This statistic shows the results of a survey among young adults in the United States on how they rank their own living standards compared to those of their parents at the same age. ** percent think their own living standards nowadays are better than those of their parents when they were the same age.

This paper revisits the assessment of living standards in the United States from its founding to the present, challenging the conventional portrayal of economic well-being during wartime periods. Reflecting multiple criticisms made of the quality of national accounts which include defense spending during times of both peace and war, we employ the methodological framework established by Higgs (1992) and extended by Geloso and Pender (2023) to correct national accounts by subtracting military expenditures from GDP and GNP data. This rectifies the overstatement of living standards attributed to defense spending. Our analysis uses comprehensive data from the Historical Statistics of the United States and the Measuring Worth database, adjusting for price controls during World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War using a corrected price deflator based on a regression model of economic indicators. The study finds that traditional measures significantly overstate living standards during the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Post-World War II analysis reveals a persistent overestimation of living standards, particularly pronounced during the Vietnam War years. More importantly, our results provide nuanced insights into certain stylized facts of trends in American improvements of living standards (notably inequality and the Great Depression).

This statistic depicts the age distribution in the United States from 2013 to 2023. In 2023, about 17.59 percent of the U.S. population fell into the 0-14 year category, 64.97 percent into the 15-64 age group and 17.43 percent of the population were over 65 years of age. The increasing population of the United States The United States of America is one of the most populated countries in the world, trailing just behind China and India. A total population count of around 320 million inhabitants and a more-or-less steady population growth over the past decade indicate that the country has steadily improved its living conditions and standards for the population. Leading healthier lifestyles and improved living conditions have resulted in a steady increase of the life expectancy at birth in the United States. Life expectancies of men and women at birth in the United States were at a record high in 2012. Furthermore, a constant fertility rate in recent years and a decrease in the death rate and infant mortality, all due to the improved standard of living and health care conditions, have helped not only the American population to increase but as a result, the share of the population younger than 15 and older than 65 years has also increased in recent years, as can be seen above.

The US Family Budget Dataset provides insights into the cost of living in different US counties based on the Family Budget Calculator by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

This dataset offers community-specific estimates for ten family types, including one or two adults with zero to four children, in all 1877 counties and metro areas across the United States.

Interesting Task Ideas:

1. See how family budgets compare to the federal poverty line and the Supplemental Poverty Measure in different counties.
2. Look into the money challenges faced by different types of families using the budgets provided.
3. Find out which counties have the most affordable places to live, food, transportation, healthcare, childcare, and other things people need.
4. Explore how the average income of families relates to the overall cost of living in different counties.
5. Investigate how family size affects the estimated budget and find counties where bigger families have higher costs.
6. Create visuals showing how the cost of living varies across different states and big cities.
7. Check whether specific counties are affordable for families of different sizes and types.
8. Use the dataset to compare living standards and economic security in different US counties.

If you find this dataset valuable, don't forget to hit the upvote button! 😊💝

Checkout my other datasets

Employment-to-Population Ratio for USA

Productivity and Hourly Compensation

130K Kindle Books

900K TMDb Movies

USA Unemployment Rates by Demographics & Race

Photo by Alev Takil on Unsplash

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.

West Virginia and Kansas had the lowest cost of living across all U.S. states, with composite costs being half of those found in Hawaii. This was according to a composite index that compares prices for various goods and services on a state-by-state basis. In West Virginia, the cost of living index amounted to **** — well below the national benchmark of 100. Virginia— which had an index value of ***** — was only slightly above that benchmark. Expensive places to live included Hawaii, Massachusetts, and California. Housing costs in the U.S. Housing is usually the highest expense in a household’s budget. In 2023, the average house sold for approximately ******* U.S. dollars, but house prices in the Northeast and West regions were significantly higher. Conversely, the South had some of the least expensive housing. In West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the median price of the typical single-family home was less than ******* U.S. dollars. That makes living expenses in these states significantly lower than in states such as Hawaii and California, where housing is much pricier. What other expenses affect the cost of living? Utility costs such as electricity, natural gas, water, and internet also influence the cost of living. In Alaska, Hawaii, and Connecticut, the average monthly utility cost exceeded *** U.S. dollars. That was because of the significantly higher prices for electricity and natural gas in these states.

