TIME Workplace & Careers

Here’s How Long It Would Take Most Americans To Earn As Much As The Highest-Paid CEO

Allen & Co. Media And Technology Conference
Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp., arrives to a morning session at the Sun Valley Lodge during the Allen & Co. Media and Technology Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., on Wednesday, July 9, 2014. Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images

Most workers in America would have to work 354 years in order to make what the average CEO makes in one year

Most Americans know that the CEOs of America’s biggest companies rake in piles of wealth, but according to a recent study by Harvard Business School, they have no idea just how much.

“People dramatically underestimate actual pay inequality,” the study said. Americans, for example, estimate that the pay ratio between CEOs and unskilled workers is about 30:1, but the actual ratio is a whopping 354:1.

That means that most workers in America would have to work 354 years in order to make what the average CEO makes in one year.

And that’s just compared to the average CEO. According to calculations by research engine FindTheBest, it would take most Americans thousands of years to catch up to the highest-paid CEO—Charif Souki of Cheniere Energy—who made $141,949,280 in 2013.

How many thousands of years, exactly?

We calculated how long it would take people in seven professions, with median salaries from $18,000 to $187,200—which represents the low and high end of U.S. occupational salaries based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics—to make as much as Souki does in one year.

For jobs that are most often paid on an hourly basis, workers would need about seven to eight thousand years to make what Souki did in 2013.

Fast food workers: 7,774 years

Cashiers: 7,483 years

The results are still grim for Americans who earn near the median U.S. household income of $51,058 per year.

Telecommunications line installers and repairers: 2,761 years

Elementary school teachers: 2,658 years

And as for those who’ve managed to break into the six-figures?

Computer hardware engineers: 1,407 years

Lawyers: 1,250 years

It would even take professionals with the highest-paid jobs by median salary over half a millennium to amass the kind of wealth Souki did in 2013.

Physicians and Surgeons: 568 years

But keep in mind that $142 million was Souki’s 2013 total compensation, which is different from salary because it includes earnings like bonus, restricted stock awards, and non-equity incentive plans — indeed, some CEOs take a $1 salary, making up the difference with these other earnings. So how long would it take the above professionals to make as much as the highest-paid CEO, just when measuring salary?

The CEO with the highest salary was Rupert Murdoch of Twenty-First Century Fox, who made $8.1 million in 2013.

Although it’s a ways below $142 million, $8.1 million is still more than a lifetime’s work away for Americans making the median salary within their professions. It would take cashiers 427 years, teachers 152 years, and lawyers 71 years to make what Murdoch did in one. Our highest-paid professionals, physicians and surgeons come closer, but it would still take them almost half a century (43 years) to catch up.

FindTheBest is a research website that’s collected all the data on jobs and executives, and put it all in one place so you don’t have to go searching for it. Join FindTheBest to get all the information about jobs, execs, and thousands of other topics.

TIME White House

The 10 Shortest Stints in the Oval Office

William Henry Harrison, who died of pneumonia during his first term, is the shortest serving U.S. President

When presidential hopefuls envision their time in office, it’s almost certain that none dream of anything less than a four year stint. Most probably aspire to eight. But a surprisingly high 23% of all U.S. presidents—10 out of our 43 commanders in chief—never made it through a single full term.

So why have so many of our nation’s chief executives called the White House home for less than four years? To find out, see the list compiled by research engine FindTheBest below.

 

10. John Tyler

In office 3.92 years

1841-1845

John Tyler came the closest to completing four years in office of all 10 presidents on the list above. He was also the first president to reach the White House without being elected to office, assuming the title upon President Harrison’s death in 1841. Although he started running for reelection in the 1844 campaign, he withdrew his candidacy in August due to insufficient support from the Whig party.

 

9. Andrew Johnson

In office 3.86 years

1865-1869

Andrew Johnson ascended to the presidency after President Lincoln’s assassination in 1865. Johnson wanted a quick reconciliation with the South in post-Civil War America, so he didn’t give protection to former slaves, and was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1868 as a result. He was acquitted by the Senate by one vote, and remained in office to see his term through, but had lost the support he needed to run for reelection in 1870.

