Talk:Household income in the United States/Archive 1

International Comparisons
This section needs tidying up - the current definition of urban/rural England, for instance, is one that is not typically used at all in the UK - as you can see it was a response to a parliamentary question. There are better figures available for the UK as a whole. Plus, the Big Mac index is not a great way of measuring the the PPP of the UK/USA as various other goods are cheaper in the UK - e.g. private healthcare, education supplies, banking services etc. It'd be prudent to look for a better measure, which will likely be close to the current one, but less prone to being rejected.


 * Indeed it is very difficult to compare actual private income, not GDP per capita, on a global basis. Only Canada has something called median household income. I have gone through statistics from Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the Neatherlands all of whom have a similar standard of living to the US. My efforts have, however, yielded few useful results. Adding to the problem is of course the fact that comparing the US to say the UK or Denmark, means comparing a relative non-well-fare state country to a well-fare state. Neither the Big Mac index nor PPP were intendet for any comparison like the one I have attmpted to conduct. I am very close to replacing the current section with a section featuring only a US/Canadian comparision and a more global comparison of gini indexes that is to serve as an indicator for global trends regarding income distribution. Best Regards,  Signature brendel  Now under review! 01:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Brendel your data for median family income in Germany seems suspicious, i.e $45000 PPP in the year 2000. Perhaps there is some confusion between median household income and average household income (=$45000 in 2003)? Regards, Badenoch Badenoch

I changed the statistics back to converted purchasing power form, because obviously they weren't that way. It said $39,000 for the UK when in reality it is $28,000. It's $39,000 when you use the exchange rate. And don't tell me that PPP doesn't take into account cheaper things in the UK, because in general, the US is a cheaper country to live in. Also, the previous German number does not make sense, for it was too high given other statistics I have available.

-Lee Dear Lee. The data was already expressed as PPP. I have to go now, but later I will write the full process out clearly in the discussion so that everyone can understand how these are calculated. Best wishes, Badenoch.


 * Badenoch, the German data comes from a source you gave me. If you have second thought about that info, two or three countries in the Comparison are enough-so we can remove "suspicous seeming data. Lee, The median household income according to any source I a have available suggests that $39k is correct for the UK, whereas $28k seems awfully low, considering the median household income of Canada (a fellow well-fare state) and Australia. PS. sign your posts w/ ~ . Best Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Brendel, Lee and Others.

There are many traps with trying to obtain a valid comparison of international median household incomes. May I suggest that we use an agreed procedure to ensure quality control?

1.	For consistency could we use gross (pre-tax) median household income adjusted for purchasing power parity (OECD). This allows the reader to make a direct comparison with the data for US States, which has been displayed in the subsequent section.

2.	Avoid presenting equivalised data. This has been adjusted for household size and composition.

3.	Avoid presenting net median household income, because this has had tax removed.

4.	Avoid any confusion between average incomes and median incomes.

Converting from national currency units to US$ PPP is relatively straightforward. May I suggest that we use PPP rates from the OECD because they specialize in providing the best estimate for advanced economies. CIA and IMF PPP rates are effective in situations when comparing all countries, such as in the World Factbook, but less accurate for comparing advanced economies.

Canada's data was estimated in the following way: In the year 2000 the median household income was 80% of the average household income. Assuming that the distribution between the average and the median is still similar in 2006, then it is possible to estimate the median household income from the average household income for 2006. Canada new census data will soon become available, which will provide the best measure of median household income.

For Germany we know the average household income is US$45,000, but we have no knowledge of the distribution so it impossible to make a good estimate. I would GUESS that the distribution is similar to Canada because they are both socialist countries. This implies a median household income of US$36,000, but guestimates are too rough to put in the main page. I recommend not reporting German data until more information is available.

Best wishes, Badenoch

-The £24,700 number for median household income seems iffy. Take a look at this

link: []

There is nothing remotely close to that number you gave. With all the numbers crunched up, a the median household income works out to about £18,700. This works out to around $28-30k PPP. I know you may be surprised by how low this is, but then again why are you? The UK is one of the most expensive countries in the world! Canada by contrast not only has a higher GDP per capita, but has many more natural resources and much more affordable housing. So again, this is directly from the Parliament. The link that I provide does not indicate that it is after tax. I used "before housing" statistics.

Lee

-Another thing we can't forget is the size of the household. The median household in the US tends to have less people in it due to the fact that children tend to leave house much earlier than in Europe. Makes a huge difference.

Lee

Dear Lee, Your link was for equivalised median household income. Can we please agree not to quote data that has been equivalised[] , otherwise it becomes impossible to compare the data with the USA? Best wishes, Badenoch

Dear Badenoch, what I got from "equivalised" was adjusted for inflation, which is consistent with the US statistics. Equivalised need not mean after tax, or does it?


 * I agree w/ Badenoch's suggestions above. Comapring developed economies is quite difficult and trying to abstain from using equalised data seesm like a good idea even if it makes the comparison table harder to read. Also lets remember that all US figures in the articles are gross (pre-tax) annual household income. As for the inflation issue, perhaps we should aim to find data for the same year. I have median household income data for the US available for nearly every year. To aviod the inflation pitfalls we should use data coming from the same year. Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No Lee, equivalised does not mean inflation adjusted and "yes" equivalised is normally presented as net (after-tax) income. "Equivalised" Income is used to allow comparisons of living standards between different household types. Income is adjusted to take into account variations in the size and composition of the household. This adjustment reflects the fact that a family of several people requires a higher income than a single person in order for both households to enjoy a comparable standard of living. The key assumption is that all individuals in the household benefit equally from the combined (equivalised) income of the household. There are distinct equivalence scales used for income before housing costs (BHC) and income after housing costs (AHC).

