Posts Tagged: income
Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016
Median household income in the United States in 2016 was $59,039, an increase in real terms of 3.2 percent from the 2015 median income of $57,230. This is the second consecutive annual increase in median household income.
The nation's official poverty rate in 2016 was 12.7 percent, with 40.6 million people in poverty, 2.5 million fewer than in 2015. The 0.8 percentage point decrease from 2015 to 2016 represents the second consecutive annual decline in poverty. The 2016 poverty rate is not statistically different from the 2007 rate (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession.
The percentage of people without health insurance coverage for the entire 2016 calendar year was 8.8 percent, down from 9.1 percent in 2015. The number of people without health insurance declined to 28.1 million from 29.0 million over the period.
These findings are contained in two reports: Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016 and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016. This year's income and poverty report marks the 50th anniversary of the first poverty estimates released by the Census Bureau in the Current Population report series.
Another Census Bureau report, The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2016, was also released today. The supplemental poverty rate in 2016 was 13.9 percent, a decrease from 14.5 percent in 2015. With support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Supplemental Poverty Measure shows a different way of measuring poverty in the United States and serves as an additional indicator of economic well-being. The Census Bureau has published poverty estimates using the supplemental poverty measure annually since 2011.
The Current Population Survey, sponsored jointly by the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, is conducted every month and is the primary source of labor force statistics for the U.S. population; it is used to calculate the monthly unemployment rate estimates. Supplements are added in most months; the Annual Social and Economic Supplement questionnaire is designed to give annual, national estimates of income, poverty and health insurance numbers and rates. The most recent Annual Social and Economic Supplementwas conducted nationwide and collected information about income and health insurance coverage during the 2016 calendar year.
The Current Population Survey-based income and poverty report includes comparisons with the previous year and historical tables in the report contain statistics back to 1959. The health insurance report is based on both the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey. State and local income, poverty and health insurance estimates will be released Thursday, Sept. 14, from the American Community Survey.
Income
- Real median incomes in 2016 for family households ($75,062) and nonfamily households ($35,761) increased 2.7 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, from their 2015 medians. This is the second consecutive annual increase in median household income for both types of households. The differences between the 2015 to 2016 percentage changes in median income for family and nonfamily households was not statistically significant.
Race and Hispanic Origin
(Race data refer to people reporting a single race only; Hispanics can be of any race.)
- The real median income of non-Hispanic white ($65,041), black ($39,490), and Hispanic ($47,675) households increased 2.0 percent, 5.7 percent, and 4.3 percent, respectively, between 2015 and 2016. This is the second annual increase in median household income for these households.
- Among the race groups, Asian households had the highest median income in 2016 ($81,431). The 2015 to 2016 percentage change in their real median income was not statistically significant.
- The differences between the 2015 to 2016 percentage changes in median income for non-Hispanic white, black, Hispanic, and Asian households were not statistically significant.
Regions
- Households in the South and West experienced an increase in real median income of 3.9 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively, between 2015 and 2016. The changes in incomes of households in the Northeast and Midwest were not statistically significant.
- Households with the highest median household incomes were in the Northeast ($64,390) and the West ($64,275), followed by the Midwest ($58,305) and the South ($53,861). The difference between the median household incomes for the Northeast and West was not statistically significant.
- The difference between the 2015 to 2016 percentage changes in median income for households in all regions were not statistically significant.
Earnings
- The 2016 real median earnings of men ($51,640) and women ($41,554) who worked full- time, year-round were not statistically different from their respective 2015 medians.
- The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.805, an increase of 1.1 percent from the 2015 ratio of 0.796. This is the first time the female-to-male earnings ratio has experienced an annual increase since 2007.
- Between 2015 and 2016, the total number of people with earnings increased by about 1.2 million. In addition, the total number of full-time, year-round workers increased by 2.2 million between 2015 and 2016, suggesting a shift from part-year, part-time work status to full-time, year-round work status. The difference between the 2015 to 2016 increases in the number of men and women full-time, year-round workers was not statistically significant.