 

8. Chester A. Arthur

In office 3.86 years

1881-1885

Chester A. Arthur became the fourth vice president to attain the presidency through the death of a predecessor—in this case, James A. Garfield. Arthur chose not to run for reelection, and returned to practicing law instead. Almost a year after his presidency ended, however, he fell ill and died.

 

7. John F. Kennedy

In office 2.83 years

1961-1963

Perhaps one of the most well-known and beloved presidents, John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. Oswald was arrested on the same day of the assassination, but he was shot and killed by a man named Jack Ruby two days later. While the FBI and the Warren Commission investigation concluded that Oswald had acted alone, the exact details of what happened are still a mystery, and many conspiracy theories abound.

 

6. Millard Fillmore

In office 2.67 years

1850-1853

Millard Fillmore was the last Whig president, and took office after the death of President Taylor in 1850. Unlike the other vice presidents on this list who did not seek reelection, Fillmore threw his hat in the ring in 1852, but lost the Whig nomination to his secretary of state, Daniel Webster. He also ran on the American Party ticket in 1856, but came in third place.

 

5. Warren G. Harding

In office 2.42 years

1921-1923

Warren G. Harding campaigned on the promise of a “return to normalcy” after the First World War. He’s most well-known for the Teapot Dome Scandal, but in recent years has been viewed more positively as a moderate politician who passed the first federal child welfare program and endorsed African-American civil rights. He intended to run for reelection in 1924, but passed away for unknown reasons in 1923. The most likely reason for his death is heart failure, but some have speculated that he was poisoned or committed suicide.

 

4. Gerald Ford

In office 2.42 years

1974-1977

Gerald Ford is the only person to rise to both the presidency and the vice presidency without being elected. He was appointed to the vice presidency when Spiro Agnew resigned in the face of extortion, bribery, and conspiracy charges, and was elevated to the presidency upon Nixon’s resignation in 1974. Ford ran for reelection, defeating Reagan for the Republican nomination, but lost to Jimmy Carter in the presidential election.

 

3. Zachary Taylor

In office 1.33 years

1849-1850

Zachary Taylor rose to stardom when he led (and won) several battles in the Mexican-American War, helping America keep control over the annexed territory of Texas. Although he had little interest in politics, he was persuaded to leverage his popularity and run for the presidency in 1849. Taylor won the election, but died of a stomach related illness shortly into his term.

2. James A. Garfield

In office .54 years

1881-1881

James A. Garfield was elected in 1881, but only served for a few months before he was shot by outraged political office seeker Charles J. Guiteau. Although Garfield was shot in June, he passed away (officially leaving office) 80 days later in September 1881. During his short time as president, Garfield appointed a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court and proposed a civil service reform act that was eventually passed into law by his successor, Chester A. Arthur.

 

1. William Henry Harrison

In office .08 years

1841-1841

William Henry Harrison died of pneumonia 32 days into his term, claiming the title for shortest presidency by a longshot. It had generally been believed that Harrison caught a cold that lead to pneumonia during his inauguration, where he delivered the longest address in American history, in stormy weather without a coat or gloves. But a 2014 analysis shows that the president actually died of typhoid, and likely contracted it in a marsh close to the White House.

 

FindTheBest is a research website that’s collected all the data on U.S.. presidents, and put it all in one place so you don’t have to go searching for it. Join FindTheBest to get all the information on presidents, Congress members, and thousands of other topics.

TIME States

These Governors Return Their Salary To The State

Every state appropriates its governor a salary, but not every governor accepts it. Some return a percentage to the state, while others forgo any compensation whatsoever.

Not all governors take full pay for the job.

Some take a small salary cut for symbolic reasons. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for example, took a 5 percent salary reduction in 2011. “Change starts at the top and we will lead by example,” he said in a press conference announcing the cut. “Families and business owners in every corner of the state have learned to do more with less in order to live within their means and government must do the same.”

