This table presents income shares, thresholds, tax shares, and total counts of individual Canadian tax filers, with a focus on high income individuals (95% income threshold, 99% threshold, etc.). Income thresholds are based on national threshold values, regardless of selected geography; for example, the number of Nova Scotians in the top 1% will be calculated as the number of taxfiling Nova Scotians whose total income exceeded the 99% national income threshold. Different definitions of income are available in the table namely market, total, and after-tax income, both with and without capital gains.

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

One in four families in Toronto does not have the income necessary to live a healthy life and participate fully in their community. Inequality can be based on geography; some neighbourhoods experience greater poverty than others. People from Aboriginal and racialized communities, newcomers to Canada, people with disabilities, youth and children, lone parents, and others are dealing with the biggest challenges. Many people work more than one job, yet still have low incomes. Having an education is not proving to be a pathway to well-paid jobs for almost 1/4 of graduates. More than 1 million visits to food banks in Toronto means families, especially with children, are unable to put food on the table every day. Housing costs can take more than 70% of household income, yet can be poorly maintained or inadequate for the size of the family. The Phase 1 engagement (November, 2014 to February, 2015) of the Toronto Poverty Reduction Strategy aimed to seek feedback in four key areas: The drivers of poverty in Toronto; A vision for the kind of Toronto we want; What we are doing that helps address poverty and what else could be done; and, An engagement plan for the next phase of the work. The data contained in the Excel file titled Phase 1 Questionnaire Responses, was collected through an online questionnaire. The information recorded in the PDF file, titled Phase 1 Community Conversations was collected by community members using a PDF Facilitation Guide developed by City staff. The information recorded in the PDF file, titled Phase 1 Multisector Dialogue was collected by staff and table facilitators at a full day workshop on November 28, 2014. Phase 2 engagement (February, 2015 to April, 2015) built on community input from Phase 1 and gathered public feedback on key actions for various themes, (Access to Services; Child Care; Employment and Income, Food Access; Housing; and Transportation), and on principles that should guide City decisions. The Phase Two data includes two Excel files: The Days of Dialogue data that was transcribed into Excel from the ten community meetings. The Online Feedback data that was collected through an online feedback form. For more information visit TOProsperity

The Social Policy Simulation Database/Model (SPSD/M) is a tool designed to analyze the financial interactions between governments and individuals in Canada. It is used to evaluate the effects of the tax and transfer system on costs and income redistribution. The SPSD/M has four basic components: a database (the SPSD), a model (the SPSM, which includes a set of simulation algorithms), software for data extraction and data reporting, and user documentation. The SPSD/M is designed to be used in the analysis of the financial interactions between governments and individuals in Canada. 1. The SPSD/M is a representative and non-confidential statistical database of individuals in the context of their families, with sufficient information on each individual to enable the calculation of taxes paid to the government as well as amounts remitted by governments.2. SPSM is a static accounting model that processes every individual and family in the SPSD, calculates taxes and transfers using algorithms that simulate adopted or proposed programs, and reports on results. A sophisticated software environment gives the user a great deal of influence over the model's inputs and outputs, enabling him or her to modify existing programs or examine entirely new projects. Inside MSPS, there are two models, configured as two separate computer programs.2a.The central program, SPSM, is a microsimulation model that calculates taxes and transfers for individuals and families. These calculations are performed for everyone in the SPSD, and the results are then aggregated to produce estimates. The SPSM is a static incidence model and is not intended to simulate how an individual's behavior is likely to change in response to various policy options. The MSPS includes software that enables the user to perform summation and extraction operations on the information contained in the database. 2b. The consumption tax model (COMTAX) is a model based on macro-economic input-output data. This model is not part of the current version of SPSD/M, but the results obtained with it are. COMTAX estimates federal and provincial sales taxes and equivalent consumption taxes by province, household, expenditure category and tax type. This model is necessary because many consumption taxes are levied at various stages of production, not at the retail stage. The rates calculated by the COMTAX model can be used as input parameters to the SPSM to produce estimates of consumption taxes paid, directly and indirectly, by any given household. 3. Data extraction and reporting software are configured as functions that are accessed via the model. They enable the user to produce formatted output data and perform specific types of analysis. 4. The user documentation is voluminous and comprehensive. It is divided into three manuals containing a number of guides. There are also two ways to run SPSM: using the Visual SPSM interface or the Classic SPSM mode. 1. SPSM Visual: The SPSM Visual interface allows users to modify model parameters, run SPSM simulations and examine output. 2.SPSM Classic: SPSM can also be run from the command interpreter (cmd). For current data from the Social Policy Simulation Database/Model, see Statistics Canada

Effect of suicide rates on life expectancy dataset

Abstract
In 2015, approximately 55 million people died worldwide, of which 8 million committed suicide. In the USA, one of the main causes of death is the aforementioned suicide, therefore, this experiment is dealing with the question of how much suicide rates affects the statistics of average life expectancy.
The experiment takes two datasets, one with the number of suicides and life expectancy in the second one and combine data into one dataset. Subsequently, I try to find any patterns and correlations among the variables and perform statistical test using simple regression to confirm my assumptions.

Data

The experiment uses two datasets - WHO Suicide Statistics[1] and WHO Life Expectancy[2], which were firstly appropriately preprocessed. The final merged dataset to the experiment has 13 variables, where country and year are used as index: Country, Year, Suicides number, Life expectancy, Adult Mortality, which is probability of dying between 15 and 60 years per 1000 population, Infant deaths, which is number of Infant Deaths per 1000 population, Alcohol, which is alcohol, recorded per capita (15+) consumption, Under-five deaths, which is number of under-five deaths per 1000 population, HIV/AIDS, which is deaths per 1 000 live births HIV/AIDS, GDP, which is Gross Domestic Product per capita, Population, Income composition of resources, which is Human Development Index in terms of income composition of resources, and Schooling, which is number of years of schooling.