Out of all 50 states, New York had the highest per-capita real gross domestic product (GDP) in 2023, at 90,730 U.S. dollars, followed closely by Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest per-capita real GDP, at 39,102 U.S. dollars. While not a state, the District of Columbia had a per capita GDP of more than 214,000 U.S. dollars. What is real GDP? A country’s real GDP is a measure that shows the value of the goods and services produced by an economy and is adjusted for inflation. The real GDP of a country helps economists to see the health of a country’s economy and its standard of living. Downturns in GDP growth can indicate financial difficulties, such as the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, when the U.S. GDP decreased by 2.5 percent. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on U.S. GDP, shrinking the economy 2.8 percent. The U.S. economy rebounded in 2021, however, growing by nearly six percent. Why real GDP per capita matters Real GDP per capita takes the GDP of a country, state, or metropolitan area and divides it by the number of people in that area. Some argue that per-capita GDP is more important than the GDP of a country, as it is a good indicator of whether or not the country’s population is getting wealthier, thus increasing the standard of living in that area. The best measure of standard of living when comparing across countries is thought to be GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) which uses the prices of specific goods to compare the absolute purchasing power of a countries currency.

GDP per capita (current US$) is an economic indicator that measures the average economic output per person in a country. It is calculated by dividing the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a country by its population, both measured in current US dollars. GDP per capita provides a useful metric for comparing the economic well-being and living standards between different countries.

There are various sources where you can find GDP per capita data, including international organizations, government agencies, and financial institutions. Some prominent sources for GDP per capita data include:

1. World Bank: The World Bank provides comprehensive data on GDP per capita for countries around the world. They maintain the World Development Indicators (WDI) database, which includes GDP per capita figures for different years.

2. International Monetary Fund (IMF): The IMF also offers GDP per capita data through their World Economic Outlook (WEO) database. It provides economic indicators and forecasts, including GDP per capita figures for various countries.

3. National Statistical Agencies: Many countries have their own national statistical agencies that publish GDP per capita data. These agencies collect and analyze economic data, including GDP and population figures, to calculate GDP per capita.

4. Central Banks: In some cases, central banks may also provide GDP per capita data for their respective countries. They often publish economic indicators and reports that include GDP per capita figures.

When using GDP per capita data, it's important to note that it represents an average measure and does not necessarily reflect the distribution of wealth within a country. Additionally, GDP per capita figures are often adjusted for inflation to provide real GDP per capita, which accounts for changes in the purchasing power of money over time.

To access the most up-to-date and accurate GDP per capita data, it is recommended to refer to reputable sources mentioned above or consult the official websites of international organizations, government agencies, or central banks that specialize in economic data and analysis.

This fileset contains the supplement, the data and the replication code for the paper "Coastal Proximity and Individual Living Standards: Econometric Evidence from Geo-Referenced Household Surveys in Sub-Saharan Africa"

Abstract: We investigate geo-referenced household-level data consisting of up to 128,609 individuals living in 11,261 localities across 17 coastal sub-Saharan African countries over 20 years. We analyze the relevance of coastal proximity, measured by geographic distance to harbors, as a predictor of individual economic living standards. Our setting allows us to account for country-time fixed effects as well as individual-specific controls. Results reveal that individuals living further away from the coast are significantly poorer measured along an array of welfare indicators. Our findings are robust to the inclusion of other geographic covariates of development such as climate (e.g. temperature, precipitation) or terrain conditions (e.g. ruggedness, land suitability). We also explore mechanisms through which coastal proximity may matter for individual welfare and decompose the estimated effect of coastal proximity via formal mediation analysis. Our results highlight the role of human capital, urbanization as well as infrastructural endowments in explaining within-country differences in individual economic welfare.