Others, like Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder with a net worth of about $200 million, simply don’t need the money.

Curious to see every other governor who forgoes all or part of their salary? See the list compiled by research engine FindTheBest with data from the National Governors Association below.

First on the list is Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, who takes a salary reduction for neither symbolic or wealth reasons, but has simply refused several cost-of-living adjustments during his time in office, keeping the $175,000 salary he had when he started in 2011. If Gov. Corbett took his full $187,256 salary, he’d be the highest-paid governor in the nation. Instead, he’s tied for second with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

Next up are Governors Steve Beshear and Peter Shumlin. Like Gov. Cuomo, they initially took salary reductions to represent solidarity with constituents during tough times. Gov. Beshear, for example, took his reduction in 2009 to share the burden of Kentucky state budget cuts, and Gov. Shumlin took his in light of a $150 million deficit in Vermont in 2010.

Then there’s Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who—like Gov. Snyder—refuses his salary because he’s amassed so much wealth elsewhere, reporting a net worth of $132 million last year. And while it’s unclear what kind of wealth Gov. Bill Haslam has, his brother Jimmy Haslam—CEO of Pilot Flying J and owner of the NFL’s Cleveland Browns—is worth about $1.45 billion.

In fact, the only governor to sacrifice his entire salary who does not fit the uber wealthy mold is Gov. Robert Bentley of Alabama. Bentley reported a high, but not extremely high, income of $372,687 in 2013, none of which came from his $119,950 governor’s salary. $119,950 would be a noticeable contribution to his bottom line, but Gov. Bentley refuses to collect a dime until Alabama reaches a full employment rate, meaning the unemployment rate drops to 5.2 percent.

FindTheBest is a research website that’s collected all the data on governors and Congress members, and put it all in one place so you don’t have to go searching for it. Join FindTheBest to get all the information on governors, Congress members, and thousands of other topics.

TIME Congress

What Members Of Congress Pay Their Employees May Surprise You

Public records show that different members of Congress reward their employees in different ways

Long hours, stressful work environments, and low-pay make the turnover rate among Congressional staffers extremely high.

Turnover is so high, in fact, that 46%of staffers would look for a new job within a year due to a “desire to earn more money,” according to a study cited by The Hill. That’s understandable considering that the median pay for staff assistants—the most common position in the House’s workforce—is $30,000 per year, according to The Washington Times.

But new data collected by research engine FindTheBest shows that while many House members often have the budget to raise salaries, they choose not to, likely funneling their personnel allowances into funding for other expenses instead. The personnel allowance is part of the Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA), which the Committee on House Administration appropriates every year. It is exactly the same amount for every member, and was $944,671 in 2013.

Beyond a few restrictions—the maximum number of people any member can employee is 18 full-time and 4-part-time workers—there are few regulations for the way a member may spend his or her funds. So to determine how members spend their personnel allowances, FindTheBest analyzed data on personnel expenditures from the Statement of Disbursements of the House for the four most recent quarters of congressional reporting—April 2013 to March 2014.

What they found is that some members of the House channel the entirety of their personnel allowance into their staff, while others have tens of thousands leftover to spend elsewhere.

First, let’s look at the 10 members of Congress by average salary for their staff members, who commit all or most of their personnel allowance into exactly that, their personnel.

A glance at the numbers above shows that salaries for congressional staffers are not always in the common $30,000 to $50,000 range. The member with the highest average salary for his employees, Rep. Rob Bishop, pays his staff an average of $81,000. And of the ten members above, none pays an average salary of less than $69,000. But not all reps compensate their staff so generously. Of the 30 reps who pay their staff the least, none exceeds an average of $41,000.

It’s important to take the graph above with a grain of salt because it reflects an average of all the salaries for employees of a representative, summed up over the past four quarters. This means that members of the House with a high volume of new staff—new staff who have not received a year of compensation yet—will reflect lower averages.