- An estimated 74.8 percent of working men with earnings and 62.2 percent of working women with earnings worked full-time, year-round in 2016; both percentages were higher than the 2015 estimates of 73.9 percent and 61.3 percent, respectively.
Income Inequality
- The Gini index was 0.481 in 2016; the change from 2015 was not statistically significant. Developed more than a century ago, the Gini index is the most common measure of household income inequality used by economists, with 0.0 representing total income equality and 1.0 equivalent to total inequality.
- The share of aggregate household income in the fourth quintile decreased 1.3 percent between 2015 and 2016, while changes in the shares of other quintiles were not statistically significant.
Poverty
- The poverty rate for families in 2016 was 9.8 percent, representing 8.1 million families, a decline from 10.4 percent and 8.6 million families in 2015.
- For most demographic groups, the number of people in poverty decreased from 2015. Adults age 65 and older were the only major population group to see an increase in the number of people in poverty.
Thresholds
- As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2016 was $24,563. (See <www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html> for the complete set of dollar value thresholds that vary by family size and composition.)
Sex
- In 2016, 11.3 percent of males were in poverty, down from 12.2 percent in 2015. About 14.0 percent of females were in poverty in 2016, down from 14.8 percent in 2015.
- Gender differences in poverty rates were more pronounced for those ages 18 to 64. The poverty rate for women ages 18 to 64 was 13.4 percent, while the poverty rate for men ages 18 to 64 was 9.7 percent. The poverty rate for women age 65 and older was 10.6 percent, while the poverty rate for men age 65 and older was 7.6 percent.
Race and Hispanic Origin
(Race data refer to people reporting a single race only; Hispanics can be of any race.)
- The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was 8.8 percent in 2016 with 17.3 million individuals in poverty. Neither the poverty rate nor the number in poverty was statistically different from 2015. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 61.0 percent of the total population and 42.5 percent of the people in poverty.
- The poverty rate for blacks decreased to 22.0 percent in 2016, from 24.1 percent in 2015. The number of blacks in poverty decreased to 9.2 million, down from 10.0 million.
- The poverty rate for Hispanics decreased to 19.4 percent in 2016, down from 21.4 percent in 2015. The number of Hispanics in poverty decreased to 11.1 million, down from 12.1 million.
- Asians did not experience a statistically significant change in their poverty rates nor in the number of people in poverty between 2015 and 2016.
Age
- In 2016, 18.0 percent of children under age 18 (13.3 million) were in poverty, down from 19.7 percent and 14.5 million in 2015. Children represented 23.0 percent of the total population and 32.6 percent of the people in poverty.
- In 2016, 11.6 percent of people ages 18 to 64 (22.8 million) were in poverty, down from 12.4 percent and 24.4 million in 2015.
- In 2016, 9.3 percent of people age 65 and older were in poverty, statistically unchanged from 2015. The number in poverty increased from 4.2 million to 4.6 million between 2015 and 2016.
Regions
- In 2016, the poverty rate and the number in poverty decreased in the Northeast from 12.4 percent (6.9 million) in 2015 to 10.8 percent (6.0 million) and in the South from 15.3 percent (18.3 million) in 2015 to 14.1 percent (17.0 million). The Midwest and West did not experience a significant change in the poverty rate or the number in poverty between 2015 and 2016.
Shared Households
Shared households are defined as households that include at least one “additional” adult, a person age 18 or older, who is not the householder, spouse or cohabiting partner of the householder. Adults ages 18 to 24 who are enrolled in school are not counted as additional adults.
- In 2017, the number and percentage of shared households remained higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession. In 2007, 17.0 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 19.7 million households. In 2017, 19.4 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 24.6 million households.
- Of young adults ages 25 to 34, 16.1 percent (7.1 million) lived with their parents in 2017, neither estimate was statistically different from 2016.
Supplemental Poverty Measure
The supplemental poverty measure extends the official poverty measure by taking into account many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure.
The supplemental poverty measure released today shows:
- The supplemental poverty rate decreased 0.6 percentage points in 2016 to 13.9 percent, from 14.5 percent in 2015.