This statistic depicts the age distribution in the United States from 2014 to 2024. In 2024, about 17.32 percent of the U.S. population fell into the 0-14 year category, 64.75 percent into the 15-64 age group and 17.93 percent of the population were over 65 years of age. The increasing population of the United States The United States of America is one of the most populated countries in the world, trailing just behind China and India. A total population count of around 320 million inhabitants and a more-or-less steady population growth over the past decade indicate that the country has steadily improved its living conditions and standards for the population. Leading healthier lifestyles and improved living conditions have resulted in a steady increase of the life expectancy at birth in the United States. Life expectancies of men and women at birth in the United States were at a record high in 2012. Furthermore, a constant fertility rate in recent years and a decrease in the death rate and infant mortality, all due to the improved standard of living and health care conditions, have helped not only the American population to increase but as a result, the share of the population younger than 15 and older than 65 years has also increased in recent years, as can be seen above.

Judgement on economic and social conditions in the USA in comparison to the FRG.

Topics: Development of personal economic conditions and the standard of living in the FRG; reasons for the so-called economic miracle and share of the USA in the economic recovery; perceived linking of German economic development with other countries; attitude to a European Common Market; reasons for the high American standard of living; comparison between the USA and the FRG regarding working conditions, productivity, social security and job security of workers; image of Americans; knowledge of economic data of the USA; investment inclination; attitude to the competitive economy; assumed ownership of various branches of the economy in the FRG and in the USA, differences according to government and private; expected influence of the American government on the economy and vice versa; estimated proportion of members of the middle classes; image of American agriculture; judgement on the ideological influence of the USA on the FRG; sources of information about America; membership in clubs and organizations and offices taken on; party preference; self-assessment of social class; local residency.

Demography: age (classified); marital status; religious denomination; school education; occupation; employment; household income; state; refugee status.

Interviewer rating: social class and willingness of respondent to cooperate; number of contact attempts.

Also encoded were: age of interviewer and sex of interviewer; city size.

This map compares the number of people living above the poverty line to the number of people living below. Why do this?There are people living below the poverty line everywhere. Nearly every area of the country has a balance of people living above the poverty line and people living below it. There is not an "ideal" balance, so this map makes good use of the national ratio of 6 persons living above the poverty line for every 1 person living below it. Please consider that there is constant movement of people above and below the poverty threshold, as they gain better employment or lose a job; as they encounter a new family situation, natural disaster, health issue, major accident or other crisis. There are areas that suffer chronic poverty year after year. This map does not indicate how long people in the area have been below the poverty line. "The poverty rate is one of several socioeconomic indicators used by policy makers to evaluate economic conditions. It measures the percentage of people whose income fell below the poverty threshold. Federal and state governments use such estimates to allocate funds to local communities. Local communities use these estimates to identify the number of individuals or families eligible for various programs." Source: U.S. Census BureauIn the U.S. overall, there are 6 people living above the poverty line for every 1 household living below. Green areas on the map have a higher than normal number of people living above compared to below poverty. Orange areas on the map have a higher than normal number of people living below the poverty line compared to those above in that same area.The map shows the ratio for counties and census tracts, using these layers, created directly from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS)For comparison, an older layer using 2013 ACS data is also provided.The layers are updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. Poverty status is based on income in past 12 months of survey. Current Vintage: 2014-2018ACS Table(s): B17020Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2010 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -555555...) have been set to null. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. NOTE: any calculated percentages or counts that contain estimates that have null margins of error yield null margins of error for the calculated fields.

