About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Middle Inlet, Wisconsin, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 21,360, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 162,915. This indicates that the top earners earn 8 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 282,509, which is 173.41% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 1322.61% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Middle Inlet town median household income. You can refer the same here

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 46.900 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 46.400 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 46.000 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 46.900 % in 2016 and a record low of 41.200 % in 1979. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

This dataset contains replication files for "The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940" by Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/the-fading-american-dream/. A summary of the related publication follows. One of the defining features of the “American Dream” is the ideal that children have a higher standard of living than their parents. We assess whether the U.S. is living up to this ideal by estimating rates of “absolute income mobility” – the fraction of children who earn more than their parents – since 1940. We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size. Absolute mobility fell in all 50 states, although the rate of decline varied, with the largest declines concentrated in states in the industrial Midwest, such as Michigan and Illinois. The decline in absolute mobility is especially steep – from 95% for children born in 1940 to 41% for children born in 1984 – when we compare the sons’ earnings to their fathers’ earnings. Why have rates of upward income mobility fallen so sharply over the past half-century? There have been two important trends that have affected the incomes of children born in the 1980s relative to those born in the 1940s and 1950s: lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates and greater inequality in the distribution of growth. We find that most of the decline in absolute mobility is driven by the more unequal distribution of economic growth rather than the slowdown in aggregate growth rates. When we simulate an economy that restores GDP growth to the levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s but distributes that growth across income groups as it is distributed today, absolute mobility only increases to 62%. In contrast, maintaining GDP at its current level but distributing it more broadly across income groups – at it was distributed for children born in the 1940s – would increase absolute mobility to 80%, thereby reversing more than two-thirds of the decline in absolute mobility. These findings show that higher growth rates alone are insufficient to restore absolute mobility to the levels experienced in mid-century America. Under the current distribution of GDP, we would need real GDP growth rates above 6% per year to return to rates of absolute mobility in the 1940s. Intuitively, because a large fraction of GDP goes to a small fraction of high-income households today, higher GDP growth does not substantially increase the number of children who earn more than their parents. Of course, this does not mean that GDP growth does not matter: changing the distribution of growth naturally has smaller effects on absolute mobility when there is very little growth to be distributed. The key point is that increasing absolute mobility substantially would require more broad-based economic growth. We conclude that absolute mobility has declined sharply in America over the past half-century primarily because of the growth in inequality. If one wants to revive the “American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility, one must have an interest in growth that is shared more broadly across the income distribution.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Sands Point, NY, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 62,342, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 1,206,232. This indicates that the top earners earn 19 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 1,779,703, which is 147.54% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 2854.74% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Sands Point median household income. You can refer the same here

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.

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;

Content

The World Bank classifies the world's economies into four income groups — high, upper-middle, lower-middle, and low. We base this assignment on Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (current US$) calculated using the Atlas method. The classification is updated each year on July 1st.

The classification of countries is determined by two factors:

A country’s GNI per capita, which can change with economic growth, inflation, exchange rates, and population. Revisions to national accounts methods and data can also influence GNI per capita.
Classification threshold: The thresholds are adjusted for inflation annually using the SDR deflator.

Check this link for more: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-country-classifications-income-level-2019-2020

Source

https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups

Ghana GH: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data was reported at 5.400 % in 2012. This records an increase from the previous number of 5.200 % for 2005. Ghana GH: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 6.200 % from Dec 1987 (Median) to 2012, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 7.000 % in 1988 and a record low of 5.200 % in 2005. Ghana GH: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Ghana – Table GH.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.

Kenya Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate data was reported at -1.180 % in 2021. Kenya Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate data is updated yearly, averaging -1.180 % from Dec 2021 (Median) to 2021, with 1 observations. The data reached an all-time high of -1.180 % in 2021 and a record low of -1.180 % in 2021. Kenya Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Kenya – Table KE.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The growth rate in the welfare aggregate of the bottom 40% is computed as the annualized average growth rate in per capita real consumption or income of the bottom 40% of the population in the income distribution in a country from household surveys over a roughly 5-year period. Mean per capita real consumption or income is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries means are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The annualized growth rate is computed as (Mean in final year/Mean in initial year)^(1/(Final year - Initial year)) - 1. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported. The initial year refers to the nearest survey collected 5 years before the most recent survey available, only surveys collected between 3 and 7 years before the most recent survey are considered. The coverage and quality of the 2017 PPP price data for Iraq and most other North African and Middle Eastern countries were hindered by the exceptional period of instability they faced at the time of the 2017 exercise of the International Comparison Program. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform for detailed explanations.;World Bank, Global Database of Shared Prosperity (GDSP) (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/brief/global-database-of-shared-prosperity).;;The comparability of welfare aggregates (consumption or income) for the chosen years T0 and T1 is assessed for every country. If comparability across the two surveys is a major concern for a country, the selection criteria are re-applied to select the next best survey year(s). Annualized growth rates are calculated between the survey years, using a compound growth formula. The survey years defining the period for which growth rates are calculated and the type of welfare aggregate used to calculate the growth rates are noted in the footnotes.

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 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.

