money income in the united states: 1998money income. issue. in the united states 1998 (with separate...
TRANSCRIPT
-
U.S.Department of CommerceEconomics and Statistics AdministrationU.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Demographic Programs
P60-206
Report Title
Current Population Reports
Money Income Issuein the United States 1998
Issued September 1999(With Separate Data on Valuation of Noncash Benefits)
Current Population Reports
Consumer Income
-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Carmen DeNavas and Robert W.Cleveland prepared this report under thedirection of Edward J. Welniak Jr., Chiefof the Income Statistics Branch. John T.Baker II, Arthur F. Jones Jr., andMarc I. Roemer made significant contri-butions to the preparation of this report.Diana Marz and Shirley L. Smithprovided statistical assistance. DorisSansbury and Marian L. Nobles pro-vided clerical assistance. Charles T.Nelson, Assistant Division Chief forIncome and Poverty, Housing and House-hold Economic Statistics Division, providedoverall direction.
David Nguyen and Anh Ly Teitler,Demographic Surveys Division, processedthe March 1999 Current Population Surveyfile. Richard A. Denby, Chief of the Com-puter Programming and Applications Staff,Donna K. Benton, Caroline Carbaugh,Kirk E. Davis, John Lukasiewicz, StacyMasano, Chandararith R. Phe, Nora PSzeto, and Victor M. Valdisera pro-grammed the detailed tables and producedthe publication tables.
Carrie Jones and Fred Meier of theDemographic Statistical Methods Divisionconducted sampling review.
Bonnie S. Tarsia, Demographic SurveysDivision, and Frances Simmons, Tech-nologies Management Office, prepared andprogrammed the computer-assisted inter-viewing instrument used to conduct theMarch income supplement.
U.S. Census Bureau field representativesand telephone interviewers collected thedata. Without their dedication, the prepara-tion of this report or any report from theCurrent Population Survey would beimpossible.
The staff of the Administrative and Cus-tomer Services Division, Walter C. Odom,Chief, performed publication planning,design , composition, editorial review,and printing planning and procurement forpublications, Internet products, and reportforms. Cynthia G. Brooks provided publi-cation coordination and editing.
-
P60-206
(With Separate Data on Valuation of Noncash Benefits)
Money Incomein the United States 1998
Issued September 1999
Current Population Reports
Consumer Income
U.S. Department of CommerceWilliam M. Daley,
Secretary
Robert L. Mallett,Deputy Secretary
Economics and Statistics AdministrationRobert J. Shapiro,
Under Secretaryfor Economic Affairs
U.S. CENSUS BUREAUKenneth Prewitt,
Director
-
SUGGESTED CITATION
U.S. Census Bureau, Current PopulationReports, P60-206, Money Income in theUnited States: 1998, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC, 1999.
ECONOMICS
AND STATISTICS
ADMINISTRATION
Economicsand StatisticsAdministration
Robert J. Shapiro,Under Secretaryfor Economic Affairs
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Kenneth Prewitt,Director
William G. Barron,Deputy Director
Paula J. Schneider,Principal Associate Directorfor Programs
Nancy M. Gordon,Associate Directorfor Demographic Programs
Daniel H. Weinberg,Chief, Housing and HouseholdEconomic Statistics Division
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
-
Availabilityof Data ViaElectronic
MediaIn addition to the data shown in this report, usersmay access a wealth of information based on theMarch Supplement to the Current PopulationSurvey (CPS) through the Internet. Data userscan access tables showing detailed incomedistributions by various demographiccharacteristics; historical income tables forhouseholds, families, and people; the public-use microdata file; press releases; and pressbriefings through the Census Bureau's homepage at:http://www.census.gov
or directly athttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income.htmlFacsimiles of these Internet pages are shown onthe following page of this report.
Users may send requests for data or questionsregarding the data via e-mail to the Housing andHousehold Economic Statistics Division of theCensus Bureau at
Comments FromData Users
We want your reaction to the usefulness of theinformation provided in this report and welcomeyour recommendations for improving our products.If you have suggestions or comments,
please write to:Edward J. Welniak
Chief, Income Statistics BranchHousing and Household EconomicStatistics DivisionU.S. Census BureauWashington, DC 20233-8500
or electronically to:[email protected]
-
Home Page(http://www.census.gov)
Income Page(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income.html)
-
CONTENTS
iii
TEXT
Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiOfficial Estimates of Money Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiType of Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiRace and Hispanic Origin of the Householder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiNativity of the Householder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixRegion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xResidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xEarnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Male and Female Workers . . . . . . . . xPer Capita Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiIncome Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiiIncome Data for States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Experimental Estimates of Income Including Noncash Benefits and Taxes . . xviiDistributional Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviiEffects on Selected Population Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx
Measurement Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiRounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiSymbols Used in Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
TEXT TABLES
A. Comparison of Summary Measures of Income by SelectedCharacteristics: 1989, 1997, and 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
B. Median Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by SelectedCharacteristics: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
C. Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 1998 . xvD. Median Income of Households by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviE. Median Household Income by Definition: 1997 and 1998 . . . . . . xixF. Percentage of Aggregate Income Received by Income Quintiles and
Gini Coefficient by Definition of Income: 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . xixG. Median Income Using Different Definitions for Households With
Selected Characteristics: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx
FIGURES
1. Median Household Income by Type of Household: 1989 and 1998 . . viii2. Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1972 to
1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix3. Median Earnings by Sex and Educational Attainment: 1998 . . . . . . xii4. Median Earnings by Sex and Age: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii5. Share of Aggregate Household Income by Quintile: 1967, 1993, and
1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv6. Percent Change in the Household Gini Coefficient: 1967 to 1998 . . xiv7. Median Household Income by State: 1996-1998 Three-Year Average . xviii
-
DETAILED TABLES
Income
1. Median Income of Households by Selected Characteristics, Race, andHispanic Origin of Householder: 1998, 1997, and 1996. . . . . . . 1
2. Selected Characteristics—Households by Total Money Income in1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. People in Households by Total Household Income in 1998,Relationship to Householder, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin . 7
4. Median Income of Families by Selected Characteristics, Race, andHispanic Origin of Householder: 1998, 1997, and 1996. . . . . . . 13
5. Selected Characteristics of Families—Total Money Income ofFamilies in 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Presence of Related Children Under 18 Years Old—Total MoneyIncome in 1998 of Married-Couple Families by Work Experience in1998 of Husband and Wife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Median Income of People by Selected Characteristics: 1998, 1997,and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Selected Characteristics of People—Total Money Income in 1998of People 15 Years Old and Over by Work Experience in 1998and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. Educational Attainment—Total Money Earnings in 1998 of People 18Years Old and Over by Age, Work Experience in 1998, and Sex . . . 34
10. Work Experience in 1998 —Total Money Earnings in 1998 of People15 Years Old and Over by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex . . . . . . 38
11. Source of Income in 1998—Number With Income and Mean Incomeof Specified Type in 1998 of People 15 Years Old and Over by Age . 42
Experimental Estimates of Income
12. Income Distribution Measures by Definition of Income: 1998 . . . . 48
APPENDIXES
A. Definitions and Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A–1B. Time Series Estimates of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B–1C. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Statement on the Use of the CPI-U-RS . C–1D. Trends in Income Using the CPI-U-X1 Versus the CPI-U-RS . . . . . . . D–1E. Source and Accuracy of Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E–1
APPENDIX TABLES
B–1. Annual Average Consumer Price Index (CPI-U): 1947 to 1998 . . . . B–2B–2. Households by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of
Householder: 1967 to 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B–3B–3. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent
of Households by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1967to 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B–6
B–4. Families by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin ofHouseholder: 1967 to 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B–8
B–5. Total Money Income of People by Race, Hispanic Origin, andSex: 1967 to 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B–11
D–1. Median Household Income by Inflation Index: 1967 to 1998 . . . . . D–2E–1. Description of the March Current Population Survey. . . . . . . . . . E–2E–2. March CPS Coverage Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E–3E–3. CPS Standard Error Parameters for Income and Nonincome
Characteristics: 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E–4E–4. CPS Factors to Apply to a and b Parameters for Estimates Prior to
1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E–5E–5. CPS Standard Error Parameters for Income and Nonincome
Characteristics of Hispanics: 1972 to 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . E–6E–6. CPS Standard Error Parameters for Income and Nonincome
Characteristics of Asians and Pacific Islanders: 1998 . . . . . . . . E–7E–7. CPS Year-to-Year Correlation Coefficients for Income Estimates: 1960
to 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E–7
iv
-
Money Income in the United States: 1998
For the fourth consecutive year, real median income • The real median income of households in the Unitedincreased for U.S. households—by 3.5 percent between States rose by 3.5 percent between 1997 and 1998,1997 and 1998.1 Calendar year 1998 is the first year that from $37,581 to $38,885. This is the fourth consecutivethe real median income of households surpassed the peak year that household income increased (see Tables A, 1,reached in 1989, the year before the most recent reces- and Appendix Table B–2). Real median householdsionary period (which lasted from July 1990 to March income is now at the highest level recorded since the1991). Census Bureau started compiling these estimates in
The 1998 income year proved to be economically fruit- 1967.ful for many households. All types of households experi-
• 1998 is the first year that real median householdenced significant gains in real median income, regardless
income surpassed its 1989 prerecessionary peak. Inof whether they were family households (composed of
1998, median household income was 2.6 percent highermarried-couple families or families maintained by a man
than the 1989 level of $37,884 (in 1998 dollars) (seeor woman with no spouse present) or nonfamily house-
Table A).holds (composed of unrelated individuals living togetheror individuals living alone). For the first time since 1975 • For the first time since 1995, all types of households—(when regional estimates of household income became family and nonfamily alike— experienced annual growthavailable in tabulated form from the Current Population in real median income (see Table A and Table 1).Survey or CPS), all four regions of the country experienced
• For the first time since 1975 (when median householdannual increases in median household income. Further-
income data by regions became available from the CPS),more, households inside central cities, in suburbs, and
all four regions experienced significant annual gains inoutside metropolitan areas all experienced significant
real terms (see Tables A and 1).gains in median income.