- The supplemental poverty rate for 2016 was 1.2 percentage points higher than the official poverty rate of 12.7 percent.
- There were 44.6 million people in poverty in 2016 using the supplemental poverty measure (13.9 percent), higher than the 40.7 million (12.7 percent) using the official poverty definition with the supplemental poverty measure universe.
- While the supplemental poverty rate declined for many groups, individuals age 65 and over experienced a statistically significant increase, from 13.7 percent in 2015 to 14.5 percent in 2016.
- When tax credits and noncash benefits results are included, this results in lower poverty rates for some groups. For instance, the supplemental poverty rate was lower for children than the official rate: 15.1 percent compared with 18.0 percent.
While the official poverty measure includes only pretax money income, the supplemental poverty measure adds the value of in-kind benefits, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, school lunches, housing assistance and refundable tax credits.
Additionally, the supplemental poverty measure deducts necessary expenses for critical goods and services from income. Expenses that are deducted include: taxes, child care, commuting expenses, contributions toward the cost of medical care and health insurance premiums and child support paid to another household. The supplemental poverty measure permits the examination of the effects of government transfers on poverty estimates. For example, not including refundable tax credits (the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable portion of the child tax credit) in resources, the poverty rate for all people would have been 16.5 percent rather than 13.9 percent. The supplemental poverty measure does not replace the official poverty measure and will not be used to determine eligibility for government programs.
Health Insurance Coverage
- The Current Population Survey shows that the percentage of people with health insurance coverage for all or part of 2016 was 91.2 percent, 0.3 percentage points higher than the rate in 2015 (90.9 percent). Over time, changes in the rate of health insurance coverage and the distribution of coverage types may reflect economic trends, shifts in the demographic composition of the population, and policy changes that affect access to health care. Several such policy changes occurred in 2014 when many provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act went into effect.
- In 2016, private health insurance coverage continued to be more prevalent than government coverage, at 67.5 percent and 37.3 percent, respectively. Neither the private coverage rate nor government coverage rate had a statistically significant change from 2015.
- Of the subtypes of health insurance coverage, employer-based insurance covered 55.7 percent of the population for some or all of the calendar year, followed by Medicaid (19.4 percent), Medicare (16.7 percent), direct-purchase (16.2 percent) and military coverage (4.6 percent).
- Medicare was the only subtype of health insurance that experienced a statistically significant change between 2015 and 2016. The rate of Medicare coverage increased by 0.4 percentage points, from 16.3 percent in 2015 to 16.7 percent in 2016. This increase was likely due to growth in the number of people age 65 and over and not to changes in Medicare coverage rates within any particular age group.
Age
- According to the American Community Survey, between 2015 and 2016, the percentage of people without health insurance coverage dropped for most ages under 65, with generally larger decreases for working-age adults (ages 19 to 64).
Race and Hispanic Origin
(Race data refer to people reporting a single race only; Hispanics can be of any race.)
- In 2016, non-Hispanic whites had the lowest uninsured rate among race and Hispanic origin groups at 6.3 percent. The uninsured rates for blacks and Asians were 10.5 percent and 7.6 percent, respectively. Hispanics had the highest uninsured rate at 16.0 percent.
- According to the American Community Survey, in 2016, the state with the lowest percentage of people without health insurance at the time of the interview was Massachusetts (2.5 percent), while the highest uninsured rate was in Texas (16.6 percent).
- The American Community Survey also showed that between 2015 and 2016, the uninsured rate decreased in 39 states. The declines for the states ranged from 0.3 percentage points (Massachusetts) to 3.5 percentage points (Montana). Eleven states and the District of Columbia did not have a statistically significant change in their uninsured rate.
States
- According to the American Community Survey, in 2016, the state with the lowest percentage of people without health insurance at the time of the interview was Massachusetts (2.5 percent), while the highest uninsured rate was in Texas (16.6 percent).