Additionally, the average salaries for Rep. David Jolly (R-FL), Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), and Rep. Marshall Sanford (R-SC), are artificially low because they recently assumed office in special elections. Like representatives who have many new hires, representatives who are new to the House have a whole fleet of staffers who have been employed for less than a year.

But there are still insights to be gleaned, particularly among members who did not experience high turnover rates. Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), for example, pays his employees an average of $41,000, and spent only $783,000 on his staff in the previous four quarters. Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat, pays his employees an average of $39,000 and committed only $715,000 of his personnel allowance to staff during the past four quarters.

Assuming that personnel allowance did not change from 2013 to 2014, the two spent about $162,000 and $230,000 less on their staffs in the span of a year respectively, than they had funds for. So before congressional staffers leave their posts, they may want to do some digging. Their boss may not be paying as much as that other Representative down the hall of the Capitol.

To do your own research, you can see a full accounting of congressional staff salaries on FindTheBest, here. To see how much House members spend on personnel per quarter, click here.

TIME compensation

25 CEOs Who Are Perfectly Happy Making a $1 Salary

HP CEO Meg Whitman Visits China
ChinaFotoPress—ChinaFotoPress via Getty Images

In the business world, there’s a sneaky version of success that goes beyond the seven figure salary: It’s the one figure salary.

Members of the $1 salary club earned just enough money in salary in 2013 to afford one McCafé from the McDonald’s dollar menu.

This phenomenon started in WWI and WWII, when executives sacrificed their salaries to help fund the wars, but were required to accept some form of compensation because U.S. law forbids the government from accepting work from unpaid volunteers.

But why would anyone today trade in a seven-figure-plus salary for one measly dollar?

Most dollar-a-year execs have received (or continue to receive) option awards which increase in value over time, as well as other forms of compensation—like bonuses and non-equity incentive plans. Such forms of compensation are based strictly on company performance, and not on a guaranteed yearly paycheck. This means executives can align their personal financial interests with company interests.

So who are the executives who can afford to collect a $1 a year salary?

Research engine FindTheBest scoured the web to find out, compiling compensation information from the SEC on thousands of executives from publicly traded companies across dozens of industries.

Following is the resulting list of 25 CEOs, Chairmen, and other top execs who banked $1 salaries in 2013.

Among the richest members of the $1 Salary Club are Oracle’s Larry Ellison (net worth $50 billion), Google’s Larry Page (net worth $31.2 billion), and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg (net worth 27.9 billion). Their wealth is so closely tied to their companies’ stock, that receiving a few hundred thousand dollars extra wouldn’t make a dent.

Of the 25 execs above, Larry Ellison made the most last year ($79.6 million), mostly due to the $76.8 million he received in option awards. Mark Zuckerberg also concluded the year with more than $1 in his pocket, making $653,165 through “other compensation,” compensation that does not fit into the SEC’s other defined categories of compensation.

Unlike Ellison and Zuckerberg, whose total compensation surpassed $1 in 2013 despite their salaries, Larry Page’s total compensation stayed put at $1. But that’s not to say he didn’t make money—Google’s stock price rose by 56 percent last year.

Two women also made the list, Meg Whitman (CEO of Hewlett-Packard) and Susan K. Barnes (CFO and Executive VP of Pacific Biosciences). Whitman, previously CEO of eBay, earned $17.6 million in 2013 despite her miniscule salary. Like Ellison, Barnes earned most of her money last year ($436,509) through option awards.

Among the executives who, like Larry Page, received only $1 in total annual compensation in 2013, are fellow billionaires Carl Icahn—Chairman of the Board of Icahn Enterprises whose net worth is $23.9 billion, and Richard Kinder—CEO and Chairman of the Board of Kinder Morgan Management whose net worth is $9.9 billion.

TIME 2014 Election

Last Minute Fundraising Helped Save Thad Cochran

The outlook was not bright for Sen. Thad Cochran on June 3, when he failed to win the majority vote he needed in Mississippi’s primary to secure a spot in November’s general election. Instead, he faced a runoff election on Tuesday to Tea Party challenger and State Senator, Chris McDaniel.