The CPS demographic supplement conducted in March • Metropolitan households and nonmetropolitan house-of each year is one of the best known and most widely holds experienced growth in real median householdused of all continuing federal household surveys. For 50 income between 1997 and 1998 (see Table A).years, analysts, researchers, and policy makers have used • Real median earnings rose between 1997 and 1998 forthe CPS to examine annual changes in income and earn- both men and women who worked full-time, year-roundings and to compare them with historical trends. Televi- (see Table A). The female-to-male earnings ratio in 1998sion, radio, and newspapers frequently draw upon this was 0.73,2 not statistically different from its all-timesource for statistics on Americans’ jobs, income, poverty high, reached in 1996.status, health insurance coverage, marital status, migra-tion, and other characteristics. • Household income inequality remained unchanged. The
The estimates in this report are based on interviewing a Gini index of inequality has not experienced a year-to-
sample of the population. Respondents provide answers year increase since 1993 (see Appendix B, Table B–3).
to the survey questions to the best of their ability. As with Analysis of the aggregate shares of income also indi-
all surveys, the estimates differ from the actual values. cates that household income inequality was unchangedbetween 1997 and 1998.
HIGHLIGHTS • Real median household income rose significantly in 16states based on comparisons of 2-year moving averages(Table A presents the confidence intervals for estimates(1996-1997 and 1997-1998). Six of these states (Ari-discussed in the text. Data users should consider thezona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, anduncertainty when using these estimates.)Wyoming) were in the West, four (Alabama, Florida,Georgia, and Oklahoma) were in the South, another four
1Changes in real income refer to comparisons after adjusting for (Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio) were in theinflation. The percentage changes in prices between earlier yearsand 1998were computed by dividing the annual average ConsumerPrice Index (CPI-U) for 1998 by the annual average for earlier years. 2The 90-percent confidence interval for the 1998 female-to-maleSee Table B–1 in Appendix B for values of the CPI-U from 1947 to earnings ratio is ± .01. Table A shows confidence intervals for other1998. statistics shown in this report.
v
U.S. Census Bureau
-
Table A. Comparison of Summary Measures of Income by Selected Characteristics:1989, 1997, and 1998
[Households and people as of March of the following year. For meaning of symbols, see text]
Characteristics
1998Median income
in 1997(in 1998 dollars)
Median incomein 1989r
(in 1998 dollars)
Percent changein real income1997 to 1998
Percent changein real income1989r to 1998
Number(1,000)
Median income
90-percentconfidence
Value interval (+/–)(dollars) (dollars)
90-percentconfidence
Value interval (+/–)(dollars) (dollars)
90-percentconfidence
Value interval (+/–)(dollars) (dollars)
90-percentPercent confidencechange interval (+/–)
90-percentPercent confidencechange interval (+/–)
HOUSEHOLDS
All households . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Type of Household
Family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Married-couple families . . . . . . . . .Female householder, no
husband present . . . . . . . . . . . .Male householder, no wife present . .
Nonfamily households. . . . . . . . . . . .Female householder . . . . . . . . . . .Male householder . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Race and Hispanic Origin ofHouseholder
1All races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Hispanic White. . . . . . . . . . . .Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . .
Hispanic origin2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Age of Householder
15 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 to 54 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 to 64 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nativity of the Householder
Native born. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Naturalized citizen. . . . . . . . . . . . .Not a citizen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Region
Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Residence
Inside metropolitan areas . . . . . . . . .Inside central cities . . . . . . . . . . . .Outside central cities . . . . . . . . . . .
Outside metropolitan areas . . . . . . . .
EARNINGS OF FULL-TIME,YEAR-ROUND WORKERS
Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PER CAPITA INCOME1All races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non-Hispanic White . . . . . . . . . . .
Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . .
Hispanic origin2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
103,874
71,53554,770
12,7893,976
32,33917,97114,368
103,87487,21278,57712,5793,308
9,060
5,77018,81923,96820,15813,57121,589
92,85311,0214,8776,143
19,87724,48936,95922,549
83,44132,14451,29720,433
56,95138,785
271,743223,294193,07435,07010,897
31,689
38,885
47,46954,276
24,39339,41423,44118,61530,414
38,88540,91242,43925,35146,637
28,330
23,56440,06948,45154,14843,16721,729
39,67732,96341,02828,278
40,63440,60935,79740,983
40,98333,15146,40232,022
35,34525,862
20,12021,39422,95212,95718,709
11,434
378
410530
6551,633
467462559
378336401653
2,135
898
730696730877989395
3901,2301,8081,199
772600500661
352638512630
219194
199237268322
1,094
410
37,581
46,05352,486
23,39937,20522,04317,88728,022
37,58139,57941,20925,44045,954
27,043
22,93538,76947,08152,68342,00021,084
38,22931,806
(NA)27,379
39,53538,91334,88039,772
39,99432,03945,36430,525
34,19925,362
19,54120,74322,24612,54318,510
10,941
286
394388
6571,201
347428770
286413354720
2,102
792
822755637727763406
381802
(NA)971
877747580910
448456568690
535259
202239271346
1,128
393
37,884
45,34350,702
22,66239,71722,56818,14329,489
37,88439,85240,79223,95047,337
28,631
24,40139,04149,31054,57540,56920,719
(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)
42,78037,68533,93340,705
40,776(NA)(NA)
29,393
35,72724,614
18,28019,385
(NA)11,406
(NA)
10,770
344
413458
6031,607
363474660
344320331789
2,007
882
755603675893878381
(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)
709642471696
346(NA)(NA)636
242270
132147
(NA)253
(NA)
294
*3.5
*3.1*3.4
*4.2*5.9*6.3*4.1*8.5
*3.5*3.4*3.0–0.31.5
*4.8
2.7*3.4*2.9*2.8*2.8*3.1
*3.83.6(X)3.3
*2.8*4.4*2.6*3.0
*2.5*3.5*2.3*4.9
*3.4*2.0
*3.0*3.1*3.2*3.31.1
*4.5
0.6
0.60.6
2.02.81.31.81.8
0.60.70.61.93.2
1.8
2.41.31.01.11.51.3
0.72.3(X)2.8
1.51.31.11.4
0.71.50.81.5
0.90.7
0.70.80.91.94.4
2.3
*2.6
*4.7*7.0
*7.6–0.8*3.92.6
*3.1
*2.6*2.7*4.0*5.8–1.5
–1.1
–3.4*2.6–1.7–0.8*6.4*4.9
(X)(X)(X)(X)
*–5.0*7.8*5.50.7
0.5(X)(X)
*8.9
*–1.1*5.1
*10.1*10.4
(X)*13.6
(X)
*6.2
0.8
0.80.9
2.53.51.62.21.8
0.80.70.82.73.7
2.7
2.61.51.21.42.01.6
(X)(X)(X)(X)
1.51.51.31.4
0.7(X)(X)1.9
0.60.9
0.80.8(X)2.1(X)
2.7
*Statistically significant change at the 90-percent confidence level. rRevised to reflect the population distribution reported in the 1990 census.