Cumulative Percentage of American Adults Experiencing Various Years of Household Affluence (Standard Errors in Parentheses).*

In 2024, the U.S. GDP increased from the previous year to about 29.18 trillion U.S. dollars. Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all goods and services produced within a country. In 2024, the United States has the largest economy in the world. What is GDP? Gross domestic product is one of the most important indicators used to analyze the health of an economy. GDP is defined by the BEA as the market value of goods and services produced by labor and property in the United States, regardless of nationality. It is the primary measure of U.S. production. The OECD defines GDP as an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident, institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs). GDP and national debt Although the United States had the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the world in 2022, this does not tell us much about the quality of life in any given country. GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) is an economic measurement that is thought to be a better method for comparing living standards across countries because it accounts for domestic inflation and variations in the cost of living. While the United States might have the largest economy, the country that ranked highest in terms of GDP at PPP was Luxembourg, amounting to around 141,333 international dollars per capita. Singapore, Ireland, and Qatar also ranked highly on the GDP PPP list, and the United States ranked 9th in 2022.

Data SourcesAmerican Community Survey (ACS):Conducted by: U.S. Census BureauDescription: The ACS is an ongoing survey that provides detailed demographic and socio-economic data on the population and housing characteristics of the United States.Content: The survey collects information on various topics such as income, education, employment, health insurance coverage, and housing costs and conditions.Frequency: The ACS offers more frequent and up-to-date information compared to the decennial census, with annual estimates produced based on a rolling sample of households.Purpose: ACS data is essential for policymakers, researchers, and communities to make informed decisions and address the evolving needs of the population.CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI):Created by: ATSDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP)Utilized by: CDCDescription: The SVI is designed to identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events.Content: SVI ranks U.S. Census tracts based on 15 social factors, including unemployment, minority status, and disability, and groups them into four related themes. Each tract receives rankings for each Census variable and for each theme, as well as an overall ranking, indicating its relative vulnerability.Purpose: SVI data provides insights into the social vulnerability of communities at both the tract and zip code levels, helping public health officials and emergency response planners allocate resources effectively.Utilization and IntegrationBy integrating data from both the ACS and the SVI, this dataset enables an in-depth analysis and understanding of various socio-economic and demographic indicators at the census tract level. This integrated data is valuable for research, policymaking, and community planning purposes, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of social and economic dynamics across different geographical areas in the United States.ApplicationsTargeted Interventions: Facilitates the development of targeted interventions to address the needs of vulnerable populations within specific zip codes.Resource Allocation: Assists emergency response planners in allocating resources more effectively based on community vulnerability at the zip code level.Research: Provides a rich dataset for academic and applied research in socio-economic and demographic studies at a granular zip code level.Community Planning: Supports the planning and development of community programs and initiatives aimed at improving living conditions and reducing vulnerabilities within specific zip code areas.Note: Due to limitations in the data environment, variable names may be truncated. Refer to the provided table for a clear understanding of the variables. CSV Variable NameShapefile Variable NameDescriptionStateNameStateNameName of the stateStateFipsStateFipsState-level FIPS codeState nameStateNameName of the stateCountyNameCountyNameName of the countyCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeState abbreviationStateFipsState abbreviationCountyFipsCountyFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCounty nameCountyNameName of the countyAREA_SQMIAREA_SQMITract area in square milesE_TOTPOPE_TOTPOPPopulation estimates, 2013-2017 ACSEP_POVEP_POVPercentage of persons below poverty estimateEP_UNEMPEP_UNEMPUnemployment Rate estimateEP_HBURDEP_HBURDHousing cost burdened occupied housing units with annual income less than $75,000EP_UNINSUREP_UNINSURUninsured in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_PCIEP_PCIPer capita income estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_DISABLEP_DISABLPercentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_SNGPNTEP_SNGPNTPercentage of single parent households with children under 18 estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_MINRTYEP_MINRTYPercentage minority (all persons except white, non-Hispanic) estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_LIMENGEP_LIMENGPercentage of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_MUNITEP_MUNITPercentage of housing in structures with 10 or more units estimateEP_MOBILEEP_MOBILEPercentage of mobile homes estimateEP_CROWDEP_CROWDPercentage of occupied housing units with more people than rooms estimateEP_NOVEHEP_NOVEHPercentage of households with no vehicle available estimateEP_GROUPQEP_GROUPQPercentage of persons in group quarters estimate, 2014-2018 ACSBelow_5_yrBelow_5_yrUnder 5 years: Percentage of Total populationBelow_18_yrBelow_18_yrUnder 18 years: Percentage of Total population18-39_yr18_39_yr18-39 years: Percentage of Total population40-64_yr40_64_yr40-64 years: Percentage of Total populationAbove_65_yrAbove_65_yrAbove 65 years: Percentage of Total populationPop_malePop_malePercentage of total population malePop_femalePop_femalePercentage of total population femaleWhitewhitePercentage population of white aloneBlackblackPercentage population of black or African American aloneAmerican_indianamerican_iPercentage population of American Indian and Alaska native aloneAsianasianPercentage population of Asian aloneHawaiian_pacific_islanderhawaiian_pPercentage population of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander aloneSome_othersome_otherPercentage population of some other race aloneMedian_tot_householdsmedian_totMedian household income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) by household size – total householdsLess_than_high_schoolLess_than_Percentage of Educational attainment for the population less than 9th grades and 9th to 12th grade, no diploma estimateHigh_schoolHigh_schooPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of High school graduate (includes equivalency)Some_collegeSome_collePercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Some college, no degreeAssociates_degreeAssociatesPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of associate degreeBachelor’s_degreeBachelor_sPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Bachelor’s degreeMaster’s_degreeMaster_s_dPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Graduate or professional degreecomp_devicescomp_devicPercentage of Household having one or more types of computing devicesInternetInternetPercentage of Household with an Internet subscriptionBroadbandBroadbandPercentage of Household having Broadband of any typeSatelite_internetSatelite_iPercentage of Household having Satellite Internet serviceNo_internetNo_internePercentage of Household having No Internet accessNo_computerNo_computePercentage of Household having No computerThis table provides a mapping between the CSV variable names and the shapefile variable names, along with a brief description of each variable.

