U 

S C E N 

Helping You Ma

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U 

he United States: 2000 Current Population Reports Consumer Income
This report was prepared under the

direction of Edward J. Welniak Jr.,

Chief of the Income Surveys Branch.

Shirley L. Smith and Diana Marz provided statistical assistance. Elaine W.

Allen, Patricia A. Butler, Ruth E. Davis,

and Doris Sansbury provided clerical

assistance. Charles T. Nelson, Assistant

Division Chief for Income, Poverty, and

Health Statistics, Housingand Household

Economic Statistics Division, provided

overall direction.

David Nguyen, Demographic Surveys

Division, processed the March 2001 Current Population Survey file. Caroline S.

Carbaugh, Chief of the Survey Processing

Branch, Stacy J. Lyons, Mary Thrift

Bush, Donna K. Benton, and Kirk E.

Davis programmed the detailed tables.

Aneesah Stephenson and Fred Meier of

the Demographic Statistical Methods Division conducted samplingreview.

Tim J. Marshall, Demographic Surveys

Division, and Andrew M. Stevenson,

Technologies Management Office, prepared and programmed the computerassisted interviewinginstrument used to

conduct the March income supplement.

U.S. Census Bureau field representatives

and telephone interviewers collected the

data. Without their dedication, the preparation of this report or any report from the

Current Population Survey would be

impossible.

Penny Heiston, Jan Sweeney, and

Barbara H. Blount of the Administrative

and Customer Services Division, Walter C.

Odom, Chief, provided publications and

printing management, graphics design and

composition, and editorial review for print

and electronic media. General direction

and production management were provided by Michael G. Garland, Assistant

Chief, and Gary J. Lauffer, Chief, Publications Services Branch.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Money Income in the

United States: 2000

Current Population Reports

Consumer Income

Issued September 2001

P60-213

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans,

Secretary

Economics

and Statistics

Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary for

Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Acting Director
John H. Thompson,

Principal Associate Director

for Programs

Nancy M. Gordon,

Associate Director

for Demographic Programs

Daniel H. Weinberg,

Chief, Housing and Household

Economic Statistics Division

SUGGESTED CITATION

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population

Reports, P60-213, Money Income in the

United States: 2000, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2001.

For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION

Economics

and Statistics

Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary

for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Acting Director

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Deputy Director
TEXT

Introduction ................................... 1

Highlights .................................... 1

Official Estimates of Money Income ...................... 3

Experimental Estimates of Income Including Noncash Benefits and Taxes . . 10

User Comments ................................. 16

TEXT TABLES

A. Comparison of Summary Measures of Income by Selected

Characteristics: 1993, 1999, and 2000 ................ 2

B. Income of Households by Race and Hispanic Origin Using 2- and

3-Year-Average Medians ........................ 6

C. Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2000 . 8

D. Distribution of Households by Selected Characteristics Within

Income Quintiles: 2000 ........................ 10

E. Income of Households by State Using 2- and 3-Year-Average

Medians ................................ 12

F. Median Household Income by Definition: 1999 and 2000 ....... 13

G. Percentage of Aggregate Income Received by Income Quintiles and

Gini Index by Definition of Income: 2000............... 13

H. Median Income Using Different Definitions for Households With

Selected Characteristics: 2000 .................... 15

FIGURES

1. Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin:

1967 to 2000 ............................. 4

2. Median Household Income by Region: 1993 and 2000 ........ 7

3. Median Earnings of Workers 15 Years Old and Over by Work

Experience and Sex: 1967 to 2000 .................. 9

4. Percent Change in Quintile Shares Since 1967 ............. 11

5. Percent Change in 2-Year-Average Median Household Income

by State: 1999-2000 Less 1998-99 .................. 14

APPENDIX Historical Income

A-1. Households by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin

of Householder: 1967 to 2000 .................... 17

A-2. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top

5 Percent of Households: 1967 to 2000 ............... 21

CONTENTS

iii
Money Income in the United States: 2000

INTRODUCTION

Median household income in the United States was

$42,148 in the year 2000. This value equaled the value

for 1999, the highest level ever recorded in the Current

Population Survey (CPS), in real terms.1 Hispanic2 and

Black households hit new all-time highs in median income

of $33,447 and $30,439, respectively. The median household income of White non-Hispanic ($45,904) and Asian

and Pacific Islander ($55,521) households equaled their

highest levels ever recorded (in 1999) in the CPS (see

Table A).

The estimates in this report are based on the March

2001 Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S.

Census Bureau. Respondents provide answers to the best

of their ability, but as with all surveys, the estimates may

differ from the actual values. For further information

about the source and accuracy of the estimates, go to

www.census.gov/hhes/www/income00/sa.html.

HIGHLIGHTS

(Most of the estimates described in this section are

shown in Table A, Table B, Table C, Table G, and Appendix

Table A-1; the estimates for states are shown in Table E.)

• Family households maintained by a woman with no husband present experienced an increase in real income

between 1999 and 2000. Their median income

increased by 4.0 percent, from $27,043 to $28,116. The

overall median incomes for family and nonfamily households remained statistically unchanged.

• Foreign-born households experienced an increase in real

median income between 1999 and 2000, but the

income of native households did not change statistically.3 The median income of foreign-born households

rose by 4.5 percent from $37,259 to $38,929.

• The Northeast was the only region to experience an

increase in real median household income between

1999 and 2000. The median household income for the

Northeast rose by 3.9percent, from $43,394 to

$45,106.

• Households in metropolitan areas experienced a

1.7 percent increase in real median income between

1999 and 2000, going from $44,222 to $44,984. This

increase was driven by the 1.9percent growth in

income experienced by households in the suburbs

(going from $49,311 to $50,262).

• For men who worked full-time, year-round, real median

earnings dropped by 1.0 percent, from $37,701 to

$37,339, between 1999 and 2000. Income year 2000 is

the first time in 4 years that men experienced a decline

in their median earnings. The median earnings of

women working full-time, year-round remained statistically unchanged at $27,355. The ratio of female-to-male

earnings for such workers returned to a level comparable to its all-time high of 0.74 recorded in 1996.

• Per capita income rose by 1.4 percent, going from

$21,893 to $22,199 in real terms between 1999 and

2000. Per capita income remained statistically

unchanged for Hispanics and each of the race groups.4

• Household income inequality remained unchanged

between 1999 and 2000, based on analyzing aggregate

shares of income and the Gini index. There has been no

statistically significant annual change in income inequality since 1993. However, the Gini index in 2000 is

higher than in 1995.

• High-income households tended to be family households that include two or more earners residing in the

suburbs of a large city.

1

All income values are in 2000 dollars. Changes in real income

refer to comparisons after adjusting for inflation. The percentage

changes in prices between earlier years and 2000 were computed

by dividing the annual average Consumer Price Index for 2000 by

the annual average for earlier years. This is the first CPS report to

use the research series of the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-RS) as

the deflator in making historical comparisons involving income

data. The CPI-U values for 1947 to 2000 are available on the Internet at: www.census.gov/hhes/www/income00.html; click on

‘‘Annual Average Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-RS): 1947 to 2000.’’

Information on the development of the CPI-U-RS is available on

the Internet at: www.bls.gov/cpirsdc.htm. 2

Hispanics may be of any race. About 10.4 percent of White

households, 2.5 percent of Black households, 1.8 percent of Asian

and Pacific Islander households, and 10.3 percent of American

Indian and Alaska Native households are maintained by a person

of Hispanic origin.

3

Native households are those in which the householder was

born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or an outlying area of the

United States or was born in a foreign country but had at least

one parent who was a U.S. citizen. All other households are considered foreign-born regardless of the date of entry into the

United States or citizenship status. The CPS does not interview

households in Puerto Rico. 4

Per capita income is based on the total CPS population,

including people living in households and those living in group

quarters who are eligible for inclusion in the CPS. Income per

household member is restricted to people living in households.

Money Income in the United States: 2000 1

U.S. Census Bureau
Table A.

Comparison of Summary Measures of Income by Selected Characteristics:1993, 1999, and 2000

(Households and people as of March of the following year. For meaning of symbols, see text)

Characteristic

2000 Median income in 1999

(in 2000 dollars)

Median income in 1993

(in 2000 dollars)

Percent change in real

income 1999 to 2000

Percent change in real

income 1993 to 2000

Number

(1,000)

Median income

Value

(dollars)

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

(dollars)

Value

(dollars)

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

(dollars)

Value

(dollars)

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

(dollars)

Percent

change

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

Percent

change

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

HOUSEHOLDS

All households............ 106,417 42,148 324 42,187 325 36,746 282 –0.1 0.9 *14.7 1.2

Type of Household

Family households .......... 72,375 51,751 390 51,618 464 44,090 402 0.3 1.0 *17.4 1.4

Married-couple families ..... 55,598 59,346 620 58,736 519 50,729 505 1.0 1.1 *17.0 1.7

Female householder, no

husband present ......... 12,525 28,116 650 27,043 614 21,813 551 *4.0 2.7 *28.9 4.4

Male householder, no wife

present................ 4,252 42,129 1,346 43,243 1,355 35,109 1,383 –2.6 3.5 *20.0 6.1

Nonfamily households ....... 34,042 25,438 380 25,391 459 22,207 431 0.2 1.9 *14.5 2.8

Female householder ....... 18,824 20,929 424 20,586 469 17,506 441 1.7 2.5 *19.6 3.9

Male householder ......... 15,218 31,267 525 31,786 587 29,086 642 –1.6 2.0 *7.5 3.0

Race and Hispanic Origin of

Householder

All races1 ............... 106,417 42,148 324 42,187 325 36,746 282 –0.1 0.9 *14.7 1.2

White .................... 88,545 44,226 452 43,932 406 38,768 371 0.7 1.1 *14.1 1.6

Non-Hispanic............. 79,376 45,904 434 45,856 474 40,195 387 0.1 1.1 *14.2 1.5

Black .................... 13,352 30,439 757 28,848 882 22,974 747 *5.5 3.4 *32.5 5.4

Asian and Pacific Islander .... 3,527 55,521 2,443 52,925 3,191 45,105 3,649 4.9 6.4 *23.1 11.3

Hispanic origin2 ............ 9,663 33,447 1,114 31,767 772 26,919 890 *5.3 3.0 *24.3 5.8

Age of Householder

15 to 24 years ............. 6,392 27,689 827 26,017 712 22,740 784 *6.4 3.5 *21.8 5.6

25 to 34 years ............. 18,554 44,473 1,022 43,591 684 36,793 567 2.0 2.3 *20.9 3.3

35 to 44 years ............. 23,904 53,240 906 52,582 675 48,063 588 1.3 1.8 *10.8 2.3

45 to 54 years ............. 21,797 58,218 1,277 58,829 905 54,350 979 –1.0 2.2 *7.1 3.0

55 to 64 years ............. 13,943 44,992 1,002 46,095 1,098 39,373 1,002 –2.4 2.6 *14.3 3.9

65 years and over .......... 21,828 23,048 423 23,578 388 20,879 416 *–2.2 1.9 *10.4 3.0

Nativity of the Householder

Native .................... 94,059 42,586 410 42,773 347 37,332 298 –0.4 1.0 *14.1 1.4

Foreign born ............... 12,359 38,929 1,206 37,259 981 31,017 938 *4.5 3.4 *25.5 5.4

Naturalized citizen......... 5,740 44,456 1,969 45,423 2,499 37,357 1,556 –2.1 5.6 *19.0 7.2

Not a citizen ............. 6,618 35,413 1,313 32,247 1,066 27,592 1,117 *9.8 4.4 *28.3 7.0

Region

Northeast ................. 20,212 45,106 926 43,394 723 39,694 716 *3.9 2.2 *13.6 3.1

Midwest .................. 24,497 44,646 814 44,113 860 36,933 563 1.2 2.2 *20.9 2.9

South .................... 38,525 38,410 614 38,700 566 33,453 524 –0.7 1.7 *14.8 2.6

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,183 44,744 834 44,155 809 39,685 758 1.3 2.1 *12.7 3.0

Residence

Inside metropolitan areas ..... 85,737 44,984 449 44,222 471 39,074 406 *1.7 1.2 *15.1 1.7

Inside central cities ........ 32,030 36,987 503 36,768 522 31,221 443 0.6 1.6 *18.5 2.3

Outside central cities....... 53,706 50,262 472 49,311 646 44,945 522 *1.9 1.3 *11.8 1.7

Outside metropolitan areas.... 20,681 32,837 795 34,130 962 29,769 604 *–3.8 2.9 *10.3 3.5

EARNINGS OF FULL-TIME,

YEAR-ROUND WORKERS

Male ..................... 58,731 37,339 225 37,701 231 35,765 226 *–1.0 0.7 *4.4 0.9

Female ................... 41,567 27,355 176 27,208 192 25,579 184 0.5 0.8 *6.9 1.0

PER CAPITA INCOME

All races1 ............... 276,540 22,199 230 21,893 217 18,319 166 *1.4 1.2 *21.2 1.7

White .................... 226,401 23,415 271 23,127 255 19,497 194 1.2 1.4 *20.1 1.8

Non-Hispanic............. 194,161 25,278 313 24,919 299 20,941 214 1.4 1.5 *20.7 1.9

Black .................... 35,919 15,197 444 14,881 396 11,534 322 2.1 3.4 *31.8 5.3

Asian and Pacific Islander .... 11,384 22,352 1,221 21,844 1,221 18,456 1,247 2.3 6.7 *21.1 10.5

Hispanic origin2 ............ 33,863 12,306 377 12,011 416 10,317 354 2.5 3.5 *19.3 5.5

*Statistically significant change at the 90-percent confidence level. NA Not available.

