The median household income in the U.S. was $42,409 in 2002. This means that half of U.S. households earn more than this, half earn less. (See Census Bureau chart for trend line since 1967)
In Minnesota, the median household income was $54,931 in the year 2002. Minnesota is the third highest in the nation. (See Census Bureau data)
Median family income grew during the last quarter of the 20th century, but at a much slower rate than previously. From 1947 to 1973, median family income doubled in real terms -- it grew by 100%. But from 1973 to 2001, it grew by only 25%. Source: The State of Working America 2002/2003 by Mishel, Bernstein, and Boushey. (See tables for more details)
Median family income grew during the last quarter of the 20th century, but at a much slower rate than previously.
From 1947 to 1973, median family income doubled in real terms -- it grew by 100%. But from 1973 to 2001, it grew by only 25%.
Source: The State of Working America 2002/2003 by Mishel, Bernstein, and Boushey.
(See tables for more details)
The ratio of black-to-white family incomes was about 64% in 2001. Median household income for whites in 2002 was $44,964. For blacks it was $29,177. For Hispanics it was $33,103. (See Census Bureau report for details)
If your household income before taxes in 2002 was $84,016 or higher, you were in the top 20% of the nation's households.If your household income in 2002 was $150,002 or higher, you were in the top 5%.Below is a table showing the income limits for each quintile (fifth) of the nation's households in 2002. Quintile Yearly Income Range in 2001 Lowest $0 - $17,916 Second $17,916 - 33,377 Third $33,377 - 53,162 Fourth $53,162 - 84,016 Highest $84,016 and higher Top 5% $150,002 and higher (See Census Bureau report for more details)
If your household income before taxes in 2002 was $84,016 or higher, you were in the top 20% of the nation's households.If your household income in 2002 was $150,002 or higher, you were in the top 5%.Below is a table showing the income limits for each quintile (fifth) of the nation's households in 2002.
(See Census Bureau report for more details)
In 2001 the bottom 20% of U.S. households got 3.5% of the total income in the U.S.The bottom 40% got 12.2%.The bottom 60% got 26.8%. The top 20% of households got over 50% of the total income.The top 5% of households got 22.4% of the total income.The top 1%, representing 2.8 million people, receive 12.9% of national income. This is as much as the 110 million people in the bottom 40 percent of the population. Share of Aggregate Household Income in 2001 Lowest Fifth Second Fifth Third Fifth Fourth Fifth Top Fifth Top 5% Top1% 3.5 8.8 14.8 23.3 49.7 21.7 12.9 (See Census Bureau report for more details and historical data.)
In 2001 the bottom 20% of U.S. households got 3.5% of the total income in the U.S.The bottom 40% got 12.2%.The bottom 60% got 26.8%.
The top 20% of households got over 50% of the total income.The top 5% of households got 22.4% of the total income.The top 1%, representing 2.8 million people, receive 12.9% of national income. This is as much as the 110 million people in the bottom 40 percent of the population.
Share of Aggregate Household Income in 2001
(See Census Bureau report for more details and historical data.)
Those in the upper fifth of the population, especially the top 5%, benefited far more than others as demonstrated in the chart on the left. The chart on the right shows a much more even distribution of growth in the three decades after World War II. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Paul Krugman, professor at Princeton, recent trends in inequality in an extended article in the New York Times: "Evidence makes it clear not only that inequlity is increasing but that the action gets bigger the closer you get to the top. That is, it's not simply that the top 20 percnet of families have had bigger percentage gains than families near the middle: the top 5 percent have done better than the next 15, the top 1 percent better than the next 4, and so on up to BIll Gates." The following chart shows the growing disparity in terms of real annual income. Real annual income of poor, middle class, and rich households 1967-98 (1998 dollars) Source: Income and poverty, an LBO review, http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Stats_incpov.html By one estimate, 95% of the benefits of economic growth betwen 1967 and 1996 went to the richest 5%.
Those in the upper fifth of the population, especially the top 5%, benefited far more than others as demonstrated in the chart on the left. The chart on the right shows a much more even distribution of growth in the three decades after World War II.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Paul Krugman, professor at Princeton, recent trends in inequality in an extended article in the New York Times: "Evidence makes it clear not only that inequlity is increasing but that the action gets bigger the closer you get to the top. That is, it's not simply that the top 20 percnet of families have had bigger percentage gains than families near the middle: the top 5 percent have done better than the next 15, the top 1 percent better than the next 4, and so on up to BIll Gates."
The following chart shows the growing disparity in terms of real annual income.
Source: Income and poverty, an LBO review,
By one estimate, 95% of the benefits of economic growth betwen 1967 and 1996 went to the richest 5%.
From 1979 to 2000, the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households tripled. More precisely, it climbed 201 percent, or $576,000. Among the middle fifth of households, average after-tax income rose a much more modest 15 percent, or $5,500. (These figures are adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2000 dollars.) Average after-tax income gains, 1979-2000 Top 1% $576,400 201% increase Middle fifth $5,500 15% increase Bottom fifth $1,100 9% increase
From 1979 to 2000, the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households tripled. More precisely, it climbed 201 percent, or $576,000. Among the middle fifth of households, average after-tax income rose a much more modest 15 percent, or $5,500. (These figures are adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2000 dollars.)