- The American Community Survey also showed that between 2015 and 2016, the uninsured rate decreased in 39 states. The declines for the states ranged from 0.3 percentage points (Massachusetts) to 3.5 percentage points (Montana). Eleven states and the District of Columbia did not have a statistically significant change in their uninsured rate.
State and Local Estimates From the American Community Survey
On Thursday, Sept. 14, the Census Bureau will release 2016 single-year estimates of median household income, poverty and health insurance for all states, counties, places and other geographic units with populations of 65,000 or more from the American Community Survey. These statistics will include numerous social, economic and housing characteristics, such as language, education, commuting, employment, mortgage status and rent. Later today, subscribers will be able to access these estimates on an embargoed basis.
The American Community Survey provides a wide range of important statistics about people and housing for every community (i.e., census tracts or neighborhoods) across the nation. The results are used by everyone from town and city planners to retailers and homebuilders. The survey is the only source of local estimates for most of the 40 topics it covers.
The Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement is subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. All comparisons made in the report have been tested and found to be statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.
For additional information on the source of the data and accuracy of the Income, Poverty and Health Insurance estimates, visit <www2.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-259sa.pdf>.
Source: Published originally on United States Census Bureau,Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016 , Release Number: CB17-156
Latino Spending Power Reaches All-Time High, Surpasses Non-Latino Groups'
Recent studies prove that spending power by the Hispanic demographic is growing faster than that of non-Latino groups.
The number of Hispanic households is growing faster than ever, making a larger consumer group. This also means that there is a higher spending power among Latinos in America that businesses will model some of their strategies toward.
Between 2012 and 2015, Latino households represented about 40 percent of the growth in spending for household equipment. In the same time period, Hispanic households accounted for 25 percent of the growth in spending for new cars and trucks.
Data for Latino Household Aggregated Spending
Latino household accounted for double-digit shares of growth in aggregated expenditures:
- 20 percent growth in furniture expenses
- 18 percent growth in major household appliances
- 17 percent growth in audio-visual equipment and services
- 16 percent growth in small appliances
Data for Latino Household Use of Financial Services
In the past 10 years, Latino households have accounted for the rapid growth of a wide selection of financial services. Hispanic households have spent more on financial services than any other demographic in the U.S.
Hispanic Contribution to Growth in Financial Industry
Between 2005 and 2015, the use of credit cards by Latinos have grown 11 times faster than it did in non-Latino households. Data shows that it grew by 44 percent, whereas other households only grew by 4 percent.
In the same time period, there were 5.1 million more Latino credit card holders which accounted for about 49 percent of the growth in the total amount of consumers using credit cards.
Hispanic Consumer Trends Impact Foodservice Industry
Not only are Hispanic consumers contributing to the growth of the financial industry, the demographic also makes a huge impact on the foodservice industry.
A recent Hispanic Foodservice Consumer Trend Report says that Latinos are expected to make up nearly 30 percent of the U.S. population. What that means is that, the Latino demographic will shape the growth of the industry because as the population grows, so will its usage of food.
Forty-one percent of Hispanic consumers account for the usage of foodservices twice a week.
Family style eating places benefit the most from Latino consumers since Hispanics generally like to eat meals with their families.
Franchises will benefit from the growth in Latino spending power should they add popular Hispanic meals and flavors to their menus.
Source: Published originally on LatinPost.com Latino Spending Power Reaches All-Time High, Surpasses Non-Latino Groups' , by Claudia Balthazar, August 12, 2016.
Hispanic Influence Reaches New Heights in the U.S.
From the Ballot Box to the Grocery Store, Nielsen's fifth report on the Latino consumer in the annual Diverse Intelligence Series, shows that Hispanic power and influence is surging: 50% of U.S. population growth from 2010 to 2015 has come from Hispanics, and the U.S. Census expects the U.S. Latino population to more than double within the next two generations.
Almost 57 million strong, Hispanics represent almost 18% of the U.S. population, and they're expected to continue showing growth, reaching 24% of the population by 2040 and 29% by 2060. Despite slowing immigration and reduced birth rates, Hispanics will drive the majority of all U.S. future growth for the foreseeable future. The U.S. Census projects Latinos to account for a full 65% of the nation's population growth over the next 45 years. This means the U.S. Latino population will more than double, adding 62 million people, and will reach more than 119 million people by 2060.