1

Data for American Indians and Alaska Natives are not shown separately in this table.

2

Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1994, 2000, and 2001.

2 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
• Based on comparisons of 2-year-average medians (1998-

1999 versus 1999-2000), real median household

income rose for six states and declined for three states

(Alabama, Louisiana, and Washington). Two of the states

that experienced increases were in the Midwest (Iowa

and Missouri), another two (Maine and New York) were

in the Northeast, one state (California) was in the West,

and another state (Delaware) was in the South.

• A more comprehensive income definition (one that

includes the effects of taxes and noncash benefits)

lowered income inequality by 8.1 percent5 when compared with pretax (official) money income. Government

transfers have a much greater effect than taxes on

redistributing income.

OFFICIAL ESTIMATES OF MONEY INCOME

The official income estimates in this report are based

solely on money income before taxes and do not include

the value of noncash benefits, such as food stamps, medicare, medicaid, public or subsidized housing, and

employment-based fringe benefits. A separate section of

this report discusses the effect of taxes and selected noncash benefits on household income using model-based

approaches to estimating taxes and valuing benefits. The

Census Bureau’s models of these effects are based on

information collected in the March 2001 CPS and other

sources, including the Internal Revenue Service, the Food

and Nutrition Service, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and

the Health Care Financing Administration.6

Median household income in 2000 ($42,148)

equaled the value for 1999, the highest ever

recorded in the CPS.

Real median household income did not change statistically between 1999 and 2000, after experiencing 5 consecutive years of annual increases (see Table A and Appendix Table A-1).

Family households maintained by a woman with no

husband present experienced an increase in real

income.

Their income increased 4.0 percent, from $27,043 to

$28,116, between 1999 and 2000. For family and for nonfamily households, median incomes remained statistically

unchanged between 1999 and 2000, in real terms, following 6 consecutive years of increases for family households

and 2 consecutive years of increases for nonfamily households. In 2000, family households had a median income of

$51,751 and nonfamily households a median income of

$25,438. The 2000 median incomes of married-couple

families and families maintained by a man with no wife

present were $59,346 and $42,129, respectively (see

Table A).

The most recent business-cycle trough in the United

States occurred in 1991, but household income continued

to drop until 1993 when median income reached its lowest level for most demographic groups. Since 1993, family

households have experienced a 17.4 percent increase in

their median income (going from $44,090 to $51,751) and

nonfamily households an increase of 14.5 percent (from

$22,207 to $25,438).7 Family households maintained by

women with no husband present experienced a 28.9percent increase (from $21,813 to $28,116), the largest

among household types.8 Nonfamily households maintained by men experienced the smallest increase (7.5 percent), their median incomes rose from $29,086 to

$31,267.

Foreign-born households experienced an increase

in real income between 1999 and 2000, but the

income of native households did not change

statistically.

The median income of foreign-born households rose by

4.5 percent, from $37,259 to $38,929. This rise is attributable to the increase (9.8 percent) in the median income

of foreign-born households with a householder who was

not a U.S. citizen, from $32,247 to $35,413. The median

income of native households, as well as that of foreignborn households with a householder who was a naturalized citizen, remained statistically unchanged from 1999. 5

This comparison uses the Gini index of income inequality.

The 90-percent confidence interval for the 8.1 percent increase

is ±1.0.

6

See Current Population Reports, Series P60-186RD, ‘‘Measuring the Effect of Benefits and Taxes on Income and Poverty:

1992,’’ for more details.

7

There is no statistically significant difference between

17.4 percent and 14.5 percent. 8

There is no statistically significant difference between the

1993 incomes of nonfamily households and family households

maintained by women with no husband present.

Detailed Tabulations

Detailed tabulations that provide income of households, families, and people 15 years old and over for

2000 are available on the Internet. Income data are

cross-tabulated by various characteristics such as age,

sex, race, Hispanic origin, presence of children, marital status, educational attainment, work experience,

occupation, class of worker, and source of income.

Historical data are available as well. The historical

tables show income data for households, families, and

people by various characteristics. The electronic version of these tables is available on the Internet at:

www.census.gov/hhes/www/income00.html.

Money Income in the United States: 2000 3

U.S. Census Bureau
In 2000, the median income of native households was

$42,586, not statistically different from the income of

$44,456 for foreign-born households with a naturalized

householder (see Table A). Before 2000, native householders had experienced three consecutive annual increases.

The 2000 median income was the highest ever

recorded in real terms by the CPS for Hispanic9

and Black households.

Hispanic households had a median income of $33,447

in 2000, up 5.3 percent from $31,767 in 1999. Black

median household income was $30,439in 2000, up 5.5

percent from $28,848 in 1999. The median income of

White non-Hispanic ($45,904) and Asian and Pacific

Islander10 ($55,521) households equaled the values for

1999, the highest levels ever recorded, as was the case for

all households ($42,148). (See Table A and Figure 1.)

Even though White non-Hispanic households did not

experience an increase in income between 1999 and

2000, they had experienced significant annual increases in

median household income in each of the past 5 years. For

Hispanic households, the increase in income between

1999 and 2000 continues the annual increases of the past

4 consecutive years. Black households experienced annual

increases in income in 4 of the 6 years since 1994. Asian

and Pacific Islander households experienced an increase in

income between 1998 and 1999, but showed no other significant annual increases in income since 1989.

Each of the race groups and Hispanics experienced

increases in real median household income between 1993

and 2000. Black and Hispanic households had larger percentage gains than White non-Hispanic households. The

median income of Blacks rose 32.5 percent, from $22,974

to $30,439, while the median income of Hispanics rose

9

Data users should exercise caution when interpreting aggregate results for the Hispanic population because this population

consists of many distinct groups that differ in socio-economic

characteristics, culture, and recency of immigration. Data were

first collected for Hispanics in 1972. 10Data users should exercise caution when interpreting aggregate results for the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) population

because the API population consists of many distinct groups that

differ in socio-economic characteristics, culture, and recency of

immigration. In addition, the CPS does not use separate population controls for weighting the API sample to national totals.

Figure 1.

Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1967 to 2000

1Hispanics may be of any race. Data not available prior to 1972. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1968 to 2001. 

Income in 2000 dollars Recession

$55,521

$30,439

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000

$45,904

$44,226

$33,447

Asian and Pacific Islander

White, not Hispanic

Hispanic origin1

 White

Black

4 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
24.3 percent, from $26,919 to $33,447. White nonHispanic households experienced a 14.2 percent increase

(from $40,195 to $45,904). The increase in the median

income of Asian and Pacific Islander households, 23.1 percent (from $45,105 to $55,521), was not statistically different from the increases experienced by the previously

mentioned groups.

Even though Black and Hispanic households had larger

percentage gains in income between 1993 and 2000 than

White non-Hispanic households, the Black-to-White

non-Hispanic (0.82) and Hispanic-to-White non-Hispanic

(0.66) income ratios of married-couple family households

remained statistically unchanged.

Although Asians and Pacific Islanders as a group had

the highest median household income in 2000, their

income per household member was lower ($22,688) than

for White non-Hispanic households ($24,951). Asian and

Pacific Islander households typically have more people—

3.10 people on average compared with 2.45 people

for White non-Hispanic households. The income-perhousehold-member figures for Black (average size of

2.67 people) and Hispanic (average size of 3.49people)

households were $15,007 and $12,158, respectively.11

Table B shows income data for the American Indian and

Alaska Native population.12 Because of the small size of

this racial group, sampling variability of income data is

larger than for the other racial groups and causes singleyear estimates to fluctuate more widely. To reduce the

chances of misinterpreting changes in income or comparison of income with other groups, the Census Bureau uses

2-year-average medians13 for evaluating changes in the

income of American Indians and Alaska Natives over time,

and 3-year-average medians14 when comparing the

income of this group with other racial and ethnic origin

groups. These 2- and 3-year-average medians smooth the

data and thereby make the estimates less volatile.

The 3-year-average (1998-2000) median household

income for American Indians and Alaska Natives was

$31,799, higher than the 3-year-average for Blacks

($28,679), not statistically different from that for Hispanics ($31,703), but lower than for White non-Hispanics

($45,514) and Asians and Pacific Islanders ($52,553)

(see Table B).

Based on comparisons of 2-year-average medians

(1998-1999 versus 1999-2000), the real median household income of American Indians and Alaska Natives did

not change statistically. The remaining race/ethnic origin

groups experienced increases in their 2-year-average

medians: the income of White non-Hispanics increased by

1.2 percent, Blacks by 6.6 percent, Asians and Pacific

Islanders by 6.2 percent, and Hispanics by 5.8 percent

(see Table B).

The Northeast was the only region to experience

an increase in real median household income

between 1999 and 2000.

The median household income for the Northeast rose

by 3.9percent, from $43,394 to $45,106. The 2000

median household income for the remaining regions were

$44,744 in the West, $44,646 in the Midwest, and

$38,410 in the South, all statistically unchanged from

their 1999 income levels.15 The South continues to have

the lowest median household income among the regions

(see Table A).

From 1993 to 2000, the Midwest had the largest percentage gain in median household income, a 20.9percent

rise from $36,933 to $44,646. Median household income

rose 14.8 percent in the South (from $33,453 to $38,410),

13.6 percent in the Northeast (from $39,694 to $45,106),

and 12.7 percent in the West (from $39,685 to $44,744).16

Due to the large increase in real income from 1993 to

2000, the Midwest’s median household income in 2000

was not statistically different from that of the Northeast

and West (see Figure 2).

Households in metropolitan areas experienced a

1.7 percent increase in real median income

between 1999 and 2000, going from $44,222 to

$44,984.

This increase was driven by the 1.9percent growth in

income experienced by households in the suburbs (going

from $49,311 to $50,262).17 In contrast, the median

income of households outside metropolitan areas dropped

by 3.8 percent, going from $34,130 to $32,837. The

median income of households located in central cities of

metropolitan areas remained statistically unchanged at

$36,987 (see Table A). 11For a discussion of standardizing income by size of family

using the official poverty thresholds, see Current Population

Reports, Series P60-214, ‘‘Poverty in the United States: 2000.’’ 12Data users should exercise caution when interpreting aggregate results for the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

population because the AIAN population consists of groups that

differ in economic characteristics. Data from the 1990 census

show that the median income for AIAN households living on reservations or in Alaska Native villages was $18,063 (in 2000 dollars) compared with $29,854 (in 2000 dollars) for households

outside those areas. In addition, the CPS does not use separate

population controls for weighting the AIAN sample to national

totals. 13The 2-year-average median is the sum of inflation adjusted

single-year medians divided by two. 14The 3-year-average median is the sum of inflation adjusted

single-year medians divided by three.

15The differences among the 2000 median household incomes

for the Northeast, Midwest, and West regions were not statistically significant. For a discussion of regional cost of living variations, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-205, ‘‘Experimental Poverty Measures: 1990 to 1997.’’ 16The differences between the 1993-2000 percent increases

among the South, Northeast, and West regions were not statistically significant. The difference between the 1993 median household incomes of the Northeast and West was not statistically significant. 17There is no statistically significant difference between the

1999-2000 percent increases of median income for households in

metropolitan areas and those in the suburbs.

Money Income in the United States: 2000 5

U.S. Census Bureau
Since 1993, median income has grown faster for households in central cities of metropolitan areas than for

households in the suburbs or in nonmetropolitan territory.

In central cities, the real median income of households

grew 18.5 percent between 1993 and 2000, rising from

$31,221 to $36,987. The income of households in the

suburbs rose 11.8 percent, from $44,945 to $50,262. For

households outside metropolitan areas, the increase was

10.3 percent, going from $29,769 to $32,837.18

For both men and women, the percentage who

worked full-time, year-round increased between

1999 and 2000.

Of the 79.2 million men at least 15 years old who

worked in 2000, 74.2 percent worked full-time, yearround—up from 73.3 percent in 1999. Of the 70.8 million

women at least 15 years old who worked in 2000,

58.7 percent worked full-time, year-round—up from

57.3 percent in 1999.

