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

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 46.900 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 46.400 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 46.000 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 46.900 % in 2016 and a record low of 41.200 % in 1979. United States US: 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 United States – Table US.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.

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

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.

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.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Deptford Township, New Jersey, 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 21,507, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 257,345. This indicates that the top earners earn 12 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 384,780, which is 149.52% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 1789.09% 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 Deptford township median household income. You can refer the same here

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data was reported at 30.600 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 30.100 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data is updated yearly, averaging 30.100 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 30.600 % in 2016 and a record low of 25.300 % in 1979. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles.; ; 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.

In the financial year 2021, a majority of Indian households fell under the aspirers category, earning between ******* and ******* Indian rupees a year. On the other hand, about ***** percent of households that same year, accounted for the rich, earning over * million rupees annually. The middle class more than doubled that year compared to ** percent in financial year 2005. Middle-class income group and the COVID-19 pandemic During the COVID-19 pandemic specifically during the lockdown in March 2020, loss of incomes hit the entire household income spectrum. However, research showed the severest affected groups were the upper middle- and middle-class income brackets. In addition, unemployment rates were rampant nationwide that further lead to a dismally low GDP. Despite job recoveries over the last few months, improvement in incomes were insignificant. Economic inequality While India maybe one of the fastest growing economies in the world, it is also one of the most vulnerable and severely afflicted economies in terms of economic inequality. The vast discrepancy between the rich and poor has been prominent since the last ***** decades. The rich continue to grow richer at a faster pace while the impoverished struggle more than ever before to earn a minimum wage. The widening gaps in the economic structure affect women and children the most. This is a call for reinforcement in in the country’s social structure that emphasizes access to quality education and universal healthcare services.

This report discusses Poland’s experience along five dimensions. These five dimensions - a pentagon of policies and institutions are governing, sustaining, connecting, growing, and including. The main lessons from Poland and the key insights for its future, based on this pentagon, are presented in the lessons and insights summarized in this report. Poland’s experience underlines the importance of a shared vision to sustain continuing reforms. Poland’s rapid economic ascent created new challenges: the creative destruction on which the growth process was based, successfully, caused massive social change. The report addresses two sets of questions. First, what are the lessons from Poland’s remarkable transition to high income; what policies were behind Poland’s economic achievements; why was Poland able to achieve high-income per capita so fast, while many other countries remained in the upper-middle-income range for decades - trapped middle-income countries (MICs); what policies were similar to those pursued by other new high income countries (HICs) and what were specific to Poland, and second, what are the insights for Poland going forward Given international experience and Poland’s characteristics, what policies can it adopt to continue its ascent and reach the much higher incomes of countries that have been high income for a considerable period - the established HICs

2018-2019 Class Size Citywide report for middle and high schools grades by program type, number of students, number of classes and average class size.

New York City Department of Education 2015-16 Final Class Size Report School Middle School and High School Core Average Class Size General Education (Gen Ed), Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT), Accelerated (Acc), Self-Contained (SC)

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.

IntroductionOur study explores how New York City (NYC) communities of various socioeconomic strata were uniquely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsNew York City ZIP codes were stratified into three bins by median income: high-income, middle-income, and low-income. Case, hospitalization, and death rates obtained from NYCHealth were compared for the period between March 2020 and April 2022.ResultsCOVID-19 transmission rates among high-income populations during off-peak waves were higher than transmission rates among low-income populations. Hospitalization rates among low-income populations were higher during off-peak waves despite a lower transmission rate. Death rates during both off-peak and peak waves were higher for low-income ZIP codes.DiscussionThis study presents evidence that while high-income areas had higher transmission rates during off-peak periods, low-income areas suffered greater adverse outcomes in terms of hospitalization and death rates. The importance of this study is that it focuses on the social inequalities that were amplified by the pandemic.

Analysis of ‘2018-2019 Class Size Report City Middle & High School Class Size Distribution’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/eadb70f8-c0f1-405d-9515-46e8ba18e5e8 on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

2018-2019 Class Size Citywide report for middle and high school grades by program type, number of students, number of classes and average class size.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

2017- 2018 Class Size Report City Middle School And High School Core Average Class Size

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.

Analysis of ‘2018-2019 Class Size Report Borough Middle & High School Class Size Distribution’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/43cbfc92-350a-4770-ba1d-d939a1ebba17 on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

2018-2019 Class Size Borough report for middle and high school grades by program type, number of students, number of classes and average class size.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

2018-2019 Class Size Borough report for middle and high school grades by program type, number of students, number of classes and average class size.

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...

Class size distribution information on middle and high school classes by borough