There are three reasons to avoid using equivalised data:

1. Most readers don't understand what equivalised means. They know their own household income but their equivalised household income. We shouldn't deliberately confuse the reader.

2. Equivalised data is normally after-tax. There are big differences between tax systems. For example, some countries pay for tertiary education through taxation, while others pay through private savings. The same argument applies to other cost such as health and retirement costs. Using gross income allows a direct comparison between countries with different taxation systems.

3. The main subject of this page is "Household income in the United States". There are already hundreds of data entries that are not equivalised. If we switch to using equivalised data we will have no data for the USA, and nothing to discuss.

So please lets keep it simple and just avoid using equivalised data.

Best wishes, Badenoch


 * I agree we should abstain from using equivalised data This article deals with gross household income in US as its main subject and only that data should make it into the international comparison section: Gross annual household income. Equivalised net income data needs to be discussed in another article. We are effectively not discussing the standard of living among developed nations (see Standard of living for that discussion). The sole purpose of this section is to simply give readers a reference point for all the US-specific data. PS. Please, you have to sign your posts w/ ~ Best Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

-I found statistics for Spain and Germany. For Spain it is mean household income and for Germany mean household income, as well. Can we guess what the median is using a mathematical correlation from other countries?


 * I have found the mean for Germany as well but we cannot guess. There is Wikipedia policy that prohibits "Original Research." If we conduct a guess using a mathematical correlation from other countries this article could lose its WP:Good article}Good article status. So, sorry we can't do that. Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Brendel. We should not try estimate the median household income based on the distribution in other countries. The relationship between mean and median varies a lot from country-to-country, so the error could potentially be very high. Regards BadenochBadenoch 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ireland's data (see table above) was provided via email by Kathryn Carty who works at Ireland's Central Statistics Office. Thank you Kathryn. Badenoch 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still looking for some Scandinavian data. Regards,  Signature brendel  20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Swiss Data
I just found the median household income for Switzerland in 2003 here. According to the Swiss Gov it's 8,000 francs per month, 96,000 francs per year.

Hi Brendel, Could we convert using PPP rates as these don't fluctuate with exchange rates and are a better comparison. Most of this data can be found here. Please use the data for the corresponding year if possible. For example, in 2003 Switzerlands PPP rate was 1.76. Overall Swiss median household income = 7981CHF x 12 / 1.76 = $54,000.


 * Sure thing. Before I used a converter from the Economist.  Signature brendel  19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Singapore

For non-OECD countries such as Singapore could we use the IMF PPP rates? 2005 data for singapore is available here. The IMF PPP rate for that year = 1.552. Overall Singapore's median household income = 3830 x 12 / 1.552 = 30,000 Badenoch 18:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I used the economist. Regards,  Signature brendel  19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Was that the economist Big Mac Index? From memory, I think the OECD use over 2000 items, which adds to the accuracy. I've got to now, but you have a good weekend and good luck with your search for new data. Badenoch 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I beleive it was. Have a good weekend and thanks for your help!  Signature brendel  19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Aussie data
I have just been reading the new 2007 Australian Year book (page 195) and noticed the median household income for Australia was incorrectly reported in the international comparison. I will fix it. Badenoch 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What difference- if the previous figure was indeed wrong than we made quite the mistake ;-) What was wrong with the revious source- did we confuse mean and median income? Anyways, Thanks for fixing it!  Signature brendel  19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to account for the difference in reported income. The original data was for median gross household income (see link[] page 49). However I think the yearbook data is more likely to be the correct value. Badenoch 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Australian state capital incomes presented in the latest demographia study[] are similar to the incomes in the Australian yearbook. Therefore the yearbook is probably a more reliable source. Badenoch 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if we have two sources indicating that $35k is the correct figure and only one source backing the $48k figure, we should go with the former has you have done. I am just amazed at the discrepency! Best Regards,  Signature brendel  05:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling and GA