The real median earnings of men who worked

full-time, year-round dropped by 1.0 percent

between 1999 and 2000, going from $37,701 to

$37,339 (see Table A).

For the first time in 4 years, men experienced a decline

in their median earnings. Women with similar work experience did not experience a statistical change in earnings

between 1999 and 2000 ($27,355), or between 1998 and

1999, but experienced significant annual increases for the

previous 3 years. The female-to-male earnings ratio (0.73)

remained statistically unchanged between 1999 and 2000,

but returned to a level comparable to its all-time high of

0.74 recorded in 1996.

The change in real median earnings of full-time, yearround workers between 1993 and 2000 was much smaller

than the change in earnings for all workers. Earnings rose

4.4 percent (from $35,765 to $37,339) for men working

full-time, year-round and 6.9percent for women (from

$25,579to $27,355). For all workers, the earnings of men

rose by 17.6 percent (from $26,398 to $31,040) and the

earnings of women rose by 24.3 percent (from $16,345 to

$20,311)—as shown in Figure 3. The large increases in

median earnings coincide with an increase in the proportion of workers who worked full-time, year-round (from

68.0 percent in 1993 to 74.2 percent in 2000 for men and

from 52.6 percent to 58.7 percent for women).

Per capita income rose by 1.4 percent, in real

terms, for the overall population but remained

statistically unchanged for each of the race

groups and Hispanics.

The per capita income for the overall population

increased by 1.4 percent, rising from $21,893 to $22,199

between 1999 and 2000. In 2000, per capita income was

$25,278 for the White non-Hispanic population, $22,352

18There is no statistically significant difference between the

1993-2000 percent increases of median income for households in

the suburbs and outside metropolitan areas.

Table B.

Income of Households by Race and Hispanic Origin Using 2- and 3-Year-Average Medians

(In 2000 dollars)

Race and Hispanic origin

3-year average

(1998-2000)

2-year-average medians2 Differences in

2-year-average medians

(1999-2000 less

1998-1999) 1999-2000 1998-1999

Number of

households

(1,000)

Median income1

Median

income

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

(dollars)

Median

income

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

(dollars) Difference

Percent

change

Value

(dollars)

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

(dollars)

All races.............. 104,999 41,789 243 42,168 266 41,610 299 *558 *1.3

White . . . .................. 87,809 43,776 283 44,079 354 43,552 313 *528 *1.2

Non-Hispanic ............ 78,924 45,514 313 45,880 373 45,319 368 *561 *1.2

Black . . ................... 12,927 28,679 549 29,644 674 27,800 648 *1,844 *6.6

American Indian and Alaska

Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 31,799 2,459 31,064 3,270 32,537 2,704 –1,473 –4.5

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . 3,391 52,553 1,877 54,223 2,324 51,069 2,252 *3,155 *6.2

Hispanic3.................. 9,347 31,703 706 32,607 834 30,831 757 *1,777 *5.8

* Statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level.

1

The 3-year-average median is the sum of inflation-adjusted single-year medians divided by three.

2

The 2-year-average median is the sum of inflation-adjusted single-year medians divided by two.

3

Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1999, 2000, and 2001

6 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
for Asians and Pacific Islanders, $15,197 for Blacks, and

$12,306 for Hispanics (see Table A).19

Between 1993 and 2000, Blacks experienced a

31.8 percent increase in their real per capita income,

which rose to $15,197, up from $11,534 in 1993. This

increase was larger than the increases for White nonHispanics and Hispanics, but not statistically different

from the increase experienced by Asians and Pacific

Islanders. Per capita income rose 20.7 percent for White

non-Hispanics (from $20,941 to $25,278), 21.1 percent

for Asians and Pacific Islanders (from $18,456 to

$22,352), and 19.3 percent for Hispanics (from $10,317

to $12,306).20

The Gini index indicated no change in household

income inequality between 1999 and 2000.

The Gini index has not shown a significant annual

increase since 1993. However, in 2000, the Gini index

(0.460) was significantly higher than in 1995, when its

value was 0.450.

The U.S. Census Bureau traditionally uses two measures

of income inequality—the Gini index21 and the shares of

aggregate income received by households (or families). In

a single statistic, the Gini index summarizes the dispersion of income across the entire income distribution. It

ranges from 0, which indicates perfect equality (where

everyone receives an equal share), to 1, which denotes

perfect inequality (where all the income is received by

only one recipient or group of recipients). The shares

approach ranks households from lowest to highest income

and then divides them into groups of equal population

size, typically quintiles. The aggregate income of each

group divided by the overall aggregate income is each

group’s share.

In 2000, the share of aggregate income received by

each quintile did not change from 1999 levels. The lowest

quintile received 3.6 percent of aggregate household

income, the second quintile received 8.9percent, the third

quintile 14.9percent, the fourth quintile 23.0 percent, and

the top quintile 49.7 percent (see Table C and Figure 4).

Another method of measuring income inequality is to

compare selected positions in the income distribution. As

Table C shows, the household at the 95th percentile in

2000 received $145,526 in income, 8.1 times that of the

household at the 20th percentile ($17,950). This ratio is

statistically unchanged from 1999 and from 1995. The

ratio of the 90th percentile to the 10th percentile (10.5)

also remained the same in 2000 as in 1999 and 1995.

Other measures of income inequality show a similar pattern.22

Regardless of the measure used, income inequality rose

substantially between 1967 and the early 1990s, but has

remained largely unchanged since then.23

High-income households tended to be family

households with two or more earners living in the

suburbs of a large city.

The householder in the top income quintile tended to

be someone between 35 and 54 years old (peak earning

years) who worked full-time and year-round in 2000. In

19There is no statistically significant difference between the

per capita incomes of the total population and the Asian and

Pacific Islander population. 20The differences among the 1993-2000 percent increases in

per capita income for White non-Hispanics, Asians and Pacific

Islanders, and Hispanics were not statistically significant.

21For a discussion of alternative inequality measures see Current Population Reports, Series P60-204, ‘‘Changing Shape of the

Nation’s Income Distribution, 1947-98.’’ 22See Current Population Reports, Series P60-204, ‘‘Changing

Shape of the Nation’s Income Distribution, 1947-98,’’ for trends in

other income inequality measures. 23A change in data collection methodology in 1993 affected

income measurement and overstated the increase in income

inequality that year. See Paul Ryscavage, ‘‘A Surge in Growing

Income Inequality?,’’ Monthly Labor Review, August 1995,

pp. 51-61.

Figure 2.

Median Household Income by 

Region: 1993 and 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1994 and 2001.

1993

2000

Northeast Midwest South West

$44,744

$39,694

$45,106

$36,933

$44,646

$33,453

$38,410 $39,685

Money Income in the United States: 2000 7

U.S. Census Bureau
contrast, the householder of a low-income household was

likely to be someone 65 or older who lived alone and did

not work in 2000. (Table D compares the characteristics of

households in the highest and lowest quintiles of income.)

The 20 percent of households with highest income (the

highest quintile) received at least $81,960 during 2000.

The lowest 20 percent of households (the lowest quintile)

received less than $17,950 during 2000.

Half of households in the top quintile lived in a metropolitan area outside a city of 1 million or more people.

Only 10.3 percent lived outside any metropolitan area.

Among households in the lowest income quintile, only

about one-quarter (24.0 percent) lived in the suburbs of a

large city, and one-quarter (25.2 percent) lived outside a

metropolitan area.

High-income households were likely to be family

households—nearly 9out of 10 households (87.0 percent)

in the top quintile. Eight out of ten (79.7 percent) were

married-couple households. Among low-income households, only about 4 out of 10 (40.9percent) were family

households, and only 2 out of 10 (20.1 percent) were

married-couple households.

A high-income household in 2000 tended to have a

householder in his or her peak earning years. About 6 out

Table C.

Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion:1967 to 2000

(Income in 2000 dollars)

Measures of income

dispersion 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 19951 19932 1990 1985 19803 19754 1970 1967

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

AT SELECTED

PERCENTILES

10th percentile upper limit . . 10,600 10,725 10,236 9,860 9,740 9,742 9,040 9,399 9,050 8,954 8,682 7,822 7,164

20th percentile upper limit . . 17,950 17,774 17,006 16,478 16,144 16,169 15,252 16,050 15,347 15,035 14,257 14,235 13,178

50th (median) ............. 42,148 42,187 41,032 39,594 38,798 38,262 36,746 38,446 36,246 35,238 33,480 33,721 31,377

80th percentile upper limit . . 81,960 82,041 79,141 76,503 74,351 73,123 70,926 70,882 67,232 63,075 58,152 56,604 52,013

90th percentile upper limit . . 111,602 111,559 106,892 104,496 100,625 98,471 96,146 95,142 87,719 81,381 74,052 72,105 66,070

95th percentile lower limit. . . 145,526 146,792 139,497 135,405 130,676 126,880 123,079 121,653 112,435 102,472 92,724 89,487 83,461

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

RATIOS OF SELECTED

PERCENTILES

90th/10th . ................ 10.53 10.40 10.44 10.60 10.33 10.11 10.64 10.12 9.69 9.09 8.53 9.22 9.22

95th/20th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.11 8.26 8.20 8.22 8.09 7.85 8.07 7.58 7.33 6.82 6.50 6.29 6.33

95th/50th . ................ 3.45 3.48 3.40 3.42 3.37 3.32 3.35 3.16 3.10 2.91 2.77 2.65 2.66

80th/50th . ................ 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.93 1.92 1.91 1.93 1.84 1.85 1.79 1.74 1.68 1.66

80th/20th . ................ 4.57 4.62 4.65 4.64 4.61 4.52 4.65 4.42 4.38 4.20 4.08 3.98 3.95

20th/50th . ................ 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42

MEAN HOUSEHOLD

INCOME BY QUINTILE

Lowest quintile ............ 10,188 10,274 9,732 9,493 9,397 9,376 8,718 9,238 8,896 8,920 8,608 7,834 7,142

Second quintile............ 25,331 25,257 24,574 23,644 23,062 22,902 21,944 23,150 21,992 21,527 20,440 20,829 19,473

Third quintile .............. 42,359 42,252 41,118 39,778 38,792 38,295 36,783 38,238 36,425 35,431 33,443 33,543 31,091

Fourth quintile............. 65,727 65,690 63,593 61,611 60,038 58,869 57,163 57,651 54,779 52,169 48,565 47,284 43,501

Highest quintile............ 141,621 139,950 134,569 131,354 126,275 122,850 119,096 111,881 101,044 91,634 84,576 83,719 78,831

PERCENT SHARE OF

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

BY QUINTILE

Lowest quintile . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.0

Second quintile. . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.6 9.7 10.3 10.5 10.8 10.8

Third quintile .............. 14.9 14.9 15.0 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.1 15.9 16.3 16.9 17.1 17.4 17.3

Fourth quintile............. 23.0 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.3 23.3 23.5 24.0 24.6 24.9 24.8 24.5 24.2

Highest quintile............ 49.7 49.4 49.2 49.4 49.0 48.7 48.9 46.6 45.3 43.7 43.2 43.3 43.8

Gini index of income

inequality . . . ............. 0.460 0.457 0.456 0.459 0.455 0.450 0.454 0.428 0.419 0.403 0.397 0.394 0.399

1

Reflects the 1990 census sample redesign.

2

Reflects the implementation of 1990 census adjusted population controls, a change in data collection method from paper-pencil to computerassisted interviewing (CAI), and changes in income reporting limits. For detailed information concerning the impact of these changes, see Current

Population Reports, Series P60-204, The Changing Shape of the Nation’s Income Distribution: 1947 to 1998. 3

Reflects implementation of 1980 census population controls.

4

Reflects implementation of 1970 census population controls.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, selected March Supplements (see http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incineq.html for the

complete table). Data not available before 1967.

8 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
of 10 householders (60.9percent) in high-income households were between 35 and 54 years old. Among lowincome households, only one-quarter of householders

(25.7 percent) were between ages 35 and 54, and the largest proportion (39.9 percent) were 65 or older.

Most high-income households (78.6 percent) had two

or more earners contributing to household income. Only

2.5 percent of households in the top quintile had no

earners. Among low-income households, the majority

(57.1 percent) had no earners, and only 6.7 percent had

two or more earners.

The majority of high-income households (75.1 percent)

had a householder who worked full-time, year-round. Only

9.5 percent of high-income households had a nonworking

householder. Among low-income households, most householders (63.0 percent) did not work in 2000, and only

15.3 percent worked full-time, year-round.

Based on comparisons of 2-year-average medians

(1998-1999 versus 1999-2000), real median

household income rose for six states and declined

for three states.