1Data for American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts are not shown separately. Data for this population group are not tabulated from the CPS becauseof its small size.
2Hispanics may be of any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1990, 1998, and 1999.
vi
U.S. Census Bureau
-
Midwest, and two (Pennsylvania and Vermont) were in that households have experienced an annual increase inthe Northeast. This comparison also shows that median income (see Tables A, 1, and Appendix Table B–2). Thehousehold income declined for Alaska. Median house- 1997-1998 growth in median household income was thehold income did not change significantly for any of the largest experienced since 1995 when median householdremaining states or the District of Columbia (see income rose by 2.7 percent.5
Table D). For the first time, median household income surpassed
3 its 1989 prerecessionary peak— exceeding the 1989 real• Real median income grew by 3.4 percent betweenlevel of $37,884 by 2.6 percent in 1998.6 In 1997, median
1997 and 1998 using the most comprehensive defini-household income achieved the 1989 prerecessionary
tion of income (which takes taxes and receipt of non-peak but did not surpass it.7
cash benefits into account). This change is not statisti-cally different from the 3.5 percent increase for the Type of Householdofficial measure.
All types of households—family and nonfamily• The more comprehensive income definition shows less
alike—experienced growth in real median income betweenincome inequality than pre-tax (official) money income
1997 and 1998. This outcome last occurred in 1995. Evensuggests. Government transfers have a much greater
though median household income rose for all types ofeffect than taxes on redistributing income.
households, the percentage increase for nonfamily house-holds was twice as high as the increase for family house-
INTRODUCTIONholds, rising by 6.3 percent (from $22,043 to $23,441)
This report presents data on the income of households, compared with 3.1 percent growth (from $46,053 tofamilies, and people in the United States for calendar year $47,469) for family households.1998 and compares them with data for 1997 and, in some Among family households, married-couple householdscases, with data for 1989 (the previous peak year in the experienced a 3.4 percent growth in median income (frombusiness cycle). Changes in income noted in this report $52,486 to $54,276); households maintained by a womanare based on real income (after adjusting for inflation). with no husband present, a 4.2 percent increase (fromThe Census Bureau compiled these data from information $23,399 to $24,393); and households maintained by acollected in March Supplements to the CPS. The March man with no wife present, a 5.9 percent rise (from1999 CPS was based on approximately 50,000 randomly $37,205 to $39,414). Among nonfamily households,sampled households nationwide. median income for those maintained by a man rose 8.5
percent (from $28,022 to $30,414)— twice the 4.1 per-OFFICIAL ESTIMATES OF MONEY INCOME cent increase for nonfamily households maintained by a
woman (whose incomes grew from $17,887 to $18,615).8The official income estimates in this report are based
In 1998, the median incomes of family and nonfamilysolely on money income before taxes and do not includehouseholds were both higher than their 1989 prereces-the value of noncash benefits, such as food stamps, medi-sionary income peaks—by 4.7 percent and 3.9 percent,care, medicaid, public or subsidized housing, andrespectively (see Figure 1).9 This outcome occurred foremployment-based fringe benefits. A separate section ofboth married-couple families (7.0 percent higher) andthis report discusses the effect of taxes and selected non-families maintained by a woman with no husband presentcash benefits on household income using model-based
approaches to estimating taxes and valuing benefits. TheCensus Bureau derived these modeled data from informa- 5The difference between the 1994-1995 2.7 percent increase intion collected in the March 1999 CPS, along with data from median household income and the 1997-1998 increase of 3.5other sources including the Internal Revenue Service, the percent is not statistically significant.
6Food and Nutrition Service, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical income tables show a 1989 median income estimate
(adjusted for inflation) of $37,997. The $37,884 estimate used inand the Health Care Financing Administration.4 the text for comparison purposes reflects adjustment in household
weighting based on results from the 1990 census, first introducedHousehold Income for the entire sample in income year 1993.
7See Appendixes C and D for a discussion of the new ConsumerBetween 1997 and 1998, the median income of house- Price Index Research Series (CPI-U-RS) recently proposed by the
holds grew, in real terms, by 3.5 percent, going from Bureau of Labor Statistics and the effect of using the CPI-U-RS toadjust historical household income data for inflation.
$37,581 to $38,885. This is the fourth consecutive year 8The differences between the 1997-1998 percentage increasesin median household income among most of the household typesmentioned in this paragraph are not statistically significant. The
3The 90-percent confidence interval for the 3.4 percent increase only ones that are significant are: family households compared withis ±0.8. Table A shows confidence intervals for other statistics nonfamily households, and nonfamily households maintained by ashown in this report. man compared with nonfamily householdsmaintained by a woman.
4See Current Population Reports, Series P60-186RD, Measuring 9The difference between the 1989-1998 percentage increases inthe Effect of Benefits and Taxes on Income and Poverty: 1992, for the median incomes of family and nonfamily households is notmore details. statistically significant.
vii
U.S. Census Bureau
-
(7.6 percent higher).10 Family households maintained by a Race and Hispanic Origin of the Householderwoman with no husband present achieved their 1989 level Asians and Pacific Islanders11 continued to have thein 1995; whereas, married-couple households achieved highest median household income among the racialand surpassed their 1989 level in 1996. In 1998, family groups in 1998 ($46,637). Non-Hispanic White householdshouseholds maintained by a man with no wife present had the second highest ($42,439) followed by Blackachieved, but did not surpass, their 1989 level. households ($25,351) (see Table A). Households main-
tained by Hispanics had a median income of $28,330 inAlthough family households surpassed their 1989 level
1998.12in 1997, 1998 is the first year that nonfamily households Although Asians and Pacific Islanders as a group hadhave done so. Among nonfamily households, those main- the highest median household income in 1998, theirtained by a man had a 1998 median income that sur-passed their 1989 level by 3.1 percent. Nonfamily house-holds maintained by a woman achieved their 1989 level in 11The Asian and Pacific Islander population consists of many
distinct groups that differ in socio-economic characteristics, cul-1997, but have not yet surpassed it. ture, and recency of immigration. Because of differences among theindividual groups, data users should exercise caution when inter-preting aggregate data for this population.
12Because Hispanics may be of any race, use caution in compar-10The difference between the 1989-1998 percentage increases ing data for Hispanics and data for racial groups (such as Blacks and
in the median household incomes of married-couple families and Asians and Pacific Islanders). Furthermore, the Hispanic populationfamilies maintained by a woman with no husband present is not consists of many distinct groups that differ in socio-economicstatistically significant. characteristics, culture, and recency of immigration. Because of
differences among the individual groups, data users should exer-cise caution when interpreting aggregate data for this population.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Malehouseholder
Femalehouseholder
Totalnonfamily
households
Malehouseholder,
no wifepresent
Femalehouseholder,no husband
present
Married-couplefamilies
Totalfamily
households
Allhouseholds
Figure 1. Median Household Income by Type of Household: 1989 and 1998
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1990 and March 1999 .
Income in thousands of 1998 dollars1989
1998
Family households Nonfamily households
viii
U.S. Census Bureau
-
income per household member was lower than non- of rising income—going from $27,043 to $28,330Hispanic White households. The larger average size of between 1997 and 1998, a 4.8 percent increase.13
Asian and Pacific Islander households—3.15 people com- Non-Hispanic White households and Black households
pared with 2.47 for non-Hispanic White households—may had incomes in 1998 that surpassed their 1989 levels by
be associated with lower income per household member 4.0 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively (see Figure 2).14
($19,107 in 1998) for Asians and Pacific Islanders than for Black households had achieved their 1989 income level in1995 and surpassed it for the first time in 1997. Non-non-Hispanic Whites ($22,633). For Black households inHispanic White households achieved their 1989 income1998, the income per household member was $12,402,level in 1996 and surpassed it in 1998.based on an average household size of 2.75. For Hispanic
households, income per household member in 1998 was Nativity of the Householder$11,071, based on an average household size of 3.46.
