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

About this dataset

Context

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

Key observations

• For Family Households: In Alaska, the majority of family households, representing 18.08%, earn $200,000 or more, showcasing a substantial share of the community families falling within this income bracket. Conversely, the minority of family households, comprising 1.29%, have incomes falling $30,000 to $34,999, representing a smaller but still significant segment of the community.
• For Non-Family Households: In Alaska, the majority of non-family households, accounting for 13.93%, have income $75,000 to $99,999, indicating that a substantial portion of non-family households falls within this income bracket. On the other hand, the minority of non-family households, comprising 4.25%, earn $30,000 to $34,999, representing a smaller, yet notable, portion of non-family households in the community.

Content

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

Income Levels:

• Less than $10,000
• $10,000 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $19,999
• $20,000 to $24,999
• $25,000 to $29,999
• $30,000 to $34,999
• $35,000 to $39,999
• $40,000 to $44,999
• $45,000 to $49,999
• $50,000 to $59,999
• $60,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $125,000 to $149,999
• $150,000 to $199,999
• $200,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

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

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 Alaska median household income. You can refer the same here

Abstract

The Health Inequality Project uses big data to measure differences in life expectancy by income across areas and identify strategies to improve health outcomes for low-income Americans.

Section 7

This table reports life expectancy point estimates and standard errors for men and women at age 40 for each percentile of the national income distribution. Both race-adjusted and unadjusted estimates are reported.

Source

Section 13

This table reports life expectancy point estimates and standard errors for men and women at age 40 for each percentile of the national income distribution separately by year. Both race-adjusted and unadjusted estimates are reported.

Source

Section 6

This dataset was created on 2020-01-10 18:53:00.508 by merging multiple datasets together. The source datasets for this version were:

Commuting Zone Life Expectancy Estimates by year: CZ-level by-year life expectancy estimates for men and women, by income quartile

Commuting Zone Life Expectancy: Commuting zone (CZ)-level life expectancy estimates for men and women, by income quartile

Commuting Zone Life Expectancy Trends: CZ-level estimates of trends in life expectancy for men and women, by income quartile

Commuting Zone Characteristics: CZ-level characteristics

Commuting Zone Life Expectancy for larger populations: CZ-level life expectancy estimates for men and women, by income ventile

Section 15

This table reports life expectancy point estimates and standard errors for men and women at age 40 for each quartile of the national income distribution by state of residence and year. Both race-adjusted and unadjusted estimates are reported.

Source

Section 11

This table reports US mortality rates by gender, age, year and household income percentile. Household incomes are measured two years prior to the mortality rate for mortality rates at ages 40-63, and at age 61 for mortality rates at ages 64-76. The “lag” variable indicates the number of years between measurement of income and mortality.

Observations with 1 or 2 deaths have been masked: all mortality rates that reflect only 1 or 2 deaths have been recoded to reflect 3 deaths

Source

Section 3

This table reports coefficients and standard errors from regressions of life expectancy estimates for men and women at age 40 for each quartile of the national income distribution on calendar year by commuting zone of residence. Only the slope coefficient, representing the average increase or decrease in life expectancy per year, is reported. Trend estimates for both race-adjusted and unadjusted life expectancies are reported. Estimates are reported for the 100 largest CZs (populations greater than 590,000) only.

Source

Section 9

This table reports life expectancy estimates at age 40 for Males and Females for all countries. Source: World Health Organization, accessed at: http://apps.who.int/gho/athena/

Source

Section 10

This table reports life expectancy point estimates and standard errors for men and women at age 40 for each quartile of the national income distribution by county of residence. Both race-adjusted and unadjusted estimates are reported. Estimates are reported for counties with populations larger than 25,000 only

Source

Section 2

This table reports life expectancy point estimates and standard errors for men and women at age 40 for each quartile of the national income distribution by commuting zone of residence and year. Both race-adjusted and unadjusted estimates are reported. Estimates are reported for the 100 largest CZs (populations greater than 590,000) only.

Source

Section 8

This table reports US population and death counts by age, year, and sex from various sources. Counts labelled “dm1” are derived from the Social Security Administration Data Master 1 file. Counts labelled “irs” are derived from tax data. Counts labelled “cdc” are derived from NCHS life tables.

Source

Section 12

This table reports numerous county characteristics, compiled from various sources. These characteristics are described in the county life expectancy table.

Two variables constructed by the Cen

This data resource includes layers in a map service. To download it, please go to the "Layers" section of this page and click the name of the dataset. This will open a new page that features a download button. Open the Map Service: https://gis.chesapeakebay.net/ags/rest/services/WIP/MEB_DEIJ_07082024/MapServer This downloadable dataset complements an interactive map and story map. A total of $23 million has been directed to support Most Effective Basins (MEB) implementation in FY2024. MEBs targeted for this funding were identified based on load effectiveness, which is a measure of the ability of management practices implemented in each area (basin) to have a positive effect on dissolved oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay. Unless otherwise approved, implementation activities are expected to occur within these areas.

Upper income limit, income share and average of market, total and after-tax income by economic family type and income decile, annual.

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

This dataset was derived from federal data collected by the Census Bureau and Environmental Protection Agency and originally made available to the public on July 31, 2024. These data provide both summary and detailed information at the Census block group level for both demographic and environmental indicators.These data were selected from the Harvard Environment and Law Data (HELD) Collection to inform environmental justice in New York State. The data was uploaded to the HELD Collection on December 3rd, 2024 and downloaded by NYSDOS-OPDCI for service to the Geographic Information Gateway via this item on March 18th, 2025.This dataset is intended to act as the basis for various View Layers including:Low Income PopulationPeople of ColorPopulation with less than a High School EducationLinguistically Isolated PopulationPopulation Under 5 Years of AgePopulation Over 64 Years of AgeLead Paint Hazard RiskAir Toxics and Respiratory Hazard RiskAir Quality by Particulate MatterAir Quality by Diesel Particulate MatterOzone ConcentrationTraffic Proximity and VolumeSuperfund (CERCLA) Site ProximityRisk Management Plan Facility ProximityHazardous Waste ProximityWater Pollution Hazard RiskWastewater Discharge

These geospatial data resources and the linked mapping tool below reflect currently available data on three categories of potentially qualifying Low-Income communities: Census tracts that meet the CDFI's New Market Tax Credit Program's threshold for Low Income, thereby are able to apply to Category 1. Census tracts that meet the White House's Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool's threshold for disadvantage in the 'Energy' category, thereby are able to apply for Additional Selection Criteria Geography. Counties that meet the USDA's threshold for Persistent Poverty, thereby are able to apply for Additional Selection Criteria Geography. Note that Category 2 - Indian Lands are not shown on this map. Note that Persistent Poverty is not calculated for US Territories. Note that CEJST Energy disadvantage is not calculated for US Territories besides Puerto Rico. The excel tool provides the land area percentage of each 2023 census tract meeting each of the above categories. To examine geographic eligibility for a specific address or latitude and longitude, visit the program's mapping tool. Additional information on this tax credit program can be found on the DOE Landing Page for the 48e program at https://www.energy.gov/diversity/low-income-communities-bonus-credit-program or the IRS Landing Page at https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/low-income-communities-bonus-credit. Maps last updated: September 1st, 2024 Next map update expected: December 7th, 2024 Disclaimer: The spatial data and mapping tool is intended for geolocation purposes. It should not be relied upon by taxpayers to determine eligibility for the Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program. Source Acknowledgements: The New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) Tract layer using data from the 2016-2020 ACS is from the CDFI Information Mapping System (CIMS) and is created by the U.S. Department of Treasury Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. To learn more, visit CDFI Information Mapping System (CIMS) | Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (cdfifund.gov). https://www.cdfifund.gov/mapping-system. Tracts are displayed that meet the threshold for the New Market Tax Credit Program. The 'Energy' Category Tract layer from the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) is created by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) within the Executive Office of the President. To learn more, visit https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/. Tracts are displayed that meet the threshold for the 'Energy' Category of burden. I.e., census tracts that are at or above the 90th percentile for (energy burden OR PM2.5 in the air) AND are at or above the 65th percentile for low income. The Persistent Poverty County layer is created by joining the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service's Poverty Area Official Measures dataset, with relevant county TIGER/Line Shapefiles from the US Census Bureau. To learn more, visit https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/poverty-area-measures/. Counties are displayed that meet the thresholds for Persistent Poverty according to 'Official' USDA updates. i.e. areas with a poverty rate of 20.0 percent or more for 4 consecutive time periods, about 10 years apart, spanning approximately 30 years (baseline time period plus 3 evaluation time periods). Until Dec 7th, 2024 both the USDA estimates using 2007-2011 and 2017-2021 ACS 5-year data. On Dec 8th, 2024, only the USDA estimates using 2017-2021 data will be accepted for program eligibility.