The race quickly became a reflection of the larger divide between establishment Republicans and Tea Party newcomers, as the GOP—still recovering from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s defeat by Tea Party-backed Dave Brat—rallied immediately to help fill Cochran’s campaign coffers, which were hurting after the June 3 primary.

In the three weeks leading to the runoff, the GOP led a full-force fundraising effort, making it possible for Cochran to continue running television ads, and launch the large-scale get out the vote campaign that ultimately won him the race.

Chief among the GOP’s fundraising efforts was a June 10 event held by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which raised $820,000. Among the event’s donors were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, all of whom had faced Tea Party challengers in the past. Each senator donated to Cochran’s campaign committee, Citizens For Cochran, through leadership PACs of their own. Some Republicans, like Sen. Roger Wicker, even ran phone campaigns themselves.

In all, Sen. Cochran’s campaign committee leveraged its incumbent advantage, raising almost a million dollars in its final weeks, and about 2.5 million more than did Sen. McDaniel’s committee, Friends of Chris McDaniel, overall.

But the funds didn’t stop there.

Cochran also received significant contributions in the form of independent expenditures, money that organizations can spend to advocate specifically for or against a candidate, but that must be made without that candidate’s involvement.

The Chamber of Commerce, for example, spent $700,000 in Cochran’s favor, and the group Main Street Advocacy spent $100,000.

TIME Military

What You Need to Know About the Top Federal Contractors In 3 Graphs

The business is big, but with the wars winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan it could become smaller soon.

In his farewell address to the nation, President Eisenhower warned against the economic and political influence of the rising military industrial complex: the relationship between government entities and private government contractors.

Yet almost 60 years later, with the government contracting industry so large that many call it a fourth branch of government, Eisenhower’s warning appears unheeded.

Proponents of the industry say that contractors keep the nation safe, doing work the government does not have the capability to do. Its critics, on the other hand, assert that contractors have an incentive to perpetuate war—the more weaponry contractors produce, the more profits they make.

To find out which companies are at the head of this debate (the ones that are making billions every year), research engine FindTheBest compiled data from USASpending.gov, ranking the top ten contractors by U.S. government dollars obligated (the dollar amount paid to the contractor) from 2000-2013.

Together, the top ten contractors made $1.5 trillion—or 15% of the total $9.7 trillion obligated from 2000-2013—with Lockheed Martin in the lead at $410 billion, followed by The Boeing Company’s $259 billion.

So what do these companies do to make so much money?

In short, defense. These contractors produce aircrafts, ships, vehicles, weaponry, and electric systems, and provide logistics, technical, training, and telecommunication support.

Lockheed Martin provides an especially telling example, a contractor who won a $574.5 million contract to build a weapons system for the U.S. Navy last year. Also in 2013, General Dynamics was awarded $122 million to buy materials for three Virginia-class “fast attack” submarines, and Raytheon received $350 million to increase its acquisition of SM-3 missiles designed to destroy foreign missile threats by colliding with them in space.

Although these companies are making billions now, contractor revenue may not be as steady as it seems.

If American defense and security needs diminish, so will their profits. To find out just how much the contractors would lose, FindTheBest compared government dollars obligated in 2013, to the companies’ overall 2013 revenue.

The company that relies the most heavily on contracting work is Lockheed Martin, with 67% of its revenue coming from the government in 2013. It’s followed by Raytheon and Saic Inc., with each owing 49% and 46% of their revenue to contracts, respectively.

If the government stopped needing top contractors for security purposes, their revenue wouldn’t be the only thing to take a hit—their employees would too. Together, the companies below employ about 950,000 people.

TIME elections

Before Cantor: Seven Other Tea Party Upsets

The defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor by a little-known Tea Partier isn't the first upset in recent election cycles

It all started four years B.C. Four years before Cantor that is.

