16

Poverty of Families

50

40

30

20

10

Figure 23
Poverty Rate of Families, by Type: 1959-90
Percent
Female householder,
no husband present
Nw
PS
Mm All |
a ma a
Vitarned couple
Ll Ll i

0
1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991

Female-householder families with

no husband present have considerably
higher poverty rates than other

family types.

= Married-couple families continued to
have the lowest poverty rates (5.7 per-
cent) in 1990, followed by families with
amale householder, no wife present
(12.0 percent), and families with a fe-
male householder, no husband present
(33.4 percent)

= Overall, in 1990, 42.0 percent of all poor
families were maintained by a married
couple, while 53.0 percent were main-
tained by a female householder, no hus-
band present. The other 5.0 percent
were families with a male householder,
no spouse present. In 1990 only 12.7
percent of nonpoor families were main-
tained by a female householder, no hus-
band present, while 78.6 percent were
married couples.

= The proportion of female-householder
families among all poor families leveled
off in the early 1980's and was actually
slightly lower in 1985 than 1978 (48.1
percent versus 50.3 percent).



A-7

settlements. The March CPS income definition
also excludes those same income sources ex-
cluded by SIPP.

Income Sources Included in
Monthly Cash Income

1.

Earnings from employment
Wages and salary

Nonfarm self-employment income
Farm self-employment income

Income from assets (property income)
Regular/passbook savings accounts in a
bank, savings and loan or credit union
Money market deposit accounts
Certificate of deposit

NOW, Super NOW, or other interest-earning
checking account

Money market funds

U.S. Government securities

Municipal or corporate bonds

Other interest-earning assets

Stocks or mutual funds shares

Rental property

Mortgages

Royalties

Other financial investments

Other income sources

Social Security

U.S. Government Railroad Retirement

Federal Supplemental security Income

State Administered Supplemental Security

Income

State unemployment Benefits

Black Lung payments

Worker's compensation

State temporary sickness or disability benefits

Employer or union temporary sickness policy

Payments from a sickness, accident, or
disability insurance policy purchased
on your own

Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC), (ADC)

General assistance of General relief

Indian, Cuban, or Refugee assistance

Foster child care payments.

Other welfare

Child support payments

Alimony payments.

Pensions from a company or union

Federal Civil Service or other Federal civilian
employee pensions

U.S. Military retirement

National Guard or Reserve Forces retirement

State government pensions

Local government pensions

Income from paid-up life insurance policies
or annuities

Estates and trusts

Other payments for retirement, disability
or survivors G.I.

Bill VEAP education benefits

Income assistance from a charitable group

Other unemployment compensation (Trade
Adjustment Act benefits, strike pay, other)

Veterans’ compensation or pensions

Money from relatives or friends

Lump sum payments

Income from roomers or boarders

National Guard or Reserve pay

Incidental or casual earnings

Other cash income not included elsewhere

Assets and Liabilities Included in Net Worth

1. Assets

Interest-earning assets held at financial

institutions
Passbook savings account
Money market deposit accounts
Certificate of deposit
Interest-earning checking accounts

Other interest-earning assets
Money market funds
U.S. Government securities
Municipal or corporate bonds
Other interest-earning assets

Stocks and mutual fund shares

Rental property Mortgages held for sale of
real estate

Amount due from sale of business or property

Regular checking accounts

U.S. Saving bonds

Home ownership Vacation homes and
other real estate

IRA and KEOGH accounts

Motor vehicles

Other financial assets

2. Liabilities

Secured liabilities
Margin and broker accounts
Mortgages on own home



A-3

5. Our most inclusive definition of income adds
in the net imputed return on equity in own
home.

Median income is the amount which divides

the income distribution into two equal groups, half
having incomes above the median, half having
incomes below the median. The medians for
households, families, and unrelated individuals
are based on all households, families, and unre-
lated individuals. The medians for persons are
based on persons 15 years old and over with
income.

Mean income is the amount obtained by

dividing the total aggregate income of a group by
the number of units in that group. The means for
households, families, and unrelated individuals
are based on all households, families, and unre-
lated individuals. The means for persons are
based on persons 15 years old and over with
income.

Per capita income is the mean income computed
for every man, woman, and child in a particular
group. It is derived by dividing the total income of
a particular group by the total population in that
group (excluding patients or inmates in institution-
al quarters).

Index of income concentration or Gini index is
a statistical measure of income inequality. A mea-
sure of 0 indicates perfect equality, i.e., all per-
sons having equal shares of the income. A mea-
sure of 1 indicates perfect inequality, i.e., one per-
son has all the income and the rest have none.
For a more detailed discussion see Current Popu-
lation Reports, Series P-60, No. 123.

Households consist of all persons who occupy

a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other
group of rooms, or a single room is regarded as a
housing unit when it is occupied or intended for
occupancy as separate living quarters; that is,
when the occupants do not live and eat with any
other persons in the structure and there is direct
access from the outside or through a common
hall.

A household includes the related family mem-
bers and all the unrelated persons, if any, such as
lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who
share the housing unit. A person living alone in.a
housing unit, or a group of unrelated persons

sharing a housing unit as partners, is also
counted as a household. The count of households
excludes group quarters.

Householder is the person (or one of the per-
sons) in whose name the home is owned or
rented. If the house is owned jointly by a married
couple, either the husband or the wife may be
listed first, thereby becoming the reference per-
son, or householder, to whom the relationship of
the other household members is recorded. One
person in each household is designated as the
“householder.” The number of householders,
therefore, is equal to the number of households.

