Money Income in the United States: 1998Money Income. Issue. in the United States 1998 (With Separate...

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)


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


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

[email protected]

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-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


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


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


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)


less taxes,includes EIC)


plusnonmeans

testedgovernment

cash transfers)


plusmeans-tested

governmentcash transfers)


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.


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

Money Income in the United States: 1998Money Income. Issue. in the United States 1998 (With Separate...

Documents

Transcript of Money Income in the United States: 1998Money Income. Issue. in the United States 1998 (With Separate...