Abstract

By the middle of the 1990s, Indonesia had enjoyed over three decades of remarkable social, economic, and demographic change and was on the cusp of joining the middle-income countries. Per capita income had risen more than fifteenfold since the early 1960s, from around US$50 to more than US$800. Increases in educational attainment and decreases in fertility and infant mortality over the same period reflected impressive investments in infrastructure.

In the late 1990s the economic outlook began to change as Indonesia was gripped by the economic crisis that affected much of Asia. In 1998 the rupiah collapsed, the economy went into a tailspin, and gross domestic product contracted by an estimated 12-15%-a decline rivaling the magnitude of the Great Depression.

The general trend of several decades of economic progress followed by a few years of economic downturn masks considerable variation across the archipelago in the degree both of economic development and of economic setbacks related to the crisis. In part this heterogeneity reflects the great cultural and ethnic diversity of Indonesia, which in turn makes it a rich laboratory for research on a number of individual- and household-level behaviors and outcomes that interest social scientists.

The Indonesia Family Life Survey is designed to provide data for studying behaviors and outcomes. The survey contains a wealth of information collected at the individual and household levels, including multiple indicators of economic and non-economic well-being: consumption, income, assets, education, migration, labor market outcomes, marriage, fertility, contraceptive use, health status, use of health care and health insurance, relationships among co-resident and non- resident family members, processes underlying household decision-making, transfers among family members and participation in community activities. In addition to individual- and household-level information, the IFLS provides detailed information from the communities in which IFLS households are located and from the facilities that serve residents of those communities. These data cover aspects of the physical and social environment, infrastructure, employment opportunities, food prices, access to health and educational facilities, and the quality and prices of services available at those facilities. By linking data from IFLS households to data from their communities, users can address many important questions regarding the impact of policies on the lives of the respondents, as well as document the effects of social, economic, and environmental change on the population.