Meanwhile, the compound effect of Hispanic growth and the decline of the non-Hispanic white population due to aging and lower birth rates will result in non-Hispanic whites declining from 62% of the total population in 2015 to 44% by 2060; their contribution to total growth will decline by 17% from 2015 to 2060.
Two Languages Are Better Than One
Younger generations of Hispanics (under age 55) are predominantly bilingual, and with each new generation, more English-dominant. Currently, 40.6 million Hispanics over the age of 5 speak English well, and 96% of Hispanics under 18 are either bilingual or English-dominant. In total, 55% of Hispanics are bilingual, while 27% are English-dominant and 19% are Spanish-dominant. Spanish is still spoken by many of the English-dominant speakers, however, and the growing importance of Spanish makes dual-language competence a benefit for marketers in mainstream America.
Sixty-three percent of Spanish-dominant Hispanics are age 35 and older, compared with only 4% of those under age 18. Over half (58%) of Hispanics under 18 are bilingual. Despite increasing proficiency in English, messaging in Spanish and in-culture is still very relevant to younger generations.
Hispanic Buying Power Growth Outpaces the Total Population
In 2015, Hispanics controlled $1.3 trillion in buying power, an amount larger than the GDP of Australia or Spain, according the Selig Center for Economic Growth, up 167% since the turn of the century. The increase is more than twice the 76% growth in non-Hispanic buying power during the same period. The center's projections show U.S. Hispanic buying power continuing this trend, reaching $1.7 trillion by 2020.
Latinas have made the most dramatic gains in education, as college enrollment rates among female Hispanics graduating from high school now outpace both non-Hispanic whites and African-Americans. Seventy-four percent of Latinas who graduated high school in 2012-2014 are now enrolled in college, higher than non-Hispanic whites (73%) and African-Americans (65%), according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The higher education level is helping drive positive economic results, including rising household income and greater household expenditures.
According to U.S. Census data, the average Hispanic household income had increased to $42,396 in 2014 from $40,946 in 2009, and the percentage of Hispanics with a household income greater than $50,000 increased to 43% in 2014 from 30% in 2000. Additionally, income levels for both U.S.-born and foreign-born households have increased; U.S.-born households with incomes exceeding $50,000 increased to 48% in 2014 from 33% in 2000, while foreign-born households with incomes exceeding $50,000 increased to 38% from 26%.
Source:Published originally on Nielsen.com. Hispanic Influence Reaches New Heights in the U.S., August 23, 2016.
More green: Why energy efficiency matters to low income Latinos, urban minorities
When it comes to those with the least means to pay for daily and monthly necessities, a lack of energy efficiency in America's major cities presents a disproportionate economic burden on low-income urban communities, as a recent report found.
The report, published by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Energy Efficiency for All (EEFA) coalition, found in a review of 48 major U.S. metropolitan areas that the economic burden of energy costs on low-income households can be up to three times higher than the overall burden on higher-income households.
This applies especially for low-income African American and Latino households, which spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy. In a hopeful note, the study also found that implementing more energy efficiency measures could close that gap by at least one third.
Big Takeaways
- Low-income households pay 7.2 percent of households income on utilities,
- That's three times more than higher income households pay (about 2.3 percent),
- Latino households experience the greatest energy burdens in the south and southwest United States,
- Midwest and Southeast regions had the highest energy burden across all demographics,
- Inefficient, out of date, low income housing contributes to the problem significantly,
- African American households experienced an average energy burden that was 64 percent greater than white households,
- Latino households paid lower utilities on average than African American and white households, but experienced an average energy burden 24 percent greater than white households,
- Renters pay 20 percent more than home owners, indicating rented homes tend to be less efficient.
Ranking Cities
Some cities across the U.S. fared better than others in measurements of energy efficiency and overall energy burden for residents, and the report pointed out the metropolitan areas with greater energy burdens depending on low-income demographics.