 * cough* housEhold Morwen - Talk 20:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bravada fixed that. Thank for the hint though! Regards,  Signature brendel  03:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am on my best way to become a personal nemesis of yours, but I now have all those articles on my watchlist... I understand why you added the GA tag here, nevertheless the procedure is to let some other person NOT involved with the creation of the article judge whether this is a good article or not. This is not to say this is not a good article, but I believe this is a fair and sensible procedure, especially given how this article was created in its entirety within the past 24 hours. I guess such tagging would cause an unwanted precedent and further depreciation of the GA status - just imagine the multitude of users just adding "their" articles to the GA list... Bravada, talk - 03:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why nemesis, I value your opinion and really appreciate your contributions and professionalism, so why don't you add the GA tag then, once you think the article's good enough. Fair? Just please don't forget to do so ;-) (that's supposed to be funny)  Signature brendel  03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I actually didn't know that there's a nomination process. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well written and cited article. One comment regarding the GA nomination, the income distribution table and the aggregate income distribution table need to be fixed. There are some missing cells that are throwing them off.--NMajdan •talk 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. I'll fix them this evening. (Pacific Time\-8)  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  15:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Middle Class
The opening paragraph refers to middle class households and incomes, without defining what this means. Clearly it is not defined by income, as we are told that the middle class earn a disproportionate amount of money. Markb 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of the term middle class is not in relation to social class here, I have changed the wording to reflect that. Here, middle class referes to middle class income. Surely you have heard that expression, it merely means that these households fall in the middle of the income spectrum. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont see how 'middle class' can be used to describe the group of people on middle income when the article states that the middle class make up 29.2% of households yet earn 40% of the total income - this group clearly is in the upper 1/2 of households. Either define what you mean by 'middle-class' income or remove reference to it. Markb 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the middle among family households which are most iconic of American life. I was trying to make the sheer volume of data more digestable by adding some interesting and engaging key terms, relying on common knowledge. I have now added the term "moderately high middle class" income, references through a USA Today article. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  15:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The term 'Middle Class' has quite a specific meaning in the UK, not just related to income (which tends to be above average), but also political and cultural. Typically, middle class is associated with 'professional' occupations - white-collar workers if you like, as opposed to blue-collars workers (working-class). There are always exceptions, such as the high-earning tradesman (plumber) compared to the relatively low-income teacher. The former would consider themselves working class while the latter middle-class. Hence using such a term can be quite confusing! Markb 18:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there is indeed a difference between the meaning of middle class in the US and in the UK. Here in the US its mostly based on money. But even in the US there is a big difference between what people perceive to be middle class and what actually is middle class. According to the Washington Press "The statistical middle class can no longer afford the middle-class lifestyle." - that confuses even a lot of Americans.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Aggregate income distribution Chart
The article, as a whole, is excellent, though I noticed two minor things that may want to be fixed. The reference ([27]) for the Aggregate income distribution Chart seems to have been lost and because of this I was unable to look up the information needed to fix the chart. The Chart lists income groups as follows:

less than $25,000; 25,000 to $50,000; $50,000 to $75,000; $75,000 to $100,000; $150,000 or more;

As you can see there is no $100,000 to $150,000 group. Because of the associated percentages I would guess that the last category should be $100,000 or more, but because I don't have a resource to verify this assumption I do not want to make the change, though thought I would point it out so that someone who was involved in the development of this page could fix it. 69.110.254.107 19:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the complitment. After I spent so much time writing this article I certainly appreicate it. Yes you are right, logically the next income group after $75k to $100k would be $100k to $150k. Unfortunately the aggregate income for this particular group is unavailable. The Census Bureau in its 2005 Economic Survey simply states "N/A" for this group; thus I don't have the data and left the group out of the graph. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  20:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Expanded Definition of Household Income
Excellent, thorough article. Should be a featured article. I'd like to expand on the definition of "household income" as defined by the census but can't definitively come out and say it just yet, looking for a government source definition. I found the 2000 long form Census and it asks for Salary/Wages/Commissions (before deductions for taxes bonds or dues), non-farm self-employment income, interest/rental/royalty/estate/trust income, social security, SSI, state/local welfare transfers, retirement pensions, and VA/unemployment/alimony transfers.Prospero74 02:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All the above mentioned are commonly included-as far as I know they make up "gross income." I do appreciate your research and please include any relevant info you can find-hope your research turns out successful. Also, this article is up for GA status and you can help! => Just click on the link above. Thank you. Best Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Two year data?
I got here over the link in the CA article infobox- how come the state stats are for BOTH 04 and 05. Are they two year averages? Cheers, AlpineNevada


 * The data was released in 2005 and gather regarding the year 2004. I'll change the citation label. BTW: Please sign your posts using ~ Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

History
It would be nice to see some historical coverage, such as a chart of the Gini coefficient over time. -- Beland 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The gini coefficient would be better placed on the Income inequality article, don't you think? Anyways, I will look into expanding the "Over time" section.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so; that article discusses a number of different potential metrics in a global context. If you're look for United States-specific data, a U.S.-specific article would be where I'd expect to find it. Gini coefficient does have some overly U.S.-specific information, and Image:Gini since WWII.gif has more useful leads. It's unclear whether this information is per-household or per-person. It might not be a bad idea to start an "Income inequality in the United States" article and move some content there.  This article is already 59K, which is about twice the recommended article length. -- Beland 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Acutally starting a "Income inequality in the United States" article with info pertaining to persons as well as households is an excellent idea! I'm quite busy currently but should get around to it eventually (unless of course someone beats me to it ;-)). Best Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Trimming
This article is currently 57KB long, which is about twice the recommended size. Some of the problem is that it presents the same information more than once. I'm going to try to reduce such redundancy to streamline presentation for readers. -- Beland 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm removing Image:Income Strata 2005.jpg because there are other graphs that show the same information, although they have different thresholds. Moreover, it is confusing and hard to read.  It is not sorted by income level as the legend is; instead, it is sorted by the size of the population in that level.  This is non-intuitive and hard to tell because the colors are randomly assigned, rather than changing in hue e.g. from red to blue as income goes from lower to higher. -- Beland 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Income Quintiles of White and Black Households.png is somewhat redundant. It's nice to see this data in graphical rather than purely numerical form, but this graph does that only for one ethnic/language group, rather than all four which you see in numerical data.  I'm removing it for now.  If another graph to replace it is created, it could show the data graphically for all groups, and the numerical chart could be moved from the article to the image description page of the graph. -- Beland 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * okay, but I think this article shouldn't be shorter than 45kb. I agree with your changes above and will probably create higher quality replacement graphs. The article probably does repeat the same info, that's why I do appreciate your feedback and copyediting.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Math Problems
If the median income of males with a less than 9th grade education is $15,461 and of women is $9,296 how can the median income of both groups together be $17,422 more than either group individually. Isn't this mathematically impossible? 4.249.81.192 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that is mathematically impossible. I am a math Ph.D. student, so I speak with some authority. If we divide the population of people with less than a 9th grade education in half, then by the pigeonhole principle, at least half the males or at least half the females must fall below the median. So the median income overall must be at least as much as either the median male income or the median female income. (I haven't taken hermaphrodites into account, but I think their population is negligible for the present purposes.) Maybe the results are from separate surveys or different years? Someone please explain to us what's going on. Norman314 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OR
I read the introduction, then came over and read the discussion. It seems that this article could be full of OR, please shoot me down. I feel this is a grate article. 12.145.73.51 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't actually any OR-the article just presents readers with what the US Census Bureau publishes.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I could site each word in an article in the dictionary, that would not mean that I had sited article. For footnote 3, I went to that web site searching for “$46,326 “ and could not find that number, was some math done to it?192.88.212.68 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that number comes from the US Census Bureau-see here, scroll down and look for "median" on the left-hand side. All data in this article comes straight from the Census Bureau-w/o having been manipulated or "spinned."  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  20:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I wanted you to say it in the discussion that we sited from this source, and are math brake down came from standard books on the subject. And you have done that. This is an important subject that “data spinners” can to easily pull the wool over the eyes of unaware people. You have shown that you are not doing that, and again I thank you.192.88.212.68 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