Between 1997 and 1998, real median income increasedAmong the racial groups, non-Hispanic White house-
for households maintained by a native-born person. Theholds were the only group to experience a significant
median income of native households15 increased by 3.8growth in real median income between 1997 and 1998. As
percent, going from $38,229 to $39,677. The 1998a consequence, the median income of non-Hispanic Whitehouseholds is the highest recorded since 1972, the firstyear data by Hispanic origin were collected in the CPS. The 13The difference between the 1997-1998 percentage increase inmedian income of non-Hispanic White households rose by the median incomes of non-Hispanic White households and His-
panic households was not statistically significant3.0 percent, going from $41,209 to $42,439. This is the 14The difference between the 1989-1998 percentage increase infourth consecutive year that non-Hispanic White house- median incomes of non-Hispanic White households and Black house-holds experienced an annual increase in median income. holds was not statistically significant.15‘‘Native’’ households are those in which the householder wasBlack household income in 1998 remained at the all-time born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or an outlying area of thehigh first reached in 1997. The 1997-1998 change in United States, or was born in a foreign country but had at least onemedian household income for the Asian and Pacific parent who was a U.S. citizen. All other households are considered
foreign-born regardless of the date of entry into the United States orIslander households was not statistically significant. His- citizenship status. The CPS does not interview people currentlypanic households experienced their third consecutive year living in Puerto Rico.
14
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
Figure 2.Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1972 to 1998
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1973-1999.
1Hispanics may be of any race.
Income in thousands of 1998 dollars
Asian and Pacific Islander
Hispanic1
Recessionary periods
1972
Non-Hispanic White
Black
1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
0
ix
U.S. Census Bureau
-
median income of households maintained by a foreign- $32,039 to $33,151) and by 2.3 percent (from $45,364 toborn person was $32,963; for households maintained by a $46,402), respectively.18
foreign-born person who was not a citizen of the United Median household income varied by location of theStates, it was $28,278, both statistically unchanged household. Households inside metropolitan areas had abetween 1997 and 1998. For households maintained by a higher median income than those outside metropolitanperson who became a citizen, the median household
areas ($40,983 versus $32,022, respectively). Householdsincome in 1998 was $41,028.16
located in the suburbs had a higher median income thanthose in the central cities ($46,402 versus $33,151,
Region respectively).
For the first time since 1975 (when the data were firstEarnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Male and
tabulated), median household income increased in all fourFemale Workers
regions between 1997 and 1998 in real terms (see TablesA and 1). Between 1997 and 1998, median household For both men and women, the percentage who workedincome in the Northeast rose by 2.8 percent to $40,634; full-time, year-round increased between 1997 and 1998.in the Midwest, by 4.4 percent to $40,609; in the South, Of the 77.3 million men at least 15 years old who workedby 2.6 percent to $35,797; and in the West, by 3.0 percent
in 1998, 73.7 percent worked full-time, year-round—upto $40,983. Even though the percentage increases by
from 71.6 percent in 1997. Of the 68.8 million women atregion ranged from 2.6 percent to 4.4 percent, none of the
least 15 years old who worked in 1998, 56.3 percentdifferences among the four regions were statistically sig-
worked full-time, year-round—up from 55.6 percent innificant.1997 (see Table 7).
The South continues to have the lowest median house-The real median earnings of both men and women
hold income among the regions—$35,797 in 1998, repre-working full-time, year-round increased between 1997 and
senting about 88 percent of the median household income1998—by 3.4 percent (from $34,199 to $35,345) and byin the remaining regions. In each of the other regions—the2.0 percent (from $25,362 to $25,862), respectively (seeNortheast, Midwest, and West—median household incomeTables A and 7).19 For men, 1998 was the second straightwas $40,000 or higher, but differences among theseyear of increase; for women, it was the third. The female-regions were not statistically significant.to-male earnings ratio in 1998 was 0.73, not significantly
Median household income in both the South and the different from the all-time high ratio reached in 1996Midwest continued to surpass their 1989 income (0.74).peaks—by 5.5 percent and 7.8 percent, respectively.17 The
Education, occupation, and age have important effectsMidwest achieved an income level comparable to its 1989on the earnings of men and women, as discussed below.level in 1995; the South, in 1996. The median household
income of the West remained comparable to its 1989level—the West achieved its 1989 level in 1997. For the Education. Americans with higher educational attainment
Northeast, however, the 1998 median household income have higher median earnings. For example, the median
still lagged 5.0 percent behind its 1989 level. earnings for females age 25 and older with a bachelor’sdegree in 1998 was $35,408, compared with $21,963 forthose with a high school diploma (or GED), and $15,847
Residencefor those with a 9th to 12th grade education but no highschool diploma (see Table B and Figure 3). For men, the
Both households inside and outside of metropolitancomparable earnings were $49,982, $30,868, and
areas experienced growth in real median income between$23,438, respectively.20
1997 and 1998—by 2.5 percent (going from $39,994 toWomen’s earnings as a percentage of men’s for full-$40,983) and by 4.9 percent (going from $30,525 to
time, year-round workers varied across education levels$32,022), respectively. Furthermore, within metropolitanfrom 61 percent to 76 percent in 1998. Women’s earningsareas, both households located inside central cities andfor those who attended high school, but did not graduate,those in the suburbs had a higher median householdwere about 68 percent of men’s, 71 percent for highincome in 1998 than in 1997—rising by 3.5 percent (from
18 The differences among the 1997-1998 percentage changes in16The difference between the 1998 median incomes of native median household income for the various types of residence were
households and households maintained by a naturalized citizen not statistically significant.was not statistically significant. 19The difference was not statistically significant between the
17The difference in the percentage increases in median house- percentage increases in the earnings of men and women.hold income between 1989 and 1998 for the Midwest and South 20The difference between the median earnings of females withwas not statistically significant. professional and doctorate degrees is not statistically significant.
x
U.S. Census Bureau
-
school graduates, and 71 percent for those with bachelor’s Occupation. Median earnings also vary greatly by majordegrees. Women with professional degrees earned about occupation groupings (see Table B). In 1998, median earn-61 percent of men’s earnings.21 ings of women ranged from $15,647 for service occupa-
tions to $36,261 for professional specialists.22 For men,21 median earnings ranged from $18,855 for farmers, fish-The differences between the percentage of female-to-male
earnings for those with professional degrees and all other educa- ers, and foresters, to $51,654 for professional special-tion levels were statistically significant, except for 9th to 12th grade ists.23 For major occupation groupings, the ratio of(no diploma). Other statistically significant differenceswere between female-to-male earnings in 1998 ranged from 62 percentthose with less than 9th grade and 9th to 12th grade (no diploma),less than 9th grade and master’s degree, 9th to 12th grade (nodiploma) and some college (no degree), and 9th to 12th grade (no 22The differences among the median earnings of females work-diploma) and associate degree. ing as service workers and of those working as handlers, equipment
cleaners, helpers, and laborers, or working in farming, forestry, andfishing occupations were not statistically significant.
23The difference between the earnings of males working asprofessional specialists and those working as executives, adminis-trators, and managers is not statistically significant.
Table B. Median Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by Selected Characteristics: 1998
Characteristic
Female Male
Number withearnings
(1,000)Median
earningsStandard
error
Number withearnings
(1,000)Median
earningsStandard
error
EDUCATION
Total, 25 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Less than 9th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9th to 12th grade (no diploma) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .High school graduate (includes GED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Associate degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Master’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Professional degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Doctorate degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGE
25 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 to 44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 to 54 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCCUPATION
Total with earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Executive, administrative, and managerial . . . . . . . . . . . . .Professional specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lawyers and judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical and related support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Supervisors and proprietors, self-employed . . . . . . . . . .Administrative support, including clerical . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mail and message distributing occupations . . . . . . . . . .Precision production, craft, and repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors . . . . . . . .Transportation and material moving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers . . .Service workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Police and firefighters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Farming, forestry, and fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farm operators and managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35,603
8141,876
11,6057,0673,5277,2762,639
468329
9,65811,5829,6814,107
575
38,785
7,1256,922
1861,6124,182
1279,697
304927
1,955268544
5,26291
23593
26,711
14,13215,84721,96326,02428,37735,40842,00255,46052,167
25,55627,18628,42426,14421,858
25,862
34,75536,26161,78027,84923,19715,36923,83533,43923,90719,01521,44916,55015,64740,03315,86521,809
122
452346146243634287469
1,6362,900
212236485337
1,193
118
556271
2,894778606
3,976224
1,4761,004
383879522206
2,9671,2697,839
52,380
1,8703,613
16,4429,3754,347
11,0583,4141,264
998
14,35317,51013,286
6,1921,039
56,951
9,4387,768
5441,7376,397
4313,004
46511,0643,9533,6712,6334,881
7201,739
659
36,679
18,55323,43830,86835,94938,48349,98260,16890,65369,188
31,26237,66341,58340,65430,259
35,345
51,35151,654
114,94740,54637,24829,11031,15336,58431,63127,89030,42221,87122,51544,28418,85520,658
134
650516158267795533922
4,8392,473
176434258368
2,156
133
290297
40,392529453
2,105339565208581351362414
1,6221,1151,149
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1999.