The March CPS is designed to produce reliable income

estimates primarily at the national level. State estimates of

income are less reliable. Specifically, the sampling variability associated with the state estimates is higher than for

estimates for the country as a whole or for regions, and

year-to-year state estimates fluctuate more widely than

national and regional estimates. To reduce the possibilities

of misinterpreting changes in, or rankings of, income estimates for states, the Census Bureau uses 2-year-average

medians for evaluating changes in state estimates over

time, and 3-year-average medians when comparing the

relative ranking of states (see Table E).

Based on comparisons of 2-year-average medians (comparing 1998-1999 with 1999-2000), real median household income rose for six states and declined for three

states (Alabama, Louisiana, and Washington). Two of the

states that experienced increases were in the Midwest

(Iowa and Missouri), another two (Maine and New York)

were in the Northeast, one state (California) was in the

West, and another state (Delaware) was in the South, as

shown in Figure 5.

Comparing the relative ranking of states using 3-yearaverage medians for 1998-2000 shows that the median

household income for Maryland, although not statistically

different from the median incomes for Alaska, New Jersey,

Figure 3.

Median Earnings of Workers 15 Years Old and Over by Work Experience 

and Sex: 1967 to 2000 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1968-2001. 

Income in 2000 dollars Recession

$37,339

$27,355

$20,311

$31,040 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000

Male, total workers

Male, full-time,

year-round workers

Female, total workers

Female, full-time,

year-round workers

Money Income in the United States: 2000 9

U.S. Census Bureau
Connecticut, and Minnesota, was higher than that for the

remaining 45 states and the District of Columbia. Conversely, the median household income for West Virginia,

although not statistically different from the median for

Arkansas, was lower than the incomes of the remaining

48 states and the District of Columbia. The relative standing of the remaining states and the District of Columbia

was less clear because of sampling variability surrounding

the estimates.

The Census Bureau also computes improved (in the

sense of having lower standard errors) annual estimates of

median household income for states, as well as biennial

estimates for counties, based on models using data from

the CPS, the 1990 decennial census, and administrative

records. State-level estimates for 1998 are available on the

Internet at: www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe.html.

EXPERIMENTAL ESTIMATES OF INCOME INCLUDING

NONCASH BENEFITS AND TAXES

Traditionally, income data presented in the Census

Bureau’s reports have been based on the amount of

money received during a calendar year before taxes and

excluding capital gains, but this restricted definition of

income does not provide a completely satisfactory measure of the distribution of income. Over time, tax laws

may change and affect the economic well-being of the

population. In the early 1980s, the Census Bureau

embarked on a research program to examine the effects of

taxes. Four types of modeled tax data are included here:

federal and state income taxes, property taxes on owneroccupied housing, and payroll taxes.

Because noncash benefits increase the resources available to individuals and families, this report also presents

income measures that include the valuation of various

noncash benefits, such as food stamps, school lunches,

housing subsidies, medicare, medicaid, employer contributions to health insurance, and net imputed returns on

home equity. 24

24For more information on the methodology and procedures

used to estimate taxes and to value noncash benefits see Current

Population Reports, Series P60-186RD, ‘‘Measuring the Effect of

Benefits and Taxes on Income and Poverty: 1992.’’

Table D.

Distribution of Households by Selected Characteristics Within Income Quintiles:2000

(Households as of March 2001)

Characteristic Lowest quintile Middle three quintiles Highest quintile

Type of residence . . ............................ 100.0 100.0 100.0

Inside metropolitan area. . ........................ 74.8 79.4 89.7

Inside central cities ............................ 36.4 29.5 25.7

Outside central cities .......................... 38.4 50.0 64.0

1 million or more . . . . . ....................... 24.0 33.3 50.0

Under 1 million.............................. 14.4 16.7 13.9

Outside metropolitan area . ....................... 25.2 20.6 10.3

Type of household ............................. 100.0 100.0 100.0

Family households . . . ........................... 40.9 70.7 87.0

Married-couple families ........................ 20.1 53.8 79.7

Other families. . ............................... 20.8 16.9 7.3

Nonfamily households ........................... 59.1 29.3 13.0

Householder living alone . . . .................... 56.0 22.7 6.4

Age of householder ............................ 100.0 100.0 100.0

15 to 34 years . ................................. 21.7 26.3 16.6

35 to 54 years . ................................. 25.7 42.7 60.9

55 to 64 years . ................................. 12.7 12.7 14.7

65 years or older . . . ............................. 39.9 18.3 7.8

Number of earners ............................. 100.0 100.0 100.0

No earners ..................................... 57.1 13.3 2.5

One earner ..................................... 36.2 40.3 18.9

Two or more earners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 46.4 78.6

Work experience of householder ................ 100.0 100.0 100.0

Worked ........................................ 37.0 76.6 90.5

Worked full-time, year-round .................... 15.3 58.3 75.1

Worked part-time or part-year. . ................. 21.7 18.3 15.4

Did not work .................................... 63.0 23.4 9.5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2001

10 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
Taxes, government transfers, and other benefits

affect the distribution and the level of income.

This conclusion is evident from examining the different

definitions of income used in this section. Tables F, G, and

H show the distribution of income under the different definitions. Of the 15 definitions of income (only a few of

which are discussed below), none showed a statistically

significant change between 1999 and 2000.

Definition 1, the official definition of income, is based

on money income before taxes and includes government

cash transfers. As shown in Table G, under Definition 1,

the share of aggregate household income received by each

quintile was 3.6 percent for the lowest quintile, 9.0 percent for the second quintile, 14.8 percent for the third

quintile, 23.0 percent for the fourth quintile, and 49.7 percent for the highest quintile. The Gini index for all households under Definition 1 was 0.447 in 2000, unchanged

from 1999.25

Definition 4 reflects income generated by the

private sector and results in a more unequal

distribution than the official definition of income.

Definition 4 excludes cash transfers, adds net capital

gains, and adds employer contributions to health insurance. Under Definition 4, shares of income received by the

lowest two quintiles of households declined from that of

Definition 1 (from 3.6 percent to 1.1 percent and from

9.0 percent to 7.1 percent, respectively), while the share

of income received by the highest quintile increased from

49.7 percent to 55.1 percent (see Table G). The Gini index

under this definition of income, 0.506, was 13.2 percent

higher (showing more income inequality) than the index

under the official income definition (0.447).

25This report presents Gini indexes and shares of aggregate

income received by each quintile using two methods. The first

method, reported in Table C, sorts income data for each household and yields a Gini index of 0.460 and quintile shares of 3.6,

8.9, 14.9, 23.0, and 49.7. The second method, reported in Table

G, uses group data and employs several interpolation routines

resulting in a Gini index of 0.447 and quintile shares of 3.6, 9.0,

14.8, 23.0, and 49.7. The grouped data method is used under the

alternative definitions of income.

Figure 4.

Percent Change in Quintile Shares Since 1967

Note: Change in data collection methodology suggests pre-1993 and post-1992 estimates are not comparable. (See Current Population Reports, Series 

P60-204, "The Changing Shape of the Nation's Income Distribution: 1947-1998" for more details.)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1968-2001. 

Percent change since 1967 Recession

13.5 percent

-10.0 percent

-5.0 percent

-13.9 percent

-17.6 percent

Third

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000

Highest

Fourth

Lowest

Second

Money Income in the United States: 2000 11

U.S. Census Bureau
Table E.

Income of Households by State Using 2- and 3-Year-Average Medians

(Income in 2000 dollars)

State

3-year-average median1

(1998-2000)

2-year-average medians2 Differences in

2-year-average medians

1999-2000 1998-1999 (1999-2000 less 1998-1999)

Median

income

90-percent

confidence

interval

( ± dollars)

Median

income

90-percent

confidence

interval

(± dollars)

Median

income

90-percent

confidence

interval

(± dollars) Difference

Percent

change

United States . . . . . 41,789 244 42,168 267 41,609 299 *558 *1.3

Alabama ............ 36,268 1,743 35,267 2,180 37,849 1,761 *–2,582 *–6.8

Alaska .............. 52,492 2,391 51,993 2,656 53,365 3,050 –1,372 –2.6

Arizona ............. 39,653 1,495 39,911 1,750 38,752 1,738 1,159 3.0

Arkansas ............ 30,082 1,256 30,527 1,378 29,977 1,570 550 1.8

California. . . ......... 45,070 864 46,008 1,105 44,204 900 *1,804 *4.1

Colorado ............ 49,216 1,709 49,238 2,201 49,571 1,824 –333 –0.7

Connecticut. . ........ 50,647 2,840 51,432 3,043 50,790 3,581 642 1.3

Delaware............ 47,438 2,698 49,283 3,458 46,080 2,880 *3,204 *7.0

District of Columbia. . . 38,005 1,876 39,369 2,351 37,632 2,074 1,737 4.6

Florida . ............. 37,305 872 37,540 1,007 36,959 997 581 1.6

Georgia ............. 41,481 1,421 41,822 1,629 40,779 1,808 1,044 2.6

Hawaii .............. 45,657 2,420 46,945 2,610 44,472 2,930 2,473 5.6

Idaho ............... 37,760 1,649 37,287 2,105 37,909 1,764 –621 –1.6

Illinois. . ............. 46,649 1,353 47,193 1,522 46,756 1,603 437 0.9

Indiana.............. 41,315 1,980 41,010 2,346 42,114 2,336 –1,104 –2.6

Iowa . . . ............. 41,560 1,458 42,808 1,731 40,843 1,644 *1,965 *4.8

Kansas.............. 38,393 2,299 38,220 2,855 38,736 2,646 –516 –1.3

Kentucky ............ 36,826 1,846 36,113 2,186 36,647 2,123 –534 –1.5

Louisiana. . .......... 32,500 1,664 32,006 1,754 33,640 2,071 –1,634 *–4.9

Maine. . . ............ 39,815 1,409 40,918 1,709 38,924 1,680 *1,995 *5.1

Maryland . . . ......... 52,846 2,533 52,881 2,907 53,422 3,086 –541 –1.0

Massachusetts ....... 45,769 2,301 46,312 2,627 45,180 2,857 1,132 2.5

Michigan ............ 46,034 1,335 46,986 1,700 45,961 1,375 1,026 2.2

Minnesota . . ......... 50,088 2,120 49,846 2,244 49,699 2,617 147 0.3

Mississippi........... 31,963 1,420 32,581 1,640 32,180 1,808 400 1.2

Missouri. . ........... 44,247 1,920 45,160 2,116 42,640 2,216 *2,521 *5.9

Montana . . .......... 32,553 1,306 32,169 1,520 32,807 1,482 –638 –1.9

Nebraska............ 39,029 1,888 39,332 2,260 39,257 2,071 75 0.2

Nevada ............. 43,262 1,838 43,918 2,298 42,515 2,208 1,402 3.3

New Hampshire . . .... 48,029 2,440 48,323 2,980 47,579 2,702 744 1.6

New Jersey.......... 51,739 1,512 51,320 1,601 52,092 1,995 –772 –1.5

New Mexico ......... 34,035 2,024 34,410 2,545 33,425 2,233 985 2.9

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . 40,822 1,001 41,504 1,202 40,431 1,171 *1,073 *2.7

North Carolina ....... 38,413 1,330 38,712 1,629 38,205 1,438 506 1.3

North Dakota ........ 33,769 1,647 34,665 2,059 32,979 1,784 1,686 5.1

Ohio . . . ............. 41,972 1,446 42,421 1,424 41,011 1,837 1,410 3.4

Oklahoma ........... 34,020 1,552 33,235 1,812 34,807 1,973 *–1,572 –4.5

Oregon. ............. 41,915 1,882 42,260 1,984 41,652 2,269 608 1.5

Pennsylvania . . ...... 41,394 1,416 41,507 1,720 40,220 1,614 1,287 3.2

Rhode Island . . ...... 43,428 2,816 43,676 3,124 43,655 3,317 20 –

South Carolina . ...... 36,671 1,753 37,455 2,106 36,447 2,163 1,008 2.8

South Dakota . ....... 35,986 1,258 36,681 1,519 35,893 1,364 788 2.2

Tennessee........... 35,874 1,635 35,824 1,957 36,868 1,858 –1,044 –2.8

Texas . . ............. 39,296 1,018 40,065 1,286 39,023 1,200 *1,042 2.7

Utah . . . ............. 46,539 1,712 46,436 2,003 47,194 2,122 –757 –1.6

Vermont. ............ 40,908 1,917 40,589 2,278 42,287 2,130 –1,698 –4.0

Virginia.............. 47,701 2,437 48,678 2,777 46,517 2,822 2,161 4.6

Washington. . ........ 46,412 2,039 44,598 2,544 48,606 2,418 *–4,007 *–8.2

West Virginia ........ 29,217 1,087 29,737 1,320 29,300 1,363 437 1.5

Wisconsin ........... 45,441 1,956 46,357 2,482 45,486 2,240 870 1.9

Wyoming ............ 38,291 1,744 38,839 2,158 37,924 1,845 915 2.4

– Represents zero. * Statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level.