Graphically, the change in income for various population groups can be seen in the following figure: Source: Congressional Budget Office, CBPP calculations
Graphically, the change in income for various population groups can be seen in the following figure:
The gap between the bottom and top income groups has grown dramatically during the last twenty five years. Source: Census dataq as analyzed in The State of Working America 2002/2003 by Mishel, Bernstein, and Boushey. Note: The 2000 ratio reflects a change in survey methodology that produced a showing of greater inequality.
The gap between the bottom and top income groups has grown dramatically during the last twenty five years.
Source: Census dataq as analyzed in The State of Working America 2002/2003 by Mishel, Bernstein, and Boushey.
Note: The 2000 ratio reflects a change in survey methodology that produced a showing of greater inequality.
From 1947 to 1969 the income shares of each of the four bottom quintiles (fifths) increased, and that of the top quintile declined. After 1973 the shares of the bottom four quintiles dropped, while that of the richest quintile reached record highs. (See Census Bureau table for more details.) Source: Census data as analyzed in The State of Working America 2002/2003 by Mishel, Bernstein, and Boushey.
From 1947 to 1969 the income shares of each of the four bottom quintiles (fifths) increased, and that of the top quintile declined. After 1973 the shares of the bottom four quintiles dropped, while that of the richest quintile reached record highs. (See Census Bureau table for more details.)
Source: Census data as analyzed in The State of Working America 2002/2003 by Mishel, Bernstein, and Boushey.
The Gini Index (or Gini coefficient) is a number which represents the degree of inequality of income. It is widely used by economicst, the Census Bureau, and by others who study income distribution trends. It's important because it is the single most widely used and accepted method of measuring the degree of income inequality and the relative change in income inequality over time. For example, here's a chart from the Census Bureau which uses the Gini Index to show the changes in income inequality between 1947 and 1998: Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Note: Change in data collection methodology suggest pre-1992 and post-1993 estimates are not comparable.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March, 1948-1999. The Gini Index is always a number between 0 and 1. The higher the number, the greater the degree of inequality that it represents. For a more detaild description of how this index is calculated, follow this link.
The Gini Index (or Gini coefficient) is a number which represents the degree of inequality of income. It is widely used by economicst, the Census Bureau, and by others who study income distribution trends. It's important because it is the single most widely used and accepted method of measuring the degree of income inequality and the relative change in income inequality over time. For example, here's a chart from the Census Bureau which uses the Gini Index to show the changes in income inequality between 1947 and 1998:
The Gini Index is always a number between 0 and 1. The higher the number, the greater the degree of inequality that it represents. For a more detaild description of how this index is calculated, follow this link.
There is some mobility among the different income groups, but it is quite modest. For example, the following chart shows that during the 1970s and 1980s, over 60% of families who were in the lowest fifth in 1969 were still in the same income level a decade and two decades later. When families do move to another income level, they tend to move only one level up or down. Fully 85% of the families in the first fifth in the chart below stayed in that level or moved up one level. On the other end of the scale, over 80% of the families in the top fifth stayed in that level or moved down one level. Only 1.1% moved from the lowest fifth to the highest fifth in the 20 year period. Income Mobility over the 1970s and 1980s 1979 income group 1969income group FirstFifth Secondfifth Middlefifth Fourthfifth Topfifth Total First fifth 61.5% 24.0% 8.7% 4.4% 1.5% 100% Second fifth 22.7 31.3 27.5 12.9 5.6 100% Middle fifth 9.6 22.5 29.6 26.1 12.1 100% Fourth fifth 3.3 17.3 22.4 31.6 25.4 100% Top fifth 2.9 5.0 11.9 25.1 55.2 100% 1989 income group First fifth 61.0% 23.8% 9.5% 4.6% 1.1% 100% Second fifth 22.9 33.2 27.7 13.5 2.7 100% Middle fifth 8.3 25.2 29.5 25.7 11.4 100% Fourth fifth 4.6 13.0 23.0 33.2 26.2 100% Top fifth 2.7 4.9 10.8 22.8 58.8 100% Source: The State of Working America 2002/2003 by Mishel, Bernstein, and Boushey. Note: This table averages family income over three years to "smooth out" temporary transitions. The numbers in bold indicate those who did not move out of their income level.
There is some mobility among the different income groups, but it is quite modest. For example, the following chart shows that during the 1970s and 1980s, over 60% of families who were in the lowest fifth in 1969 were still in the same income level a decade and two decades later.
When families do move to another income level, they tend to move only one level up or down. Fully 85% of the families in the first fifth in the chart below stayed in that level or moved up one level. On the other end of the scale, over 80% of the families in the top fifth stayed in that level or moved down one level. Only 1.1% moved from the lowest fifth to the highest fifth in the 20 year period.
Total