household income figure
Whose idea was it to create such an ugly graphic? That's one of the ugliest examples of wannabe graphic designer excess I've ever seen. It's okay to be plain in an encyclopedia (in fact, all reference works should strive toward plainness. Edward Tufte would have an ulcer after seeing that graphic.


 * Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Others reader like these types of graphics. I used them in this article for the same reason you find blue-bordered-bright-yellow "fact boxes" in textbooks (at least those who aim to educate a mass-audience) or graph montages in Newsweek. This particular graph is supposed to provide an analogy - if the economic strata was a building in which income corresponds w/ floor, then what floor would a household making $88k be on? (I'm guessing that's the graphic you are referring to-as all the other graphics I used are rather plain and simple) To be honest I think the article is plain enough as is.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with him. That graphic would look more at home in a magazine. In an attempt at an encyclopedia like Wikipedia tries to be, I question its appropriateness. An analogy is inappropriate in this context. You shouldn't try and show what it's analagous too, you should simply show the facts as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.184.132 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I liked the graphic. Plain text is boring and there is a lot to be learned from the way magazines combine text and images. Please can someone spice up the intro with something, it doesn't have to be the same image, but should preferably be just as eye-catching. Badenoch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.125.110 (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

'Income by state' section needs adjusting
I suggest that 'Income by state' section also contain a column of incomes adjusted for the cost of living in each state. --00:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea! I'll keep an eye out for such data.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  05:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Currently the latter portion of it looks like an apology for poverty in the South. The argument of poverty being concentrated in rural areas applies to all districts; and I'd wager that if median income of cities in the South were compared with income of cities elsewhere we'd see that there would continue to be a disparity for Southern states. LeoTrottier 22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: "I'd wager that if median income of cities in the South were compared with income of cities elsewhere we'd see that there would continue to be a disparity for Southern states" - Yes, there is a disparity between most cities and suburbs and rural areas in the South, especially the "Deep South," and most of these area in the North. It is not my inention to downplay the disparity between regions. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about numbers
The second bar chart lists some numbers that do not add up for me. (This could simply be that I am looking at the wrong table.) To be clear on which chart, the bar chart says on the bottom "The above graph shows the percentage earning the amount shown on the graph or more.[5]"

When going to the cited page, the households with incomes over $150,000 total 8,767 out of 116,011 households total, which is 7.6%. (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm). However, the chart on the wiki page lists this total at 5.84%.

If I am missing something, my apologies.

Median Income at Retirement
I feel it would be helpful if you could include a section with Median Incomes at the point of Retirement. Most people premise their politics based on the assumption of what they will be earning eventually. I may be wrong but for most people maximum income occurs at the point of retirement, and retirement income is less. Of course, some history and reasonable protections for future earnings is important also. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.115.94 (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mithalwulf (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

New Figures on Int. Household Incomes!
Dream come true! Hey guys, I found this excellent source of information known as the Luxembourg Income Survey which happens to collect data on equivalent median household income on all countries. Yes, they have many countries we can use. All you have to do is post the data on the "intenational comparisons" section of US household income article. Speaking of which, the PPP rates you use are outdated. According to the latest World Bank/OECD/IMF report (as of this year they will standardize PPP indices), the PPP rate for the UK is .65 and not .618.

Here is the link for you to work on household income:

http://www.lisproject.org/keyfigures/full_kf.xls

The info. is on where it says median equivalised income. In reality it means household income which is equivalised.

Here is more info:

http://www.lisproject.org/keyfigures/methods.htm

The LIS is a very well known org., which the Census has worked with.