1

The 3-year-average median is the sum of inflation-adjusted single-year medians divided by three.

2

The 2-year-average median is the sum of inflation-adjusted single-year medians divided by two.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1999, 2000, and 2001.

12 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
Table F.

Median Household Income by Definition:1999 and 2000

(Income in 2000 dollars)

Definition of income

Median income

Percent change

1999-20002 2000 1999

Income before taxes:

1. Money income excluding capital gains (official measure). . .............. 42,148 42,187 –0.1

2. Definition 1 less government cash transfers ........................... 38,912 38,536 1.0

3. Definition 2 plus capital gains ....................................... 39,430 39,107 0.8

4. Definition 3 plus health insurance supplements to wage or salary

income .......................................................... 41,196 41,128 0.2

Income after taxes:

5. Definition 4 less social security payroll taxes . ......................... 38,557 38,462 0.2

6. Definition 5 less federal income taxes (excluding the EIC) .............. 35,596 35,552 0.1

7. Definition 6 plus the earned income credit (EIC)1 ...................... 35,769 35,731 0.2

8. Definition 7 less state income taxes .................................. 34,642 34,647 –

9. Definition 8 plus nonmeans-tested government cash transfers........... 38,157 38,132 0.1

10. Definition 9 plus the value of medicare ............................... 39,876 39,923 –0.1

11. Definition 10 plus the value of regular-price school lunches ............. 39,887 39,988 –0.3

12. Definition 11 plus means-tested government cash transfers ............. 40,068 40,189 –0.3

13. Definition 12 plus the value of medicaid . . ............................ 40,435 40,530 –0.2

14. Definition 13 plus the value of other means-tested government

noncash transfers................................................. 40,574 40,645 –0.2

15. Definition 14 plus net imputed return on equity in own home ............ 42,812 42,538 0.6

– Represents zero or rounds to zero.

1

Includes EIC for 13 states (Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island,

Vermont, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia that use federal eligibility rules to compute the state credit as a percentage of the federal EIC. 2

There were no statistically significant changes between 1999 and 2000 for any of the income definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000 and 2001.

Table G.

Percentage of Aggregate Income Received by Income Quintiles and Gini Index by

Definition of Income:2000

Definition of income

Quintiles

Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Gini index

Definition 1 (official measure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 9.0 14.8 23.0 49.7 .447

Definition 4 (definition 1 less government cash transfers

plus capital gains and employee health benefits). . . . . . . . . 1.1 7.1 13.9 22.8 55.1 .506

Definition 8 (definition 4 less taxes, includes EIC) . . . . . . . . . 1.4 8.3 15.1 24.0 51.2 .486

Definition 11 (definition 8 plus nonmeans tested

government cash transfers). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 10.1 15.7 22.8 47.3 .422

Definition 14 (definition 11 plus means-tested government

cash transfers). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 10.3 15.7 22.7 46.7 .411

Definition 15 (definition 14 plus return on home equity) . . . . 4.8 10.5 15.8 22.8 46.2 .403

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2001.

Money Income in the United States: 2000 13

U.S. Census Bureau
TX

NM

NV

MI

IL

MT

WY

ID

UT

CO

HI

NE

AK

KS

OK

WI

VT

IN

KY

TN

GA

OH

WV

NC

SC

NJ

MD

CT

RI

MA SD

VA

AR

DC

PA

NH

FL

MS

AZ

OR

ND

MN

2.7

4.1 7.0

-4.9

-8.2

5.9

-6.8

5.1

4.8

CA

NY

DE

LA

WA

MO

IA

AL

ME

IncreaseNo changeDecrease

Median HouseholdIncome Change

Figure 5. Percent Change in 2-Year-Average Median Household Incomeby State: 1999-2000 Less 1998-99

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1999, 2000, and 2001

14 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
The net effect of deducting social security payroll

taxes, federal and state income taxes, and adding

the earned income tax credit was to reduce income

inequality.

This result is shown by Definition 8. The share of

income going to the bottom three quintiles increased, and

the share received by the highest quintile declined. With

Definition 8, the Gini index for 2000 was 0.486, or

4.0 percent below the value of 0.506 for Definition 4.

Nonmeans-tested transfers reduced income

inequality more than taxes.

These transfers lowered the Gini index by 13.2 percent,

from 0.486 to 0.422, as shown by comparing Definition

11 estimates with Definition 8 estimates. Including the

benefits increased the share of income going to the lowest

quintile (1.4 percent to 4.0 percent) and lowered the share

of income going to the highest quintile (from 51.2 percent

to 47.3 percent).

Means-tested transfers also reduced income

inequality, as shown by Definition 14.

The share of income in the lowest quintile increased

from 4.0 percent to 4.6 percent, while the change in the

share of income going to the highest quintile was not significantly different at 46.7 percent. The Gini index

declined 2.6 percent from 0.422 to 0.411.26 The inclusion

of net imputed return on home equity had a minimal effect

on the Gini index, as shown by Definition 15.

An important finding of the Census Bureau’s tax

and noncash benefit research is that government

transfers have a significantly greater impact on

lowering income inequality than the tax system.

In 2000, subtracting taxes and including the earned

income credit (EIC) lowered the Gini index by 4.0 percent

(from 0.506 to 0.486), while including transfers lowered

the Gini index by 15.4 percent (from 0.486 to 0.411).

Taxes and transfers affect income comparisons

among population subgroups to varying degrees,

as shown in Table H.

Under the official income definition, the median household income of Blacks ($30,439) was 66 percent of the

median household income of White non-Hispanics

($45,904). Subtracting cash transfers and adding capital

gains and health insurance supplements (Definition 4)

26There was no change in income inequality between 1999

and 2000 using the most comprehensive definition of income.

However, the 2000 Gini index is significantly higher than in 1996.

Table H.

Median Income Using Different Definitions for Households With Selected Characteristics:2000

(Dollars)

Characteristic

Definition 1

(official

measure)

Definition 4

(Definition 1 less

government

cash transfers

plus capital

gains

and employee

health benefits)

Definition 8

(Definition 4

less taxes,

includes EIC)

Definition 11

(Definition 8

plus

nonmeanstested

government

cash transfers)

Definition 14

(Definition 11 plus

means-tested

government

cash transfers)

Definition 15

(Definition 14

plus return on

home equity)

All households................. 42,148 41,196 34,642 39,887 40,574 42,812

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

OF HOUSEHOLDER

White . . . ........................... 44,226 43,106 36,193 41,701 42,227 44,471

Non-Hispanic ..................... 45,904 44,860 37,344 43,062 43,428 45,739

Black . . ............................ 30,439 29,353 25,624 29,139 30,409 31,515

Asian or Pacific Islander ............. 55,521 56,962 46,247 48,218 49,590 51,462

Hispanic origin1 ..................... 33,447 33,039 29,420 32,307 33,937 35,037

TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD

Married-couple households with

related children under 18............ 63,110 66,526 55,469 56,882 57,367 59,323

Female householder, no husband

present with related children

under 18 .......................... 24,693 24,403 23,536 25,248 27,505 28,057

AGE OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

With members 65 years old and over . . 25,098 11,218 10,670 31,213 31,847 35,675

With related children under 18 ........ 52,101 54,484 46,513 48,220 49,177 50,828

1

Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2001.

Money Income in the United States: 2000 15

U.S. Census Bureau
reduced the percentage to 65 percent.27 Subtracting federal and state income taxes and payroll taxes and including the EIC (Definition 8) resulted in an increase to 69percent, and the addition of cash (Definition 11) and noncash

transfers (Definition 14) resulted in a further increase, to

70 percent, in the ratio of Black income to that of White

non-Hispanics.28

The median household income ($33,447) of Hispanics,

under the official income definition, was 73 percent that

of White non-Hispanics ($45,904). Subtracting cash transfers and adding capital gains and employers’ contributions

for health insurance (Definition 4) resulted in no statistically significant change in the percentage. Subtracting

federal and state income taxes and payroll taxes and

including the EIC (Definition 8) resulted in an increase to

79percent, but the addition of cash transfers (Definition

11) and noncash transfers (Definition 14) resulted in no

further increase in the Hispanic-to-White non-Hispanic

income percentage.

The different definitions of income affect comparisons

of various types of households. Under the official definition, the median income of households with a female

householder (no husband present) with children was

39percent of that of married-couple households with children. Based on a definition of income that includes the

effect of taxes and transfers (Definition 14), the percentage increased to 48 percent.

Transfers and tax programs can also affect population

groups differently, as can be shown by comparing

incomes under the various income definitions for households with children and households with members

65 years old and over. Under Definition 1, the official

median income for households with children under

18 years of age was $52,101 in 2000, while for households with members 65 years old and over it was

$25,098—or almost half as much (48 percent). Subtracting

cash transfers and adding capital gains and employerprovided health insurance (Definition 4) lowered the ratio

from 48 percent to 21 percent, while incorporating the

effect of the tax system (Definition 8) raised it to 23 percent. Adding cash (Definition 11) and noncash transfers

(Definition 14) almost tripled it, bringing it to 65 percent,

and adding the return on home equity (Definition 15)

resulted in a further increase to 70 percent.

USER COMMENTS

The Census Bureau welcomes the comments and

advice of data and report users. If you have any suggestions or comments, please write to:

Edward J. Welniak, Jr.

Chief, Income Surveys Branch

Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division

U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233-8500

edward.j.welniak.jr@census.gov

27There is no statistically significant difference between the

ratios for Definition 1 and Definition 4. 28There is no statistically significant difference between the

ratios for Definition 8 and Definition 14.

Sample Expansion

The number of households interviewed using the

March 2001 CPS was expanded from March 2000.

Estimates in this report, however, are based on a

subsample consistent with the March 2000 CPS. The

Census Bureau will release a report this winter discussing the impact of the sample expansion on

income estimates. For further information, see

www.bls.census.gov/cps/ads/data_dissem_letterng.htm.

16 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
Table A-1.

Households by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder:

1967 to 2000

(Income in 2000 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars. Households as of March of the following year. For meaning of symbols, see text)

Race and Hispanic

origin of householder and year Number

(1,000)

Percent distribution Median income Mean income

Total

Under

$5,000

$5,000

to

$9,999

$10,000

to

$14,999

$15,000

to

$24,999

$25,000

to

$34,999

$35,000

to

$49,999

$50,000

to

$74,999

$75,000

to

$99,999

$100,000

and over

Value

(dollars)

Standard

error

(dollars)

Value

(dollars)

Standard

error

(dollars)

ALL RACES

2000 . . . . . . . . . . 106 417 100.0 2.9 6.1 7.0 13.4 12.5 15.5 18.9 10.4 13.4 42 148 197 57 045 319

1999 . . . . . . . . . . 104 705 100.0 2.8 6.1 7.1 13.8 12.4 15.8 18.5 10.5 13.2 42 187 198 56 684 297

1998 . . . . . . . . . . 103 874 100.0 3.1 6.6 7.4 13.4 13.1 15.5 18.8 10.2 12.0 41 032 243 54 718 295

1997 . . . . . . . . . . 102 528 100.0 3.2 7.0 7.6 14.2 12.7 16.0 18.5 9.7 11.1 39 594 183 53 169 297

1996 . . . . . . . . . . 101 018 100.0 3.1 7.4 7.8 14.3 13.5 15.7 18.6 9.5 10.2 38 798 196 51 513 289

19951. . . . . . . . . . 99 627 100.0 3.1 7.2 8.0 14.9 13.1 16.4 18.3 9.4 9.6 38 262 221 50 458 276

19942. . . . . . . . . . 98 990 100.0 3.4 7.8 8.2 14.9 13.3 16.2 17.7 9.1 9.5 37 136 169 49 646 267

19933. . . . . . . . . . 97 107 100.0 3.7 8.0 8.0 14.9 13.1 16.6 17.7 8.8 9.1 36 746 172 48 729 263

19924. . . . . . . . . . 96 426 100.0 3.6 8.1 8.0 14.9 13.2 16.7 18.4 8.7 8.4 36 965 175 46 864 197

1991 . . . . . . . . . . 95 676 100.0 3.3 8.1 7.6 14.7 13.7 16.8 18.4 9.0 8.4 37 314 179 46 970 193

1990 . . . . . . . . . . 94 312 100.0 3.2 7.7 7.5 14.1 13.7 17.2 18.8 9.1 8.7 38 446 197 48 024 203

1989 . . . . . . . . . . 93 347 100.0 3.0 7.6 7.4 14.1 13.1 17.1 19.2 9.2 9.3 38 979 214 49 246 214

1988 . . . . . . . . . . 92 830 100.0 3.1 8.1 7.3 14.3 12.8 17.3 19.2 9.3 8.5 38 309 186 47 867 212