Since the Tea Party had its first member elected to public office in 2010 (Dean Murray to the New York State Assembly), the feisty political movement has rocked the GOP with challengers to elected positions long-held by establishment Republicans.

In the latest upset, House Majority Leader and No. 2 House Republican Eric Cantor, lost to the Tea Party-backed economics professor, Dave Brat in the Virginia Republican primary on Tuesday.

It’s a result which many are calling one of the most stunning primary election results in congressional history. Cantor was considered a top contender to replace John Boehner as the next House Speaker. What’s more, Cantor was a vocal supporter of child immigration rights, which many thought might help change the debate on immigration.

But Cantor isn’t the only establishment Republican to face a surprising defeat to a Tea Party challenger. See seven of the biggest Tea Party election upsets (in four years of history) below.

1. Ted Yoho

Yoho—whom the Tampa Bay Times retroactively dubbed “The Eric Cantor of Florida”—caused a major upset in 2012, defeating longtime incumbent Congressman Cliff Stearns, who served 12 terms in the house beginning in 1988, in the Republican primary.

Yoho then easily defeated Democrat candidate J.R. Gaillot in the general election, walking away with 64.8 % of the votes.

2. Ted Cruz

In the 2012 Republican primary runoff for senate, Ted Cruz faced off against the establishment GOP candidate and Lieutenant Governor of Texas, David Dewhurst. Dewhurst had the backing of Governor Rick Perry and many other members of the state’s Republican leadership, but in the end this support meant little—Cruz defeated Dewhurst by more than 150,000 votes out of the 1.1 million cast.

Cruz then defeated Democratic challenger Paul Sadler in the general election, becoming the first Hispanic to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate.

3. Mike Lee

Senator Robert F. Bennett lost his bid for a fourth term during the 2010 primaries when he received only 27% of the vote by Utah’s delegates and missed a runoff. During the critical Utah GOP convention, Bennett told delegates in a speech, “Don’t take a chance on a newcomer,” but that’s exactly what they did. Taking his place was Mike Lee, an attorney with no prior political experience.

Lee also beat Democratic challenger Sam Granato in the general election, with 62%t of the votes compared to Granato’s 33%.

4. Marco Rubio

The race for the open seat on Florida’s Senate in 2010 was a three-way battle. With the sitting Governor Charlie Crist running as an Independent, facing off against Democrat Kendrick Meek and Republican Marco Rubio.

Rubio, a Tea Party favorite, won the race with 49% of the vote. Talk of him running for president in 2012 began immediately, and although he expressed no intention to run back then, he’s said it’s something he’ll consider in 2016.

5. Brad Wenstrup

Like Mike Lee, Brad Wenstrup was a political newbie when he won Ohio’s 2nd congressional district in 2012, first defeating Republican incumbent Jean Schmidt in the primaries, and then Democratic challenger William R. Smith in the November general election.

6. Rand Paul

Rand Paul, with his unconventional views on foreign policy and social issues, is a hard pill for the GOP to swallow. But the pill become a lot more cumbersome in 2010, when he beat out establishment favorite Trey Grayson in the Republican primary.

He faced off against Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway (a Democrat) in the general election, walking away victorious with 56% of the vote.

7. Tim Scott

In 2010, South Carolina held a 9-candidate Republican primary, including two candidates with fathers who were also involved in Republican politics—Paul Thurmond, son of former South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, and Carroll Campbell, son of former South Carolina Governor Carroll A. Campbell. Scott came in first, with 32% of the vote.

After a second vote to secure more than 50% of the vote, Scott went on to defeat Democrat Ben Frasier in the general election, becoming the first African American to be elected to congress from South Carolina in more than 100 years. He was later appointed to the U.S. Senate seat from South Carolina, replacing Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who retired.

TIME States

Blue States Barack Obama Won in 2012 Have More Rich Than Red States

The states with most poor residents tend to vote red, and those with the richest vote blue.

States that voted for Democrat Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election have, on average, a higher percentage of households that make $150,000 per year, and a lower percentage of households that make $25,000 or less per year, than the red states that supported Republican Mitt Romney, according to U.S. Census data collected by research engine FindTheBest. Morethan150k

Note, the U.S. Census defines household as people who occupy a single housing unit.

