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.

This dataset is about book subjects. It has 7 rows and is filtered where the books is The trickle-up economy : how we take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich. It features 10 columns including number of authors, number of books, earliest publication date, and latest publication date.

Abstract

Dataset used in World Bank Policy Research Working Paper #2876, published in World Bank Economic Review, No. 1, 2005, pp. 21-44.

The effects of globalization on income distribution in rich and poor countries are a matter of controversy. While international trade theory in its most abstract formulation implies that increased trade and foreign investment should make income distribution more equal in poor countries and less equal in rich countries, finding these effects has proved elusive. The author presents another attempt to discern the effects of globalization by using data from household budget surveys and looking at the impact of openness and foreign direct investment on relative income shares of low and high deciles. The author finds some evidence that at very low average income levels, it is the rich who benefit from openness. As income levels rise to those of countries such as Chile, Colombia, or Czech Republic, for example, the situation changes, and it is the relative income of the poor and the middle class that rises compared with the rich. It seems that openness makes income distribution worse before making it better-or differently in that the effect of openness on a country's income distribution depends on the country's initial income level.

Kind of data

Aggregate data [agg]

United States US: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Latin America & The Caribbean data was reported at 17.755 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 17.642 % for 2015. United States US: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Latin America & The Caribbean data is updated yearly, averaging 14.701 % from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2016, with 57 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 23.170 % in 1960 and a record low of 10.495 % in 1986. United States US: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Latin America & The Caribbean data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.World Bank: Imports. Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in Latin America and the Caribbean are the sum of merchandise imports by the reporting economy from low- and middle-income economies in the Latin America and the Caribbean region according to the World Bank classification of economies. Data are expressed as a percentage of total merchandise imports by the economy. Data are computed only if at least half of the economies in the partner country group had non-missing data.; ; World Bank staff estimates based data from International Monetary Fund's Direction of Trade database.; Weighted average;

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.

This dataset and map service provides information on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) low to moderate income areas. The term Low to Moderate Income, often referred to as low-mod, has a specific programmatic context within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Over a 1, 2, or 3-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. HUD uses special tabulations of Census data to determine areas where at least 51% of households have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). This dataset and map service contains the following layer.

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.

California State Income Limits reflect updated median income and household income levels for acutely low-, extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households for California’s 58 counties (required by Health and Safety Code Section 50093). These income limits apply to State and local affordable housing programs statutorily linked to HUD income limits and differ from income limits applicable to other specific federal, State, or local programs.

Vietnam VN: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: East Asia & Pacific data was reported at 35.344 % in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 38.222 % for 2015. Vietnam VN: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: East Asia & Pacific data is updated yearly, averaging 14.210 % from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2016, with 40 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 41.390 % in 2014 and a record low of 0.364 % in 1985. Vietnam VN: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: East Asia & Pacific data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Vietnam – Table VN.World Bank.WDI: Imports. Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in East Asia and Pacific are the sum of merchandise imports by the reporting economy from low- and middle-income economies in the East Asia and Pacific region according to the World Bank classification of economies. Data are expressed as a percentage of total merchandise imports by the economy. Data are computed only if at least half of the economies in the partner country group had non-missing data.; ; World Bank staff estimates based data from International Monetary Fund's Direction of Trade database.; Weighted average;

Context

This dataset was uploaded as supplemental data for the 2019 Kaggle ML & DS Survey. It allows classification of countries into income groups - low, lower-middle, upper-middle and high - by gross national income (GNI) per capita, in U.S. dollars,.

For details of this calculation see here and here.

Content

The csv file consists of 218 countries listed by name and country code and their corresponding income group and lending category.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the World Bank for providing the data at "https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519">https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519

Inspiration

This dataset allows any other data containing country names or codes to be supplemented with income group data.

Korea Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Latin America & The Caribbean data was reported at 2.673 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 2.543 % for 2015. Korea Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Latin America & The Caribbean data is updated yearly, averaging 1.896 % from Dec 1961 (Median) to 2016, with 56 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 5.491 % in 1985 and a record low of 0.012 % in 1972. Korea Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Latin America & The Caribbean data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Korea – Table KR.World Bank: Imports. Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in Latin America and the Caribbean are the sum of merchandise imports by the reporting economy from low- and middle-income economies in the Latin America and the Caribbean region according to the World Bank classification of economies. Data are expressed as a percentage of total merchandise imports by the economy. Data are computed only if at least half of the economies in the partner country group had non-missing data.; ; World Bank staff estimates based data from International Monetary Fund's Direction of Trade database.; Weighted average;

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.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryNote: This layer is symbolized to display the percentile distribution of the Limited Resources Sub-Index. However, it includes all data for each indicator and sub-index within the citywide census tracts TEPI.What 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.

Namibia NA: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Within Region data was reported at 69.420 % in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 71.557 % for 2015. Namibia NA: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Within Region data is updated yearly, averaging 77.959 % from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2016, with 17 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 86.783 % in 2004 and a record low of 62.161 % in 2014. Namibia NA: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Within Region data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Namibia – Table NA.World Bank: Imports. Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies within region are the sum of merchandise imports by the reporting economy from other low- and middle-income economies in the same World Bank region according to the World Bank classification of economies. Data are as a percentage of total merchandise imports by the economy. Data are computed only if at least half of the economies in the partner country group had non-missing data. No figures are shown for high-income economies, because they are a separate category in the World Bank classification of economies.; ; World Bank staff estimates based data from International Monetary Fund's Direction of Trade database.; Weighted average;

Low income cut-offs (LICOs) before and after tax by community size and family size, in current dollars, annual.

Abstract

The Global Consumption Database (GCD) contains information on consumption patterns at the national level, by urban/rural area, and by income level (4 categories: lowest, low, middle, higher with thresholds based on a global income distribution), for 92 low and middle-income countries, as of 2010. The data were extracted from national household surveys. The consumption is presented by category of products and services of the International Comparison Program (ICP) 2005, which mostly corresponds to COICOP. For three countries, sub-national data are also available (Brazil, India, and South Africa). Data on population estimates are also included.

       The data file can be used for the production of the following tables (by urban/rural and income class/consumption segment):
       - Sample Size by Country, Area and Consumption Segment (Number of Households)
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment, as a Percentage of the National Population
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment, as a Percentage of the Area Population
       - Population 2010 by Country, Age Group, Sex and Consumption Segment
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Category of Products/Services, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Percentage of Households who Reported Having Consumed the Product or Service by Country, Consumption Segment and Area (as of Survey Year)

Geographic coverage notes

For all countries, estimates are provided at the national level and at the urban/rural levels. For Brazil, India, and South Africa, data are also provided at the sub-national level (admin 1): - Brazil: ACR, Alagoas, Amapa, Amazonas, Bahia, Ceara, Distrito Federal, Espirito Santo, Goias, Maranhao, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Para, Paraiba, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaji, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Rondonia, Roraima, Santa Catarina, Sao Paolo, Sergipe, Tocatins - India: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Arinachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh, Chattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madya Pradesh, Maharastra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, West Bengal - South Africa: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Kwazulu Natal, Limpopo, Mpulamanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape

Kind of data

Data derived from survey microdata

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents a breakdown of households across various income brackets in Fresno, CA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau classifies households into different categories, including total households, family households, and non-family households. Our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey data for Fresno, CA reveals how household income distribution varies among these categories. The dataset highlights the variation in number of households with income, offering valuable insights into the distribution of Fresno households based on income levels.

Key observations

• For Family Households: In Fresno, the majority of family households, representing 13.51%, earn $75,000 to $99,999, showcasing a substantial share of the community families falling within this income bracket. Conversely, the minority of family households, comprising 2.47%, have incomes falling $150,000 to $199,999, representing a smaller but still significant segment of the community.
• For Non-Family Households: In Fresno, the majority of non-family households, accounting for 13.13%, have income Less than $10,000, indicating that a substantial portion of non-family households falls within this income bracket. On the other hand, the minority of non-family households, comprising 2.82%, earn $150,000 to $199,999, representing a smaller, yet notable, portion of non-family households in the community.

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:

• Less than $10,000
• $10,000 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $19,999
• $20,000 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 $59,999
• $60,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $125,000 to $149,999
• $150,000 to $199,999
• $200,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: The income level represents the income brackets ranging from Less than $10,000 to $200,000 or more in Fresno, CA (As mentioned above).
• All Households: Count of households for the specified income level
• % All Households: Percentage of households at the specified income level relative to the total households in Fresno, CA
• Family Households: Count of family households for the specified income level
• % Family Households: Percentage of family households at the specified income level relative to the total family households in Fresno, CA
• Non-Family Households: Count of non-family households for the specified income level
• % Non-Family Households: Percentage of non-family households at the specified income level relative to the total non-family households in Fresno, CA

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 Fresno median household income. You can refer the same here

Hong Kong HK: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Middle East & North Africa data was reported at 0.090 % in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 0.108 % for 2015. Hong Kong HK: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Middle East & North Africa data is updated yearly, averaging 0.131 % from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2016, with 57 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.841 % in 1968 and a record low of 0.006 % in 1983. Hong Kong HK: Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Middle East & North Africa data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Hong Kong SAR – Table HK.World Bank.WDI: Imports. Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in Middle East and North Africa are the sum of merchandise imports by the reporting economy from low- and middle-income economies in the Middle East and North Africa region according to the World Bank classification of economies. Data are expressed as a percentage of total merchandise imports by the economy. Data are computed only if at least half of the economies in the partner country group had non-missing data.; ; World Bank staff estimates based data from International Monetary Fund's Direction of Trade database.; Weighted average;

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.