19875. . . . . . . . . . 91 124 100.0 3.3 8.1 7.5 14.5 12.9 17.1 19.1 9.3 8.2 38 007 180 47 266 193

1986 . . . . . . . . . . 89 479 100.0 3.6 8.2 7.3 14.8 13.3 17.2 18.7 9.1 7.8 37 546 194 46 387 189

19856. . . . . . . . . . 88 458 100.0 3.5 8.4 7.7 15.1 13.7 17.7 18.3 8.7 6.8 36 246 196 44 607 176

1984 . . . . . . . . . . 86 789 100.0 3.4 8.5 7.9 15.5 14.0 17.6 18.3 8.2 6.4 35 568 162 43 580 160

19837. . . . . . . . . . 85 290 100.0 3.7 8.7 8.0 16.0 14.4 17.8 17.9 7.6 5.8 34 682 157 42 257 157

1982 . . . . . . . . . . 83 918 100.0 3.6 8.9 8.3 15.7 14.5 18.2 17.9 7.4 5.5 34 667 157 41 779 155

1981 . . . . . . . . . . 83 527 100.0 3.4 8.9 8.3 16.0 14.1 18.2 18.6 7.5 5.1 34 696 182 41 450 151

1980 . . . . . . . . . . 82 368 100.0 3.1 8.9 8.2 15.5 14.0 18.9 18.7 7.5 5.2 35 239 182 41 910 153

19798. . . . . . . . . . 80 776 100.0 3.0 8.7 7.6 15.2 13.8 18.5 19.7 7.8 5.6 36 399 173 43 238 164

1978 . . . . . . . . . . 77 330 100.0 2.8 8.7 8.1 15.1 13.7 18.8 19.7 7.7 5.3 36 440 172 42 889 164

1977 . . . . . . . . . . 76 030 100.0 3.0 9.1 8.5 15.8 14.3 19.1 18.9 6.7 4.4 34 242 139 40 620 124

19769. . . . . . . . . . 74 142 100.0 3.0 9.3 8.5 16.0 14.8 19.4 18.6 6.4 4.0 34 050 142 40 051 123

197510 . . . . . . . . . 72 867 100.0 3.2 9.5 8.7 16.0 15.4 19.4 18.2 6.0 3.7 33 489 123 39 105 122

197410 11 . . . . . . . 71 163 100.0 3.1 9.1 7.9 15.8 15.3 20.0 18.4 6.5 4.0 34 409 121 40 239 126

1973 . . . . . . . . . . 69 859 100.0 3.6 8.2 8.3 15.0 14.8 19.7 19.3 6.6 4.4 35 504 130 41 060 128

197212 . . . . . . . . . 68 251 100.0 4.1 8.6 8.1 14.7 15.1 20.1 18.8 6.3 4.3 34 802 135 40 504 133

197113 . . . . . . . . . 66 676 100.0 4.6 9.0 7.9 15.5 15.7 21.1 17.4 5.4 3.4 33 398 129 38 411 126

1970 . . . . . . . . . . 64 778 100.0 4.8 8.7 7.6 15.2 16.3 21.0 17.6 5.4 3.4 33 746 127 38 641 131

1969 . . . . . . . . . . 63 401 100.0 4.8 8.6 7.4 15.0 16.4 21.6 17.6 5.2 3.3 33 973 129 38 151 130

1968 . . . . . . . . . . 62 214 100.0 5.1 8.6 7.8 15.4 17.8 21.2 16.8 4.5 2.7 32 723 128 37 021 152

196714 . . . . . . . . . 60 813 100.0 5.9 9.1 7.9 16.1 17.4 21.8 14.9 4.1 2.8 31 397 117 35 115 136

WHITE

2000 . . . . . . . . . . 88 545 100.0 2.3 5.5 6.6 13.0 12.6 15.4 19.4 11.0 14.2 44 226 275 59 277 363

1999 . . . . . . . . . . 87 671 100.0 2.2 5.3 6.7 13.6 12.2 16.0 19.1 11.1 13.8 43 932 248 58 820 335

1998 . . . . . . . . . . 87 212 100.0 2.5 5.6 7.1 13.0 13.0 15.7 19.6 10.7 12.9 43 171 216 57 200 337

1997 . . . . . . . . . . 86 106 100.0 2.6 6.1 7.2 13.9 12.6 16.2 19.1 10.3 12.0 41 699 264 55 534 338

1996 . . . . . . . . . . 85 059 100.0 2.4 6.5 7.5 14.0 13.5 16.0 19.3 10.1 10.9 40 623 209 53 558 317

19951. . . . . . . . . . 84 511 100.0 2.5 6.3 7.6 14.6 13.0 16.7 19.1 9.8 10.4 40 159 210 52 469 304

19942. . . . . . . . . . 83 737 100.0 2.8 6.7 7.8 14.6 13.3 16.7 18.4 9.6 10.2 39 166 220 51 834 302

19933. . . . . . . . . . 82 387 100.0 2.9 6.9 7.6 14.6 13.2 17.1 18.6 9.3 9.7 38 768 226 50 913 294

19924. . . . . . . . . . 81 795 100.0 2.7 7.0 7.6 14.7 13.2 17.1 19.4 9.3 9.1 38 863 188 48 981 218

1991 . . . . . . . . . . 81 682 100.0 2.5 7.0 7.3 14.4 13.8 17.2 19.2 9.5 9.1 39 101 190 48 951 213

1990 . . . . . . . . . . 80 968 100.0 2.4 6.6 7.0 13.9 13.8 17.6 19.6 9.6 9.3 40 100 184 49 962 223

1989 . . . . . . . . . . 80 163 100.0 2.3 6.4 7.1 13.9 13.1 17.4 20.1 9.7 10.0 41 002 199 51 297 237

1988 . . . . . . . . . . 79 734 100.0 2.5 6.9 6.8 13.9 12.9 17.8 20.1 9.9 9.1 40 499 237 49 908 234

19875. . . . . . . . . . 78 519 100.0 2.6 6.9 7.1 14.1 12.9 17.6 20.1 9.9 8.8 40 044 202 49 286 211

1986 . . . . . . . . . . 77 284 100.0 2.8 7.3 6.9 14.3 13.3 17.7 19.7 9.7 8.3 39 474 192 48 319 207

19856. . . . . . . . . . 76 576 100.0 2.9 7.4 7.3 14.7 13.8 18.2 19.2 9.2 7.4 38 226 204 46 438 195

1984 . . . . . . . . . . 75 328 100.0 2.8 7.5 7.4 15.0 14.1 18.2 19.3 8.7 6.9 37 523 189 45 378 176

19837. . . . . . . . . . 74 170 100.0 3.1 7.6 7.4 15.6 14.6 18.4 18.8 8.1 6.3 36 360 163 44 023 170

1982 . . . . . . . . . . 73 182 100.0 3.0 7.9 7.8 15.3 14.6 18.6 18.8 7.9 6.0 36 293 165 43 501 170

1981 . . . . . . . . . . 72 845 100.0 2.8 7.8 7.7 15.6 14.2 18.8 19.5 8.0 5.6 36 659 168 43 188 164

1980 . . . . . . . . . . 71 872 100.0 2.6 7.9 7.6 15.1 14.1 19.5 19.7 8.0 5.6 37 176 191 43 601 167

19798. . . . . . . . . . 70 766 100.0 2.5 7.7 7.1 14.7 13.9 19.0 20.7 8.2 6.1 38 163 182 44 943 179

1978 . . . . . . . . . . 68 028 100.0 2.5 7.7 7.6 14.7 13.7 19.2 20.8 8.1 5.7 37 881 180 44 478 179

1977 . . . . . . . . . . 66 934 100.0 2.7 8.2 8.0 15.2 14.4 19.7 20.0 7.1 4.8 36 008 146 42 207 136

19769. . . . . . . . . . 65 353 100.0 2.7 8.3 7.9 15.6 14.8 20.0 19.6 6.9 4.4 35 668 149 41 592 134

197510 . . . . . . . . . 64 392 100.0 2.8 8.5 8.2 15.6 15.3 20.0 19.2 6.4 4.0 35 021 131 40 550 133

197410 11 . . . . . . . 62 984 100.0 2.7 8.2 7.4 15.2 15.3 20.6 19.3 6.9 4.4 35 986 127 41 729 135

1973 . . . . . . . . . . 61 965 100.0 3.2 7.5 7.7 14.4 14.7 20.3 20.4 7.1 4.8 37 210 135 42 648 138

Money Income in the United States: 2000 17

U.S. Census Bureau
Table A-1.

Households by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder:

1967 to 2000—Con.

(Income in 2000 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars. Households as of March of the following year. For meaning of symbols, see text)

Race and Hispanic

origin of householder and year Number

(1,000)

Percent distribution Median income Mean income

Total

Under

$5,000

$5,000

to

$9,999

$10,000

to

$14,999

$15,000

to

$24,999

$25,000

to

$34,999

$35,000

to

$49,999

$50,000

to

$74,999

$75,000

to

$99,999

$100,000

and over

Value

(dollars)

Standard

error

(dollars)

Value

(dollars)

Standard

error

(dollars)

WHITE—Con.

197212 ......... 60 618 100.0 3.6 7.9 7.5 14.1 15.0 20.9 19.7 6.8 4.6 36 510 139 42 080 144

197113 . . . . . . . . . 59 463 100.0 4.1 8.2 7.4 14.8 15.8 21.9 18.3 5.8 3.7 34 934 135 39 802 137

1970 . . . . . . . . . . 57 575 100.0 4.2 8.1 7.1 14.6 16.3 21.8 18.5 5.8 3.7 35 148 133 39 993 139

1969 . . . . . . . . . . 56 248 100.0 4.3 7.9 6.9 14.2 16.4 22.4 18.6 5.6 3.7 35 456 133 40 085 142

1968 . . . . . . . . . . 55 394 100.0 4.5 8.0 7.2 14.7 18.0 22.1 17.7 4.8 3.0 34 071 131 38 352 169

196714 . . . . . . . . . 54 188 100.0 5.3 8.5 7.3 15.4 17.7 22.8 15.8 4.3 3.0 32 742 123 36 399 145

BLACK

2000 . . . . . . . . . . 13 352 100.0 6.1 10.4 9.5 16.5 12.9 16.8 15.2 6.5 6.1 30 439 460 40 068 642

1999 . . . . . . . . . . 12 849 100.0 6.2 11.7 10.2 15.9 13.8 14.6 14.4 6.6 6.7 28 848 537 39 740 568

1998 . . . . . . . . . . 12 579 100.0 7.0 13.6 9.9 17.0 13.6 14.5 13.4 6.1 4.9 26 751 419 36 024 481

1997 . . . . . . . . . . 12 474 100.0 6.7 13.5 10.1 17.5 14.1 14.6 14.2 5.2 4.2 26 803 462 35 270 506

1996 . . . . . . . . . . 12 109 100.0 7.3 13.7 10.6 17.3 14.2 14.3 13.8 4.9 4.0 25 669 505 35 484 693

19951. . . . . . . . . . 11 577 100.0 7.3 14.0 11.0 17.8 13.8 14.5 12.4 6.0 3.1 25 144 429 34 134 584

19942. . . . . . . . . . 11 655 100.0 7.7 15.4 10.6 17.4 13.8 12.8 13.0 5.2 4.0 24 202 450 33 677 483

19933. . . . . . . . . . 11 281 100.0 8.9 16.1 11.6 17.2 13.0 13.6 11.5 4.7 3.5 22 975 454 32 027 532

19924. . . . . . . . . . 11 269 100.0 9.4 16.5 11.1 16.8 13.6 13.9 11.8 4.0 3.0 22 630 462 30 708 416

1991 . . . . . . . . . . 11 083 100.0 8.7 17.0 10.4 16.9 13.0 14.2 12.4 4.5 2.9 23 294 489 31 018 405

1990 . . . . . . . . . . 10 671 100.0 8.4 16.0 11.0 15.8 13.7 14.6 12.7 4.7 3.1 23 979 548 31 860 430

1989 . . . . . . . . . . 10 486 100.0 8.1 16.2 10.0 16.9 13.4 14.7 12.3 5.5 3.1 24 385 497 32 357 440

1988 . . . . . . . . . . 10 561 100.0 7.4 17.6 11.3 16.7 13.0 13.6 12.2 5.1 3.1 23 087 477 31 628 457

19875. . . . . . . . . . 10 192 100.0 8.1 17.3 10.9 17.6 13.7 13.5 11.7 4.3 2.9 22 856 437 30 861 421

1986 . . . . . . . . . . 9 922 100.0 9.3 16.2 10.6 18.0 13.3 13.9 11.9 4.1 2.8 22 742 447 30 511 415