The Distributional Financial Accounts (DFAs) provide a quarterly measure of the distribution of U.S. household wealth since 1989, based on a comprehensive integration of disaggregated household-level wealth data with official aggregate wealth measures. The data set contains the level and share of each balance sheet item on the Financial Accounts' household wealth table (Table B.101.h), for various sub-populations in the United States. In our core data set, aggregate household wealth is allocated to each of four percentile groups of wealth: the top 1 percent, the next 9 percent (i.e., 90th to 99th percentile), the next 40 percent (50th to 90th percentile), and the bottom half (below the 50th percentile). Additionally, the data set contains the level and share of aggregate household wealth by income, age, generation, education, and race. The quarterly frequency makes the data useful for studying the business cycle dynamics of wealth concentration--which are typically difficult to observe in lower-frequency data because peaks and troughs often fall between times of measurement. These data will be updated about 10 or 11 weeks after the end of each quarter, making them a timely measure of the distribution of wealth.

Families of tax filers; Distribution of total income by census family type and age of older partner, parent or individual (final T1 Family File; T1FF).

Household income statistics by household type (couple family, one-parent family, non-census family households) and household size for Canada, provinces and territories, census divisions and census subdivisions.

This dataset contains replication files for "Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility" by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez, and Nicholas Turner. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/recentintergenerationalmobility/. A summary of the related publication follows. We present new evidence on trends in intergenerational mobility in the U.S. using administrative earnings records. We find that percentile rank-based measures of intergenerational mobility have remained extremely stable for the 1971-1993 birth cohorts. For children born between 1971 and 1986, we measure intergenerational mobility based on the correlation between parent and child income percentile ranks. For more recent cohorts, we measure mobility as the correlation between a child’s probability of attending college and her parents’ income rank. We also calculate transition probabilities, such as a child’s chances of reaching the top quintile of the income distribution starting from the bottom quintile. Based on all of these measures, we find that children entering the labor market today have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s. However, because inequality has risen, the consequences of the “birth lottery” – the parents to whom a child is born – are larger today than in the past. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the US Treasury Department or the Internal Revenue Service or the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In the financial year 2021, a majority of Indian households fell under the aspirers category, earning between ******* and ******* Indian rupees a year. On the other hand, about ***** percent of households that same year, accounted for the rich, earning over * million rupees annually. The middle class more than doubled that year compared to ** percent in financial year 2005. Middle-class income group and the COVID-19 pandemic During the COVID-19 pandemic specifically during the lockdown in March 2020, loss of incomes hit the entire household income spectrum. However, research showed the severest affected groups were the upper middle- and middle-class income brackets. In addition, unemployment rates were rampant nationwide that further lead to a dismally low GDP. Despite job recoveries over the last few months, improvement in incomes were insignificant. Economic inequality While India maybe one of the fastest growing economies in the world, it is also one of the most vulnerable and severely afflicted economies in terms of economic inequality. The vast discrepancy between the rich and poor has been prominent since the last ***** decades. The rich continue to grow richer at a faster pace while the impoverished struggle more than ever before to earn a minimum wage. The widening gaps in the economic structure affect women and children the most. This is a call for reinforcement in in the country’s social structure that emphasizes access to quality education and universal healthcare services.

This dataset contains estimates of the socioeconomic status (SES) position of each of 149 countries covering the period 1880-2010. Measures of SES, which are in decades, allow for a 130 year time-series analysis of the changing position of countries in the global status hierarchy. SES scores are the average of each country’s income and education ranking and are reported as percentile rankings ranging from 1-99. As such, they can be interpreted similarly to other percentile rankings, such has high school standardized test scores. If country A has an SES score of 55, for example, it indicates that 55 percent of the countries in this dataset have a lower average income and education ranking than country A. ISO alpha and numeric country codes are included to allow users to merge these data with other variables, such as those found in the World Bank’s World Development Indicators Database and the United Nations Common Database.

See here for a working example of how the data might be used to better understand how the world came to look the way it does, at least in terms of status position of countries.

VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS:

unid: ISO numeric country code (used by the United Nations)

wbid: ISO alpha country code (used by the World Bank)

SES: Country socioeconomic status score (percentile) based on GDP per capita and educational attainment (n=174)

country: Short country name

year: Survey year

gdppc: GDP per capita: Single time-series (imputed)

yrseduc: Completed years of education in the adult (15+) population

region5: Five category regional coding schema

regionUN: United Nations regional coding schema

DATA SOURCES:

The dataset was compiled by Shawn Dorius (sdorius@iastate.edu) from a large number of data sources, listed below. GDP per Capita:

1. Maddison, Angus. 2004. 'The World Economy: Historical Statistics'. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris. GDP & GDP per capita data in (1990 Geary-Khamis dollars, PPPs of currencies and average prices of commodities). Maddison data collected from: http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_02-2010.xls.