The data shows that the percentage of households in blue states that make over $150,000 per year—11%—is slightly above the national average of 9.4%.

Blue states also account for all but one of the top 17 states by percentage of households in the highest income bracket, with Alaska (12.8%) being the only red state to make the list. Red states, on the other hand, fall slightly below the national average, at 6.9%, and account for all but one (Maine, 5.6%) of the bottom 12 states by percentage of households making at least $150,000 per year.

So which states have the most (and least) households making $150,000?

The highest earner is D.C.—a blue district, not a state—where 20 percent of households make over $150,000 per year. One secret to D.C.’s high income might be its high concentration of well-educated individuals, where 53% of the population holds a bachelor’s degree, well above the national average of 28%.

Ranking in spot two is New Jersey, where 18% of households make over $150,000 per year. Once you factor in the cost of living however, those high incomes don’t sound quite as lofty. 68% of homeowners—compared to the national average of 32%—spend more than $2,000 in homeowner costs per month.

At the bottom of the list is West Virginia, where only 3.9% of households are in the highest bracket. It’s also dead last for well-being out of all 50 states, according to the 2013 Gallup-Healthways Well Being Index.

Scroll over any state in the map below to find the percentage of households in the $150,000 or higher income bracket.

FindTheBest also crunched the numbers for percentage of households making below $25,000 per year. lessthan25k

States that voted blue ranked better than red states for percentage of households making $25,000 or less per year (21.6% vs. 25.9%); putting blue states 1.7 percentage points below the national average of 23.3%, and red states 2.6 percentage points above it.

Additionally, whereas the highest earning states were almost completely blue, the lowest earning states are almost completely red—New Mexico (with 28.3% making $25,000 or less) being the only blue state among the 14 lowest earners.

As for the poorest states?

West Virginia comes close to ranking the most poorly again, with 32% of households making less than $25,000, but Mississippi (also ranking poorly on the Gallup-Healthways Well Being Index, in 48th place) outpaces it, at 34%.

To see the percentage for every state, scroll over the map below.

TIME Congress

9 Standout Legislators Among the Most Unproductive Congress in History

The 113th congress is on track to be the least productive in American History.

Current members of Congress have passed only 104 bills and resolutions into law so far, which gives the nation’s elected leaders until Jan 3, 2015 (when the current session ends) to pass 180 new pieces of legislation just to be on par with the 112th Congress—the current record holder for least productive congress ever.

While gridlock and inter-party polarity may keep bills from turning into law, it hasn’t kept legislators from sponsoring new ones. They’ve introduced 8,327 bills and resolutions so far, putting them on pace to reach about 11,750 by the end of the session.

But not all congresspeople contribute equally to this tally. The most noteworthy members have sponsored between 69 and 78 bills this session.

Who are they?

According to data collected by research engine FindTheBest, the most productive bill writers are Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Mark Begich (R-AK), David Vitter (R-LA), Harry Reid (D-NV), and Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL).

Leading the 535 member pack is Senator Robert Menendez. Although he’s Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (those who hold leadership positions are often the ones to sponsor bills), only 30 of his 78 bills have involved international affairs. His other 48 span 14 categories from health, to taxation, education, and animals.

Only Senator Menendez makes it into the graph below of the top five congresspeople to have their bills signed into law.

Although Representative Harold Rogers has sponsored fewer bills than Senator Menendez, he’s had more of his—five out of 14—signed into law. As the Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, four of these have involved appropriations bills within his domain. But like Senator Menendez, he’s sponsored legislation in a wide variety of categories.

Of the rest on the list, two are also chairmen, Senators Leahy and Menendez.

Some of the more ineffective members of congress may want to ask the remaining two—D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Mike Coffman—about their secret to getting bills passed outside of a leadership role.

This article was written for TIME by Kiran Dhillon of FindTheBest.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser