Graph and download economic data for Real Median Family Income in the United States (MEFAINUSA672N) from 1953 to 2023 about family, median, income, real, and USA.

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.

Graph and download economic data for Median Household Income in the United States (MEHOINUSA646N) from 1984 to 2023 about households, median, income, and USA.

Sensitivity and threshold analyses of retesting by low-income countries (LIC), lower-middle income countries (LMIC), and upper-middle income countries (UMIC) in Africa.

Definitions:Urban: Contiguous urban census tracts with a population of 50,000 or greater. Urban census tracts are tracts where at least 10 percent of the tract's land areas is designated as urban by the Census Bureau using the 2020 urbanized area criteria.Rural Center: Contiguous urban census tracts with a population of less than 50,000. Urban census tracts are tracts where at least 10 percent of the tract's land area is designated as urban by the Census Bureau using the 2020 urbanized area criteria.Rural: Census tracts where less than 10 percent of the tract's land area is designated as urban by the Census Bureau using the 2020 urbanized area criteria.Disadvantaged Community (DAC): Census tracts that score within the top 25th percentile of the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment’s California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) 4.0 scores, as well as areas of high pollution and low population, such as ports.Low-income Community (LIC): Census tracts with median household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income or with median household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s list of state income limits adopted pursuant to Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.Middle-income Community (MIC): Census tracts with median household incomes between 80 to 120 percent of the statewide median income, or with median household incomes between the threshold designated as low- and moderate-income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s list of state income limits adopted pursuant to section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. High-income Community (HIC): Census tracts with median household income at or above 120 percent of the statewide median income or with median household incomes at or above the threshold designated as moderate-income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s list of state income limits adopted pursuant to section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code.Data Dictionary:ObjectID1_: Unique IDShape: Geometric form of the featureSTATEFP: State FIPS CodeCOUNTYFP: County FIPS CodeCOUNTY: County NameTract: Census Tract IDPopulation_2019_5YR: Population from the American Community Survey 2019 5-Year EstimatesPop_dens: Census tract designation as Urban, Rural Center, or RuralDAC: Census tract designation as Disadvantaged or not (DAC or Not DAC)Income_Group: Census tract designation as Low-, Middle-, or High-income Community (LIC, MIC, or HIC)Priority_pop: Census tract designation as Low-income and/or Disadvantaged or not (LIC and/or DAC, or Not LIC and/or DAC)Shape_Length: Census tract shape area (square meters)Shape_Area: Census tract shape length (square meters)Data sources:Urban, rural center, and rural designations are from the 2025 Senate Bill (SB) 1000 AssessmentDisadvantaged community designations are from the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) under Senate Bill (SB) 535Low-income community designations are from the California Air Resources Board under Assembly Bill (AB) 1550. Middle- and high-income designations are from the SB 1000 Assessments.

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

In the 3 years to March 2021, black households were most likely out of all ethnic groups to have a weekly income of under £600.

Background and objectivesThe estimation of a cost- Effectiveness (CE) threshold from the perspective of those who have experienced a life-threatening disease can provide empirical evidence for health policy makers to make the best allocation decisions on limited resources. The aim of the current study was to empirically determine the CE threshold for cancer interventions from the perspective of cancer patients in Iran.MethodsA composite time trade-off (cTTO) task for deriving quality adjusted life-year (QALY) and a double-bounded dichotomous choice (DBDC) approach followed by open-ended question for examining patients’ willingness-to-pay were performed. A nationally representative sample of 580 cancer patients was recruited from the largest governmental cancer centers in Iran between June 2021 and January 2022, and data were gathered using face-to-face interviews. The CE threshold was calculated using the nonparametric Turnbull model and parametric interval-censored Weibull regression model. Furthermore, the factors that affect the CE threshold were determined using the parametric model.ResultsThe estimated CE threshold using the nonparametric Turnbull model and parametric interval-censored Weibull regression model was IRR 440,410,000 (USD 10,485.95) and IRR 595,280,000 (USD 14,173.33) per QALY, respectively. Gender, age, education, income, type of cancer, and current treatment status were significantly associated with the estimated CE threshold.ConclusionsThe value of parametric model-based threshold in this study was 1.98 times the Iranian GDP per capita, which was lower than the CE threshold value recommended by the WHO (i.e., 3 times the GDP per capita) for low-and middle-income countries.