Many Thanks,

Forest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.86.157 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PPP Clarification
This is the newest study of PPP indices that will be used starting this year by the WB, IMF, OECD, UN, etc.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/ICP_final-results.pdf

There are many tables, and it gives you brand new PPP rates for which to work with. Also, it tells you the composition of the PPP rates. Apparently, it takes into account nontradeables, like healthcare, and the fact that its comparatively much more expensive in the US. This is all included in the PPP rates. Everything is included with these new PPP rates. Read the study so we can all be more educated.

Forest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.86.157 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Income by state needs fixing
if you use the refrence the person gives it shows new jersey isnt 6th and many articles and websites shows it as 1st or 2nd

Unfortunately there are many vandals. I will put this other copy here so that you can easily fix problems as they occur. Badenoch (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
Brendel and other authors. This article seems to be changing for the worse. The introduction is becoming too complicated for a basic reader. The second section "Income distribution for population" has lots of graphs but does not guide the reader through the information. The first table is difficult to understand etc. I am disappointed with the apparent deterioration in the quality of this article. Badenoch (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Belt Should Be Noted?
Is it absolutely neccessary that when noting that the poorest parts of the United States are the southern states and their emcompassing of the Black Belt? It would be different if the statement was cited to indicate that the inherent poverty of the southern states was dirrectly correlated with the racial demographics of the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.113.74 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
in "Quitiles" the article reads:

"Married couples are disproportionately represented in the upper two quintiles, compared to the general population of households. Cross-referencing shows that this is likely due to the presence of multiple income earners in these families."

This is original research and is suspect. by cross referencing aggregate data we might also come to the conclusion that married couples are more likely to be older and older people on average make more money. 151.203.64.235 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Graph
Some households on the second graph are counted more than once. Indeed, the households in the rightmost percentile are counted in all five bars. This makes the rightmost bars appear artificially smaller by comparison to the leftmost bars.

A more honest bar graph would be broken out like this:

< $25k: 31.73%

$25k-$50k: 23.25%

$50k-$75k: 18.27%

$75k-$100k: 10.93%

$100k-$150k: 9.98%

$150k+: 5.84%

--12.10.161.41 (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

audit the graphs, please
First graph: year? pre-income tax income? These both need to be clear without going to the source. Tony  (talk)  04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Percent change in family net income Change in mean before-tax U.S. family income (1989-2004) Title of the slide is Family Net Income... Title on graph is Before-Tax income. Not clear if this is before tax or after tax (Net). 208.91.239.30 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

question / correction to Graph of % Persons and % Households by Income Level
The data table shows that the number of people per household increases essentially monotonically with income from 2 to 3. But the graph shows that there are proportionately more people in households with lower income, so it seems backwards. Here are my calculations from the data table, next to those from the current graph:

My Calculations      Current Graph

Persons	Households Persons Households

$25k or less	22%	28%       35%      28%

$25k-$50k	26%	27%       36%      23%

$50k-$75k	20%	18%       16%      18%

$75k-$100k	13%	11%        6%      11%

$100k+	       19%	16%         7%      17%

If you plot my data you get a replacement for the graph.

The households data in my chart are different from the graph: $25k-$50K is 26% instead of 23%, and $100k+ is 16% instead of 17%. The numbers in the current graph only add up to 97%, so I believe my calculations are correct.

This is my first post -- I find Wikipedia very useful, and this article was very helpful. I appreciate all your hard work.

Thanks, Gandalf Wizard (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Error?
To measure the income of a household, the pre-tax money receipts of all residents over the age of 99 over a single year are combined.

Should this be UNDER 99? Seems odd to me, but I am not a pro on the subject, so don't want to put wrong information into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.18.46 (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The two different graphs on Household income over time?
It's been quite a while since I took a Statistics class, but what is with the Household income over time section? Not only the two graphs, but the section itself seems to be sort of split and contradictory. How can the median income increase 34% but the 50th percentile median stagnate? There must be a simple explanation, but I just can't think of it. 76.253.73.5 (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

update: median income not 50,000 but 30,000
Hi folks, I'm not a big wiki editor, but the article on Income in the US seems woefully out of date, at least on the Median Income front. The article cites 2007 median income of over 50,000 per year, but the BLS is saying 2008 median is closer to $30,000 at this address (published May 2009): http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.htm

Specifically: In 2008, the U.S. median wage was $15.57 per hour or $32,390 per year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Will someone more skilled at this process please take a look at updating the article? Wouldn't want the world to think the US is twice as "wealthy" as it really is, now would we?

thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.194.32 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: The BLS statistics refer to the wages of one person. Household income is higher because it often includes the income of more than one wage-earner. ˜˜˜˜ Elizabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.144.4 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Household income in the United States
I feel that Wikipedia is my best source for almost any general information subject. However the ball has really been dropped on this one. The subject matter is one that I have been thinking about for a long time. The errors and mislabeling is so frequent however that I can't imagine completing even a listing of them all. Never the less, since this is my first "talk" I will start with just a few. I will not attempt to cover the statistical errors since there seem to be plenty of readers working on that element.