LICENSE

THE EXPERIMENT USES TWO DATASET - WHO SUICIDE STATISTICS AND WHO LIFE EXPECTANCY, WHICH WERE COLLEECTED FROM WHO AND UNITED NATIONS WEBSITE. THEREFORE, ALL DATASETS ARE UNDER THE LICENSE ATTRIBUTION-NONCOMMERCIAL-SHAREALIKE 3.0 IGO (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/).

[1] https://www.kaggle.com/szamil/who-suicide-statistics

[2] https://www.kaggle.com/kumarajarshi/life-expectancy-who

The index ranges from 0.0, when all families (households) have equal shares of income (implies perfect equality), to 1.0 when one family (household) has all the income and the rest have none (implies perfect inequality). Index data is provided for California and its counties, regions, and large cities/towns. The data is from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Income is linked to acquiring resources for healthy living. Both household income and the distribution of income across a society independently contribute to the overall health status of a community. On average Western industrialized nations with large disparities in income distribution tend to have poorer health status than similarly advanced nations with a more equitable distribution of income. Approximately 119,200 (5%) of the 2.4 million U.S. deaths in 2000 are attributable to income inequality. The pathways by which income inequality act to increase adverse health outcomes are not known with certainty, but policies that provide for a strong safety net of health and social services have been identified as potential buffers.Dataset taken from https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/income-inequalityData Dictionary: COLUMN NAMEDEFINITIONFORMATCODINGind_idIndicator IDPlain Text770ind_definitionDefinition of indicator in plain languagePlain TextFree textreportyearYear(s) that the indicator was reportedPlain Text2005-2007, 2008-2010, 2006-2010. 2005-2007, 2008-2010, and 2006-2010 data is from the American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Census Bureau. The ACS is a continuous survey. ACS estimates are period estimates that describe the average characteristics of the population in a period of data collection. The multiyear estimates are averages of the characteristics over several years. For example, the 2005-2007 ACS 3-year estimates are averages over the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007. Multiyear estimates cannot be used to say what was going on in any particular year in the period, only what the average value is over the full time period (Source: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/american_community_survey/).race_eth_codenumeric code for a race/ethnicity groupPlain Text9=Totalrace_eth_nameName of race/ethnic groupPlain Text9=TotalgeotypeType of geographic unitPlain TextPL=Place (includes cities, towns, and census designated places -CDP-. It does not include unincorporated communities); CO=County; RE=region; CA=StategeotypevalueValue of geographic unitPlain Text9-digit Census tract code; 5-digit FIPS place code; 5-digit FIPS county code; 2-digit region ID; 2-digit FIPS state codegeonameName of geographic unitPlain Textplace name, county name, region name, or state namecounty_nameName of county that geotype is inPlain TextNot available for geotypes RE and CAcounty_fipsFIPS code of county that geotype is inPlain Text2-digit census state code (06) plus 3-digit census county coderegion_nameMetopolitan Planning Organization (MPO)-based region name: see MPO_County List TabPlain TextMetropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) regions as reported in the 2010 California Regional Progress Report (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/Collaborative%20Planning/Files/CARegionalProgress_2-1-2011.pdf).region_codeMetopolitan Planning Organization (MPO)-based region code: see MPO_CountyList tabPlain Text01=Bay Area; 08=Sacramento Area; 09=San Diego; 14=Southern CaliforniaNumber_HouseholdsNumber of households in a jurisdictionNumericGini_indexCumulative percentage of household income relative to the cumulative percentage of the number of households expressed on a 0 to 1 scale called the Gini Index. The index ranges from 0.0, when all families (households) have equal shares of income, to 1.0, when one family (household) has all the income and the rest none (https://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204.pdf).NumericLL_95CILower limit of 95% confidence intervalNumericLower limit of 95% confidence interval. The 95% confidence limits depict the range within which the percentage would probably occur in 95 of 100 sets of data (if data similar to the present set were independently acquired on 100 separate occasions). In five of those 100 data sets, the percentage would fall outside the limits.UL_95CIUpper limit of 95% confidence intervalNumericUpper limit of 95% confidence interval. The 95% confidence limits depict the range within which the percentage would probably occur in 95 of 100 sets of data (if data similar to the present set were independently acquired on 100 separate occasions). In five of those 100 data sets, the percentage would fall outside the limits.seStandard error of percent NumericThe standard error (SE) of the estimate of the mean is a measure of the precision of the sample mean. The standard error falls as the sample size increases. (Reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1255808/)rseRelative standard error (se/percent * 100) expressed as a percentNumericThe relative standard error (RSE) provides the rational basis for determining which rates may be considered “unreliable.” Conforming to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) standards, rates that are calculated from fewer than 20 data elements, the equivalent of an RSE of 23 percent or more, are considered unreliable. From: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ohir/Documents/OHIRProfiles2014.pdfCA_decileDecilesNumeric"CA_decile" groups places or census tracts into 10 groups (or deciles) according to the distribution of values of the index (Gini_index). The first decile (1) corresponds to the highest Gini indices; the tenth decile (10) corresponds to the lowest Gini indices. Equal values or 'ties' are assigned the mean decile rank. For example, in a database of 100 records where 70 records equal 0, 0 values span from the 1st to 7th deciles (70% of all data records). As a result, all 0 values will be assigned to the 4th decile: the mean between the 1st and 7th deciles. The deciles are only calculated for places and/or census tracts.CA_RRIndex ratio to state indexNumericRatio of local index to state index. This indicates how many times the local index is higher or lower than the state index (Reference: http://health.mo.gov/training/epi/RateRatio-b.html). Values higher than 1 indicate local index is higher than state index.Median_HH_incomeMedian household income data is provided for users to stratify the Gini index by income deciles for places and countiesNumericMedian_HH_decileMedian household income data is provided for users to stratify the Gini index by income deciles for places and countiesNumericversionDate/time stamp of version of dataDate/Timemm/DD/CCYY hh:mm:ss