The Indonesia Family Life Survey complements and extends the existing survey data available for Indonesia, and for developing countries in general, in a number of ways.

First, relatively few large-scale longitudinal surveys are available for developing countries. IFLS is the only large-scale longitudinal survey available for Indonesia. Because data are available for the same individuals from multiple points in time, IFLS affords an opportunity to understand the dynamics of behavior, at the individual, household and family and community levels. In IFLS1 7,224 households were interviewed, and detailed individual-level data were collected from over 22,000 individuals. In IFLS2, 94.4% of IFLS1 households were re-contacted (interviewed or died). In IFLS3 the re-contact rate was 95.3% of IFLS1 households. Indeed nearly 91% of IFLS1 households are complete panel households in that they were interviewed in all three waves, IFLS1, 2 and 3. These re-contact rates are as high as or higher than most longitudinal surveys in the United States and Europe. High re-interview rates were obtained in part because we were committed to tracking and interviewing individuals who had moved or split off from the origin IFLS1 households. High re-interview rates contribute significantly to data quality in a longitudinal survey because they lessen the risk of bias due to nonrandom attrition in studies using the data.

Second, the multipurpose nature of IFLS instruments means that the data support analyses of interrelated issues not possible with single-purpose surveys. For example, the availability of data on household consumption together with detailed individual data on labor market outcomes, health outcomes and on health program availability and quality at the community level means that one can examine the impact of income on health outcomes, but also whether health in turn affects incomes.

Third, IFLS collected both current and retrospective information on most topics. With data from multiple points of time on current status and an extensive array of retrospective information about the lives of respondents, analysts can relate dynamics to events that occurred in the past. For example, changes in labor outcomes in recent years can be explored as a function of earlier decisions about schooling and work.

Fourth, IFLS collected extensive measures of health status, including self-reported measures of general health status, morbidity experience, and physical assessments conducted by a nurse (height, weight, head circumference, blood pressure, pulse, waist and hip circumference, hemoglobin level, lung capacity, and time required to repeatedly rise from a sitting position). These data provide a much richer picture of health status than is typically available in household surveys. For example, the data can be used to explore relationships between socioeconomic status and an array of health outcomes.

Fifth, in all waves of the survey, detailed data were collected about respondents¹ communities and public and private facilities available for their health care and schooling. The facility data can be combined with household and individual data to examine the relationship between, for example, access to health services (or changes in access) and various aspects of health care use and health status.

Sixth, because the waves of IFLS span the period from several years before the economic crisis hit Indonesia, to just prior to it hitting, to one year and then three years after, extensive research can be carried out regarding the living conditions of Indonesian households during this very tumultuous period. In sum, the breadth and depth of the longitudinal information on individuals, households, communities, and facilities make IFLS data a unique resource for scholars and policymakers interested in the processes of economic development.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Communities
• Facilities
• Households
• Individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Because it is a longitudinal survey, the IFLS2 drew its sample from IFLS1. The IFLS1 sampling scheme stratified on provinces and urban/rural location, then randomly sampled within these strata. Provinces were selected to maximize representation of the population, capture the cultural and socioeconomic diversity of Indonesia, and be cost-effective to survey given the size and terrain of the country. For mainly cost-effectiveness reasons, 14 provinces were excluded. The resulting sample included 13 of Indonesia's 27 provinces containing 83% of the population: four provinces on Sumatra (North Sumatra, West Sumatra, South Sumatra, and Lampung), all five of the Javanese provinces (DKI Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, DI Yogyakarta, and East Java), and four provinces covering the remaining major island groups (Bali, West Nusa Tenggara, South Kalimantan, and South Sulawesi). Within each of the 13 provinces, enumeration areas (EAs) were randomly chosen from a nationally representative sample frame used in the 1993 SUSENAS, a socioeconomic survey of about 60,000 households. The IFLS randomly selected 321 enumeration areas in the 13 provinces, oversampling urban EAs and EAs in smaller provinces to facilitate urban-rural and Javanese-non-Javanese comparisons.