Income is (consumption + savings) opportunity, that is ones net paycheck. Net worth is (assets- liabilities), that is wealth or estate or roughly "savings". Those terms seem to be used interchangeably in this article, even sometimes in the same section or even in the same table (e.g "social class". Which one is meant in each case should be clearly identified. Johnsorion (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Johnsorion, 9/19/2010

Agreed. Fixed. References to 'assets' removed. Dreslough (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Dreslough, 10/26/2011

Quintiles chart
Examination of the number of households at the top of the table shows that both the "All Households" and the "Top 5%" columns are separate from the main body of the table (Lowest to Highest fifths). As such it semms desireable to separate both of these extra columns by an extra columnar space or double lines or similar. Johnsorion (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC) johnsorion 9/19/2010

Household income in the United States
When using groupings to make value statements, not statistical numerical data, care must be taken to use universally understood or defined terms. These errors occur many times throughout the article. For example in the third paragraph of the introductory text, "a RELATIVELY LARGE population of relatively AFFLUENT households outnumbering the POOR" to a numbers person like myself, these statements are garbage or even worse represent propaganda. 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC) johnsorion 9/19/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsorion (talk • contribs)

U.S. Income Inequuality 1967-2003 relative to median
This is exactly the type of data I have been looking for. I assume that the median(s) referred to are the median for each of the years in the data base. I would appreciate the data however in the form of normal distribution stats. Then those stats, median and upper and lower sigmas or percentiles could be plotted on this same graph. That would save me the problem of transcribing all the raw data below the graph and doing my own analysis and graph. This same comment also applies to many other graphs of household income vs time in this article. Johnsorion (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC) johnsorion  9/19/2010

Household income in the United States
Several measures need to be treated here in order to cover the subject. My suggestions would be:

Before tax household income in the United States vs years. After tax household income in the United States vs years. Before tax individual income in the United Staes vs time. After tax individual income in the United States vs time. Household Wealth (Net Worth) in the United States vs time.

Each of these treated by "Normal Distribution" stistics would tell all. median, sigma, skew, etc.

Johnsorion (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) johnsorion 9/19/2010

Incorrect reference and redaction mistakes in the 2004 household income table
It is not clear from the title or the introduction what year the table in the "Household Income in the U.S." section is referring to. Only by looking up the data at the US Census website was I able to discover that the table presents 2004 data. Also confusing is that the citation at the end of the table leads one to the 2006 page (HINC-06) of the US Census Bureau's Census Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), where the numbers clearly do not match those in the table here.

I propose that 1) the citation at the end of the table be changed to the correct 2004 HINC-06 page of the Census Bureau's CPS ASEC Supplement, located here:

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new06_000.htm

2) There be at least some indication at the top of the table that we are dealing with 2004 data.

Also, the "under $2,500" category should be 2,566 households, not 190 as is presented. And the $100,000-$150,000 category should show 11,194 households, not 1,194. Someone in the discussion above expressed confusion over the discrepancy between the charts that show a spike at that income level, and the table which does not. Here is the source of that confusion.

I don't know how to edit wikipedia very well, so I leave it to someone else to do so.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.78.12 (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Retirees
How much do retirees skew the household income data? The article makes no mention. Does anyone have reliable data on that? How much higher would household incomes be excluding the retirees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.128.141 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Net or gross income?
Is the statistic in section 1 by the US Census Bureau, 2005, the before- or after-tax income of the households? Thank you for the clarification in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.60.13 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

International comparison
The section was grossly misleading. It said that median household in the U.S. was "lower than that of Switzerland." "That of" implies that the comparison is being made between median incomes in the U,S. and median incomes in Switzerland. The Switzerland data are means, not medians, therefore such comparisons are invalid, or they should be redacted with extreme caution so as to not create confusion. In my estimation, mean U.S. household incomes right now exceed those of Switzerland, so not only is the comparison invalid, it might actually be misleading. I say that we revamp that section altogether and compare apples with apples, but in the meantime I edited it a little so as to not lead the incautious reader to think that what's being said is that median household incomes in Switzerland are higher than those in the U.S., which the sources provided do not support.

Thanks and I'd appreciate some feedback before changes are reverted, if anyone considers they must be.--AndresTM (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

2010 Update
The census and other data are certainly available by now. Should either add a section summarizing trend since then or make this the 2005-6 article and redo all the data for now. The nature of the trend is well enough known. Lycurgus (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of earners/work experience
Two of the demographic characteristics collected by the census bureau are not represented at all on this page, and they are fairly significant ones. The Census Bureau data note the number of earners in the household (none, 1, 2, 3, 4) and breaks this down by quintile (and the top 5%); they also note the work experience of the head of household (how many weeks the Head of Household works, and whether this is full-time or part-time work). Both of these factors play prominent roles in income distribution, and really ought to be added to the page. As I have never edited this page, I do not know how contentious edits to this page become, but in addition to updating the data to the most recent available, the two characteristics I mentioned should be added.  Horologium  (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Year confusion?
It seems like some of the numbers here (I'm looking specifically in the "Household income over time" section) just don't line up. For instance, there are several different claims of what the median US income is or was. I suspect that it's because they're from different years, or because they're expressed in different years' dollar amounts - does anyone know? I know that getting this updated every year would be a pain, but having contradictory information is also a pain. It would be awesome to have a source/reference that automatically updates the numbers. 18.38.2.39 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Overall, the United States followed the trend of other developed nations with a relatively large population of relatively affluent households outnumbering the poor."
 * The use of multiple "relatively"s here makes this statement almost worthless.
 * "Among those in between the extremes of the income strata are a large number of households with moderately high middle class incomes[9] and an even larger number of households with moderately low incomes.[6]"
 * Following the first quoted sentence with this one is not clearing anything up. Which extremes? Are they relative extremes? In what way does moderately low incomes outnumbering moderately high incomes support the previous sentence that there is a "relatively" large population of "relatively" affluent households? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.246.125 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparent Error in Map
The map of 2009 median incomes by county shows a pocket of high income in NE Wyoming. That is Campbell County, WY. It is shown in a darker color than Washington County, OR. But the individual Wikipedia pages for the two counties state that Washington County's median income is higher than Campbell County's. This relationship holds for both "household" and "family" median incomes. In addition, Washington Country, OR is not shown in the darkest map color. Campbell County is being shown in the same "bucket" with very high-income areas like Marin County, CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.88.202 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Mean income table problem
Right now, if one attempts to sort by state, the definition of mean income gets included in the sorting. I'm no expert in fixing tables, so could we get someone who is to fix it? Fixed - there was an open table delimiter or whatever it's called.--Vidkun (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Data Sources -
There are a couple of links that are excellent and non-partisan however I am uncertain as to the copyright use. http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1969&end=2008 This is an excellent dynamic measure that can be applied across any particular time scale. The linked measure notes that from 1969 to 2008 the average income adjusted for inflation declined, despite a total average income increase of $11,000 per person that went entirely to the top 10% and mostly to the top 1%.

