New York was the state with the greatest gap between rich and poor, with a Gini coefficient score of 0.52 in 2023. Although not a state, District of Columbia was among the highest Gini coefficients in the United States that year.

This table contains data on income inequality. The primary measure is the Gini index – a measure of the extent to which the distribution of income among families/households within a community deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. The index ranges from 0.0, when all families (households) have equal shares of income (implies perfect equality), to 1.0 when one family (household) has all the income and the rest have none (implies perfect inequality). Index data is provided for California and its counties, regions, and large cities/towns. The data is from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Income is linked to acquiring resources for healthy living. Both household income and the distribution of income across a society independently contribute to the overall health status of a community. On average Western industrialized nations with large disparities in income distribution tend to have poorer health status than similarly advanced nations with a more equitable distribution of income. Approximately 119,200 (5%) of the 2.4 million U.S. deaths in 2000 are attributable to income inequality. The pathways by which income inequality act to increase adverse health outcomes are not known with certainty, but policies that provide for a strong safety net of health and social services have been identified as potential buffers. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

Wealth inequality has been sharply rising in the United States and across many other high-income countries. Due to a lack of data, we know little about how this trend has unfolded across locations within countries. Investigating this subnational geography of wealth is crucial, as from one generation to the next, wealth powerfully shapes opportunity and disadvantage across individuals and communities. Using machine-learning-based imputation to link newly assembled national historical surveys conducted by the U.S. Federal Reserve to population survey microdata, the data presented in this paper addresses this gap. The Geographic Wealth Inequality Database ("GEOWEALTH-US") provides the first estimates of the level and distribution of wealth at various geographical scales within the United States from 1960 to 2020. The GEOWEALTH-US database enables new lines investigation into the contribution of inter-regional wealth patterns to major societal challenges including wealth concentration, spatial income inequality, equality of opportunity, housing unaffordability, and political polarization.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in State Center, IA, 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 20,936, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 175,827. 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 268,271, which is 152.58% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 1281.39% 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 State Center 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.

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.

The Gini index quantifies the degree of inequality in the distribution of income (or sometimes consumption) among individuals or households within an economy. It compares the actual income distribution to a perfectly equal one. This is visualized through the Lorenz curve, which charts the cumulative share of total income against the cumulative share of recipients, starting from the poorest. The Gini index is derived from the area between the Lorenz curve and the line representing absolute equality, measured as a percentage of the total area beneath that line. A Gini index of 0 indicates perfect equality, while 100 signifies complete inequality.

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.

Comparing the 130 selected regions regarding the gini index , South Africa is leading the ranking (0.63 points) and is followed by Namibia with 0.58 points. At the other end of the spectrum is Slovakia with 0.23 points, indicating a difference of 0.4 points to South Africa. The Gini coefficient here measures the degree of income inequality on a scale from 0 (=total equality of incomes) to one (=total inequality).The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in more than 150 countries and regions worldwide. All input data are sourced from international institutions, national statistical offices, and trade associations. All data has been are processed to generate comparable datasets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).

This paper calculates the distribution of an adjusted measure of income that deducts damages due to exposure to air pollution from reported market income in the United States from 2011 to 2014. The Gini coefficient for this measure of adjusted income is 0.682 in 2011, as compared to 0.482 for market income. By 2014, we estimate that the Gini for adjusted income fell to 0.646, while the market income Gini did not appreciably change. The inclusion of air pollution damage acts like a regressive tax: with air pollution, the bottom 20% of households lose roughly 10% of the share of income, while the top 20% of households gain 10%. We find that, unlike the case for market income, New England is not the most unequal division with respect to adjusted income. Further, the difference between adjusted income for white and Hispanics is smaller than expected. However, the gap in augmented income between whites and African-Americans is widening.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in United States, 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 16,840, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 285,351. This indicates that the top earners earn 17 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 515,555, which is 180.67% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 3061.49% 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 United States median household income. You can refer the same here

In 2023, the real median household income in the state of Alabama was 60,660 U.S. dollars. The state with the highest median household income was Massachusetts, which was 106,500 U.S. dollars in 2023. The average median household income in the United States was at 80,610 U.S. dollars.

Traditional agrarian elites have often been portrayed as obstacles to the expansion of the state. Because landed actors are particularly exposed to taxation, inequality is expected to exacerbate their resistance to the development of fiscal capacity. This article argues that when propertied actors are politically dominant and obtain benefits from public spending that are proportional to their capital endowments, wealth inequality is associated with greater elite support for capacity investments. Using early 20th-century Brazilian data, I show that where landed elites faced fewer political threats, higher levels of landholding concentration were associated with increased fiscal and administrative capacity. Tests of mechanisms corroborate the idea that this relationship results from elite demands for specific types of public spending. These findings contribute to the broader literature on state-building by providing new insights into the interaction between economic interests and political dominance in shaping subnational variation in the reach of the state.