The data set records the main indicators of urban household survey in Qinghai Province from 1984 to 2008, and the data are divided by industry, region and purpose. The data are collected from the statistical yearbook of Qinghai Province issued by the Bureau of statistics of Qinghai Province. The data set contains 20 data tables, which are: Main Indicators of urban household survey 1984-1998.xls, main indicators of urban household survey 1984-1999.xls, main indicators of urban household survey 1990-2000.xls, basic information of Urban Households (2001) 2001.xls, etc. The data table structure is the same. For example, the data table in 2001 has six fields: Field 1: low income households Field 2: lower middle class Field 3: Middle Income Households Field 4: upper middle class Field 5: high income account Field 6: highest income account

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Winchester, VA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 14,125, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 215,015. This indicates that the top earners earn 15 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 344,621, which is 160.28% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 2439.79% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Winchester median household income. You can refer the same here

South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Third 20% data was reported at 8.200 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 8.000 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Third 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 8.200 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 9.900 % in 2000 and a record low of 7.500 % in 2005. South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Third 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.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.

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.

This data set accompanies the following paper:Vasileios Lampos, Nikolaos Aletras, Gens Jeyti, Bin Zou and Ingemar J. Cox. Inferring the Socioeconomic Status of Social Media Users based on Behaviour and Language. Proceedings of the 38th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR), 2016.Data description- Temporal resolution: February 1, 2014 to March 21, 2015- data_matrix.csv: Main input file. Each line represents a user (1342 users in total). See below for the interpretation of the dimensions (columns) related to textual content. Dimensions 1284 to 1287 contain the ratios of user replies, mentions (of other accounts), retweets (of tweets from other accounts) and unique mentions (of other accounts) over the total number of tweets of a particular user, respectively. Dimensions 1288 to 1291 contain the log-number of followers+1, followees+1, listings+1 and the impact score for a particular user. The definition of the impact score has been adopted from the following paper: V. Lampos, N. Aletras, D. Preotiuc-Pietro and T. Cohn. Predicting and Characterising User Impact on Twitter. Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), pages 405–413, 2014.- sec_labels.txt: Socioeconomic status class labels for each user; 1,2 and 3 denote the upper, middle and lower socioeconomic classes respectively. Each line of sec_label.txt corresponds to a line of data_matrix.csv.- voc_1grams.txt: Vocabulary index of frequent 1-grams extracted from the users' tweets. Represents dimensions 1 to 560 from data_matrix.csv.- voc_bio_1grams.txt: Vocabulary index of 1-grams in the bio description of the users. Represents dimensions 561 to 786 from data_matrix.csv.- voc_bio_2grams.txt: Vocabulary index of 2-grams in the bio description of the users. Represents dimensions 787 to 1083 from data_matrix.csv.- voc_clusters.txt: Vocabulary index used in the formation of clusters.- voc_clusters_ids.csv: Each line contains the 1-gram ids (line numbers) from voc_clusters.txt that are members of a cluster. In total we have derived 200 clusters, represented by dimensions 1084 to 1283 in data_matrix.csv.

With few dissenting voices, the historiography of twentieth-century British civil society has been relayed through a prism of continuing and escalating elite disengagement. Within a paradigm of declinism, academics, politicians, and social commentators have contrasted a nineteenth and early twentieth century past, offering a richness of social commitment, against a present characterized by lowering standards in urban governance and civic disengagement. Put simply, as we entered the twentieth century the right sorts of people were no longer volunteering. Yet the data for such claims is insubstantial for we lack detailed empirical studies of social trends of urban volunteering across the first fifty years of the twentieth century. This dataset fills that void. It offers details of those involved in local politics, who were magistrates or poor law guardians, or who helped manage or represent one of 34 voluntary associations serving one ‘typical’ large city - Nottingham - and the surrounding county between 1900 and 1950. The sample covers a range of voluntary activities from the smallest to the largest of charities and associations. Three quarters of people captured by the data set lived within the city boundary. The clear majority of those sampled were middle class, only 10 per cent being working class, and 1.5 per cent upper class. Within this middle class there were major disparities in wealth, income, status, lifestyle, and self-view. Broken down, about 29 per cent of the sample overall were upper middle class, 43 per cent middle middle class, and 17 per cent lower middle class. Middle-class numbers in Nottingham, at about 22.5 per cent of the population, were roughly comparable with other Northern or Midland industrial cities. Its occupational distribution also approximately mirrored that of England.

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

This data set records the average annual consumption expenditure per capita of urban households in Qinghai Province (1985-2004), and the data is divided by region. The data are collected from the statistical yearbook of Qinghai Province issued by the Bureau of statistics of Qinghai Province. The data set consists of four tables Average annual consumption expenditure per capita of Urban Households (2001) 2001.xls Average annual consumption expenditure per capita of Urban Households (2002) 2002.xls Average annual consumption expenditure of urban households 1985-2003.xls The average annual consumption expenditure per capita of urban households in 2004.xls. The data table structure is the same. For example, there are 10 fields in the data table from 1985 to 2003 Field 1: Project Field 2: total average Field 3: minimum income account Field 4: lower account Field 5: low income households Field 6: lower middle class Field 7: Middle Income Households Field 8: upper middle class Field 9: high income account Field 10: highest income account

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.