A major casualty of the euro crisis has been Europeans’ faith in the fairness of their economic system, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center.

In what is now the fifth year in the wake of the Great Recession, Europeans believe that inequality is now a major problem in their societies and think that things will only get worse.

One consequence of the euro crisis has been a rise in income inequality in many parts of Europe. Inequality can be measured in various ways. One gauge is how much more of national income is earned by the top fifth of the population compared with that controlled by the bottom fifth. That ratio is on the rise in seven of the eight EU nations surveyed, according to calculations by Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical agency. In 2010, the latest data available,  the top 20% of Greek earners commanded 5.6 times as much of Greek national income as did people living in the bottom 20% of the income distribution. In 2011, the Greek inequality ratio was 6.4. Over the same period, there was a similar rise in inequality in Italy, from 5.2 to 6.0, and a slightly smaller jump in Spain, from 6.9 to 7.5.

As the rich have gotten richer, people across Europe have noticed, and they do not like it.

A strong majority (a median of 77%) of Europeans surveyed think that the current economic system generally favors the wealthy. This includes an overwhelming 95% of the Greeks, 89% of the Spanish and 86% of the Italians. Even seven-in-ten (72%) Germans, who have fared economically better than other European, say the system is rigged.

Moreover, the vast majority of all Europeans (a median of 85%) surveyed overwhelmingly agree that the gap between the rich and the poor has increased in the past five years. This is an almost universally shared sentiment, with nearly nine-in-ten Spanish, Germans, Italians and Greeks agreeing.

And half or more people in all eight EU countries surveyed think the gap between the rich and the poor is a very big problem. This is a particular concern in Greece (84%), Spain (75%) and Italy (75%).

With the International Monetary Fund predicting continued economic stagnation in much of Europe for some time to come, there will be no rising tide to lift all boats. Public attitudes toward the distribution of income and wealth could prove to be a growing political issue as Europe wrestles with the consequences of the euro crisis.

Bruce Stokes is director, global economics program, at the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project.

The median income of American households decreased by as much in the two years after the official end of the Great Recession as it did during the recession itself. The latest estimates from the Census Bureau show that the median income for U.S. households in 2011 was $50,054. In 2009, the year the Great Recession ended, the median income of U.S. households had been $52,195 (in 2011 dollars). Thus, in the two years since the end of the recession, median household income has fallen by 4.1%.

The decrease in household income from 2009 to 2011 almost exactly equaled the decrease in income in the two years of the recession. During the Great Recession, the median U.S. household income (in 2011 dollars) dropped from $54,489 in 2007 to $52,195 in 2009, a loss of 4.2%. By this yardstick, the recovery from the Great Recession is bypassing the nation’s households.

As Republicans gather for their national convention in Tampa to nominate a presidential candidate known, in part, as a wealthy businessman, a new nationwide Pew Research Center survey finds that many Americans believe the rich are different than other people. They are viewed as more intelligent and more hardworking but also greedier and less honest.

Nearly six-in-ten survey respondents (58%) also say the rich pay too little in taxes, while 26% say they pay their fair share, and just 8% say they pay too much. Even among those who describe themselves as upper or upper-middle class1, 52% say upper-income Americans don’t pay enough in taxes.

In spite of these views, overwhelming majorities of self-described middle- and lower-class Americans say they admire people who get rich by working hard (92% and 84%, respectively).

The new survey, which was conducted July 16-26, 2012, among 2,508 adults nationwide, finds that a majority of the public (65%) thinks the nation’s income gap between rich and poor has grown in the past decade-and most say that’s a bad thing for the country.

The survey also finds that the gap between rich and poor goes far beyond income. Adults who self-identify as being in the upper or upper-middle class are generally happier, healthier and more satisfied with their jobs than are those in the middle or lower classes. And they are much less likely to have suffered economic hardships as a result of the recession.
In addition, those in the upper class are more satisfied than those in the middle or lower classes with their family life, their housing situation and their education. Upper-class Americans even report experiencing less stress. Only 29% of those in the upper class say they frequently experience stress, compared with 37% of those in the middle class and 58% of lower-class adults.