2. World Development Indicators Database Years of Education 1. Morrisson and Murtin.2009. 'The Century of Education'. Journal of Human Capital(3)1:1-42. Data downloaded from http://www.fabricemurtin.com/ 2. Cohen, Daniel & Marcelo Cohen. 2007. 'Growth and human capital: Good data, good results' Journal of economic growth 12(1):51-76. Data downloaded from http://soto.iae-csic.org/Data.htm

3. Barro, Robert and Jong-Wha Lee, 2013, "A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950-2010." Journal of Development Economics, vol 104, pp.184-198. Data downloaded from http://www.barrolee.com/

4. Maddison, Angus. 2004. 'The World Economy: Historical Statistics'. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris. 13.

5. United Nations Population Division. 2009.

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.

Analysis of ‘Country Socioeconomic Status Scores: 1880-2010’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/sdorius/globses on 14 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

This dataset contains estimates of the socioeconomic status (SES) position of each of 149 countries covering the period 1880-2010. Measures of SES, which are in decades, allow for a 130 year time-series analysis of the changing position of countries in the global status hierarchy. SES scores are the average of each country’s income and education ranking and are reported as percentile rankings ranging from 1-99. As such, they can be interpreted similarly to other percentile rankings, such has high school standardized test scores. If country A has an SES score of 55, for example, it indicates that 55 percent of the world’s people live in a country with a lower average income and education ranking than country A. ISO alpha and numeric country codes are included to allow users to merge these data with other variables, such as those found in the World Bank’s World Development Indicators Database and the United Nations Common Database.

See here for a working example of how the data might be used to better understand how the world came to look the way it does, at least in terms of status position of countries.

VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS: UNID: ISO numeric country code (used by the United Nations) WBID: ISO alpha country code (used by the World Bank) SES: Socioeconomic status score (percentile) based on GDP per capita and educational attainment (n=174) country: Short country name year: Survey year SES: Socioeconomic status score (1-99) for each of 174 countries gdppc: GDP per capita: Single time-series (imputed) yrseduc: Completed years of education in the adult (15+) population popshare: Total population shares

DATA SOURCES: The dataset was compiled by Shawn Dorius (sdorius@iastate.edu) from a large number of data sources, listed below. GDP per Capita: 1. Maddison, Angus. 2004. 'The World Economy: Historical Statistics'. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris. Maddison population data in 000s; GDP & GDP per capita data in (1990 Geary-Khamis dollars, PPPs of currencies and average prices of commodities). Maddison data collected from: http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_02-2010.xls. 2. World Development Indicators Database Years of Education 1. Morrisson and Murtin.2009. 'The Century of Education'. Journal of Human Capital(3)1:1-42. Data downloaded from http://www.fabricemurtin.com/ 2. Cohen, Daniel & Marcelo Cohen. 2007. 'Growth and human capital: Good data, good results' Journal of economic growth 12(1):51-76. Data downloaded from http://soto.iae-csic.org/Data.htm 3. Barro, Robert and Jong-Wha Lee, 2013, "A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950-2010." Journal of Development Economics, vol 104, pp.184-198. Data downloaded from http://www.barrolee.com/ Total Population 1. Maddison, Angus. 2004. 'The World Economy: Historical Statistics'. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris. 13.
2. United Nations Population Division. 2009.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source 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.

Annual estimates of paid hours worked and earnings for UK employees by sex, and full-time and part-time, by region, and public and private sector, and non-profit bodies and mutual associations. Hourly and weekly estimates are provided for the pay period that included a specified date in April. They relate to employees on adult rates of pay, whose earnings for the survey pay period were not affected by absence. Estimates for 2020 and 2021 include employees who have been furloughed under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS). Annual estimates are provided for the tax year that ended on 5th April in the reference year. They relate to employees on adult rates of pay who have been in the same job for more than a year.

Families of tax filers; Single-earner and dual-earner census families by number of children (final T1 Family File; T1FF).

This table describes the wealth distribution of the sector households in the national accounts over different household groups. Households are identified by main source of income, living situation, household composition, age classes of the head of the household, income class by 20% groups, and net worth class by 20% groups.

Data available from: 2015.

Status of the figures: All data are provisional.

Changes as of October 19th 2023: The figures of 2015-2020 are revised, because national accounts figures are changed due to the revision policy of Statistics Netherlands. Results for 2021 are added to the table.

When will new figures be published? New figures will be released in October 2024.