% don’t spend because they can’t. Credit maxed out. Delinquencies up. Emergence of BNPL, and then delinquencies at that level. If tariffs go into place and turbo-boost inflation, the top 10% will still have a lot of discretion in how they spend, but they may indeed make different decisions. The bottom 90% will have to start slamming on the brakes with what little discretion they still enjoy today. Walmart and TJX win (again). The whole middle market is exposed. Sounds a little scary to me. We need a solution.
I’ve got it! Let’s give a tax break to everybody that already has lots of liquidity and disposable income. And for the people who are already living on the edge, let’s pull back on Medicare and SNAP. Oh, and medical research, and foreign aid, and…… Because, you know, spending for the top10% and ‘government efficiency’ are the priorities.
Seriously? We’re worried about spending by the top 10%? I have a feeling the same $$$ in the hands of the bottom 90% would be spent with velocity equal to if not greater than the top 10%. And yes, I know what that sounds like. But it’s a pretty good indicator of how completely screwy things are right now. And how ludicrously ridiculous the so-called solutions are.

Shep Hyken

During economic downturns, I’ve seen some wealthy people (far above the minimum benchmark for wealth) tighten up and even sell off unnecessary luxury items. They curtail spending compared to more “normal times.” That will hurt normal shopping habits, but some brands seem to understand their customers well enough to promote and merchandise so that they aren’t as impacted as other brands.

Christopher P. Ramey
Christopher P. Ramey

Being in the top 10% doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wealthy or rich. It certainly doesn’t imply you’re splurging. It simply indicates a higher likelihood of having liquidity. It’s just how they live.

There’s a clear divide between those earning over $200,000 and those making less than $100,000 annually. This divide has always existed. In times of higher inflation, those earning less are the most negatively affected.

Retailers face limited risk that the top 10% will pull out of the market.

Broadly speaking, retailers should, and likely already do, focus on incentivizing the top 20%, as middle and lower-income households increasingly have less impact.

John Hennessy

This speaks to the importance of intimately knowing your customer and customizing your messaging based on that knowledge. The U.S. market is highly fragmented. Each perceived group has subgroups. Those subgroups have subgroups. The idea of a one-size-fits-all message, solution or approach is a thing of the past. Instead, you have to dig into your customers, understand their issues, and speak directly to each customer based on what’s important to them. Within this top 10% group doing the 50% of spending, you will find many customers with many unique buying characteristics.

Anil Patel
Anil Patel

The wealthy will keep spending unless a major stock market crash or policy shift forces them to pull back. Right now, they have the money and see no reason to stop.

The real issue is that the economy is dangerously dependent on their spending while everyone else struggles. Retailers need to stop chasing luxury dollars alone and figure out how to make everyday shopping more appealing for the middle class through better pricing, real value, and actual incentives.

Yes, some brands are capitalizing well on the rich, but if the economy turns, they’ll feel it just like everyone else.

19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Saunders

This isn’t all that surprising. It has been the case for quite some time that wealth accumulation for the top income cohorts has accelerated far faster than the middle and bottom. Over the past few years, inflation has exacerbated this trend and has left lower-income households with far less money for discretionary spend. A tipping point has now been reached where this is very visible in the share of spending. The question is how this plays out in retail. There are positives for some – such as the strong growth in value. And negatives for others – the pressure on the middle market. 

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

80% of earners spent 25% more than they had four years prior, barely edging out price hikes of 21% over the same period of time

And, yet, “barely” or not (even ) this segment saw increases; which is to say the hand-wringing about “struggling” retailers seems poorly supported. But more to the point, the thought process behind this post eludes me: after telling us the spending by the top is going thru the roof, we’re supposed to throw our angstmobiles into Reverse to worry about a(n utterly) hypothetical decrease. Sorry, no: I’m far more worried about the bottom 90%.

Last edited 11 months ago by Craig Sundstrom
Mark Ryski

The high concentration of consumer spending is risky. While the high spending levels help fuel growth, and this demographic can absorb some uncertainty, this group also rolls with stock markets, and if they turn negative, I suspect the spending growth will dissipate. Stability would be good, but that’s not going to happen and this will test the consumer.

Cathy Hotka
Cathy Hotka

The wrecking-ball changes that are being made to the economy carry big risks for the affluent as well. “Safe” industries like automotive could face dramatic problems after tariffs, affecting investments. This level of disruption could imperil everyone.

Paula Rosenblum

Well, Walmart is still the largest retailer so while there’s great drama in the percent, I think unit sales are more interesting. Having said that, this cannot continue. This is a very, very bad and unstable situation

Last edited 11 months ago by Paula Rosenblum
David Biernbaum

A retailer might want to consider tiered discounts or loyalty programs with greater savings based on frequency of purchase.
To cater to budget-conscious shoppers, retailers could offer exclusive sales events or bundle deals.
Customers will also feel assured they are getting the best deal by implementing a price matching policy.
Also, retailers can introduce rewards programs that offer cashback or points for purchases, which can be redeemed for discounts in the future.
Likewise, shoppers looking for maximum savings can benefit from free shipping on orders over a certain amount.

Mark Self
Mark Self

Nothing to see here, just 90% of American households not having an impact…this is both disturbing (as in a current problem) and positive (think of the upside once you get the 90% moving!).
The social issue here is the bigger problem. Envy being one of the seven deadly sins, and this headline feeds it.
The country needs to figure out a way to unlock the potential of the lower 90%, or else that will be a bigger problem than what brands stand to prosper.