Gapminder World and Gapminder USA provide excellent data over time based on state or country with excellent measures of up to four perimeters at a time, an a wide set of comparisons.Dragonwlkr (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * RE: copyright issues. Census Bureau data is always up for grabs since it's government work. The rest is done standard academic style. Updating and neutral tone are different issues. Always intended to get back to this article, hopefully will at some point.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  09:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing to reduce information available!?
I have paid attention to this page since 2008, and the data has been progressively edited to obscure the changes in income distrobution that have taken place over the last 50 years.

There used to be a graph showing changes to income distribution from 1967 to 2007, and now it only shows 1967 to 2003, with data points scaled and averaged to make it look like al levels have been gradually increasing at similar rates, which is absurd.

The main chart showing the percentile distribution of incomes also used to include details for something like $100,000-$350,000; $350,000-$1,000,000; and over $1,000,000. Now everything over 100,000 is lumped into one giant category, masking the problem with income distribution in America. It is pretty sickening, to be honest. 38.96.130.98 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, when I initially wrote this (most of it is still the original from what I can tell) not obscuring hard to see information/trends is something I set out to avoid, especially the useless lumping of all $100k+ households together. Hopefully other editors or I, when I get the time, will add some of the nuance back in.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  09:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Compare median income and poverty
In the opening section, second paragraph, median income is defined in terms of annual income. By comparison, in that same paragraph, extreme poverty is defined, in terms of dollars per day. This makes it difficult to make a comparison between median income and poverty, because they are not explained in terms of directly comparable measures. Dylan k (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dollars per day (2) before government benefits is not the same as $730/year ($2 times 365) because of the government benefit value which almost always kicks in at that level several times over that amount, but also because such levels are usually temporary, often not lasting a full year's time. Neo Poz (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WSJ link is dead
After "In 2005 MBA's who got offers were expected to receive $85k" the WSJ link points to a generic category page rather than to a specific article. Crasshopper (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Census reference for Household income table is broken
The reference for the first table does not appear to go anywhere, and the data appears stale compared to the latest income data. Tables HINC-01 and HINC-06 at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/hhinc/toc.htm show different data that totals to more than 8M additional households, compared to the data in the article currently. I propose updating the table to reflect the official Census data. Jcloudm (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree; please do it. EllenCT (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This was done two days ago. Jcloudm (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Graphic for Median Income by year
Is it just me or does the seemingly random start date for the graph for median income seem not so random but rather deceptively conceived and graphed to show a precipitous drop? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Median_US_household_income.png is the graphic I'm referring to. The data for such a graph goes back to 1967 ( http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/ ), why start at 2000? Jasendorf (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm totally comfortable with a new graph going back to 1967. Can you make one?  Jcloudm (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On it. Jasendorf (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How about this? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Median_US_Household_Income_1967-2011.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasendorf (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there an issue with the table and the graphs in Household Income section?
I am looking at the table and the graph on the right that shows percentages of income distribution and they don't add up. For instance, in the graph it says $25K or less constitutes 28% of the households. But the table shows $25-30K as 25%. There is a 3% gap. Moreover, the $75-100K and over $100K total is 28% in the graph, but it adds up to 33% in the table. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.253.54.30 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Grater?
The graphic for the distribution of annual household income has a spelling error in it. It reads "The top 25% report an income than $85,000". Oneappletwoideas (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Utter silliness. How NOT to present data
There is a huge difference in income between the 99 percentile and the 99.9 percentile. And the 99.99 percentile. And ...

In this article we see a breakdown where "$180,000 to $184,999" is distinguished from "$185,000 to $189,999" but where millionaires and billionaires are lumped together in "$250,000 and up."