As the 2012 presidential candidates prepare their closing arguments to America’s middle class, they are courting a group that has endured a lost decade for economic well-being. Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some — but by no means all — of its characteristic faith in the future, according to a new Pew Research survey and analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau and Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

/* Style Definitions */

table.MsoNormalTable

{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;

mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;

mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;

mso-style-noshow:yes;

mso-style-priority:99;

mso-style-qformat:yes;

mso-style-parent:”";

mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;

mso-para-margin:0in;

mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;

mso-pagination:widow-orphan;

font-size:10.0pt;

font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”;}

Fully 85% of Americans who describe themselves as middle class say it is more difficult now than it was a decade ago for middle-class people to maintain their standard of living. This downbeat take comes at the end of a decade in which mean family incomes declined for Americans overall for the first time since the end of World War II. But the middle-income tier – defined as all adults with annual household incomes that are two-thirds to double the national median — is the only one that also shrunk in size, a trend that has continued for four decades.

In 2011, the middle-income tier included 51% of all adults, down from 61% in 1971. This has been accompanied by a dispersion of the population into the economic tiers both above and below, with slightly more moving into the upper tier. But only the upper tier has increased its share of the nation’s total household income. In 2010, the upper tier took in 46% of the nation’s household income, up from 29% in 1970. The middle tier took in 45%, down from 62%. The lower tier dropped to 9% from 10%.

Appeals to the beleaguered middle class have been at the heart of the 2012 presidential campaign. The new Pew Research survey, conducted from July 16 to July 26, finds that neither candidate has closed the deal with this group, but that President Obama is in somewhat better shape than his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

The survey also finds that the middle class blames Congress more than any of the institutions or entities tested in this survey for its hard economic times in the last decade.

These are among the principal findings from the Pew Research analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and Federal Reserve Bank trend data, as well as a new nationwide Pew Research survey of more than 2,500 adults, including 1,287 who describe themselves as middle class.

Read the full report.

GWEN IFILL: Let’s start with definitions. What do you mean when you say economic segregation?

PAUL TAYLOR: For the purpose of this analysis, we divided all households in the country into three groups, lower, middle and upper.

We define the lower group as having less than two-thirds of the median and the upper group has having more than double the median. In real dollars, for the nation, that works out to about $34,000. If you have less than that, you’re in the lower group — $104,000, if you have more than that, you’re in the upper group. In between, you’re in the middle.

GWEN IFILL: And how has that gap grown wider?

PAUL TAYLOR: What has happened is that the middle has shrunk.

There are fewer people in that middle segment now than there used to be. And that’s a large reason that we see more income segregation. The middle has hollowed out. We know that not just from this report. We know that from following census data over decades now.

So, the question is, because there are fewer people in the middle, has it affected where we live and with whom we live and what our neighborhoods look like? And the answer from this report is yes.

GWEN IFILL: So where does this happen? Where does this play out the most?

PAUL TAYLOR: It’s really fascinating, because while it has happened all across the country, there are pretty stark differences by metro areas and by regions.

The three cities that have seen by far the greatest growth in income segregation are all in Texas, the three big cities of Texas, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. They are now — among the nation’s 30 largest metro areas, they have the highest levels of income segregation.

GWEN IFILL: What is it about Texas?

PAUL TAYLOR: You know, I don’t know. But if you think about what has happened to those three cities in the last 30 years, they have grown a lot and they have grown a lot as a result of two different kinds of migration streams.

There has been a migration stream that it’s been attractive because they’re economically vibrant. So you have high-end workers. You have — maybe in Sunbelt areas, you have some well-to-do retirees. These folks might be attracted to living in more well-to-do neighborhoods.

You have a tremendous amount of low-end, low-skill migration, typically from south of the border, to build the new houses, to mow the lawns, to do the lower-end service jobs. So that has been a description of the changing demography of those cities. And it seems to play out in the changing residential patterns as well.