About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median income data over a decade or more for males and females categorized by Total, Full-Time Year-Round (FT), and Part-Time (PT) employment in Gilbertsville. It showcases annual income, providing insights into gender-specific income distributions and the disparities between full-time and part-time work. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based pay disparity trends and explore the variations in income for male and female individuals.

Key observations: Insights from 2023

Based on our analysis ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates, we present the following observations: - All workers, aged 15 years and older: In Gilbertsville, the median income for all workers aged 15 years and older, regardless of work hours, was $36,964 for males and $36,458 for females.

Based on these incomes, we observe a gender gap percentage of approximately 1%, indicating a significant disparity between the median incomes of males and females in Gilbertsville. Women, regardless of work hours, still earn 99 cents to each dollar earned by men, highlighting an ongoing gender-based wage gap.

As there was no available median income data for males, conducting a comprehensive assessment of gender-based pay disparity in Gilbertsville was not feasible.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. All incomes have been adjusting for inflation and are presented in 2023-inflation-adjusted dollars.

Gender classifications include:

• Male
• Female

Employment type classifications include:

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

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column presents the data year. Expected values are 2010 to 2023
• Male Total Income: Annual median income, for males regardless of work hours
• Male FT Income: Annual median income, for males working full time, year-round
• Male PT Income: Annual median income, for males working part time
• Female Total Income: Annual median income, for females regardless of work hours
• Female FT Income: Annual median income, for females working full time, year-round
• Female PT Income: Annual median income, for females working part time

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 Gilbertsville median household income by race. You can refer the same here

There is more to housing affordability than the rent or mortgage you pay. Transportation costs are the second-biggest budget item for most families, but it can be difficult for people to fully factor transportation costs into decisions about where to live and work. The Location Affordability Index (LAI) is a user-friendly source of standardized data at the neighborhood (census tract) level on combined housing and transportation costs to help consumers, policymakers, and developers make more informed decisions about where to live, work, and invest. Compare eight household profiles (see table below) —which vary by household income, size, and number of commuters—and see the impact of the built environment on affordability in a given location while holding household demographics constant.*$11,880 for a single person household in 2016 according to US Dept. of Health and Human Services: https://aspe.hhs.gov/computations-2016-poverty-guidelinesThis layer is symbolized by the percentage of housing and transportation costs as a percentage of income for the Median-Income Family profile, but the costs as a percentage of income for all household profiles are listed in the pop-up:Also available is a gallery of 8 web maps (one for each household profile) all symbolized the same way for easy comparison: Median-Income Family, Very Low-Income Individual, Working Individual, Single Professional, Retired Couple, Single-Parent Family, Moderate-Income Family, and Dual-Professional Family.An accompanying story map provides side-by-side comparisons and additional context.--Variables used in HUD's calculations include 24 measures such as people per household, average number of rooms per housing unit, monthly housing costs (mortgage/rent as well as utility and maintenance expenses), average number of cars per household, median commute distance, vehicle miles traveled per year, percent of trips taken on transit, street connectivity and walkability (measured by block density), and many more.To learn more about the Location Affordability Index (v.3) visit: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/location-affordability-index/. There you will find some background and an FAQ page, which includes the question:"Manhattan, San Francisco, and downtown Boston are some of the most expensive places to live in the country, yet the LAI shows them as affordable for the typical regional household. Why?" These areas have some of the lowest transportation costs in the country, which helps offset the high cost of housing. The area median income (AMI) in these regions is also high, so when costs are shown as a percent of income for the typical regional household these neighborhoods appear affordable; however, they are generally unaffordable to households earning less than the AMI.Date of Coverage: 2012-2016 Date Released: March 2019Date Downloaded from HUD Open Data: 4/18/19Further Documentation:LAI Version 3 Data and MethodologyLAI Version 3 Technical Documentation_**The documentation below is in reference to this items placement in the NM Supply Chain Data Hub. The documentation is of use to understanding the source of this item, and how to reproduce it for updates**

Title: Location Affordability Index - NMCDC Copy

Summary: This layer contains the Location Affordability Index from U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - standardized household, housing, and transportation cost estimates by census tract for 8 household profiles.

