It would be hard not to notice that we are living in a world of increasing inequality. According to data collected by the Federal Reserve, the share of the nation’s wealth owned by the top one percent of U.S. wealth holders increased almost 50 percent, from 22.8 percent in 1989 to 31.9 percent at the end of 2025.  Meanwhile, the gap between high and low earners has also been expanding.  One widely used measure is the ratio of wages of workers at the 90th percentile of the earnings distribution to those at the 10th percentile (the 90-10 gap).   According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 90-10 gap was 3.7 in 1979 and grew to 5.0 by 2014, roughly where it is today. 

This widening gap helps us understand why robust economic growth has not translated into more positive views about the economy. GDP per capita, the conventional scorecard of economic performance, has more than doubled since the mid-1980s.  But, because of the growing income gap, this prosperity has not been widely shared.  For example, adjusted for inflation, the real compensation of production workers today is no higher than it was in 1979 (see MeasuringWorth.com). This marks a major shift.  In the 100 years from 1879 to 1979, the compensation of production workers grew at roughly the same rate as GDP per capita.

These facts both help us to understand our experience of the modern economy and raise a whole host of questions.  Why are the fruits of economic growth increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few?  Have there been other times when there has been a similar level of inequality?  What can we learn from past experiences?  What will happen in the future? 

When I was in elementary school, the way we studied geography was...not fun. It involved a lot of memorizing: state capitals, rivers and mountains, maybe a famous place from history or two.

It wasn’t until many years later that I learned that places and names are just a fraction of what geography is all about. In fact, geography is a social science that explores much more than the points on a map. It is a discipline that asks how? and why? as much as it asks where?

Geography embraces many disciplines across the humanities and sciences: history, demography, anthropology, cartography, climate science, geology, technology, political science, and economics, to name just a few. You could say that the study of geography is about everything that relates to a place.

Where do you live? How old are you? Did you finish college? Are you married? Do you have any children? Have you recently moved? What type of job do you have? These may seem like mundane questions, but to demographers the answers yield data that are critical to understanding today’s society and predicting the future.

For 95 years, the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) has used demographic data to help people make informed decisions that affect communities around the world. PRB works in partnership with the Population Association of America and the Association of Population Centers to make population research accessible to a broad audience.

Just as roads and bridges are fundamental to our physical infrastructure, demographic information is vital to our data and policy infrastructure. Demography provides a lens that community leaders, policymakers, business leaders, advocates, and residents can use to allocate resources effectively and plan for a thriving future.

Every year on the third Thursday of February, we celebrate Anthropology Day—a chance to further our understanding of what it means to be human. Established by the American Anthropological Association, this day brings students, teachers, and professionals together to share how anthropology helps us explore cultures, societies, and human behavior. Anthropology isn’t just about studying ancient artifacts or faraway tribes; it’s about connecting the dots between the past and present, helping us make sense of how we live and interact today. In short, anthropology guides us towards a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, we are reminded that Americans are deeply polarized. But while the term “polarization” is widely used, with apologies to The Princess Bride, that word does not always mean what you think it means. The American public is not polarized in the sense that they are divided into two ideological camps with little middle ground (although that is the case for our politicians). Rather, they experience affective polarization, which refers not to their views on public policy—as Americans are generally centrists—but instead a personal dislike of people who support the “other” party. This is a relatively recent development, for as recently as the 1980s, partisan differences did not usually translate to personal antipathy. Nor is it limited to one party; Republicans and Democrats express nearly identical dislike of each another.