xi
U.S. Census Bureau
-
to 84 percent. Three male-dominated occupations have men’s earnings, then decline and bottom out at 64 percentcompetitive female-to-male earnings ratios: mail and mes- for 55-to-64 year olds.25 During women’s and men’s peaksage distributing occupations (91 percent), police and fire- earnings years (ages 45 to 54), the earnings ratio is 68fighters (90 percent), and farm operators and managers percent.(106 percent). The differences between the female-to-male
Per Capita Incomeearnings for these specific occupations were not statisti-26
cally significant. Other notable female-to-male earnings Per capita income reached a new high by increasing 3.0ratios include self-employed sales supervisors and propri- percent, in real terms, between 1997 and 1998, goingetors (53 percent) and lawyers and judges (54 percent). from $19,541 to $20,120. Selected racial and ethnicThese two occupational groupings did not differ statisti- groups also experienced growth in per capita income—3.2cally from each other.24 percent for non-Hispanic Whites, going to $22,952, and
3.3 percent for Blacks, going to $12,957. The per capitaAge. Age plays a major role in both earnings growth and
income of Asians and Pacific Islanders, $18,709, did notearnings differences among men and women (See Table B).
change significantly between 1997 and 1998. HispanicsFemale workers’ earnings increase with age, starting with
experienced a 4.5 percent increase in per capita income,a median of $25,556 in 1998 for those ages 25 to 34, and
going from $10,941 to $11,434.27peaking at $28,424 for those ages 45 to 54, comparedwith $31,262 and $41,583 for men (see Figure 4). Womencome closest to attaining earnings parity with men during 25The percentage of female-to-male earnings for those 65 andtheir younger ages— a ratio of 82 percent for the 25-to- older did not differ statistically from the other age groupings.26Per capita income is based on the total CPS population, includ-34-year-old group. Women’s earnings, as a percentage of ing people living in households and those living in group quarters.
Income per household member is restricted to people living inhouseholds.
24The differences among the female-to-male earnings ratios for 27The differences among the percentage increases in per capitafarm operators and managers and self-employed sales supervisors income between 1997 and 1998 for non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks,and proprietors or lawyers and judges were not statistically signifi- Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics were not statisticallycant. significant.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Doctoratedegree
Professionaldegree
Master'sdegree
Bachelor's degree
Associate degree
Some college,no degree
High schoolgraduateor GED
9th to 12thgrade,
no diploma
Less than 9th grade
Figure 3. Median Earnings by Sex and Educational Attainment: 1998 Full-time, year-round workers, age 25 and older
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1999.
Median earnings (thousands of dollars)
Male
Female
xii
U.S. Census Bureau
-
Among the race and ethnic origin groups, non-Hispanic and the Gini coefficient (or index of income concentra-Whites had the highest per capita income ($22,952), fol- tion). In the shares approach, households are ranked fromlowed by Asians and Pacific Islanders ($18,709), and lowest to highest on the basis of income and then dividedBlacks ($12,957). The per capita income of Hispanics was into groups of equal population size, typically quintiles.
$11,434. The aggregate income of each group is then divided bythe overall aggregate income to derive shares. The GiniIn 1998, the per capita incomes of Whites and Blackscoefficient incorporates detailed shares data into a singlesurpassed their respective 1989 peaks (data for non-statistic, which summarizes the dispersion of incomeHispanic Whites were not compiled for 1989). The 1998across the entire income distribution. The Gini coefficient
per capita income of Whites, $21,394, was 10.4 percentranges from 0, indicating perfect equality (where everyone
higher than their 1989 level of $19,385. For Blacks, theirreceives an equal share), to 1, perfect inequality (where all
1998 per capita income, $12,957, was 13.6 percent the income is received by only one recipient or group ofhigher than their 1989 level, $11,406. The 1998 per recipients).capita income of Hispanics, $11,434, was 6.2 percent In 1998, the share of aggregate household incomehigher than their 1989 level, $10,770.28 going to each quintile was 3.6 percent for the lowest quin-
tile of households, 9.0 for the second quintile, 15.0 for theIncome Inequality third quintile, 23.2 percent for the fourth quintile, and
49.2 percent for the top quintile (see Figure 5). The shareThe U.S. Census Bureau has traditionally used twoof household income going to each quintile of households
methods to measure income inequality—the shares ofwas about the same in 1997 and 1998 (see Table C).
aggregate income received by households (or families)The Gini coefficient indicated no change in household
income inequality between 1997 and 1998. The Gini has
28 not shown a significant annual increase since 1993. ItsThe difference between the 1989-1998 percentage increasesin per capita incomes of Whites and Blacks was not statistically value in 1998 was 0.456, not significantly different fromsignificant. its 1993 level. (See Figure 6 and Table B–3.)
Figure 4. Median Earnings by Sex and Age: 1998Full-time, year-round workers
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1999.
Male
Female
Age
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
65 & over55 to 6445 to 5435 to 4425 to 34
Median earnings (thousands of dollars)
xiii
U.S. Census Bureau
-
0
1010
2020
3030
4040
5050
6060
7070
8080
199819931967199819931967199819931967199819931967199819931967
Figure 5.Share of Aggregate Household Income by Quintile: 1967, 1993 and 1998(In percent)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1968, 1994, 1999.
3.6
15.0
9.0
23.2
49.2
21.4
4.0 3.6
10.89.0
17.315.1
24.2 23.5
43.8
48.9
17.521.0
Lowest quintile Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Highest quintile
Top 5percent
Middle 60 percent
Figure 6.Percent Change in the Household Gini Coefficient: 1967-1998
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1968-1999. Data not available before 1967.
(Percent change, base year=1967)
*Computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) was introduced in January 1994. As part of the conversion, increases were made in the limits for some income sources. This change in methodology increased measured income in 1993 for the highest income households by considerably more than their actual income rose. See CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P60-191, A Brief Look at Postwar U.S. Income Inequality.
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
1998199219871982197719721967*1993
Recessionary periods
xiv
U.S. Census Bureau
-
Another common measure of income inequality is Regardless of the measure used, it seems clear thatbased on comparing selected positions on the income dis- income inequality rose substantially between 1967 andtribution. As Table C shows, the household at the 95th the early 1990s but has remained unchanged sincepercentile in 1998 received $132,199 in income, 8.2 times then.29
that of the household at the 20th percentile ($16,116). In1967, the first year the U.S. Census Bureau began report-ing on the income distribution of households, the house- 29A change in data collection methodology occurred in 1993hold at the 95th percentile had just 6.3 times the income which affected income measurement and overstated the increase in
income inequality. See Paul Ryscavage, ‘‘A Surge in Growing Incomeof the household at the 20th percentile. Inequality?,’’ Monthly Labor Review, August 1995. Long-run differ-
ences in living arrangements affect comparisons of income differ-ences among households. Among those changes is the shift awayfrommarried-couple households toward single-parent and nonfam-ily households, which typically have lower incomes. See CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P60-191.
Table C. Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 1998
[Income in 1998 dollars]
Measures of income dispersion 1998 1997 1996 19951 1990 1985 19802 19753 1970 1968 1967
HOUSEHOLD INCOME ATSELECTED PERCENTILES
20th percentile upper limit . . . .50th (median) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80th percentile upper limit . . . .95th percentile lower limit . . . . .