Household Survey Within a selected EA, households were randomly selected based upon 1993 SUSENAS listings obtained from regional BPS office. A household was defined as a group of people whose members reside in the same dwelling and share food from the same cooking pot (the standard BPS definition). Twenty households were selected from each urban EA, and 30 households were selected from each rural EA. This strategy minimized expensive travel between rural EAs while balancing the costs of correlations among households. For IFLS1 a total of 7,730 households were sampled to obtain a final sample size goal of 7,000 completed households. This strategy was based on BPS experience of about 90% completion rates. In fact, IFLS1 exceeded that target and interviews were conducted with 7,224 households in late 1993 and early 1994.

In IFLS1 it was determined to be too costly to interview all household members, so a sampling scheme was used to randomly select several members within a household to provide detailed individual information. IFLS1 conducted detailed interviews with the following household members: • the household head and his/her spouse • two randomly selected children of the head and spouse age 0 to 14 • an individual age 50 or older and his/her spouse, randomly selected from remaining members • for a randomly selected 25% of the households, an individual age 15 to 49 and his/her spouse, randomly selected from remaining members.

IFLS2 Recontact Protocols In IFLS2 our goal was to relocate and reinterview the 7,224 households interviewed in 1993. If no members of the household were found in the 1993 interview location, we asked local residents (including an informant identified by the household in 1993) where the household had gone. If the household was thought to be within any of the 13 IFLS provinces, the household was tracked to the new location and if

Distribution of households by per capita equivalent total income (on average per month).

In 2025, Luxembourg was the country with the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world. Of the 20 listed countries, 13 are in Europe and five are in Asia, alongside the U.S. and Australia. There are no African or Latin American countries among the top 20. Correlation with high living standards While GDP is a useful indicator for measuring the size or strength of an economy, GDP per capita is much more reflective of living standards. For example, when compared to life expectancy or indices such as the Human Development Index or the World Happiness Report, there is a strong overlap - 14 of the 20 countries on this list are also ranked among the 20 happiest countries in 2024, and all 20 have "very high" HDIs. Misleading metrics? GDP per capita figures, however, can be misleading, and to paint a fuller picture of a country's living standards then one must look at multiple metrics. GDP per capita figures can be skewed by inequalities in wealth distribution, and in countries such as those in the Middle East, a relatively large share of the population lives in poverty while a smaller number live affluent lifestyles.

The statistic shows the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States from 1987 to 2024, with projections up until 2030. The gross domestic product of the United States in 2024 amounted to around 29.18 trillion U.S. dollars. The United States and the economy The United States’ economy is by far the largest in the world; a status which can be determined by several key factors, one being gross domestic product: A look at the GDP of the main industrialized and emerging countries shows a significant difference between US GDP and the GDP of China, the runner-up in the ranking, as well as the followers Japan, Germany and France. Interestingly, it is assumed that China will have surpassed the States in terms of GDP by 2030, but for now, the United States is among the leading countries in almost all other relevant rankings and statistics, trade and employment for example. See the U.S. GDP growth rate here. Just like in other countries, the American economy suffered a severe setback when the economic crisis occurred in 2008. The American economy entered a recession caused by the collapsing real estate market and increasing unemployment. Despite this, the standard of living is considered quite high; life expectancy in the United States has been continually increasing slightly over the past decade, the unemployment rate in the United States has been steadily recovering and decreasing since the crisis, and the Big Mac Index, which represents the global prices for a Big Mac, a popular indicator for the purchasing power of an economy, shows that the United States’ purchasing power in particular is only slightly lower than that of the euro area.

Distribution of households with per capita equivalent money income for a month below subsistence line, %.