Despite scholarly consensus on the harmful effects of economic sanctions on civilians, there is little micro-level empirical research on how and to what extent economic sanctions affect the food consumption of citizens in sanctioned countries. One of the methodological barriers to studying the micro-level dynamics of sanctions is the limited availability of reliable data in sanctioned countries, which are often governed by authoritarian leaders. Our study leverages an original dataset comprising approximately 1 million observations related to the income and expenses of Iranian households from 1991 to 2021. We assess the impact of economic sanctions on individual food consumption at the national level and among distinct demographic segments. To illustrate how and to what extent international sanctions affected citizens' eating habits, we pay particular attention to 2012-2015 and 2018-2021, when Iran was subject to the most severe sanctions. Our findings demonstrate that while all segments of society feel the effects of economic coercion, low-income citizens' food consumption is more likely to deteriorate due to sanctions. Nonetheless, the geographical impact of sanctions presents a mixed picture, with rural and urban areas each exhibiting specific vulnerabilities to certain food items. We discuss the implications of our findings for sanctions policy and human rights.

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is significantly having short term and long term impact on Burkinabe households’ welfare, impacting households through at least three broad channels: (i) the income/employment channel, which includes both labor and non-labor income, (ii) the price channel, and (iii) the long-term human capital channel. Most of these impacts are related to the direct health effect, but also to the containment measures that systematically altered socio-economic activities, resulting in a reduction of income across the board. Due to the urgent need for timely data and the limits on face-to-face surveys, the World Bank and the National Institute of Statistics and Demography (INSD) decided to implement a high-frequency phone survey of national households (HFPS) (https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3768) to monitor the effects of COVID-19 on households, leveraging the available household phone number in the 2018/19 Enquete Harmonisée sur les Conditions de Vie des Ménages (EHCVM). In Burkina Faso, the forcibly displaced persons (FDP) include both refugees and internal displaced population. For security related issues, FDPs are predominantly internal displaced people (IDPs). According to recent studies, the number of internally displaced people soared from 87,000 in January 2019 to over 1 million in August 2020, an increase of more than 1000 per cent (Conseil National de Secours d'Urgence et de Réhabilitation – CONASUR, 2020). The unprecedented levels of displacement occurred as the coronavirus pandemic worsens an already critical humanitarian crisis in the violence-stricken country. This critical situation calls for the need of timely data and analysis especially during a pandemic for this vulnerable group in order to better inform policy and targeting programs. Given the mutual interest of the INSD, WB-UNHCR Joint Data Center on Forced Displacement (JDC), UNHCR, and World Bank, decision was made to further expand the sample of the high-frequency phone survey of national households (HFPS) to include IDPs for a total of three consecutive rounds. The core survey questionnaire of the Burkina Faso High Frequency Phone Survey on IDPs (BFA HFPS-IDP) is designed to cover important and relevant topics like employment, access to basic services and items, and non-labor sources of income. The core questionnaire is complemented by questions on selected topics that rotate each month, including knowledge of Covid-19 spread, social distancing and behavior, coping mechanisms to shocks, fragility, conflict and violence. Selected topics may be investigated more in detail in specific rounds.

The BFA HFPS-IDP is fielded alongside the Burkina Faso Covid-19 High Frequency Phone Survey of national households. Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of data collection for the HFPS-IDP occur simultaneously with round 9, 10 and 11 of the national HFPS operation, respectively.

Geographic coverage

The survey covers households from 9 of the 13 regions of Burkina Faso. These regions are: Boucle de Mouhoun, Cascades, Centre-Est, Centre-Nord, Est, Hauts-Bassins, Nord, Plateau Central, and Sahel.

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individual

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The IDP sample is drawn from an IDP database named CONASUR database which serves as the sampling frame. The CONASUR has been developed and supported by the government of Burkina Faso with the technical and financial support of development partners, including UNHCR, IOM and OCHA. The CONASUR database is updated regularly, and has exhaustive list of refugees and IDPs, along with few socio-demographic characteristics, as well as information on the phone numbers of households. The sample is drawn from the 9 regions (out of 12) where the presence of IDPs is more relevant: Boucle du Mouhoun, Cascades, Centre-Est, Centre-Nord, Est, Hauts-Bassins, Nord, Plateau Central, Sahel. It is important to note that the BFA HFPS-IDPs is representative of households that have access to phones. Taken that into consideration, a key concern is the bias introduced by sampling households with at least a phone number, as phone penetration in some regions/areas might be limited. However, according to data from the CONASUR database, the percentage of households with at least one phone number is very high, accounting for above the 74% in all the sampled regions. To account for non-response and attrition, 1500 households were selected in baseline round of the HFS. 1,166 households were fully interviewed during the first round of interviews. The final successful sample have been contacted in subsequent rounds of the survey.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Research instrument

ROUND 1: Household Respondent’s information; Access to Basic Services; Employment and revenues; Food Security and Other revenues. ROUND 2: Household Respondent’s information; Knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; Behavior and social distancing; Covid-19 Testing and Vaccination; Access to Basic Services; Credit; Employment and revenue (with a focus on livestock activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Shocks; Concerns regarding the impact of COVID-19 on personal health and financial wealth of the household; Fragility, Conflict and Violence. ROUND 3: Household Respondent’s information; Early Child Development; Access to Basic Services; Employment and revenue (with a focus on agricultural activities); Food Security; Other revenues; Concerns regarding the current situation; Social Safety Nets. All the interview materials were translated in French for the INSD. The questionnaire was administered in local languages with about varying length (about 25 minutes).