United States US: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data was reported at 41.500 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 41.000 % for 2013. United States US: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data is updated yearly, averaging 40.400 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 41.500 % in 2016 and a record low of 34.600 % in 1979. United States US: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate 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. Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or, in some cases, consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. 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.

Goal 10Reduce inequality within and among countriesTarget 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national averageIndicator 10.1.1: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita among the bottom 40 per cent of the population and the total populationSI_HEI_TOTL: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita (%)Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other statusIndicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 per cent of median income, by sex, age and persons with disabilitiesSI_POV_50MI: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income (%)Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regardIndicator 10.3.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights lawVC_VOV_GDSD: Proportion of population reporting having felt discriminated against, by grounds of discrimination, sex and disability (%)Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equalityIndicator 10.4.1: Labour share of GDPSL_EMP_GTOTL: Labour share of GDP (%)Indicator 10.4.2: Redistributive impact of fiscal policySI_DST_FISP: Redistributive impact of fiscal policy, Gini index (%)Target 10.5: Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulationsIndicator 10.5.1: Financial Soundness IndicatorsFI_FSI_FSANL: Non-performing loans to total gross loans (%)FI_FSI_FSERA: Return on assets (%)FI_FSI_FSKA: Regulatory capital to assets (%)FI_FSI_FSKNL: Non-performing loans net of provisions to capital (%)FI_FSI_FSKRTC: Regulatory Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets (%)FI_FSI_FSLS: Liquid assets to short term liabilities (%)FI_FSI_FSSNO: Net open position in foreign exchange to capital (%)Target 10.6: Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutionsIndicator 10.6.1: Proportion of members and voting rights of developing countries in international organizationsSG_INT_MBRDEV: Proportion of members of developing countries in international organizations, by organization (%)SG_INT_VRTDEV: Proportion of voting rights of developing countries in international organizations, by organization (%)Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policiesIndicator 10.7.1: Recruitment cost borne by employee as a proportion of monthly income earned in country of destinationIndicator 10.7.2: Number of countries with migration policies that facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of peopleSG_CPA_MIGRP: Proportion of countries with migration policies to facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, by policy domain (%)SG_CPA_MIGRS: Countries with migration policies to facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, by policy domain (1 = Requires further progress; 2 = Partially meets; 3 = Meets; 4 = Fully meets)Indicator 10.7.3: Number of people who died or disappeared in the process of migration towards an international destinationiSM_DTH_MIGR: Total deaths and disappearances recorded during migration (number)Indicator 10.7.4: Proportion of the population who are refugees, by country of originSM_POP_REFG_OR: Number of refugees per 100,000 population, by country of origin (per 100,000 population)Target 10.a: Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreementsIndicator 10.a.1: Proportion of tariff lines applied to imports from least developed countries and developing countries with zero-tariffTM_TRF_ZERO: Proportion of tariff lines applied to imports with zero-tariff (%)Target 10.b: Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmesIndicator 10.b.1: Total resource flows for development, by recipient and donor countries and type of flow (e.g. official development assistance, foreign direct investment and other flows)DC_TRF_TOTDL: Total assistance for development, by donor countries (millions of current United States dollars)DC_TRF_TOTL: Total assistance for development, by recipient countries (millions of current United States dollars)DC_TRF_TFDV: Total resource flows for development, by recipient and donor countries (millions of current United States dollars)Target 10.c: By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per centIndicator 10.c.1: Remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remittedSI_RMT_COST: Remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted (%)SI_RMT_COST_BC: Corridor remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted (%)SI_RMT_COST_SC: SmaRT corridor remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted (%)

Using kernel density estimation we describe the distribution of household size-adjusted real income and how it changed over the business cycle of the 1980s in the United States and the United Kingdom. We confirm previous studies that show income inequality increased in the two countries and the middle of the distribution was squashed down. Using a series of statistical tests, however, we find that while the mass in both tails of the distribution increased significantly in both countries over the period, by far the greatest gains were in the upper tail.