HOUSEHOLD INCOMERATIOS OF SELECTEDPERCENTILES
95th/20th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95th/50th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80th/50th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80th/20th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20th/50th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMEOF QUINTILES
Lowest quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Second quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Third quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fourth quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Highest quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SHARES OF HOUSEHOLDINCOME OF QUINTILES
Lowest quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Second quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Third quintile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fourth quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Highest quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gini coefficient of income
inequality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16,11638,88575,000
132,199
8.203.401.934.650.41
9,22323,28838,96760,266
127,529
3.69.0
15.023.249.2
0.456
15,64037,58172,614
128,521
8.223.421.934.640.42
9,01022,44237,75658,479
124,676
3.68.9
15.023.249.4
0.459
15,34236,87270,659
124,187
8.093.371.924.610.42
8,93021,91736,86657,057
120,005
3.79.0
15.123.349.0
0.455
15,40236,44669,654
120,860
7.853.321.914.520.42
8,93121,81636,47856,076
117,021
3.79.1
15.223.348.7
0.450
15,58937,34368,848
118,163
7.583.161.844.420.42
8,97322,48637,14155,997
108,671
3.99.6
15.924.046.6
0.428
15,14935,77866,365
110,984
7.333.101.854.380.42
8,78221,70835,95554,07299,741
4.09.7
16.324.645.3
0.419
14,96535,07662,784
101,999
6.822.911.794.200.43
8,87921,42835,26851,92891,211
4.310.316.924.943.7
0.403
14,57434,22459,44694,787
6.502.771.744.080.43
8,80020,89434,18649,64586,457
4.410.517.124.843.2
0.397
14,55234,47157,86391,477
6.292.651.683.980.42
8,00821,29334,28948,33685,581
4.110.817.424.543.3
0.394
14,36733,47854,85885,824
5.972.561.643.820.43
7,92120,93533,20146,31981,120
4.211.117.524.442.8
0.388
13,47132,07553,17085,317
6.332.661.663.950.42
7,30119,90631,78344,46880,584
4.010.817.324.243.8
0.399
1Reflects the implementation of 1990 census adjusted population controls, 1990 census sample redesign, a change in data collection method frompaper-pencil to computer-assisted interviewing (CAI), and changes in income reporting limits. For detailed information concerning the impact of thesechanges, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-191, A Brief Look at Postwar U.S. Income Inequality.
2Reflects implementation of 1980 census population controls.3Reflects implementation of 1970 census population controls.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Surveys, selected March Supplements. Data not available before 1967.
xv
U.S. Census Bureau
-
Table D. Median Income of Households by State[Income in 1998 dollars. For meaning of symbols, see text]
States
Three-year average1996-1998
Two-year moving averages Differences in 2-yearmoving averages
1997-1998 less 1996-19971997-1998 1996-1997
Median Standardincome error
Median Standard Median Standardincome error income error
PercentDifference change
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .District of Columbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New York, NY CMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . .Los Angeles, CA CMSA . . . . . . . . . . .
37,779
33,39451,42134,40227,47140,522
44,34944,97842,00032,99933,234
36,55341,93235,55442,06538,580
35,27635,86734,63332,31734,989
47,71142,01740,63944,57928,592
37,64030,34835,66139,75142,511
49,30329,38636,84536,40731,717
37,00531,35737,92237,79138,150
34,69231,20532,39735,25442,073
36,19642,57243,59326,95041,03233,783
41,90839,111
137
1,0031,236
909784548
1,0751,8321,260
911442
8911,325
903730958
9541,1151,1011,072
854
1,4561,236
7581,159
924
1,307914
1,0861,0611,228
971863508696891
832789
1,197713
1,464
1,037755897555
1,084
1,0971,3261,128
831997878
529637
38,233
34,35149,71735,17027,11740,623
45,25345,58942,58132,89533,935
37,95041,19935,30242,55239,613
35,66436,87535,11332,75734,461
48,71442,51140,58345,57629,031
38,66230,62235,82339,60843,297
49,29731,04936,87536,11831,229
37,81132,78338,44738,55838,012
34,03131,47132,60235,70243,870
37,48543,49046,33927,31040,76934,597
41,77739,520
167
1,2101,4181,057
958604
1,2821,9611,583
953561
8691,5801,009
8431,152
1,0291,3381,3141,329
977
1,5151,392
8411,5081,056
1,628943
1,2741,1661,438
1,1841,058
585803
1,055
1,038935
1,538846
2,026
1,213895
1,104642
1,315
1,3741,6951,286
8831,0021,143
608819
37,227
31,95851,78633,05827,37340,317
43,22444,21342,27032,78332,396
35,49742,48434,99141,50938,004
34,40535,44533,82332,60834,664
46,55841,85340,04842,90628,329
36,36029,73335,28439,74941,288
49,04128,30836,57136,69232,424
36,04630,17237,35037,17936,881
35,40430,41531,55034,99040,960
34,60742,18141,67927,07240,88433,050
41,96838,682
148
1,2111,3541,085
900710
1,3892,1741,4701,099
462
1,1171,4001,131
8051,048
1,1891,2971,3081,1991,060
1,7421,412
9501,1551,140
1,5121,1531,2781,3471,410
1,115948584813
1,074
829893
1,297818
1,416
1,272906
1,033693
1,318
1,2601,4191,4021,1041,255
981
636739
* 1,007
* 2,393–2,069* 2,112
–256307
* 2,0281,376
310112
* 1,538
* 2,453–1,285
3111,0431,609
1,2591,4301,289
148–202
2,156658536
* 2,671703
* 2,302889538
–1412,009
256* 2,741
304–574
–1,195
* 1,765* 2,612
1,098* 1,380
1,131
–1,3731,0561,052
713* 2,911
2,8781,309
* 4,660238
–115* 1,547
–191838
* 2.7
* 7.5* –4.0* 6.4–0.90.8
* 4.73.10.70.3
* 4.7
* 6.9–3.00.92.5
* 4.2
3.74.03.80.5
–0.6
4.61.61.3
* 6.22.5
* 6.33.01.5
–0.44.9
0.5* 9.7
0.8–1.6–3.7
* 4.9* 8.7
2.9* 3.7
3.1
–3.93.53.32.0
* 7.1
* 8.33.1
* 11.20.9
–0.3* 4.7
–0.52.2
* Statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 1999 Current Population Survey.
xvi
U.S. Census Bureau
-
Income Data for States tax laws have affected the economic well-being of thepopulation. In the early 1980s, the U.S. Census Bureau
The March CPS is designed to collect reliable data pri-embarked on a research program to examine the effects of
marily at the national level and only secondarily at thetaxes. Four types of modeled tax data are included here:
regional level. State estimates of income are considerablyfederal individual income taxes, state individual income
less reliable. Specifically, the sampling variability associ-taxes, property taxes on owner-occupied housing, and
ated with the state estimates is higher than for estimatespayroll taxes.