Cleaning operations

At the end of data collection, the raw dataset was cleaned by the INSD with the support of the WB team. This included formatting, and correcting results based on monitoring issues, enumerator feedback and survey changes.

Response rate

BASELINE (ROUND 1): All 1500 households were called in the baseline round of the phone survey. 73.75 percent of sampled households were successfully contacted. Of those contacted, 1,156 households were fully interviewed. These 1,156 households constitute the final successful sample and will be contacted in subsequent rounds of the survey.

ROUND 2: Interviewers attempted to contact and interview all 1,156 households that were successfully interviewed in the Round 1 of the BFA COVID-19 HFPS. 1,114 households (96.3% of the 1,156 attempted) were contacted and 1,112 (96.1%) were successfully interviewed in the second round. Of those contacted, 2 households did not answer due to a language barrier.

ROUND 3: Interviewers attempted to contact and interview all 1,112 households that were successfully interviewed in the Round 2 of the BFA COVID-19 HFPS. 1,051 households (94.53% of the 1,112 attempted) were contacted and 1,048 (94.24%) were successfully interviewed in the third round. Of those contacted, 1 household refused the interview and 2 were only partially interviewed.

RESPONDENTS: Each round of the Burkina Faso COVID-19 HFPS has ONE RESPONDENT per household. The respondent was the household head or a knowledgeable adult household member. The respondent must be a member of the household. Unlike many other household surveys, interviewers were not expected to seek out other household members to provide their own information. The respondent may still consult with other household members as needed to respond to the questions, including to provide all the necessary information on each household member.

Interviewers were instructed to make every effort to reach the same respondent in subsequent rounds of the survey, in order to maintain the consistency of the information collected. However, in cases where the previous respondent was not available, interviewers would identify another knowledgeable adult household member to interview.

The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Block Groups (BGs) are defined before tabulation block delineation and numbering, but are clusters of blocks within the same census tract that have the same first digit of their 4-digit census block number from the same decennial census. For example, Census 2000 tabulation blocks 3001, 3002, 3003,.., 3999 within Census 2000 tract 1210.02 are also within BG 3 within that census tract. Census 2000 BGs generally contained between 600 and 3,000 people, with an optimum size of 1,500 people. Most BGs were delineated by local participants in the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The Census Bureau delineated BGs only where the PSAP participant declined to delineate BGs or where the Census Bureau could not identify any local PSAP participant. A BG usually covers a contiguous area. Each census tract contains at least one BG, and BGs are uniquely numbered within census tract. Within the standard census geographic hierarchy, BGs never cross county or census tract boundaries, but may cross the boundaries of other geographic entities like county subdivisions, places, urban areas, voting districts, congressional districts, and American Indian / Alaska Native / Native Hawaiian areas. BGs have a valid code range of 0 through 9. BGs coded 0 were intended to only include water area, no land area, and they are generally in territorial seas, coastal water, and Great Lakes water areas. For Census 2000, rather than extending a census tract boundary into the Great Lakes or out to the U.S. nautical three-mile limit, the Census Bureau delineated some census tract boundaries along the shoreline or just offshore. The Census Bureau assigned a default census tract number of 0 and BG of 0 to these offshore, water-only areas not included in regularly numbered census tract areas.

This table contains data on household income and poverty status from the American Community Survey 2006-2010 database for block groups. The American Community Survey (ACS) is a household survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau that currently has an annual sample size of about 3.5 million addresses. ACS estimates provides communities with the current information they need to plan investments and services. Information from the survey generates estimates that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed annually. Each year the survey produces data that cover the periods of 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimates for geographic areas in the United States and Puerto Rico, ranging from neighborhoods to Congressional districts to the entire nation. This table also has a companion table (Same table name with MOE Suffix) with the margin of error (MOE) values for each estimated element. MOE is expressed as a measure value for each estimated element. So a value of 25 and an MOE of 5 means 25 +/- 5 (or statistical certainty between 20 and 30). There are also special cases of MOE. An MOE of -1 means the associated estimates do not have a measured error. An MOE of 0 means that error calculation is not appropriate for the associated value. An MOE of 109 is set whenever an estimate value is 0. The MOEs of aggregated elements and percentages must be calculated. This process means using standard error calculations as described in "American Community Survey Multiyear Accuracy of the Data (3-year 2008-2010 and 5-year 2006-2010)". Also, following Census guidelines, aggregated MOEs do not use more than 1 0-element MOE (109) to prevent over estimation of the error. Due to the complexity of the calculations, some percentage MOEs cannot be calculated (these are set to null in the summary-level MOE tables).

The name for table 'ACS10INCBGMOE' was added as a prefix to all field names imported from that table. Be sure to turn off 'Show Field Aliases' to see complete field names in the Attribute Table of this feature layer. This can be done in the 'Table Options' drop-down menu in the Attribute Table or with key sequence '[CTRL]+[SHIFT]+N'. Due to database restrictions, the prefix may have been abbreviated if the field name exceded the maximum allowed characters.

The TIGER/Line Files are shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) that are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. States and equivalent entities are the primary governmental divisions of the United States. In addition to the fifty States, the Census Bureau treats the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and each of the Island Areas (American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) as the statistical equivalents of States for the purpose of data presentation.