Between April 2008 and March 2024, households from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups were the most likely to live in low income out of all ethnic groups, before and after housing costs.

Key information about Russia Household Income per Capita

• Russia Annual Household Income per Capita reached 8,179.123 USD in Dec 2024, compared with the previous value of 7,549.747 USD in Dec 2023.
• Russia Annual Household Income per Capita data is updated yearly, available from Dec 1992 to Dec 2024, with an averaged value of 5,882.623 USD.
• The data reached an all-time high of 9,660.697 USD in Dec 2013 and a record low of 183.584 USD in Dec 1992.
• In the latest reports, Retail Sales of Russia grew 5.200 % YoY in Dec 2024.

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

This database contains the model and the parameters of the study. It's is important to highlight that this is the first version of the model, and thus modifications are forthcoming. With the current database, the abstract is the following:

Fortification of water with calcium during pregnancy is proposed as a suitable and promising intervention to increase calcium intake and prevent preeclampsia and eclampsia (PE/E). However, the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of this type of intervention is scarce. We conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of calcium pills and bottled water fortified with calcium, compared to the standard of care (defined as the use of MgSO4 as the standard treatment for PE/E), in the context of Nepal. Outcome measures were years of life gained (YLG) by mothers and newborns and healthcare costs. We considered a lifetime time horizon and health benefits were discounted at 3%. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at the 2019 Nepal gross domestic product per capita (USD 1071). For calcium pills versus standard of care, ICER was USD 63 per YLG. By switching from calcium pills to bottled water fortified with calcium, the resulting ICER was USD 1702 per YLG. In conclusion, the bottle of water fortified with calcium was found not cost-effective at the defined threshold for Nepal. Complementary economic evidence adapted to other low-and middle income contexts is required to guide novel preventive interventions to improve maternal and child health based on the efficiency principle

ObjectiveHearing impairment is suggested to be associated with depression in the elderly. The present study evaluated the risk of depression after hearing impairment in all age groups matched by age, sex, income, and region of residence.MethodsThe Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service—National Patient Samples were collected for a period from 2002 to 2013. Hearing impairment was defined as a hearing threshold ≥ 60 dB in both ears or as ≥ 80 dB in one ear and ≥ 40 dB in one ear. Hearing-impaired participants performed a pure tone audiometry test 3 times and an auditory brainstem response threshold test once. The 6,136 hearing-impaired participants were matched 1:4 with 24,544 controls with no reported hearing impairment for age, sex, income, and region of residence. Depression was investigated based on the International Classification of Disease-10 codes F31 (bipolar affective disorder) through F39 (unspecified mood disorder) by a psychiatrist from 2002 through 2013. The crude (simple) and adjusted (age, sex, income, region of residence, dementia, hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia) hazard ratio (HR) of hearing impairment on depression were analyzed using Cox-proportional hazard model.ResultsThe rate of depression was significantly higher in the severe hearing-impaired group than in the control group (7.9% vs. 5.7%, P < 0.001). Severe hearing impairment increased the risk of depression (adjusted HR = 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.24–1.52, P < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, young (0–29 years old), middle-aged (30–59 years old), and old (≥ 60 years old) severe hearing-impaired groups showed significantly increased risk of depression compared to controls with no reported hearing impairment. In accordance with income level, severe hearing impairment elevated depression in the low and high income groups, but not in the middle income group.ConclusionSevere hearing impairment increased the risk of depression independently of age, sex, region, past medical histories, and income (in low and high income persons but not in middle income persons).

In 2022, 9.9 percent of all Canadians were living in low income. Between 2000 and 2022, the percentage of population with low income experienced a decrease, reaching the lowest value in 2020. The highest share of Canadians with low income was recorded in 2015, with 14.5 percent of the total population.