19856. . . . . . . . . . 9 797 100.0 7.7 17.0 11.2 18.7 13.4 14.1 11.4 4.5 1.9 22 742 443 29 673 385

1984 . . . . . . . . . . 9 480 100.0 8.0 17.1 12.3 19.1 13.8 13.3 10.7 3.9 1.7 21 376 410 28 508 351

19837. . . . . . . . . . 9 243 100.0 8.8 18.0 12.6 18.7 13.1 13.4 10.5 3.6 1.4 20 582 385 27 415 337

1982 . . . . . . . . . . 8 916 100.0 8.4 17.6 12.2 19.5 13.2 14.7 10.6 2.4 1.4 20 569 331 27 064 339

1981 . . . . . . . . . . 8 961 100.0 8.0 18.2 12.8 19.3 13.3 13.2 11.2 3.0 1.0 20 571 346 27 024 327

1980 . . . . . . . . . . 8 847 100.0 7.4 17.3 12.9 18.9 13.7 14.4 10.7 3.4 1.3 21 418 405 27 797 342

19798. . . . . . . . . . 8 586 100.0 6.9 16.5 12.2 19.7 13.3 14.7 11.8 3.6 1.4 22 406 410 28 750 354

1978 . . . . . . . . . . 8 066 100.0 5.9 17.4 12.5 18.4 13.8 15.3 11.4 4.0 1.4 22 765 430 29 093 380

1977 . . . . . . . . . . 7 977 100.0 5.9 17.4 13.2 21.0 14.1 14.4 10.1 3.0 1.0 21 249 289 27 226 242

19769. . . . . . . . . . 7 776 100.0 5.9 17.6 13.5 19.6 14.5 15.1 10.3 2.6 0.9 21 209 323 27 098 242

197510 . . . . . . . . . 7 489 100.0 6.6 18.2 13.4 18.8 15.9 14.3 9.7 2.3 0.7 21 024 285 26 243 233

197410 11 . . . . . . . 7 263 100.0 6.6 16.9 12.8 20.9 15.1 14.5 10.3 2.1 0.7 21 401 262 26 616 237

1973 . . . . . . . . . . 7 040 100.0 7.2 15.0 13.7 20.2 15.2 15.0 9.9 2.6 1.1 21 903 289 27 199 253

197212 . . . . . . . . . 6 809 100.0 8.3 15.4 13.0 20.0 15.6 13.7 10.9 2.2 1.0 21 311 300 26 920 266

197113 . . . . . . . . . 6 578 100.0 8.9 16.2 12.4 21.1 15.6 14.5 8.5 2.1 0.7 20 635 309 25 570 248

1970 . . . . . . . . . . 6 180 100.0 9.6 14.8 12.2 20.9 15.9 14.4 9.2 2.2 0.8 21 393 316 26 123 263

1969 . . . . . . . . . . 6 053 100.0 9.5 14.7 12.4 21.9 16.2 14.7 8.1 2.0 0.6 21 431 307 25 513 243

1968 . . . . . . . . . . 5 870 100.0 9.8 15.0 13.4 22.2 16.2 13.4 7.6 1.8 0.5 20 091 251 24 469 241

196714 . . . . . . . . . 5 728 100.0 11.3 16.0 13.7 22.5 15.1 12.9 6.1 1.6 0.9 19 010 268 22 843 281

ASIAN AND

PACIFIC

ISLANDER

2000 . . . . . . . . . . 3 527 100.0 3.5 3.1 4.8 10.6 9.4 13.5 20.1 12.1 22.7 55 521 1 485 70 221 1 878

1999 . . . . . . . . . . 3 337 100.0 4.0 4.3 5.0 9.8 9.9 15.2 18.1 11.7 22.1 52 925 1 940 69 883 1 873

1998 . . . . . . . . . . 3 308 100.0 4.4 4.3 5.2 10.4 11.2 15.4 18.3 13.9 16.9 49 212 1 370 63 532 1 835

1997 . . . . . . . . . . 3 125 100.0 4.4 4.9 6.2 9.7 10.0 16.6 19.6 11.5 17.1 48 415 1 346 63 011 1 953

1996 . . . . . . . . . . 2 998 100.0 4.1 6.2 5.7 10.0 10.5 16.2 18.1 13.2 16.2 47 307 1 696 61 815 2 217

19951. . . . . . . . . . 2 777 100.0 4.8 4.9 6.8 10.2 11.6 15.8 20.1 11.6 14.3 45 603 1 144 62 012 2 502

19942. . . . . . . . . . 2 040 100.0 4.4 5.2 6.4 11.0 11.8 14.6 19.5 12.2 14.9 46 595 1 766 60 499 2 156

19933. . . . . . . . . . 2 233 100.0 4.6 6.8 6.7 12.8 9.8 13.7 18.2 13.7 13.7 45 105 2 219 59 098 2 380

19924. . . . . . . . . . 2 262 100.0 4.3 5.3 6.2 12.7 9.9 16.7 18.9 12.2 13.8 45 610 1 316 56 529 1 554

1991 . . . . . . . . . . 2 094 100.0 3.9 6.0 5.6 13.0 11.3 15.4 19.2 11.9 13.8 45 145 1 457 57 319 1 689

1990 . . . . . . . . . . 1 958 100.0 3.8 4.5 5.6 11.1 10.5 14.7 21.1 13.7 14.9 49 369 1 463 59 592 1 687

1989 . . . . . . . . . . 1 988 100.0 3.1 4.1 6.3 10.3 11.0 17.1 21.1 11.2 15.8 48 683 1 316 60 520 1 761

1988 . . . . . . . . . . 1 913 100.0 3.2 4.6 6.6 13.1 10.5 15.6 20.0 12.3 14.1 45 404 1 850 56 765 1 683

18 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
Table A-1.

Households by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder:

1967 to 2000—Con.

(Income in 2000 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars. Households as of March of the following year. For meaning of symbols, see text)

Race and Hispanic

origin of householder and year Number

(1,000)

Percent distribution Median income Mean income

Total

Under

$5,000

$5,000

to

$9,999

$10,000

to

$14,999

$15,000

to

$24,999

$25,000

to

$34,999

$35,000

to

$49,999

$50,000

to

$74,999

$75,000

to

$99,999

$100,000

and over

Value

(dollars)

Standard

error

(dollars)

Value

(dollars)

Standard

error

(dollars)

HISPANIC

ORIGIN15

2000 . . . . . . . . . . 9 663 100.0 3.3 7.3 8.3 18.3 14.7 17.7 17.4 7.4 5.8 33 447 677 42 410 659

1999 . . . . . . . . . . 9 319 100.0 3.9 7.7 9.5 18.4 15.5 16.8 15.1 7.3 5.8 31 767 470 41 811 751

1998 . . . . . . . . . . 9 060 100.0 4.7 9.5 10.5 17.1 16.3 15.7 14.6 6.0 5.6 29 894 576 40 393 859

1997 . . . . . . . . . . 8 590 100.0 5.0 10.6 10.4 18.8 14.9 16.3 13.5 5.6 4.9 28 491 508 38 394 775

1996 . . . . . . . . . . 8 225 100.0 4.6 11.1 10.8 19.8 15.6 15.2 13.3 5.4 4.3 27 226 528 37 173 860

19951. . . . . . . . . . 7 939 100.0 5.2 12.1 11.6 20.3 14.9 14.5 13.1 4.6 3.8 25 668 559 35 033 786

19942. . . . . . . . . . 7 735 100.0 5.2 12.2 11.4 18.1 15.5 15.4 12.7 5.3 4.2 26 958 501 36 351 907

19933. . . . . . . . . . 7 362 100.0 4.7 11.5 11.5 19.5 15.2 16.4 12.4 5.3 3.5 26 919 541 35 629 749

19924. . . . . . . . . . 7 153 100.0 5.3 11.2 10.9 19.4 15.7 15.8 13.2 5.0 3.6 27 266 564 34 777 547

1991 . . . . . . . . . . 6 379 100.0 4.7 11.1 10.8 18.2 15.5 16.6 13.7 5.4 3.9 28 105 584 35 760 572

1990 . . . . . . . . . . 6 220 100.0 4.6 10.5 11.0 18.2 15.7 16.9 14.1 5.2 3.8 28 671 588 35 915 592

1989 . . . . . . . . . . 5 933 100.0 4.8 10.6 9.2 17.8 15.3 16.6 15.8 5.7 4.3 29 560 573 37 747 649

1988 . . . . . . . . . . 5 910 100.0 5.4 10.9 9.7 18.4 14.9 16.6 14.8 5.2 4.1 28 648 646 36 576 711

19875. . . . . . . . . . 5 642 100.0 5.3 11.1 10.6 18.2 15.4 15.7 14.8 4.9 4.0 28 199 613 36 147 665

1986 . . . . . . . . . . 5 418 100.0 5.1 11.0 10.3 19.5 14.5 16.5 13.8 6.1 3.2 27 676 720 34 946 575

19856. . . . . . . . . . 5 213 100.0 4.9 11.8 11.4 18.8 15.4 16.8 13.1 5.3 2.5 26 803 626 33 491 545

1984 . . . . . . . . . . 4 883 100.0 5.8 11.8 10.6 19.1 14.5 17.3 13.7 4.5 2.7 26 963 675 33 527 654

19837. . . . . . . . . . 4 666 100.0 5.6 12.6 11.3 19.1 15.7 16.8 12.7 4.0 2.2 26 062 665 31 923 614

1982 . . . . . . . . . . 4 085 100.0 5.3 11.8 12.5 18.7 16.8 15.8 13.0 4.1 2.1 26 086 690 32 194 653

1981 . . . . . . . . . . 3 980 100.0 4.2 10.9 10.6 19.4 17.0 17.7 13.8 4.4 2.0 27 831 762 33 421 638

1980 . . . . . . . . . . 3 906 100.0 4.7 11.1 10.4 20.1 16.2 17.0 14.0 4.2 2.2 27 162 737 33 177 661

19798. . . . . . . . . . 3 684 100.0 3.7 10.6 9.4 19.9 16.0 18.9 14.1 4.9 2.6 28 839 832 34 893 701

1978 . . . . . . . . . . 3 291 100.0 3.6 10.2 10.2 19.5 17.1 18.5 14.8 4.0 2.0 28 551 657 33 725 682

1977 . . . . . . . . . . 3 304 100.0 3.5 10.7 11.4 20.7 18.0 18.1 12.5 3.6 1.6 26 862 511 31 701 489

19769. . . . . . . . . . 3 081 100.0 4.1 12.6 11.3 21.0 17.5 17.4 12.5 2.4 1.3 25 684 555 30 351 494

197510 . . . . . . . . . 2 948 100.0 4.4 12.3 11.2 22.0 17.4 18.4 10.6 2.4 1.2 25 159 582 29 867 531

197410 11 . . . . . . . 2 897 100.0 3.4 10.2 11.0 21.8 17.4 19.4 12.2 3.0 1.5 27 369 610 31 705 516

1973 . . . . . . . . . . 2 722 100.0 3.5 9.1 10.6 21.6 18.6 18.2 14.1 3.1 1.2 27 506 619 31 958 524

197212 . . . . . . . . . 2 655 100.0 3.8 8.6 12.1 20.7 20.5 18.9 11.4 2.6 1.5 27 552 567 31 668 563

WHITE

NON-HISPANIC

2000 . . . . . . . . . . 79 376 100.0 2.2 5.3 6.4 12.4 12.3 15.1 19.7 11.4 15.2 45 904 264 61 237 397

1999 . . . . . . . . . . 78 819 100.0 2.1 5.0 6.4 13.0 11.9 15.8 19.6 11.5 14.7 45 856 289 60 734 362

1998 . . . . . . . . . . 78 577 100.0 2.2 5.2 6.7 12.5 12.7 15.7 20.2 11.2 13.7 44 782 258 59 031 361

1997 . . . . . . . . . . 77 936 100.0 2.3 5.7 6.9 13.4 12.4 16.2 19.6 10.8 12.7 43 417 227 57 313 364

1996 . . . . . . . . . . 77 240 100.0 2.2 6.1 7.1 13.4 13.3 16.0 19.9 10.5 11.5 42 400 290 55 178 337

19951. . . . . . . . . . 76 932 100.0 2.2 5.8 7.2 14.0 12.8 16.9 19.7 10.3 11.1 41 745 218 54 180 324

19942. . . . . . . . . . 77 004 100.0 2.6 6.2 7.5 14.3 13.1 16.8 18.9 9.9 10.7 40 430 214 53 154 315

19933. . . . . . . . . . 75 697 100.0 2.7 6.5 7.2 14.2 13.0 17.2 19.2 9.7 10.3 40 195 235 52 255 312

19924. . . . . . . . . . 75 107 100.0 2.5 6.6 7.3 14.2 13.0 17.2 19.9 9.7 9.5 40 168 249 50 225 232