Utter silliness. UTTER SILLINESS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.121.180 (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

2012 Median Income by County is plagiarized
The map claimed as original work by vikjam is a barely edited version of the map found here: http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/highlights/files/2012/F1_MP_2012.pdf 68.52.12.208 (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Chris

Wages to capital?
The article says "Total compensation's share of GDP has declined by 5% from 1970 to 2013. This implies that the share attributed to capital increased in that period." But did it? If "total compensation" is a post-tax statistic, then it is possible that both wages and capital income have declined, and taxation has increased. Does anyone know? cagliost (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request - CBO income growth study
The section contains the following:"However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth." I have NO idea what that is supposed to mean. How do you adjust median household income to "adjust" for household size? If you do so, it is no longer household income, it is something else. Second, how do you "look at" taxes from an "after-tax perspective"???? Do you mean you look at after-tax income? Why would you be looking at "tax" if the subject is income? Did the "taxes" include sales, property, and other taxes (ie ObamaCare) - or just income tax? What is "real" about a number which has been adjusted in multiple and arbitrary ways? Wow. Either remove it, or expand it enough so that it makes sense.207.155.114.199 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please see Contributing to Wikipedia to get started on making these changes yourself. Also, the actual name for "ObamaCare" is the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"Increased Opportunities for women"
In the section "Recent Trends", the sentence "However, as indicated by the charts below, household income has still increased significantly since the late 1970s and early 80s in real terms, partly due to higher individual median wages, and partly due to increased opportunities for women." could be improved. It seems to conflate the actual contribution of women to household income with a less objective notion, that of improved "opportunity". It may indeed be the case that it has become easier for women to find remunerative work, but that's quite different from actual female participation in the labor force. A priori it seems more likely that as male wages have decreased, families have found it necessary that both parents go out to work. Most people work out of necessity, not "increased opportunity". Paulhummerman (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Misleading caption and graphic comparing GDP to household income
Obviously if someone knows FRED and can adjust the lines in this chart to have the same denominator — "per capita" or "per household" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png — that would be best. Also, include a lot more years, because that looks very cherry picked.

But the caption suggests "real median income per household has not [increased since 2009], indicating either a trend of greater income inequality or of smaller households". Obviously we can know the average size of households in at very least the census years. But what I find egregiously misleading is that if you converted both lines to the same units — and if households are getting smaller — then the spread between the two would be getting worse. And the point of the graph in the first place is that very spread. The bigger point is that household income is roughly flat while GDP per capita shoots ever upwards.

Finally there is absolutely no reason to draw a conclusion about "income" inequality from a graph of GDP per capita. There are many ways to graph income inequality, for instance "median income versus mean income" or "income per decile". Assuming though that "year over year increase in wealth" is being glossed as "income", GDP is still the wrong measure, since GDP growth also reflects the value increases in foreign-owned entities within the United States. GDP can increase while GNI shrinks as foreign ownership increases. An income-per-decile graph could be very striking as the entire excess in GNP-GNI can reasonably be assigned to the top decile 172.5.154.148 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced contribution
Hello, I just removed the following text that was placed at the very beginning of the article (before the dab/maintenance templates):

US Household Income According to the Census ACS survey, the median household income for the United States was $55,775 in 2015, the latest data available. 2016 Census ACS data (including 2016 national household income numbers) will be released in September of 2017. Median family income and per capita income for the United States are shown further down. Real Median Household Income in the US 2015	1 Year Change	3 Year Change US	$55,775	+3.83%	+5.17%

I suspect this was a attempt to update the article as requested. It was added 07:28, December 2, 2016‎ by with the summary: " Update. "

I am not familiar enough with this subject matter to properly evaluate/include this information, but perhaps someone else is. Thanks - Antepenultimate (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Household income in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060707210328/http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new05_000.htm to http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new05_000.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903121944/http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h13.html to http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h13.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Household income in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528235655/http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new02_001.htm to http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new02_001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Household income in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032015/hhinc/hinc01_1.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924185351/http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409174830/http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il07/index.html to http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il07/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

merged
Perhaps these articles should be merged? Personal income in the United States, Household income in the United States, Income in the United States, Per capita personal income in the United States Benjamin (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Family size
The average US household size has declined by more than a quarter since 1947. It strikes me that portraying historical trends in median household income without adjusting for this - or at least qualifying, or offering a supplementary graph - can be misleading. Perhaps someone good with graphing programs (not I) can create one using this data? https://www.marketingcharts.com/demographics-and-audiences-72625 -Wormcast (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be mentioned. Benjamin (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Odd graph
Morning,

I find the graph added in this revision to be really odd. It makes it look as though the < $25k has not changed in decades and > $100k has just taken a larger share of the middle the whole time, but the reality is that we just keep moving the top of the bars. The title of the graph also seems a bit random to me.

I was wondering if anyone else feels this way or if I'm misunderstanding the intent.

Lonnylot (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, its odd. The graph should probably be redone with all bars the same height and nothing below the zero line; a straight up proportional bar chart.Farcaster (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's odd. I don't think it's giving too wrong an impression due to that oddness, because the data does show a very slightly shrinking lower class and rapidly growing upper class, with a shrinking middle class making up the difference. But there's no reason to privilege the $25k mark in the presentation. Title is also very odd given that the middle class is depicted as moving upward. The connotation of a "shrinking middle class" is negative in most people's minds, not positive. A bigger problem is that it's a user's own work, even if based on census data. Shouldn't it have been published somewhere before being included here? I can't find a problem with it, and CPI-U-RS seems the right choice for this application. But still. Furball4 (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Net or gross?
The article should specify whether we are talking about net or gross income here. In the definition section, we link to "income", but that article simply defines two types, net and gross, which still doesn't clarify what household income really is. We also link to "Disposable household and per capita income" which also remains vague on this crucial question. The same question was already asked in 2011, above, without having been answered. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * According to the Census Long Form definition, this is all pre-tax income (i.e. gross). ( https://web.archive.org/web/20121008000010/http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/training/web/calculator/definitions/census.cfm ) I'm editing the definition section accordingly. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)