Low Income Measures

The low income measures (LIMs) were developed by Statistics Canada in the 1990s. They, along with the low income cut-offs (LICOs) and the market basket measure (MBM), were created in order to measure and track the low income population of Canada. With low income measures, individuals are classified as being in low income if their income falls below fifty percent of the median adjusted household income. The median income is adjusted in order to reflect the differing financial needs of households based on the number of its members. The low income measures are a useful tool to compare low income populations between countries as they do not rely on an arbitrary standard of what constitutes the threshold for poverty. Statistics Canada insists that the low income measures are not meant to be representative of a poverty rate. The department has no measure which they define as a measurement of poverty in Canada. Latest data and trends In 2022, around 2.1 million people were living in low income families in Canada. This figure has been fluctuating over the years, both in absolute numbers and in proportion over the total population. More women than men were living in low income families in 2022, though the number of men in low income has risen at twice the rate as that of women. One of the more drastic changes has been the rise in the number of single individuals living in low income, increasing by more than 60 percent since 2000.

The Fiscal Monitor surveys and analyzes the latest public finance developments, it updates fiscal implications of the crisis and medium-term fiscal projections, and assesses policies to put public finances on a sustainable footing.

Country-specific data and projections for key fiscal variables are based on the April 2020 World Economic Outlook database, unless indicated otherwise, and compiled by the IMF staff. Historical data and projections are based on information gathered by IMF country desk officers in the context of their missions and through their ongoing analysis of the evolving situation in each country; they are updated on a continual basis as more information becomes available. Structural breaks in data may be adjusted to produce smooth series through splicing and other techniques. IMF staff estimates serve as proxies when complete information is unavailable. As a result, Fiscal Monitor data can differ from official data in other sources, including the IMF's International Financial Statistics.

The country classification in the Fiscal Monitor divides the world into three major groups: 35 advanced economies, 40 emerging market and middle-income economies, and 40 low-income developing countries. The seven largest advanced economies as measured by GDP (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) constitute the subgroup of major advanced economies, often referred to as the Group of Seven (G7). The members of the euro area are also distinguished as a subgroup. Composite data shown in the tables for the euro area cover the current members for all years, even though the membership has increased over time. Data for most European Union member countries have been revised following the adoption of the new European System of National and Regional Accounts (ESA 2010). The low-income developing countries (LIDCs) are countries that have per capita income levels below a certain threshold (currently set at $2,700 in 2016 as measured by the World Bank's Atlas method), structural features consistent with limited development and structural transformation, and external financial linkages insufficiently close to be widely seen as emerging market economies. Zimbabwe is included in the group. Emerging market and middle-income economies include those not classified as advanced economies or low-income developing countries. See Table A, "Economy Groupings," for more details.

Most fiscal data refer to the general government for advanced economies, while for emerging markets and developing economies, data often refer to the central government or budgetary central government only (for specific details, see Tables B-D). All fiscal data refer to the calendar years, except in the cases of Bangladesh, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, and Thailand, for which they refer to the fiscal year.

Composite data for country groups are weighted averages of individual-country data, unless otherwise specified. Data are weighted by annual nominal GDP converted to U.S. dollars at average market exchange rates as a share of the group GDP.

In many countries, fiscal data follow the IMF's Government Finance Statistics Manual 2014. The overall fiscal balance refers to net lending (+) and borrowing ("") of the general government. In some cases, however, the overall balance refers to total revenue and grants minus total expenditure and net lending.

The fiscal gross and net debt data reported in the Fiscal Monitor are drawn from official data sources and IMF staff estimates. While attempts are made to align gross and net debt data with the definitions in the IMF's Government Finance Statistics Manual, as a result of data limitations or specific country circumstances, these data can sometimes deviate from the formal definitions.

Between 2018 and 2022, people in households in the ‘other’, Asian and black ethnic groups were the most likely to be in persistent low income, both before and after housing costs, out of all ethnic groups.

In 2023, women in households with an income below the poverty threshold had the highest birth rate in the United States, at 72 births per 1,000 women.

This statistic shows the income distribution of Canadians for 2020, distinguished by level of income. In 2020, about 302,050 Canadians had an income of 250,000 Canadian dollars or more.

Acceptable risk thresholds for different levels of privacy invasion suggested by the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner.