The top 1% of US households by income now hold more wealth than the entire middle class combined, according to Federal Reserve data compiled by nonprofit data group USAFacts in July and cited by ABMedia.
As of the first quarter of 2026, households in the middle 20% of the US income distribution held about $13.6 trillion in wealth, equal to roughly 8% of total household wealth nationwide. Their average net worth stood at about $503,000 per household.
Households in the top 1% by income, by comparison, had average net worth close to $31 million, about 61 times that of middle-income households.
A separate cut of the same picture, using wealth instead of income, shows a similar concentration. Federal Reserve statistics through the first quarter of 2026 found that the top 1% of households by net worth controlled 31.6% of all US wealth. Households between the 50th and 90th wealth percentiles, the middle 40%, held 29.6% combined. In other words, the wealthiest 1% owned more than that entire broad middle segment.
Income and wealth measure different things
ABMedia noted that income and wealth are not interchangeable. Income covers what a household receives over a year, including wages, bonuses, interest and other earnings. Wealth refers to net worth after subtracting liabilities such as mortgages, credit card balances and other debts from assets that can include homes, stocks, retirement accounts and private business equity.
Based on the Federal Reserve’s 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances, the threshold to enter the top 1% of US households by wealth was about $11.64 million. That figure marks the cutoff, not the average. A small group of ultra-rich households worth tens of billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars can pull the average sharply higher.
That is why the top 1% by income can include doctors, lawyers, senior executives, successful founders and technology workers with large stock payouts. Figures such as Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg sit at a much narrower peak above even that group.
Silicon Valley makes the gap feel more visible
For many people, the top 1% is an abstract category. ABMedia framed Silicon Valley as a place where that abstraction feels unusually concrete.
The report described one meal at a restaurant where the author ended up seated next to former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt. There was no conference, awards event or staged appearance, just an ordinary dinner service continuing around him. That moment, the author wrote, captured how public figures in technology can sometimes be physically close in Silicon Valley while remaining financially distant from the people around them.
That distance often does not show up in outward appearance. In coffee shops, restaurants, schools and neighborhoods, wealth differences may not be obvious at a glance. Silicon Valley affluence can look understated, with people dressed casually and driving older cars.
The divide sits on the balance sheet instead. Some households own public company shares, stakes in private startups or homes bought years ago that have appreciated sharply. Others may earn salaries that rank near the top nationally, yet still have to manage monthly cash flow carefully after income taxes, mortgages, childcare, insurance and education costs.
ABMedia argued that Silicon Valley stands out because high income and enormous wealth exist side by side without being the same thing. An engineer may earn several hundred thousand dollars a year, well above most US households. But if that person moved to the Bay Area recently, missed out on early company equity and has not bought a home, wealth accumulation may trail far behind households that purchased property years earlier at lower prices or built large holdings in technology stocks. Wages cover living costs. Assets can keep compounding when markets rise.
High income does not erase basic cost pressure
The gap is especially visible in local living costs. US Census Bureau data cited in the report showed that Santa Clara County had a median household income of about $164,000 across 2020 to 2024, far above the national average.
At the same time, the 2026 Silicon Valley Index showed the median home price in the area was close to $2 million, and about one-quarter of households could not meet basic living needs through their own income alone.
Wealth in the region is even more concentrated than in the country at large. The richest 10% of Silicon Valley households held about 75% of regional wealth, while the bottom 50% held less than 1% combined. The region absorbs tens of billions of dollars in venture capital each year and hosts a dense cluster of technology firms and highly paid talent, while also facing housing shortages, a rising homeless population and longer commutes for service workers.
ABMedia described that contrast in day-to-day terms: a multibillion-dollar startup financing can happen on the same day that teachers, restaurant workers, care workers and young families worry about rent. Rising technology stock prices may add millions of dollars to some households’ net worth within months. For people without stocks or property, the same boom may first show up as higher rent and a more expensive cost of living.
Middle-class wealth is often not easily spendable
The report said average middle-class net worth of $503,000 can look substantial at first glance, but much of it is tied up in owner-occupied housing and retirement accounts. Among higher-income households, a larger share of wealth is usually held in stocks, funds and private business equity.
That creates a very different financial experience. A rising home price increases net worth on paper, but the house remains the place where a family lives. Unless it is sold or borrowed against, that wealth is not easily converted into day-to-day spending power. Retirement accounts also come with withdrawal age and tax constraints.
Wealthier households, by contrast, tend to hold more tradable stocks and business equity. When markets rise, those assets can appreciate faster and can also be sold, pledged or shifted into other investments more easily. Wealth then feeds the capacity to build more wealth.
ABMedia said this helps explain why US stock indexes can keep reaching new highs while many households do not feel meaningfully richer. Both experiences can be true at the same time because they sit on different balance sheets.
Physical proximity does not mean the same economic world
Living in Silicon Valley can put people close to top earners, and at times even near some of the world’s richest entrepreneurs and technology leaders. ABMedia’s point was that this does not mean the gains created by the technology sector are widely shared across all residents.
People in the same restaurant may order similar meals and wear similar clothes, then go home to completely different financial choices. One household may be deciding whether to back the next company. Another may be wondering whether buying a home this year is still possible. One worries about excessive concentration in stock holdings. Another has not yet built enough savings to begin investing. One can absorb several failed startup attempts. Another would need to recalculate rent, insurance and child-related expenses after losing only a few months of income.
That is why the top 1% matters in this discussion beyond the headline figure itself. When wealth is concentrated in a very small group of households, so are the ability to consume, invest, secure housing, access education and take financial risk.
ABMedia closed by arguing that what looks like a crossing of two percentage lines on a chart becomes, in Silicon Valley daily life, two increasingly different American experiences. The wealthiest person may really be sitting at the next table. The economic worlds on each side of that table can still be far apart.