For Latinos, the greatest energy burdens were in the cities of Memphis, Providence, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Atlanta, Birmingham, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth and Detroit.
For African American households, the worst energy burdens were in the cities of Memphis, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Kansas City, Birmingham, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Atlanta.
The ACEEE found that increasing energy efficiency levels in average homes across the U.S. would eliminate about 35 percent of the average low-income energy burden in these areas. And for low-income Latino households, the average energy burden that could be eliminated through efficiency was a much greater share than any other group, at 68 percent.
The report focused on 2011 data from the U.S. Census Bureau along with the 2013 American Housing Survey to determine the overall energy burdens for the 48 largest U.S. cities. The report defined low-income households as those with incomes at or below 80 percent of each area's median income, and focused on the relative burden for each demographic in those low-income communities.
You can request a copy of the report here.
Source: Published originally on LatinPost.com as More Green: Why Energy Efficiency Matters to Low Income Latinos, Urban Minorities by Robert Schoon, May 10, 2016.
Low-income Latino students less likely to take on student debt to attend college
The Institute on Assets and Social Policy (IASP) develop an analysis, "Less Debt, More Equity: Lowering Student Debt While Closing the Black-White Wealth Gap," which assesses the effect of public policy on the wealth gap that exists between white and Black households. Wealth inequity has surged over the past several decades, resulting in 1 percent of households controlling 42 percent of U.S. wealth. Also, nearly 50 percent of wealth accumulated over the past three decades has gone directly to pockets of the top 0.1.
Meanwhile, the wealth belonging to the bottom 90 percent of U.S. household continues to lessen. People of color, who are historically disenfranchised and overrepresented in the bottom 90 percent, are growing in numbers. In a matter of short decades, the U.S. will be a "minority majority" nation, which will continue to be affected by preexisting wealth divide. Today, the average white family owns $13 for every $1 held by the average black household and white households own $10 for every $1 held by the average U.S. Latino household.
According to the report, black students tend to take on more debt when attaining postsecondary degrees. They, like other students of color, are more likely to borrow money to attend college, which deepens wealth inequalities. With that said, patterns of student debt differ for black and Latinos students. The report focuses specifically on the black-white wealth gap because of historic roots of inequality and student debt's contribution to wealth disparities, but also acknowledges how inequality influences the experiences of other communities of color in the U.S.
Loan debt and barriers to education impact Latinos differently than black and white households. The data revealed that Latinos attend and graduate from college at lower rates than whites and blacks. Consequently, lower rates of college attendance likely contribute to Latino households owning less student loan debt than blacks and whites. Also, evidence suggests that Latino students are more opposed to taking on student loan debt. Interestingly, Latino students are less likely than blacks and whites to take on debt at public institutions, but they're more likely to take on debt at private for-profit institutions, where they're more likely to depart before completion.
The Latino-white wealth gap could be attributed to differences in education attainment. Latinos households have lower college completion rates and lower levels of household wealth. The report suggests that universal debt reduction policies targeted at borrowers making $50,000 and below would only benefit Latinos moderately; instead white families would have greatly benefit. However, reduction policy targeted at those making $25,000 or less would reduce the racial wealth gap for median and low-wealth Latino households. Latinos in the lowest wealth bracket tend to face a number of barriers when seeking higher education, which reduces the likelihood that they will start college or take out loans. Thus, eliminating some cost challenges should spur enrollment.
The report listed that a number of policies that could make a sizable difference in the lives of students of color. They believe debt-free public higher education should be guaranteed for low-income and middle-class students. Institutional accountability and debt forgiveness should be provided for students attending low-quality institutions. There should be incremental debt forgiveness for students locked into public, low-wage professionals. Also, student loans should be discharged in bankruptcy like other forms of consumer debt.
Source: Published originally on LatinPost.com as Low-Income Latino Students Less Likely to Take on Student Debt, Attend College: Report, by By Nicole Akoukou Thompson, December 1, 2015.