1991 . . . . . . . . . . 75 625 100.0 2.4 6.7 7.0 14.1 13.7 17.3 19.6 9.9 9.5 40 035 197 50 003 224

1990 . . . . . . . . . . 75 035 100.0 2.3 6.3 6.7 13.6 13.6 17.7 20.0 10.0 9.8 41 016 191 51 069 236

1989 . . . . . . . . . . 74 495 100.0 2.1 6.1 6.9 13.6 12.9 17.5 20.4 10.0 10.4 41 884 205 52 325 249

1988 . . . . . . . . . . 74 067 100.0 2.3 6.6 6.5 13.6 12.7 17.9 20.5 10.2 9.5 41 615 245 50 927 245

19875. . . . . . . . . . 73 120 100.0 2.4 6.6 6.8 13.8 12.7 17.8 20.5 10.2 9.1 41 145 229 50 250 222

1986 . . . . . . . . . . 72 067 100.0 2.7 7.0 6.6 14.0 13.2 17.7 20.1 10.0 8.7 40 371 200 49 278 217

19856. . . . . . . . . . 71 540 100.0 2.8 7.1 7.0 14.4 13.6 18.3 19.6 9.5 7.7 39 085 192 47 342 204

1984 . . . . . . . . . . 70 586 100.0 2.6 7.2 7.2 14.8 14.1 18.3 19.6 9.0 7.2 38 302 195 46 166 182

19837. . . . . . . . . . 69 648 100.0 2.9 7.3 7.2 15.4 14.6 18.5 19.2 8.4 6.6 37 069 180 44 802 178

1982 . . . . . . . . . . 69 214 100.0 2.8 7.7 7.6 15.1 14.5 18.8 19.1 8.2 6.2 36 901 170 44 140 175

1981 . . . . . . . . . . 68 996 100.0 2.7 7.7 7.6 15.4 14.0 18.9 19.8 8.2 5.8 37 188 173 43 731 169

Money Income in the United States: 2000 19

U.S. Census Bureau
Table A-1.

Households by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder:

1967 to 2000—Con.

(Income in 2000 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars. Households as of March of the following year. For meaning of symbols, see text)

Race and Hispanic

origin of householder and year Number

(1,000)

Percent distribution Median income Mean income

Total

Under

$5,000

$5,000

to

$9,999

$10,000

to

$14,999

$15,000

to

$24,999

$25,000

to

$34,999

$35,000

to

$49,999

$50,000

to

$74,999

$75,000

to

$99,999

$100,000

and over

Value

(dollars)

Standard

error

(dollars)

Value

(dollars)

Standard

error

(dollars)

WHITE NONHISPANIC—Con.

1980 . . . . . . . . . . 68 106 100.0 2.4 7.7 7.5 14.8 13.9 19.6 20.0 8.2 5.8 37 835 196 44 174 173

19798. . . . . . . . . . 67 203 100.0 2.5 7.6 7.0 14.5 13.8 19.0 21.0 8.4 6.3 38 701 196 45 463 184

1978 . . . . . . . . . . 64 836 100.0 2.4 7.5 7.5 14.5 13.5 19.3 21.0 8.3 5.9 38 595 185 45 003 184

1977 . . . . . . . . . . 63 721 100.0 2.6 8.0 7.8 15.0 14.2 19.7 20.4 7.2 5.0 36 722 149 42 730 141

19769. . . . . . . . . . 62 365 100.0 2.6 8.1 7.8 15.3 14.7 20.1 19.9 7.1 4.6 36 396 152 42 126 140

197510 . . . . . . . . . 61 533 100.0 2.7 8.4 8.1 15.4 15.2 20.1 19.5 6.5 4.1 35 285 134 41 046 136

197410 11 . . . . . . . 60 164 100.0 2.7 8.1 7.2 14.9 15.2 20.7 19.6 7.1 4.5 36 293 130 42 200 141

1973 . . . . . . . . . . 59 236 100.0 3.1 7.4 7.5 14.1 14.6 20.4 20.7 7.3 5.0 37 538 139 43 124 145

197212 . . . . . . . . . 58 005 100.0 3.5 7.8 7.3 13.8 14.8 21.0 20.1 6.9 4.8 37 030 142 42 568 151

1

Full implementation of 1990 census-based sample design and metropolitan definitions, 7,000 household sample reduction, and revised race edits.

2

Introduction of 1990 census-based sample design.

3

Data collection method changed from paper and pencil to computer-assisted interviewing. In addition, the March 1994 income supplement was revised to allow for the

coding of different income amounts on selected questionnaire items. Limits either increased or decreased in the following categories: earnings limits increased to $999,999;

social security limits increased to $49,999; supplemental security income and public assistance limits increased to $24,999; veterans’ benefits limits increased to $99,999;

child support and alimony limits decreased to $49,999. 4

Implementation of 1990 census population controls.

5

Implementation of a new March CPS processing system.

6

Recording of amounts for earnings from longest job increased to $299,999. Full implementation of 1980 census-based sample design.

7

Implementation of Hispanic population weighting controls and introduction of 1980 census-based sample design.

8

Implementation of 1980 census population controls. Questionnaire expanded to show 27 possible values from 51 possible sources of income.

9

First year medians were derived using both Pareto and linear interpolation. Before this year all medians were derived using linear interpolation.

10These estimates were derived using Pareto interpolation and may differ from published data which were derived using linear interpolation.

11Implementation of a new March CPS processing system. Questionnaire expanded to ask 11 income questions.

12Full implementation of 1970 census-based sample design.

13Introduction of 1970 census-based sample design and population controls.

14Implementation of a new March CPS processing system.

15People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

20 Money Income in the United States: 2000

U.S. Census Bureau
Table A-2.

Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Households:

1967 to 2000

(Households as of March of the following year. Income in 2000 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars)

Year

Number

(1,000)

Upper limit of each fifth

(dollars)

Lower

limit of

top 5

percent

(dollars)

Share of aggregate income

Mean

income

(dollars)

Gini

Lowest Second Third Fourth Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest ratio

Top 5

percent

2000. ...... 106,417 17,950 33,005 52,272 81,960 145,526 3.6 8.9 14.8 23.0 49.6 21.9 57,045 0.460

1999. ...... 104,705 17,774 33,075 52,217 82,041 146,792 3.6 8.9 14.9 23.2 49.4 21.5 56,684 0.457

1998. ...... 103,874 17,006 32,087 51,006 79,141 139,497 3.6 9.0 15.0 23.2 49.2 21.4 54,718 0.456

1997. ...... 102,528 16,478 31,243 49,219 76,503 135,405 3.6 8.9 15.0 23.2 49.4 21.7 53,169 0.459

1996. ...... 101,018 16,144 30,346 48,105 74,351 130,676 3.7 9.0 15.1 23.3 49.0 21.4 51,513 0.455

19951 ...... 99,627 16,169 30,220 47,161 73,123 126,880 3.7 9.1 15.2 23.3 48.7 21.0 50,458 0.450

19942 ...... 98,990 15,453 29,005 46,155 72,330 126,404 3.6 8.9 15.0 23.4 49.1 21.2 49,646 0.456

19933 ...... 97,107 15,252 29,028 45,629 70,926 123,079 3.6 9.0 15.1 23.5 48.9 21.0 48,729 0.454

19924 ...... 96,426 15,203 29,127 45,730 69,991 119,478 3.8 9.4 15.8 24.2 46.9 18.6 46,864 0.434

1991. ...... 95,669 15,591 29,726 45,914 70,302 119,400 3.8 9.6 15.9 24.2 46.5 18.1 46,970 0.428

1990. ...... 94,312 16,050 30,381 46,480 70,882 121,654 3.9 9.6 15.9 24.0 46.6 18.6 48,024 0.428

1989. ...... 93,347 16,311 31,015 47,669 72,427 123,723 3.8 9.5 15.8 24.0 46.8 18.9 49,246 0.431

1988. ...... 92,830 16,016 30,253 47,148 71,191 120,507 3.8 9.6 16.0 24.3 46.3 18.3 47,867 0.427

19875 ...... 91,124 15,751 29,897 46,668 70,532 118,024 3.8 9.6 16.1 24.3 46.2 18.2 47,266 0.426

1986. ...... 89,479 15,621 29,834 46,079 69,552 117,970 3.9 9.7 16.2 24.5 45.7 17.5 46,387 0.425

19856 ...... 88,458 15,347 28,932 44,539 67,232 112,435 4.0 9.7 16.3 24.6 45.3 17.0 44,607 0.419

1984. ...... 86,789 15,233 28,410 43,646 66,011 110,425 4.1 9.9 16.4 24.7 44.9 16.5 43,580 0.415

19837 ...... 85,290 14,851 27,677 42,437 64,186 106,596 4.1 10.0 16.5 24.7 44.7 16.4 41,914 0.414

1982. ...... 83,918 14,643 27,516 42,210 63,023 105,022 4.1 10.1 16.6 24.7 44.5 16.2 41,779 0.412

1981. ...... 83,527 14,843 27,347 42,558 62,939 102,412 4.2 10.2 16.8 25.0 43.8 15.6 41,450 0.406

1980. ...... 82,368 15,035 28,055 42,998 63,075 102,472 4.3 10.3 16.9 24.9 43.7 15.8 41,910 0.403

19798 ...... 80,776 15,498 28,823 44,280 64,340 104,955 4.2 10.3 16.9 24.7 44.0 16.4 43,238 0.404

1978. ...... 77,330 15,443 29,028 43,895 63,922 102,981 4.3 10.3 16.9 24.8 43.7 16.2 42,889 0.402

1977. ...... 76,030 14,666 27,501 41,708 60,804 98,299 4.4 10.3 17.0 24.8 43.6 16.1 40,620 0.402

19769 ...... 74,142 14,706 27,197 41,396 59,564 94,967 4.4 10.4 17.1 24.8 43.3 16.0 40,051 0.398

197510 ..... 72,867 14,261 26,819 40,430 58,168 92,749 4.4 10.5 17.1 24.8 43.2 15.9 39,105 0.397

197411 10 . . . 71,163 15,129 27,947 41,179 59,781 95,527 4.4 10.6 17.1 24.7 43.1 15.9 40,239 0.395

1973. ...... 69,859 14,922 28,347 42,050 60,745 96,289 4.2 10.5 17.1 24.6 43.6 16.6 41,060 0.397

197212 ..... 68,251 14,535 27,993 41,380 59,217 95,321 4.1 10.5 17.1 24.5 43.9 17.0 40,504 0.401

197113 ..... 66,676 14,058 26,799 39,436 56,231 89,296 4.1 10.6 17.3 24.5 43.5 16.7 38,411 0.396

1970. ...... 64,778 14,245 27,293 39,703 56,646 89,553 4.1 10.8 17.4 24.5 43.3 16.6 38,641 0.394

1969. ...... 63,401 14,474 27,781 40,174 56,292 88,285 4.1 10.9 17.5 24.5 43.0 16.6 38,651 0.391

1968. ...... 62,214 14,043 26,625 38,162 53,621 83,889 4.2 11.1 17.5 24.4 42.8 16.6 37,021 0.388

196714 ..... 60,813 13,186 25,714 36,509 52,047 83,514 4.0 10.8 17.3 24.2 43.8 17.5 35,115 0.399

1

Full implementation of 1990 census-based sample design and metropolitan definitions, 7,000 household sample reduction, and revised race edits.

2

Introduction of 1990 census-based sample design.

3

Data collection method changed from paper and pencil to computer-assisted interviewing. In addition, the March 1994 income supplement was

revised to allow for the coding of different income amounts on selected questionnaire items. Limits either increased or decreased in the following categories: earnings limits increased to $999,999; social security limits increased to $49,999; supplemental security income and public assistance limits

increased to $24,999; veterans’ benefits limits increased to $99,999; child support and alimony limits decreased to $49,999. 4

Implementation of 1990 census population controls.

5

Implementation of a new March CPS processing system.

6

Recording of amounts for earnings from longest job increased to $299,999. Full implementation of 1980 census-based sample design.

7

Implementation of Hispanic population weighting controls and introduction of 1980 census-based sample design.

8

Implementation of 1980 census population controls. Questionnaire expanded to show 27 possible values from 51 possible sources of income.

9

First year medians were derived using both Pareto and linear interpolation. Before this year all medians were derived using linear interpolation.

10These estimates were derived using Pareto interpolation and may differ from published data which were derived using linear interpolation. 11Implementation of a new March CPS processing system. Questionnaire expanded to ask 11 income questions. 12Full implementation of 1970 census-based sample design. 13Introduction of 1970 census-based sample design and population controls. 14Implementation of a new March CPS processing system.

Money Income in the United States: 2000 21

U.S. Census Bureau