About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Middle Inlet, Wisconsin, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 21,360, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 162,915. This indicates that the top earners earn 8 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 282,509, which is 173.41% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 1322.61% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

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 Middle Inlet town median household income. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Sands Point, NY, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 62,342, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 1,206,232. This indicates that the top earners earn 19 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 1,779,703, which is 147.54% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 2854.74% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

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

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

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 Sands Point median household income. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median household incomes for various household sizes in Centre Island, NY, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in median household income with the size of the family unit, offering valuable insights into economic trends and disparities within different household sizes, aiding in data analysis and decision-making.

Key observations

• Of the 7 household sizes (1 person to 7-or-more person households) reported by the census bureau, Centre Island did not include 4, 5, or 7-person households. Across the different household sizes in Centre Island the mean income is $196,592, and the standard deviation is $97,909. The coefficient of variation (CV) is 49.80%. This high CV indicates high relative variability, suggesting that the incomes vary significantly across different sizes of households. Please note that the U.S. Census Bureau uses $250,001 as a JAM value to report incomes of $250,000 or more. In the case of Centre Island, there were 2 household sizes where the JAM values were used. Thus, the numbers for the mean and standard deviation may not be entirely accurate and have a higher possibility of errors. However, to obtain an approximate estimate, we have used a value of $250,001 as the income for calculations, as reported in the datasets by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• In the most recent year, 2021, The smallest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income was 1-person households, with an income of $63,504. It then further increased to $270,229 for 6-person households, the largest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income.

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/centre-island-ny-median-household-income-by-household-size.jpeg" alt="Centre Island, NY median household income, by household size (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)">

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Household Sizes:

• 1-person households
• 2-person households
• 3-person households
• 4-person households
• 5-person households
• 6-person households
• 7-or-more-person households

Variables / Data Columns

• Household Size: This column showcases 7 household sizes ranging from 1-person households to 7-or-more-person households (As mentioned above).
• Median Household Income: Median household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific household size.

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 Centre Island median household income. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Winchester, VA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 14,125, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 215,015. This indicates that the top earners earn 15 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 344,621, which is 160.28% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 2439.79% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

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

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

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 Winchester median household income. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median household incomes for various household sizes in Rockville Centre, NY, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in median household income with the size of the family unit, offering valuable insights into economic trends and disparities within different household sizes, aiding in data analysis and decision-making.

Key observations

• Of the 7 household sizes (1 person to 7-or-more person households) reported by the census bureau, all of the household sizes were found in Rockville Centre. Across the different household sizes in Rockville Centre the mean income is $207,832, and the standard deviation is $78,653. The coefficient of variation (CV) is 37.84%. This high CV indicates high relative variability, suggesting that the incomes vary significantly across different sizes of households. Please note that the U.S. Census Bureau uses $250,001 as a JAM value to report incomes of $250,000 or more. In the case of Rockville Centre, there were 2 household sizes where the JAM values were used. Thus, the numbers for the mean and standard deviation may not be entirely accurate and have a higher possibility of errors. However, to obtain an approximate estimate, we have used a value of $250,001 as the income for calculations, as reported in the datasets by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• In the most recent year, 2021, The smallest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income was 1-person households, with an income of $56,659. It then further increased to $270,229 for 7-person households, the largest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income.

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/rockville-centre-ny-median-household-income-by-household-size.jpeg" alt="Rockville Centre, NY median household income, by household size (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)">

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Household Sizes:

• 1-person households
• 2-person households
• 3-person households
• 4-person households
• 5-person households
• 6-person households
• 7-or-more-person households

Variables / Data Columns

• Household Size: This column showcases 7 household sizes ranging from 1-person households to 7-or-more-person households (As mentioned above).
• Median Household Income: Median household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific household size.