Scott Norris
Scott Norris
Reply to  Mark Self

I’m more worried about the top 10%’s greed, gluttony, pride, lust, and sloth. Anything the private equity market gets its fingers into seems to fall apart (such as Southwest Airlines and Joann Fabrics just this week) – it doesn’t grow industries or build communities. The wrath bit should be keeping the top 10% awake at night.

Dick Seesel
Dick Seesel

To the poll question — will economic uncertainty lead to a spending downturn by the wealthiest households? — I’d say “not to worry” unless there is a major correction to their sources of wealth (investments and real estate). What I’d worry about is the well-being of the other 90%, who in many cases have embraced a populist political movement while now witnessing the rich getting richer. The “bottom 90%” drive most retail sales, and the economic risks of this kind of disparity should cause some sleepless nights among business leaders.

Melissa Minkow

This is about to be even more the case with the upcoming tax cuts for the higher income brackets.

Joel Rubinson

Trying to figure out if the glass is half full or half empty here…if the bottom 90% are spending above inflation and the top 10% have increased their percentage of retail, perhaps this is a story of wealth creation? Don’t these statistics imply business growth which means more jobs?

Gene Detroyer

“US and Jobs and Economy Have Never Been ‘More Dependent’ on Wealthiest Americans.” This is a very serious issue for the economy. There is a direct correlation between economic success and the minimization of income and wealth inequality.
Simply, if $1,000,000 is added to the economy, how does it add to the country’s success, spending, and jobs? If that $1,000,000 goes to one household versus that $1,000,000 goes to 20 households, which generates more economic value? And, when money is spent, there is a multiplier effect of six to eight times for that $1,000,000.

Gary Sankary
Gary Sankary

Given the tax cuts passed last night, the short answer to this question is no impact. In fact, I suspect it will become even more acute. Short of a systemic meltdown of the financial system, this group has typically enjoyed being insulated against the macroeconomic factors that affect the bottom 90%. The bigger question is how sustainable is this. Resentment is growing.

Bob Amster

Some would say that this is how trickle-down economics works (those who have money to spend feed the economy end employ lesser-income people) while others might ask ‘does that mean that the middle and bottom don’t have enough money to spend to live comfortably?’

Jeff Sward

Discretionary income. The top 10% spends because they can, and the bottom 90% don’t spend because they can’t. Credit maxed out. Delinquencies up. Emergence of BNPL, and then delinquencies at that level. If tariffs go into place and turbo-boost inflation, the top 10% will still have a lot of discretion in how they spend, but they may indeed make different decisions. The bottom 90% will have to start slamming on the brakes with what little discretion they still enjoy today. Walmart and TJX win (again). The whole middle market is exposed. Sounds a little scary to me. We need a solution.
I’ve got it! Let’s give a tax break to everybody that already has lots of liquidity and disposable income. And for the people who are already living on the edge, let’s pull back on Medicare and SNAP. Oh, and medical research, and foreign aid, and…… Because, you know, spending for the top10% and ‘government efficiency’ are the priorities.
Seriously? We’re worried about spending by the top 10%? I have a feeling the same $$$ in the hands of the bottom 90% would be spent with velocity equal to if not greater than the top 10%. And yes, I know what that sounds like. But it’s a pretty good indicator of how completely screwy things are right now. And how ludicrously ridiculous the so-called solutions are.

Shep Hyken

During economic downturns, I’ve seen some wealthy people (far above the minimum benchmark for wealth) tighten up and even sell off unnecessary luxury items. They curtail spending compared to more “normal times.” That will hurt normal shopping habits, but some brands seem to understand their customers well enough to promote and merchandise so that they aren’t as impacted as other brands.

Christopher P. Ramey
Christopher P. Ramey

Being in the top 10% doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wealthy or rich. It certainly doesn’t imply you’re splurging. It simply indicates a higher likelihood of having liquidity. It’s just how they live.

There’s a clear divide between those earning over $200,000 and those making less than $100,000 annually. This divide has always existed. In times of higher inflation, those earning less are the most negatively affected.

Retailers face limited risk that the top 10% will pull out of the market.

Broadly speaking, retailers should, and likely already do, focus on incentivizing the top 20%, as middle and lower-income households increasingly have less impact.

John Hennessy

This speaks to the importance of intimately knowing your customer and customizing your messaging based on that knowledge. The U.S. market is highly fragmented. Each perceived group has subgroups. Those subgroups have subgroups. The idea of a one-size-fits-all message, solution or approach is a thing of the past. Instead, you have to dig into your customers, understand their issues, and speak directly to each customer based on what’s important to them. Within this top 10% group doing the 50% of spending, you will find many customers with many unique buying characteristics.

Anil Patel
Anil Patel

The wealthy will keep spending unless a major stock market crash or policy shift forces them to pull back. Right now, they have the money and see no reason to stop.

The real issue is that the economy is dangerously dependent on their spending while everyone else struggles. Retailers need to stop chasing luxury dollars alone and figure out how to make everyday shopping more appealing for the middle class through better pricing, real value, and actual incentives.

Yes, some brands are capitalizing well on the rich, but if the economy turns, they’ll feel it just like everyone else.

More Discussions