The IPUMS Contextual Determinants of Health (CDOH) data series provides access to measures of disparities, policies, and counts, by state or county, for historically marginalized populations in the United States including Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latina/o/e/x, and LGBTQ+ persons, and women. The IPUMS CDOH data are made available through ICPSR/DSDR for merging with the National Couples' Health and Time Study (NCHAT), United States, 2020-2021 (ICPSR 38417) by approved restricted data researchers. All other researchers can access the IPUMS CDOH data via the IPUMS CDOH website. Unlike other IPUMS products, the CDOH data are organized into multiple categories related to Race and Ethnicity, Sexual and Gender Minority, Gender, and Politics. The measures were created from a wide variety of data sources (e.g., IPUMS NHGIS, the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Movement Advancement Project, and Myers Abortion Facility Database). Measures are currently available for states or counties from approximately 2015 to 2020. The Race and Ethnicity measure in this release is an indicator of income inequity which is measured using the index of concentration at the extremes (ICE). ICE is a measure of social polarization within a particular geographic unit. It shows whether people or households in a geographic unit are concentrated in privileged or deprived extremes. The privileged group in this study is the number of households with a householder identifying as White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, with an income equal to or greater than $100,000. The deprived group in this study is the number of households with a householder identifying as a different race/ethnic group (e.g., Black alone, Asian alone, Hispanic or Latino), with an income equal to or less than $25,000. To work with the IPUMS CDOH data, researchers will need to use the variable MATCH_ID to merge the data in DS1 with NCHAT surveys within the virtual data enclave (VDE).

Mass shootings are becoming a more common occurrence in the United States. Data show that mass shootings increased steadily over the past nearly 50 years. Crucial is that the wide-ranging adverse effects of mass shootings generate negative mental health outcomes on millions of Americans, including fear, anxiety, and ailments related to such afflictions. This study extends previous research that finds a strong positive relationship between income inequality and mass shootings by examining the effect of household income as well as the interaction between inequality and income. To conduct our analyses, we compile a panel dataset with information across 3,144 counties during the years 1990 to 2015. Mass shootings was measured using a broad definition of three or more victim injuries. Income inequality was calculated using the post-tax version of the Gini coefficient. Our results suggest that while inequality and income alone are both predictors of mass shootings, their impacts on mass shootings are stronger when combined via interaction. Specifically, the results indicate areas with the highest number of mass shootings are those that combine both high levels of inequality and high levels of income. Additionally, robustness checks incorporating various measures of mass shootings and alternative regression techniques had analogous results. Our findings suggest that to address the mass shootings epidemic at its core, it is essential to understand how to stem rising income inequality and the unstable environments that we argue are created by such inequality.

Beginning with tax year 2015, the Department of Taxation and Finance (hereafter “the Department”) began producing a new annual population data study file to provide more comprehensive statistical information on New York State personal income tax returns. The data are from full‐year resident, nonresident, and part‐year resident returns filed between January 1 and December 31 of the year after the start of the liability period (hereafter referred to as the “processing year”). The four datasets display major income tax components by tax year. This includes the distribution of New York adjusted gross income and tax liability by county or place of residence, as well as the value of deductions, exemptions, taxable income and tax before credits by size of income. In addition, three of the four datasets include all the components of income, the components of deductions, and the addition/subtraction modifications. Caution: The current datasets are based on population data. For tax years prior to 2015, data were based on sample data. Data customers are advised to use caution when drawing conclusions comparing data for tax years prior to 2015 and subsequent tax years. Further details are included in the Overview.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median household incomes for various household sizes in State Line City, IN, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in median household income with the size of the family unit, offering valuable insights into economic trends and disparities within different household sizes, aiding in data analysis and decision-making.

Key observations

• Of the 7 household sizes (1 person to 7-or-more person households) reported by the census bureau, State Line City did not include 4, 5, 6, or 7-person households. Across the different household sizes in State Line City the mean income is $64,968, and the standard deviation is $33,244. The coefficient of variation (CV) is 51.17%. This high CV indicates high relative variability, suggesting that the incomes vary significantly across different sizes of households.
• In the most recent year, 2021, The smallest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income was 1-person households, with an income of $36,144. It then further increased to $101,336 for 3-person households, the largest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income.

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/state-line-city-in-median-household-income-by-household-size.jpeg" alt="State Line City, IN median household income, by household size (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)">

Content

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

Household Sizes:

• 1-person households
• 2-person households
• 3-person households
• 4-person households
• 5-person households
• 6-person households
• 7-or-more-person households

Variables / Data Columns

• Household Size: This column showcases 7 household sizes ranging from 1-person households to 7-or-more-person households (As mentioned above).
• Median Household Income: Median household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific household size.

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 State Line City median household income. You can refer the same here