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 Rockville Centre median household income. You can refer the same here

This dataset contains replication files for "The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940" by Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/the-fading-american-dream/. A summary of the related publication follows. One of the defining features of the “American Dream” is the ideal that children have a higher standard of living than their parents. We assess whether the U.S. is living up to this ideal by estimating rates of “absolute income mobility” – the fraction of children who earn more than their parents – since 1940. We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size. Absolute mobility fell in all 50 states, although the rate of decline varied, with the largest declines concentrated in states in the industrial Midwest, such as Michigan and Illinois. The decline in absolute mobility is especially steep – from 95% for children born in 1940 to 41% for children born in 1984 – when we compare the sons’ earnings to their fathers’ earnings. Why have rates of upward income mobility fallen so sharply over the past half-century? There have been two important trends that have affected the incomes of children born in the 1980s relative to those born in the 1940s and 1950s: lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates and greater inequality in the distribution of growth. We find that most of the decline in absolute mobility is driven by the more unequal distribution of economic growth rather than the slowdown in aggregate growth rates. When we simulate an economy that restores GDP growth to the levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s but distributes that growth across income groups as it is distributed today, absolute mobility only increases to 62%. In contrast, maintaining GDP at its current level but distributing it more broadly across income groups – at it was distributed for children born in the 1940s – would increase absolute mobility to 80%, thereby reversing more than two-thirds of the decline in absolute mobility. These findings show that higher growth rates alone are insufficient to restore absolute mobility to the levels experienced in mid-century America. Under the current distribution of GDP, we would need real GDP growth rates above 6% per year to return to rates of absolute mobility in the 1940s. Intuitively, because a large fraction of GDP goes to a small fraction of high-income households today, higher GDP growth does not substantially increase the number of children who earn more than their parents. Of course, this does not mean that GDP growth does not matter: changing the distribution of growth naturally has smaller effects on absolute mobility when there is very little growth to be distributed. The key point is that increasing absolute mobility substantially would require more broad-based economic growth. We conclude that absolute mobility has declined sharply in America over the past half-century primarily because of the growth in inequality. If one wants to revive the “American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility, one must have an interest in growth that is shared more broadly across the income distribution.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Jobs by Wage Level (EQ1)

FULL MEASURE NAME Distribution of jobs by low-, middle-, and high-wage occupations

LAST UPDATED January 2019

DESCRIPTION Jobs by wage level refers to the distribution of jobs by low-, middle- and high-wage occupations. In the San Francisco Bay Area, low-wage occupations have a median hourly wage of less than 80% of the regional median wage; median wages for middle-wage occupations range from 80% to 120% of the regional median wage, and high-wage occupations have a median hourly wage above 120% of the regional median wage.

DATA SOURCE California Employment Development Department OES (2001-2017) http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/oes-employment-and-wages.html

American Community Survey (2001-2017) http://api.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Jobs are determined to be low-, middle-, or high-wage based on the median hourly wage of their occupational classification in the most recent year. Low-wage jobs are those that pay below 80% of the regional median wage. Middle-wage jobs are those that pay between 80% and 120% of the regional median wage. High-wage jobs are those that pay above 120% of the regional median wage. Regional median hourly wages are estimated from the American Community Survey and are published on the Vital Signs Income indicator page. For the national context analysis, occupation wage classifications are unique to each metro area. A low-wage job in New York, for instance, may be a middle-wage job in Miami. For the Bay Area in 2017, the median hourly wage for low-wage occupations was less than $20.86 per hour. For middle-wage jobs, the median ranged from $20.86 to $31.30 per hour; and for high-wage jobs, the median wage was above $31.30 per hour.

Occupational employment and wage information comes from the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program. Regional and subregional data is published by the California Employment Development Department. Metro data is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The OES program collects data on wage and salary workers in nonfarm establishments to produce employment and wage estimates for some 800 occupations. Data from non-incorporated self-employed persons are not collected, and are not included in these estimates. Wage estimates represent a three-year rolling average.

Due to changes in reporting during the analysis period, subregion data from the EDD OES have been aggregated to produce geographies that can be compared over time. West Bay is San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin counties. North Bay is Sonoma, Solano and Napa counties. East Bay is Alameda and Contra Costa counties. South Bay is Santa Clara County from 2001-2004 and Santa Clara and San Benito counties from 2005-2017.

Due to changes in occupation classifications during the analysis period, all occupations have been reassigned to 2010 SOC codes. For pre-2009 reporting years, all employment in occupations that were split into two or more 2010 SOC occupations are assigned to the first 2010 SOC occupation listed in the crosswalk table provided by the Census Bureau. This method assumes these occupations always fall in the same wage category, and sensitivity analysis of this reassignment method shows this is true in most cases.

In order to use OES data for time series analysis, several steps were taken to handle missing wage or employment data. For some occupations, such as airline pilots and flight attendants, no wage information was provided and these were removed from the analysis. Other occupations did not record a median hourly wage (mostly due to irregular work hours) but did record an annual average wage. Nearly all these occupations were in education (i.e. teachers). In this case, a 2080 hour-work year was assumed and [annual average wage/2080] was used as a proxy for median income. Most of these occupations were classified as high-wage, thus dispelling concern of underestimating a median wage for a teaching occupation that requires less than 2080 hours of work a year (equivalent to 12 months fulltime). Finally, the OES has missing employment data for occupations across the time series. To make the employment data comparable between years, gaps in employment data for occupations are ‘filled-in’ using linear interpolation if there are at least two years of employment data found in OES. Occupations with less than two years of employment data were dropped from the analysis. Over 80% of interpolated cells represent missing employment data for just one year in the time series. While this interpolating technique may impact year-over-year comparisons, the long-term trends represented in the analysis generally are accurate.

This dataset is one which highlights the demographics of Upper-Middle Class people living in Gachibowli, Hyderabad, India and attempts to, through various methods of statistical analysis, establish a relationship between several of these demographic details.

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

This article investigates the dynamic impact of green energy consumption (GE), financial inclusion (FI), and military spending (MS) on environmental sustainability (ES) by utilizing a sample of 121 countries from 2003 to 2022. The dataset is divided into high-income, upper-middle income and low and lower-middle-income countries. We employed a two-step system GMM approach, which was further robust through panel Quantile and Driscoll-Kraay (D-K) regressions. The findings divulged that green energy resources benefit ES at global and all income levels because of having a significant negative impact of 5.9% on ecological footprints. At the same time, FI and MS significantly enhance ecological footprints by 7% and 6.9%, respectively, proving these factors detrimental to ES. Moreover, conflicts (CON), terrorism (TM), institutional quality (IQ), and socioeconomic conditions (SEC) also have a significantly positive association with global ecological footprints and most of the income level groups. Dissimilarly, financial inclusion and armed conflicts have a non-significant influence on ecological footprints in low-income and high-income countries, respectively. Furthermore, institutional quality enhances ES in upper-middle and low and lower-middle-income countries by negatively affecting ecological footprints. At the same time, terrorism significantly reduces ecological footprints in high-income countries. This research also provides the imperative policy inferences to accomplish various SDGs.

This dataset belongs to the following dissertation: Barend Johannes Geyser (2017). The model for the accompaniment of seekers with a Christian background into silence in their quest for wholeness. Radboud UniversityData gathering has taken place by means of phenomenological interviews , observations and making field notes during the interviews, as well as video-stimulated recall. The interview transcripts are written in the South African language.This dataset contains the interview transcripts.The researcher decided to select participants who were starting with their second half of life, thus from 40 to 55 years of age. The participants are all from a Christian background and they were all living in the Northern suburbs of Johannesburg, which means that they are from the socio- economic middle class and upper middle class. There are 3 women and 5 men interviewed. The interviews involve the conscious selection of certain participants. In this instance, the participants are seekers that ask for accompaniment into silence. They are all Christian seekers on a quest for wholeness and investigating the possibility of the practice of silence as an aid in their quest. They all attempted to practice silence in some or other way for at least three years.In addition to the eight interview transcripts, a read me text is added to explain the context of the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

Abstract (en): The Research on Early Life and Aging Trends and Effects (RELATE) study compiles cross-national data that contain information that can be used to examine the effects of early life conditions on older adult health conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, obesity, functionality, mortality, and self-reported health. The complete cross sectional/longitudinal dataset (n=147,278) was compiled from major studies of older adults or households across the world that in most instances are representative of the older adult population either nationally, in major urban centers, or in provinces. It includes over 180 variables with information on demographic and geographic variables along with information about early life conditions and life course events for older adults in low, middle and high income countries. Selected variables were harmonized to facilitate cross national comparisons. In this first public release of the RELATE data, a subset of the data (n=88,273) is being released. The subset includes harmonized data of older adults from the following regions of the world: Africa (Ghana and South Africa), Asia (China, India), Latin America (Costa Rica, major cities in Latin America), and the United States (Puerto Rico, Wisconsin). This first release of the data collection is composed of 19 downloadable parts: Part 1 includes the harmonized cross-national RELATE dataset, which harmonizes data from parts 2 through 19. Specifically, parts 2 through 19 include data from Costa Rica (Part 2), Puerto Rico (Part 3), the United States (Wisconsin) (Part 4), Argentina (Part 5), Barbados (Part 6), Brazil (Part 7), Chile (Part 8), Cuba (Part 9), Mexico (Parts 10 and 15), Uruguay (Part 11), China (Parts 12, 18, and 19), Ghana (Part 13), India (Part 14), Russia (Part 16), and South Africa (Part 17). The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) was also used in the compilation of the larger RELATE data set (HRS) (N=12,527), and these data are now available for public release on the HRS data products page. To access the HRS data that are part of the RELATE data set, please see the collection notes below. The purpose of this study was to compile and harmonize cross-national data from both the developing and developed world to allow for the examination of how early life conditions are related to older adult health and well being. The selection of countries for this study was based on their diversity but also on the availability of comprehensive cross sectional/panel survey data for older adults born in the early to mid 20th century in low, middle and high income countries. These data were then utilized to create the harmonized cross-national RELATE data (Part 1). Specifically, data that are being released in this version of the RELATE study come from the following studies: CHNS (China Health and Nutrition Study) CLHLS (Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey) CRELES (Costa Rican Study of Longevity and Healthy Aging) PREHCO (Puerto Rican Elderly: Health Conditions) SABE (Study of Aging Survey on Health and Well Being of Elders) SAGE (WHO Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health) WLS (Wisconsin Longitudinal Study) Note that the countries selected represent a diverse range in national income levels: Barbados and the United States (including Puerto Rico) represent high income countries; Argentina, Cuba, Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, Brazil, Mexico, and Russia represent upper middle income countries; China and India represent lower middle income countries; and Ghana represents a low income country. Users should refer to the technical report that accompanies the RELATE data for more detailed information regarding the study design of the surveys used in the construction of the cross-national data. The Research on Early Life and Aging Trends and Effects (RELATE) data includes an array of variables, including basic demographic variables (age, gender, education), variables relating to early life conditions (height, knee height, rural/urban birthplace, childhood health, childhood socioeconomic status), adult socioeconomic status (income, wealth), adult lifestyle (smoking, drinking, exercising, diet), and health outcomes (self-reported health, chronic conditions, difficulty with functionality, obesity, mortality). Not all countries have the same variables. Please refer to the technical report that is part of the documentation for more detail regarding the variables available across countries. Sample weights are applicable to all countries exc...

Nigeria NG: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 49.000 % in 2009. This records an increase from the previous number of 46.000 % for 2003. Nigeria NG: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 49.000 % from Dec 1985 (Median) to 2009, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 56.500 % in 1996 and a record low of 45.000 % in 1985. Nigeria NG: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Nigeria – Table NG.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

This article investigates the dynamic impact of green energy consumption (GE), financial inclusion (FI), and military spending (MS) on environmental sustainability (ES) by utilizing a sample of 121 countries from 2003 to 2022. The dataset is divided into high-income, upper-middle income and low and lower-middle-income countries. We employed a two-step system GMM approach, which was further robust through panel Quantile and Driscoll-Kraay (D-K) regressions. The findings divulged that green energy resources benefit ES at global and all income levels because of having a significant negative impact of 5.9% on ecological footprints. At the same time, FI and MS significantly enhance ecological footprints by 7% and 6.9%, respectively, proving these factors detrimental to ES. Moreover, conflicts (CON), terrorism (TM), institutional quality (IQ), and socioeconomic conditions (SEC) also have a significantly positive association with global ecological footprints and most of the income level groups. Dissimilarly, financial inclusion and armed conflicts have a non-significant influence on ecological footprints in low-income and high-income countries, respectively. Furthermore, institutional quality enhances ES in upper-middle and low and lower-middle-income countries by negatively affecting ecological footprints. At the same time, terrorism significantly reduces ecological footprints in high-income countries. This research also provides the imperative policy inferences to accomplish various SDGs.