based on the country as a whole or on regions. Because ofReceiving noncash benefits increases the resources
this increased sampling variability, year-to-year estimatesavailable to individuals and families. Hence, this report
fluctuate more widely than national estimates. To reducealso presents income measures that include the valuation
the chances of misinterpreting changes in, or rankings of,of various noncash benefits, such as food stamps, school
income estimates for states, the Census Bureau recom-lunches, housing subsidies, medicare, medicaid, employer
mends using 2-year averages for evaluating changes incontributions to health insurance, and net imputed returns
state estimates over time, and 3-year averages when com-on home equity.30
paring the relative ranking of states (see Table D).Based on comparisons of 2-year moving averages Distributional Effects
(1996-1997 versus 1997-1998), real median householdTaxes, government transfers, and other benefits affectincome increased significantly for 16 states. Six of these
the distribution of income and the level of income, as isstates (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Washington,evident from examining the different definitions of incomeand Wyoming) were in the West, four (Alabama, Florida,used in this section. Tables E, F, G, and Table 12 show theGeorgia, and Oklahoma) were in the South, another fourdistribution of income under the different definitions. For(Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio) were in the Mid-each of the 15 definitions of income (only a few of whichwest, and two (Pennsylvania and Vermont) were in theare discussed below) real median household incomeNortheast. The two 2-year moving averages also showincreased between 1997 and 1998.that median household income declined for Alaska. The
Definition 1, the official definition of income, is basedmedian household income did not change significantly foron money income before taxes and includes governmentany of the remaining states or the District of Columbiacash transfers. Under definition 1, the share of aggregate(see Table D).household income going to each quintile was 3.6 percentComparing the relative ranking of states using thefor the lowest quintile, 9.2 percent for the second quintile,3-year average for 1996-1998 shows that the median14.9 percent for the third quintile, 23.3 percent for thehousehold income for Alaska, although not statisticallyfourth quintile, and 49.0 percent for the top quintile (seedifferent from the median income for New Jersey, wasTable F). The Gini coefficient for all households under defi-higher than for the remaining 48 states and the District ofnition 1 was 0.446 in 1998, unchanged from 1997.31Columbia. Conversely, the median household income for
Definition 4 reflects income generated by the privateWest Virginia, although not statistically different from thesector and results in a more unequal distribution than themedians for Arkansas and Mississippi, was lower than thatdistribution under the official definition of income (seeof the remaining 47 states and the District of Columbia.Table F). It excludes cash transfers, adds net capital gains,The relative standing of the remaining states and the Dis-and adds employer contributions to health insurance.trict of Columbia is less clear because of sampling variabil-Under definition 4, shares of income received by the low-ity surrounding the estimates (see Figure 7).est two quintiles of households declined from that of defi-The Census Bureau also computes improved (in thenition 1 (from 3.6 percent to 1.0 percent, and from 9.2sense of having lower standard errors) biennial estimatespercent to 7.1 percent, respectively), while the share ofof median household income for states and also for coun-
ties based on models using data from the CPS, the 1990decennial census, and administrative records. They are 30For more information on the methodology and proceduresavailable on the Internet at: used to estimate taxes and to value noncash benefits see P60-http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe.html 186RD, Measuring the Effect of Benefits and Taxes on Income and
Poverty: 1992.31 Two methods are used in this report to estimate shares of
EXPERIMENTAL ESTIMATES OF INCOME INCLUDING aggregate income received by each quintile and the Gini index. TheNONCASH BENEFITS AND TAXES first method, reported in Table C, incorporates the use of actual
sorted household data resulting in a Gini index of .456 and quintile
Traditionally, income data presented in the Census shares of 3.6, 9.0, 15.0, 23.2, and 49.2. The second method,reported in Table F, uses grouped data and employs several inter-
Bureau’s reports have been based on the amount of polation routines resulting in a Gini index of .446 and quintilemoney received during a calendar year before taxes and shares of 3.6, 9.2, 14.9, 23.3, and 49.0. The grouped data methodexcluding capital gains, but this restricted definition of is used throughout this report for calculating Gini indexes when
they appear with other income summary measures in the detailedincome does not provide a completely satisfactory mea- tables, as well as for share estimates under the alternative defini-sure of the distribution of income. Over time, changes in tions of income.
xvii
U.S. Census Bureau
-
�
Figure 7.Median Household Income by State:1996-1998 Three-Year Average
Median household income in thousands of 1998 dollars
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1997, 1998, and 1999.
90 percent confidence intervalMidpoint
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
AlaskaNew Jersey
MarylandConnecticut
Minnesota
Colorado
WashingtonVirginia
New HampshireUtah
IllinoisMassachusetts
DelawareHawaii
WisconsinMichiganCalifornia
NevadaIndiana
Rhode IslandOregon
PennsylvaniaUnited States
MissouriOhio
New YorkGeorgia
North CarolinaVermont
Kansas
NebraskaIdahoIowa
TexasMaine
South CarolinaKentucky
ArizonaWyoming
AlabamaFlorida
District of ColumbiaTennesseeLouisiana
North DakotaOklahoma
South Dakota
MontanaNew Mexico
Mississippi
ArkansasWest Virginia
xviii
U.S. Census Bureau
-
income received by the highest quintile increased from income taxes, and adding the earned income tax credit49.0 percent to 54.1 percent. The Gini coefficient under reduced income inequality. This result is shown by defini-this definition of income, 0.509, was 14.1 percent higher tion 8. The share of income going to the bottom three(showing more income inequality) than the coefficient quintiles increased and the share of the highest quintileunder the official income definition (0.446).
declined. This reduced the Gini coefficient for 1998 fromThe net effect of deducting social security payroll taxes,
that of definition 4 by 4.9 percent, from 0.509 to 0.484.federal individual income taxes, and state individual
Table E. Median Household Income by Definition: 1997 and 1998
[Median are in 1998 dollars]
Definition of incomeMedian income
Percent change1997-19981998 1997
INCOME BEFORE TAXES:
1. Money income excluding capital gains (official measure). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Definition 1 less government cash transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Definition 2 plus capital gains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Definition 3 plus health insurance supplements to wage or salary income. . . . . . .
INCOME AFTER TAXES:
5. Definition 4 less social security payroll taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. Definition 5 less federal income taxes (excluding the EIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. Definition 6 plus the earned income credit (EIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. Definition 7 less state income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. Definition 8 plus nonmeans-tested government cash transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. Definition 9 plus the value of medicare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11. Definition 10 plus the value of regular-price school lunches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12. Definition 11 plus means-tested government cash transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13. Definition 12 plus the value of medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14. Definition 13 plus the value of other means-tested government noncash
transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15. Definition 14 plus net imputed return on equity in own home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38,88535,71236,01137,673
35,36932,65632,80131,81635,18337,00137,01237,19537,530
37,67339,308
37,58134,49534,76636,536
34,23431,46331,61130,72133,95035,83335,84536,00236,300
36,41938,209
* 3.5* 3.5* 3.6* 3.1
* 3.3* 3.8* 3.8* 3.6* 3.6* 3.3* 3.3* 3.3* 3.4
* 3.4* 2.9
* Statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1998 and 1999.
Table F. Percentage of Aggregate Income Received by Income Quintiles and Gini Coefficient byDefinition of Income: 1998
Definition of incomeQuintiles
Gini coefficientLowest Second Third Fourth Highest
Definition 1 (official measure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition 4 (definition 1 less government cashtransfers plus capital gains and employeehealth benefits) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition 8 (definition 4 less taxes, includesEIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition 11 (definition 8 plus nonmeans-testedgovernment cash transfers). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition 14 (definition 11 plus means-testedgovernment cash transfers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition 15 (definition 14 plus return on homeequity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6
1.0
1.3
4.0
4.7
4.9
9.2
7.1
8.4
10.3
10.6
10.7
14.9
14.2
15.5
16.0
16.0
16.0
23.3
23.4
24.3
23.2
23.0
23.0
49.0
54.1
50.5
46.5
45.8
45.4
.446
.509
.484
.419
.405
.399
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1999.
xix
U.S. Census Bureau
-
Nonmeans-tested transfers reduced income inequality including transfers lowered the Gini coefficient by 16.3more than taxes. These transfers lowered the Gini coeffi- percent (from 0.484 to 0.405).cient by 13.4 percent, from 0.484 to 0.419, as shown bycomparing definition 11 estimates with definition 8 esti- Effects on Selected Population Groupsmates. Including the benefits increased the share of
Taxes and transfers affect income comparisons amongincome going to the lowest quintile (from 1.3 percent topopulation subgroups to varying degrees, as shown in4.0 percent) and lowered the share of income going to theTable G.highest quintile (from 50.5 percent to 46.5 percent).
Means-tested transfers also reduced income inequality, Under the official income definition, the median house-
as shown by definition 14. The share of income in the low- hold income of Blacks ($25,351) was 62 percent of the
est quintile increased from 4.0 percent to 4.7 percent, median household income of Whites ($40,912). Subtract-
though the change in the share of income going to the ing cash transfers and adding capital gains and health
highest quintile was not significantly different at 45.8 per- insurance supplements (definition 4) reduced that percent-
cent. The Gini coefficient declined 3.3 percent from 0.419 age to 59 percent. The subtraction of federal and state
to 0.405. The inclusion of net imputed return on home income taxes and payroll taxes and inclusion of EIC (defi-
equity had a minimal effect on the Gini coefficient, as nition 8) resulted in an increase to 64 percent, and the
shown by definition 15. addition of cash (definition 11) and noncash transfers
An important finding of the Census Bureau’s tax and (definition 14) resulted in a further increase in the Black-
benefit research is that government transfers have a sig- to-White income percentage to 68 percent.