Notes: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas.

Prepared by: dianaclavery_uo, copied by EMcRae_NMCDC

Source: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas. Check the source documentation or other details above for more information about data sources.

Feature Service: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=447a461f048845979f30a2478b9e65bb

UID: 73

Data Requested: Family income spent on basic need

Method of Acquisition: Search for Location Affordability Index in the Living Atlas. Make a copy of most recent map available. To update this map, copy the most recent map available. In a new tab, open the AGOL Assistant Portal tool and use the functions in the portal to copy the new maps JSON, and paste it over the old map (this map with item id

Date Acquired: Map copied on May 10, 2022

Priority rank as Identified in 2022 (scale of 1 being the highest priority, to 11 being the lowest priority): 6

Tags: PENDING

IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ DISCLAIMER BEFORE USING DATA. To reduce the energy burden on income-qualified households within New York State, NYSERDA offers the EmPower New York (EmPower) program, a retrofit program that provides cost-effective electric reduction measures (i.e., primarily lighting and refrigerator replacements), and cost-effective home performance measures (i.e., insulation air sealing, heating system repair and replacments, and health and safety measures) to income qualified homeowners and renters. Home assessments and implementation services are provided by Building Performance Institute (BPI) Goldstar contractors to reduce energy use for low income households. This data set includes energy efficiency projects completed since January 2018 for households with income up to 60% area (county) median income. D I S C L A I M E R: Estimated Annual kWh Savings, Estimated Annual MMBtu Savings, and First Year Energy Savings $ Estimate represent contractor reported savings derived from energy modeling software calculations and not actual realized energy savings. The accuracy of the Estimated Annual kWh Savings and Estimated Annual MMBtu Savings for projects has been evaluated by an independent third party. The results of the impact analysis indicate that, on average, actual savings amount to 54 percent of the Estimated Annual kWh Savings and 70 percent of the Estimated Annual MMBtu Savings. The analysis did not evaluate every single project, but rather a sample of projects from 2007 and 2008, so the results are applicable to the population on average but not necessarily to any individual project which could have over or under achieved in comparison to the evaluated savings. The results from the impact analysis will be updated when more recent information is available. Some reasons individual households may realize savings different from those projected include, but are not limited to, changes in the number or needs of household members, changes in occupancy schedules, changes in energy usage behaviors, changes to appliances and electronics installed in the home, and beginning or ending a home business. For more information, please refer to the Evaluation Report published on NYSERDA’s website at: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Files/Publications/PPSER/Program-Evaluation/2012ContractorReports/2012-EmPower-New-York-Impact-Report.pdf. This dataset includes the following data points for projects completed after January 1, 2018: Reporting Period, Project ID, Project County, Project City, Project ZIP, Gas Utility, Electric Utility, Project Completion Date, Total Project Cost (USD), Pre-Retrofit Home Heating Fuel Type, Year Home Built, Size of Home, Number of Units, Job Type, Type of Dwelling, Measure Type, Estimated Annual kWh Savings, Estimated Annual MMBtu Savings, First Year Modeled Energy Savings $ Estimate (USD). How does your organization use this dataset? What other NYSERDA or energy-related datasets would you like to see on Open NY? Let us know by emailing OpenNY@nyserda.ny.gov.

In 2023, according to the Gini coefficient, household income distribution in the United States was 0.47. This figure was at 0.43 in 1990, which indicates an increase in income inequality in the U.S. over the past 30 years. What is the Gini coefficient? The Gini coefficient, or Gini index, is a statistical measure of economic inequality and wealth distribution among a population. A value of zero represents perfect economic equality, and a value of one represents perfect economic inequality. The Gini coefficient helps to visualize income inequality in a more digestible way. For example, according to the Gini coefficient, the District of Columbia and the state of New York have the greatest amount of income inequality in the U.S. with a score of 0.51, and Utah has the greatest income equality with a score of 0.43. The Gini coefficient around the world The Gini coefficient is also an effective measure to help picture income inequality around the world. For example, in 2018 income inequality was highest in South Africa, while income inequality was lowest in Slovenia.