This table contains data on household income and poverty status from the American Community Survey 2006-2010 database for states. The American Community Survey (ACS) is a household survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau that currently has an annual sample size of about 3.5 million addresses. ACS estimates provides communities with the current information they need to plan investments and services. Information from the survey generates estimates that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed annually. Each year the survey produces data that cover the periods of 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimates for geographic areas in the United States and Puerto Rico, ranging from neighborhoods to Congressional districts to the entire nation. This table also has a companion table (Same table name with MOE Suffix) with the margin of error (MOE) values for each estimated element. MOE is expressed as a measure value for each estimated element. So a value of 25 and an MOE of 5 means 25 +/- 5 (or statistical certainty between 20 and 30). There are also special cases of MOE. An MOE of -1 means the associated estimates do not have a measured error. An MOE of 0 means that error calculation is not appropriate for the associated value. An MOE of 109 is set whenever an estimate value is 0. The MOEs of aggregated elements and percentages must be calculated. This process means using standard error calculations as described in "American Community Survey Multiyear Accuracy of the Data (3-year 2008-2010 and 5-year 2006-2010)". Also, following Census guidelines, aggregated MOEs do not use more than 1 0-element MOE (109) to prevent over estimation of the error. Due to the complexity of the calculations, some percentage MOEs cannot be calculated (these are set to null in the summary-level MOE tables).

The name for table 'ACS10INCSTMOE' was added as a prefix to all field names imported from that table. Be sure to turn off 'Show Field Aliases' to see complete field names in the Attribute Table of this feature layer. This can be done in the 'Table Options' drop-down menu in the Attribute Table or with key sequence '[CTRL]+[SHIFT]+N'. Due to database restrictions, the prefix may have been abbreviated if the field name exceded the maximum allowed characters.

Abstract

During October 1996 Statistics South Africa recorded the details of people living in more than nine million households in South Africa, as well as those in hostels, hotels and prisons. Census 1996 was the first nation wide census since the splitting up of the country under apartheid after 1970 and sought to apply the same methodology to everyone: visiting the household, and obtaining details about all its members from a representative who was either interviewed, or else filled in the questionnaire in their language of choice.

Geographic coverage

The survey had national coverage

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The survey covered households and household members in households in the nine provinces of South Africa.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

A sample of 1600 Enumerator Areas (EA's) was produced in conjunction with the sample for the 1996 Population Census post-enumeration survey. A two stage sampling procedure was applied in the following manner.

The first stratification was done by province, as well as by type of EA (formal or informal urban areas, commercial farms, traditional authority areas or other non-urban areas). Originally eight hundred EA's were allocated to each strata by province proportionately. Later some adjustments were made to ensure adequate representation of smaller provinces such as the Northern Cape. Independent systematic samples of EA's were drawn for each stratum within each province. The sampling frame that was used was constructed from the preliminary database of EA's which was established during the demarcation and listing phase of the 1996 population census. In the second phase 10 households were drawn from each EA on the western and eastern side of the EA drawn for the post enumeration survey. This meant 10 households per EA in 1600 different EA's, that is 16 000 households in total.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The data files in the October Household Survey 1996 (OHS 1996) correspond to the following sections in the questionnaire:

House: Data from FLAP, Section 1 and Section 7 Person: Data from Section 2 Worker: Data from Section 3 Migrant: Data from Section 4 Death: Data from Section 5 Births: Data from Section 6 - This data had a considerable number of problems and will not be published. Income: Data from Section 7 (included in House) Domestic: Data from Section 8

Data appraisal

Questionnaire: The October Household Survey 1996 questionnaire had incorrect FLAP data. No Population Group question was indicated on the FLAP. DataFirst notified Statistics SA who supplied a corrected questionnaire which is the one now available with the dataset.

Household IDs: In the previous version of the 1996 October Household Survey dataset archived by DataFirst the HHID were not unique. This was corrected in the first version disseminated by DataFirst, version 1. Version 1.1 keeps this correction, but data users should check versions not obtained from DataFirst and replace these with the latest version available from DataFirst.

Linking Files: The Metadata for the OHS 1996 provides an explanation for merging the files in the files in the OHS 1996 dataset: "The data from different files can be linked on the basis of the record identifiers. The record identifiers are composed of the first few fields in each file. Each record contains the three fields Magisterial District, Enumeration area, and Visiting point number. These eleven digits together constitute a unique household identifier. All records with a given household identifier, no matter which file they are in, belong to the same household. For individuals, a further two digits constituting the Person number, when added to the household identifier, creates a unique individual identifier. Again, these can be used to link records from the PERSON and WORK files. The syntax needed to merge information from different files will differ according to the statistical package used (October Household Survey 1996: Metadata: General Notes: 2).” According to the above, to generate household IDs it is necessary to use a combination of magisterial district number (mdnumber), enumeration area number (eanumber) and visiting point number (vpnumber). To generate person IDs it is necessary to use the above with the person number (personnu).

These variables are named as such in the OHS 1996 House, OHS 1996 Births, OHS 1996 Migrant, OHS 1996 Deaths, OHS 1996 Household Income Other, OHS 1996 Other, OHS 1996 Domestic and OHS 1996 Flap data files. However, in the OHS 1996 Worker and OHS 1996 Person data files the variable for magisterial district number is “distr”, the variable for Enumeration Area is “ea” and the variable for visiting point number is called "visp”. The variable for person number in these files is called “respno”.

The metadata provided to DataFirst with this dataset does not discuss these changes.

October Household Survey 1996 Births file: Births data was collected by Section 6 of the OHS 1996 questionnaire, completed for all women younger than 55 years who had ever given birth. The metadata for this survey from Statistics SA states that “This data had a considerable number of problems and will not be published” The dataset provided by DataFirst therefore does not include the original “births” file. Those in possession of this file from unofficial versions of the dataset should note the following problems with the data in the OHS 1996 births file:

Variable name: eegender Question 6.2: Is/was (the child) a boy or a girl? Valid range: 1 (boy) - 2 (girl) Data quality issue: There is a third response value of 0 with no description

Variable name: livinghh Question 6.4: If alive: Is (the child) currently living with this household? Valid range: 1 (yes) - 2 (no) Data quality issue: This variable has an additional response value (0), which has no description

Variable name: agealive Question 6.5: If alive: How old is he/she? This question was asked of all women younger than 55 years who have ever given birth to provide the age of their living children. Data quality issue: responses range from 0-77 for age of child (assuming age 99 is for missing responses) which is outside the plausible range.

Variable name: agenaliv Question 6.6: If dead: How old was (the child) when he/she died? Data quality issue: The format of the age at death variable is not clear

Variable name: datebirt Question 6.7: [All children]: In what year and month was (the child) born? Data quality issue: There are problems with the format of the date of birth variable

Variable name: wherebor Question 6.8: [All children]: Where was (the child) born? Data quality issue: There are only three options for the place of birth in the questionnaire (in a hospital, in a clinic and elsewhere), but the data has 10 response values (0-9) with no explanation for this in the metadata.

Variable name: regstere Question 6.9 [All children] Was the birth registered? Valid range: 1(yes) - 2 (no) Data quality issue: There are 4 response values (0-3) for this variable

This dataset contains replication files for "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation" by Alex Bell, Raj Chetty, Xavier Jaravel, Neviana Petkova, and John van Reenen. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/losteinsteins/. A summary of the related publication follows. Innovation is widely viewed as the engine of economic growth. As a result, many policies have been proposed to spur innovation, ranging from tax cuts to investments in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of such policies is unclear because we know relatively little about the factors that induce people to become inventors. Who are America’s most successful inventors and what can we learn from their experiences in designing policies to stimulate innovation? We study the lives of more than one million inventors in the United States using a new de-identified database linking patent records to tax and school district records. Tracking these individuals from birth onward, we identify the key factors that determine who becomes an inventor, as measured by filing a patent.1 Our results shed light on what policies can be most effective in increasing innovation, showing in particular that increasing exposure to innovation among women, minorities, and children from low-income families may have greater potential to spark innovation and growth than traditional approaches such as reducing tax rates. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury, or the National Institutes of Health.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the detailed breakdown of the count of individuals within distinct income brackets, categorizing them by gender (men and women) and employment type - full-time (FT) and part-time (PT), offering valuable insights into the diverse income landscapes within New York. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based income distribution within the New York population, aiding in data analysis and decision-making..

Key observations

• Employment patterns: Within New York, among individuals aged 15 years and older with income, there were 2.87 million men and 3.08 million women in the workforce. Among them, 1.57 million men were engaged in full-time, year-round employment, while 1.38 million women were in full-time, year-round roles.
• Annual income under $24,999: Of the male population working full-time, 7.17% fell within the income range of under $24,999, while 7.63% of the female population working full-time was represented in the same income bracket.
• Annual income above $100,000: 35.27% of men in full-time roles earned incomes exceeding $100,000, while 30% of women in full-time positions earned within this income bracket.
• Refer to the research insights for more key observations on more income brackets ( Annual income under $24,999, Annual income between $25,000 and $49,999, Annual income between $50,000 and $74,999, Annual income between $75,000 and $99,999 and Annual income above $100,000) and employment types (full-time year-round and part-time)

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income brackets:

• $1 to $2,499 or loss
• $2,500 to $4,999
• $5,000 to $7,499
• $7,500 to $9,999
• $10,000 to $12,499
• $12,500 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $17,499
• $17,500 to $19,999
• $20,000 to $22,499
• $22,500 to $24,999
• $25,000 to $29,999
• $30,000 to $34,999
• $35,000 to $39,999
• $40,000 to $44,999
• $45,000 to $49,999
• $50,000 to $54,999
• $55,000 to $64,999
• $65,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $100,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Bracket: This column showcases 20 income brackets ranging from $1 to $100,000+..
• Full-Time Males: The count of males employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Males: The count of males employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket
• Full-Time Females: The count of females employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Females: The count of females employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket

Employment type classifications include:

• Full-time, year-round: A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked full time (35 or more hours per week) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year.
• Part-time: A part-time worker is a person who worked less than 35 hours per week during the previous calendar year.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for New York median household income by race. You can refer the same here

We know that students at elite universities tend to be from high-income families, and that graduates are more likely to end up in high-status or high-income jobs. But very little public data has been available on university admissions practices. This dataset, collected by Opportunity Insights, gives extensive detail on college application and admission rates for 139 colleges and universities across the United States, including data on the incomes of students. How do admissions practices vary by institution, and are wealthy students overrepresented?

Motivation

Education equality is one of the most contested topics in society today. It can be defined and explored in many ways, from accessible education to disabled/low-income/rural students to the cross-generational influence of doctorate degrees and tenure track positions. One aspect of equality is the institutions students attend. Consider the “Ivy Plus” universities, which are all eight Ivy League schools plus MIT, Stanford, Duke, and Chicago. Although less than half of one percent of Americans attend Ivy-Plus colleges, they account for more than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs, a quarter of U.S. Senators, half of all Rhodes scholars, and three-fourths of Supreme Court justices appointed in the last half-century.

A 2023 study (Chetty et al, 2023) tried to understand how these elite institutions affect educational equality:

Do highly selective private colleges amplify the persistence of privilege across generations by taking students from high-income families and helping them obtain high-status, high-paying leadership positions? Conversely, to what extent could such colleges diversify the socioeconomic backgrounds of society’s leaders by changing their admissions policies?

To answer these questions, they assembled a dataset documenting the admission and attendance rate for 13 different income bins for 139 selective universities around the country. They were able to access and link not only student SAT/ACT scores and high school grades, but also parents’ income through their tax records, students’ post-college graduate school enrollment or employment (including earnings, employers, and occupations), and also for some selected colleges, their internal admission ratings for each student. This dataset covers students in the entering classes of 2010–2015, or roughly 2.4 million domestic students.

They found that children from families in the top 1% (by income) are more than twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college as those from middle-class families with comparable SAT/ACT scores, and two-thirds of this gap can be attributed to higher admission rates with similar scores, with the remaining third due to the differences in rates of application and matriculation (enrollment conditional on admission). This is not a shocking conclusion, but we can further explore elite college admissions by socioeconomic status to understand the differences between elite private colleges and public flagships admission practices, and to reflect on the privilege we have here and to envision what a fairer higher education system could look like.

Data

The data has been aggregated by university and by parental income level, grouped into 13 income brackets. The income brackets are grouped by percentile relative to the US national income distribution, so for instance the 75.0 bin represents parents whose incomes are between the 70th and 80th percentile. The top two bins overlap: the 99.4 bin represents parents between the 99 and 99.9th percentiles, while the 99.5 bin represents parents in the top 1%.

Each row represents students’ admission and matriculation outcomes from one income bracket at a given university. There are 139 colleges covered in this dataset.

The variables include an array of different college-level-income-binned estimates for things including attendance rate (both raw and reweighted by SAT/ACT scores), application rate, and relative attendance rate conditional on application, also with respect to specific test score bands for each college and in/out-of state. Colleges are categorized into six tiers: Ivy Plus, other elite schools (public and private), highly selective public/private, and selective public/private, with selectivity generally in descending order. It also notes whether a college is public and/or flagship, where “flagship” means public flagship universities. Furthermore, they also report the relative application rate for each income bin within specific test bands, which are 50-point bands that had the most attendees in each school tier/category.

Several values are reported in “test-score-reweighted” form. These values control for SAT score: they are calculated separately for each SAT score value, then averaged with weights based on the distribution of SAT scores at the institution.

Note that since private schools typically don’t differentiate between in-...

The dataset is a relational dataset of 8,000 households households, representing a sample of the population of an imaginary middle-income country. The dataset contains two data files: one with variables at the household level, the other one with variables at the individual level. It includes variables that are typically collected in population censuses (demography, education, occupation, dwelling characteristics, fertility, mortality, and migration) and in household surveys (household expenditure, anthropometric data for children, assets ownership). The data only includes ordinary households (no community households). The dataset was created using REaLTabFormer, a model that leverages deep learning methods. The dataset was created for the purpose of training and simulation and is not intended to be representative of any specific country.

The full-population dataset (with about 10 million individuals) is also distributed as open data.

Current policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increase adaptation and mitigation funding are insufficient to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It is clear that further action is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and achieve a just climate future. Here, we offer a new perspective on emissions responsibility and climate finance by conducting an environmentally extended input output analysis that links 30 years (1990–2019) of United States (U.S.) household-level income data to the emissions generated in creating that income. To do this we draw on over 2.8 billion inter-sectoral transfers from the Eora MRIO database to calculate both supplier- and producer-based GHG emissions intensities and connect these with detailed income and demographic data for over 5 million U.S. individuals in the IPUMS Current Population Survey. We find significant and growing emissions inequality that cuts across economic and racial lines. In 2019, fully 40% of total U.S. emissions were associated with income flows to the highest earning 10% of households. Among the highest earning 1% of households (whose income is linked to 15–17% of national emissions) investment holdings account for 38–43% of their emissions. Even when allowing for a considerable range of investment strategies, passive income accruing to this group is a major factor shaping the U.S. emissions distribution. Results suggest an alternative income or shareholder-based carbon tax, focused on investments, may have equity advantages over traditional consumer-facing cap-and-trade or carbon tax options and be a useful policy tool to encourage decarbonization while raising revenue for climate finance.

Producer-based household-level demographic, income, and emissions data (2019) that supports S3, S4, S7, and S8 Figs in Supporting information; Tables 1–3 in the main text; and Tables A-C in S1 Text.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the detailed breakdown of the count of individuals within distinct income brackets, categorizing them by gender (men and women) and employment type - full-time (FT) and part-time (PT), offering valuable insights into the diverse income landscapes within Arkansas. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based income distribution within the Arkansas population, aiding in data analysis and decision-making..

Key observations

• Employment patterns: Within Arkansas, among individuals aged 15 years and older with income, there were 1.06 million men and 1.05 million women in the workforce. Among them, 574.22 thousand men were engaged in full-time, year-round employment, while 438.60 thousand women were in full-time, year-round roles.
• Annual income under $24,999: Of the male population working full-time, 10.07% fell within the income range of under $24,999, while 15.05% of the female population working full-time was represented in the same income bracket.
• Annual income above $100,000: 17.32% of men in full-time roles earned incomes exceeding $100,000, while 9% of women in full-time positions earned within this income bracket.
• Refer to the research insights for more key observations on more income brackets ( Annual income under $24,999, Annual income between $25,000 and $49,999, Annual income between $50,000 and $74,999, Annual income between $75,000 and $99,999 and Annual income above $100,000) and employment types (full-time year-round and part-time)

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/arkansas-income-distribution-by-gender-and-employment-type.jpeg" alt="Arkansas gender and employment-based income distribution analysis (Ages 15+)">

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2022 1-Year Estimates.

Income brackets:

• $1 to $2,499 or loss
• $2,500 to $4,999
• $5,000 to $7,499
• $7,500 to $9,999
• $10,000 to $12,499
• $12,500 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $17,499
• $17,500 to $19,999
• $20,000 to $22,499
• $22,500 to $24,999
• $25,000 to $29,999
• $30,000 to $34,999
• $35,000 to $39,999
• $40,000 to $44,999
• $45,000 to $49,999
• $50,000 to $54,999
• $55,000 to $64,999
• $65,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $100,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Bracket: This column showcases 20 income brackets ranging from $1 to $100,000+..
• Full-Time Males: The count of males employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Males: The count of males employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket
• Full-Time Females: The count of females employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Females: The count of females employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket

Employment type classifications include:

• Full-time, year-round: A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked full time (35 or more hours per week) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year.
• Part-time: A part-time worker is a person who worked less than 35 hours per week during the previous calendar year.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Arkansas median household income by gender. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the detailed breakdown of the count of individuals within distinct income brackets, categorizing them by gender (men and women) and employment type - full-time (FT) and part-time (PT), offering valuable insights into the diverse income landscapes within Wisconsin. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based income distribution within the Wisconsin population, aiding in data analysis and decision-making..

Key observations

• Employment patterns: Within Wisconsin, among individuals aged 15 years and older with income, there were 2.24 million men and 2.19 million women in the workforce. Among them, 1.23 million men were engaged in full-time, year-round employment, while 925.00 thousand women were in full-time, year-round roles.
• Annual income under $24,999: Of the male population working full-time, 6.14% fell within the income range of under $24,999, while 8.74% of the female population working full-time was represented in the same income bracket.
• Annual income above $100,000: 23.78% of men in full-time roles earned incomes exceeding $100,000, while 13.04% of women in full-time positions earned within this income bracket.
• Refer to the research insights for more key observations on more income brackets ( Annual income under $24,999, Annual income between $25,000 and $49,999, Annual income between $50,000 and $74,999, Annual income between $75,000 and $99,999 and Annual income above $100,000) and employment types (full-time year-round and part-time)

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income brackets:

• $1 to $2,499 or loss
• $2,500 to $4,999
• $5,000 to $7,499
• $7,500 to $9,999
• $10,000 to $12,499
• $12,500 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $17,499
• $17,500 to $19,999
• $20,000 to $22,499
• $22,500 to $24,999
• $25,000 to $29,999
• $30,000 to $34,999
• $35,000 to $39,999
• $40,000 to $44,999
• $45,000 to $49,999
• $50,000 to $54,999
• $55,000 to $64,999
• $65,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $100,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Bracket: This column showcases 20 income brackets ranging from $1 to $100,000+..
• Full-Time Males: The count of males employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Males: The count of males employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket
• Full-Time Females: The count of females employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Females: The count of females employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket

Employment type classifications include:

• Full-time, year-round: A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked full time (35 or more hours per week) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year.
• Part-time: A part-time worker is a person who worked less than 35 hours per week during the previous calendar year.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Wisconsin median household income by race. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the detailed breakdown of the count of individuals within distinct income brackets, categorizing them by gender (men and women) and employment type - full-time (FT) and part-time (PT), offering valuable insights into the diverse income landscapes within Michigan. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based income distribution within the Michigan population, aiding in data analysis and decision-making..

Key observations

• Employment patterns: Within Michigan, among individuals aged 15 years and older with income, there were 3.72 million men and 3.67 million women in the workforce. Among them, 1.94 million men were engaged in full-time, year-round employment, while 1.44 million women were in full-time, year-round roles.
• Annual income under $24,999: Of the male population working full-time, 7.45% fell within the income range of under $24,999, while 11.49% of the female population working full-time was represented in the same income bracket.
• Annual income above $100,000: 24.99% of men in full-time roles earned incomes exceeding $100,000, while 13.02% of women in full-time positions earned within this income bracket.
• Refer to the research insights for more key observations on more income brackets ( Annual income under $24,999, Annual income between $25,000 and $49,999, Annual income between $50,000 and $74,999, Annual income between $75,000 and $99,999 and Annual income above $100,000) and employment types (full-time year-round and part-time)

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/michigan-income-distribution-by-gender-and-employment-type.jpeg" alt="Michigan gender and employment-based income distribution analysis (Ages 15+)">

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2022 1-Year Estimates.

Income brackets:

• $1 to $2,499 or loss
• $2,500 to $4,999
• $5,000 to $7,499
• $7,500 to $9,999
• $10,000 to $12,499
• $12,500 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $17,499
• $17,500 to $19,999
• $20,000 to $22,499
• $22,500 to $24,999
• $25,000 to $29,999
• $30,000 to $34,999
• $35,000 to $39,999
• $40,000 to $44,999
• $45,000 to $49,999
• $50,000 to $54,999
• $55,000 to $64,999
• $65,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $100,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Bracket: This column showcases 20 income brackets ranging from $1 to $100,000+..
• Full-Time Males: The count of males employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Males: The count of males employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket
• Full-Time Females: The count of females employed full-time year-round and earning within a specified income bracket
• Part-Time Females: The count of females employed part-time and earning within a specified income bracket

Employment type classifications include:

• Full-time, year-round: A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked full time (35 or more hours per week) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year.
• Part-time: A part-time worker is a person who worked less than 35 hours per week during the previous calendar year.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Michigan median household income by gender. You can refer the same here