nificantly greater impact on lowering income inequality The different definitions of income affect comparisonsthan the tax system. In 1998, subtracting taxes and of various types of households. Under the official incomeincluding the earned income credit (EIC) lowered the Gini definition, the median income of households with a femalecoefficient by 4.9 percent (from 0.509 to 0.484), while householder (no husband present) with children was 36
Table G. Median Income Using Different Definitions for Households With Selected Characteristics:1998
[Dollars]
Characteristics
Definition 1(Official
measure)
Definition 4(Definition 1
lessgovernment
cash transfersplus capital
gains andemployee
healthbenefits)
Definition 8(Definition 4
less taxes,includes EIC)
Definition 11(Definition 8
plusnonmeans
testedgovernment
cash transfers)
Definition 14(Definition 11
plusmeans-tested
governmentcash transfers)
Definition 15(Definition 14
plus return onhome equity)
All households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN OFHOUSEHOLDER
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asian or Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hispanic origin1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD
Married-couple households with related childrenunder 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Female householder, no husband present withrelated children under 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGE OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
With members 65 years old and over . . . . . . . . . . .With related children under 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38,885
40,91225,35146,63728,330
57,090
20,692
23,36946,562
37,673
39,91023,58748,02928,155
59,809
19,969
10,33748,765
31,816
33,49421,34439,16325,440
49,925
20,074
9,89041,613
37,012
38,78524,86941,53327,754
51,177
21,528
29,78143,203
37,673
39,28326,71442,34129,013
51,565
24,103
30,31444,028
39,308
41,02427,56044,14029,786
52,967
24,581
33,26145,086
1Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1999.
xx
U.S. Census Bureau
-
percent that of married-couple households with children. years. Aggregate dividend income increased by 23 percentBased on a definition of income that includes the effect of between 1997 and 1998 to a level $116.25 billion. Only ataxes and transfers (definition 14), the percentage small proportion was due to increased imputation. Theincreased to 47 percent. share of imputed dividends increased by approximately 4
The effects of the different income definitions are par- percentage points.ticularly evident for households with children and elderlymembers. Under definition 1, median money income forhouseholds with children under 18 years of age was ROUNDING$46,562 in 1998, while for households with members 65years old and over it was $23,369—or half as much (50 The Census Bureau rounds percentages to the nearestpercent). Subtracting cash transfers and adding capital tenth of a percent; therefore, the percentages in a distribu-gains and employer-provided health insurance (definition tion do not always add to exactly 100.0 percent.4) lowered the ratio from 50 percent to 21 percent, whileincorporating the effect of the tax system (definition 8)raised it to 24 percent. Adding cash (definition 11) and SYMBOLS USED IN TABLESnoncash transfers (definition 14) almost tripled it, bringingit to 69 percent, and adding the return on home equity
– Represents zero or rounds to zero.(definition 15) resulted in a further increase to 74 percent.
B Base less than 75,000.MEASUREMENT NOTE
NA Not available.The Census Bureau changed the way dividend income
was collected in March 1999. This resulted in more r Revised.
respondents reporting receiving dividend income or hav- X Not applicable.ing dividend income imputed this year than in previous
xxi
U.S. Census Bureau
-
Table 1. Median Income of Households by Selected Characteristics, Race, and Hispanic Originof Householder: 1998, 1997, and 1996
[Households as of March of the following year. An asterisk (*) preceding percent change indicates statistically significant change at the 90~percent confidence level. For meaning of symbols, see text]
Characteristic
1998 1997 1996
Percentchangein real
median income
(1997~1998)Number(1,000)
Median income
Number(1,000)
Median income
Number(1,000)
Median income
Value(dollars)
Standarderror
(dollars)Value
(dollars)
Standarderror
(dollars)Value
(dollars)
Standarderror
(dollars)
ALL RACES
All households....................
Type of Residence
103 874 38 885 230 102 528 37 005 171 101 018 35 492 179 * 3.5
Inside metropolitan areas ................ 83 441 40 983 214 82 122 39 381 268 80 950 37 640 245 * 2.51 million or more..................... 55 541 43 431 372 54 667 41 502 254 53 760 39 815 327 * 3.0
Inside central cities................. 20 513 33 559 500 20 310 31 789 356 19 934 30 150 385 * 3.9Outside central cities ............... 35 028 49 940 394 34 357 47 981 476 33 825 45 526 365 * 2.5
Under 1 million ...................... 27 900 36 420 330 27 455 35 409 335 27 190 34 430 402 1.3Inside central cities................. 11 631 32 488 535 11 597 31 168 425 11 413 30 659 405 2.6Outside central cities ............... 16 269 39 428 564 15 858 38 581 518 15 778 37 399 456 0.6
Outside metropolitan areas ..............
Region
20 433 32 022 383 20 406 30 057 413 20 068 28 089 395 * 4.9
Northeast .............................. 19 877 40 634 469 19 810 38 929 525 19 724 37 406 456 * 2.8Midwest ............................... 24 489 40 609 365 24 236 38 316 447 23 972 36 579 365 * 4.4South ................................. 36 959 35 797 304 36 578 34 345 347 35 693 32 422 288 * 2.6West ..................................
Type of Household
22 549 40 983 402 21 905 39 162 545 21 629 37 125 387 * 3.0
Family households ...................... 71 535 47 469 249 70 880 45 347 236 70 241 43 082 251 * 3.1Married~couple families ...............Male householder, no wife
54 770 54 276 322 54 317 51 681 232 53 604 49 858 290 * 3.4
present ............................Female householder, no husband
3 976 39 414 993 3 911 36 634 719 3 847 35 658 909 * 5.9
present ............................ 12 789 24 393 398 12 652 23 040 393 12 790 21 564 326 * 4.2Nonfamily households ................... 32 339 23 441 284 31 648 21 705 208 30 777 20 973 205 * 6.3
Male householder.................... 14 368 30 414 340 14 133 27 592 461 13 707 27 266 315 * 8.5Living alone ....................... 10 966 26 021 334 11 010 23 871 425 10 442 24 050 401 * 7.3
Female householder ................. 17 971 18 615 281 17 516 17 613 256 17 070 16 398 219 * 4.1Living alone .......................
Age of Householder
15 640 16 406 236 15 317 15 530 245 14 961 14 626 183 * 4.0
Under 65 years ......................... 82 286 44 697 274 81 031 42 365 201 79 610 40 941 188 * 3.915 to 24 years ....................... 5 770 23 564 444 5 435 22 583 492 5 160 21 438 417 2.725 to 34 years ....................... 18 819 40 069 423 19 033 38 174 452 19 314 35 888 355 * 3.435 to 44 years ....................... 23 968 48 451 444 23 943 46 359 381 23 823 44 420 446 * 2.945 to 54 years ....................... 20 158 54 148 533 19 547 51 875 435 18 843 50 472 484 * 2.855 to 64 years ....................... 13 571 43 167 601 13 072 41 356 457 12 469 39 815 615 * 2.8
65 years and over ...................... 21 589 21 729 240 21 497 20 761 243 21 408 19 448 208 * 3.165 to 74 years ....................... 11 373 26 112 399 11 272 25 292 391 11 679 23 411 339 1.775 years and over ...................
Size of Household
10 216 17 885 283 10 226 17 079 245 9 729 15 995 246 * 3.1
One person ............................ 26 606 20 154 221 26 327 18 762 209 25 402 17 897 225 * 5.8Two people ............................ 34 262 41 512 301 32 965 39 343 352 32 736 37 283 303 * 3.9Three people........................... 17 386 49 069 517 17 331 47 115 455 17 065 44 813 422 * 2.5Four people ............................ 15 030 55 886 607 15 358 53 165 585 15 396 51 405 392 * 3.5Five people ............................ 6 962 53 706 911 7 048 50 407 701 6 774 47 841 841 * 4.9Six people ............................. 2 367 49 080 1 500 2 232 46 465 1 326 2 311 42 438 1 277 4.0Seven people or more ...................
Number of Earners
1 261 46 646 1 675 1 267 42 343 1 688 1 334 40 337 1 458 * 8.5
No earners............................. 21 263 14 442 147 21 280 14 142 152 21 228 13 320 143 0.6One earner ............................ 36 216 31 162 182 35 150 29 780 259 34 026 27 895 237 * 3.0Two earners or more .................... 46 396 60 787 258 46 098 57 525 310 45 764 55 547 262 * 4.0
Two earners ........................ 36 501 57 388 319 36 188 54 192 340 35 753 52 416 276 * 4.3Three earners ....................... 7 409 70 012 816 7 429 67 182 734 7 455 62 428 655 * 2.6Four earners or more.................
Work Experience of Householder
2 485 86 676 1 640 2 480 84 816 1 324 2 556 78 504 1 349 0.6
Total ............................ 103 874 38 885 230 102 528 37 005 171 101 018 35 492 179 * 3.5Worked................................ 74 296 48 179 262 73 415 45 877 218 72 377 43 975 237 * 3.4
Worked full~time, year~round .......... 54 963 53