Families are groups of two persons or more (one
of whom is the householder) related by birth, mar-
riage, or adoption and residing together; all such
persons (including related subfamily members)
are considered as members of one family. Begin-
ning with the 1980 CPS, unrelated subfamilies
(referred to in the past as secondary families)
were no longer included in the count of families,
nor are the members of unrelated subfamilies in-
cluded in the count of family members.

Family households are households maintained
by a family (as defined above). Members of family
households include any unrelated persons (unre-
lated subfamily members and/or secondary indi-
viduals) who may be residing there. The number
of family households is equal to the number of
families. The count of family household members
differs from the count of family members, howev-
er, in that the family household members include
all persons living in the household, whereas family
members include only the householder and his/
her relatives. (See the definition of family.)

Married couples as defined for census pur-
poses, consist of a husband and wife enumerated
as members of the same family household. A
married couple may or may not have children liv-
ing with them

Unrelated individuals are persons (other than
inmates of institutions) who are not living with any
relatives. An unrelated individual may (1) consti-
tute a one-person household, (2) be part of a
household including one or more other families or
unrelated individuals, or (3) reside in group quar-
ters such as a rooming house. Thus, a widow liv-
ing by herself or with one or more other persons



B-4

Table 8. Poverty Rate, by Region: 1990

Hispanic
Region Total! White] Black} origin’

Northeast via] 9.2[ 289] 364
Midwest. .. va) 95| 36.0] 22.7
South . 158| 11.6; 326| 269
West....... 130] 12.2] 23.7| 26.6

Table 9. Poverty Rate of Persons, by Years of School

Completed: 1990
Years of school Hispanic
Total] White] Black] origin’
Under 4 years of High school .} 24.5] 20.3] 40.5| 33.1
High school, no college. 9.6| 7.8] 23.3] 15.3
College 1 year or more 49) 4.1| 11.6 9.0

*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Current Population Reports, Series, P-60, No. 175,

table G

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Current Population Survey, P60, No. 175, table 11.

Table 10. Poverty Status of Persons, by Type of Deflator: 1968 to 1990

Poverty level based on Poverty level based on
Year ‘CPLU-XI Year CPI-U-Xt

Number Percent Number Percent
1968 10,954 12.8] 1980... 25,869 15
1969 9,691 11,9] 1981. 27,731 12.2
1970.. 10,440 12.2] 1982. 30,288 13.2
1971. 10,551 12.1] 1983 . 31,649 13.7
1972 10,284 11.4] 1984. 29,971 12.8
1973 9,642 10.7] 1985... 29,558 12.5
1974... 22,076 10.5] 1986 . 29,101 12.2
1975 24,232 11.5] 1987... 28,890 12.0
1976 23,347 11,0] 1988 . 28,544 11.7
1977 22,933 10.7] 1989 . 27,967 11.4
1978 22,472 10.4} 1990 . 30,097 12.1
1979... 23,504 10.5

Source: Current Population Report, Series P-60, No. 176 RD, table I-1.

Table 11. Poverty Status of Unrelated individuals, by

Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1

Table 11a. Poverty Status of Unrelated Individuals, by

Age, Sex: 1990

Hispanic

Age Total! White| Black | origin’
15 to 24 years. 325| 32.3] 341] 47.4
25 to 34 years... 13.4 11.4 27.0 23.6
35 to 44 years .. 13.5] 121] 22.0) 28.6
45 to 54 years . 17.6 15.9 27.2 27.1
55 to 64 years . 26.6} 22.9| 42.7| 43.0
65 years and over . 24.7) 21.6] 54.9] 46.2

"Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 175,

table 5.

Age Male Female
15 to 24 years. 29.1 36.2
25 to 44 years. 15.1 15.4
45 to 54 years. 16.8 18.5
55 to 59 years. 21.3 27.6
60 to 64 years. 26.2 29.7
65 years and over. 17.3 26.9



10

Per Capita Income

Figure 16.
Per Capita Income Over Time:
1967-90
Thousands of dollars
16
as
14
12 vA
AY
10 /
8

0
1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991

Note: Based on the CPI-U-X1

Per capita income declined 2.9 percent
in real terms between 1989 and 1990
after 7 consecutive years (1983 to 1989)
of increase.

= Nationally, the per capita income was
$14,387 in 1990, compared to $15,265
for Whites, $882 for Blacks and $8,424 49 0,
for persons of Hispanic origin. ,



Part lll
Measuring the Effect
of Benefits and Taxes on
income and Poverty

Introduction

Traditionally, income and poverty data presented in Census Bureau reports have been based
on the amount of money income received during a calendar year before any taxes and ex-
cluding capital gains. This definition of income is narrow and does not provide a completely
satisfactory measure of the distribution of income. The omission of data on taxes, capital
gains, and the value of noncash benefits has an effect on comparisons over time and
between population subgroups.

The Census Bureau has had a research program on the measurement of taxes and the value
of noncash benefits. Calculations show how income and poverty estimates change when
specific taxes are deducted and specific benefits are added to the income definition

The income definitions that are presented in this section are explained briefly below.

1. Money income excluding capital gains before taxes. This is the official definition used in
Census Bureau reports.

2. Private-sector income is official money income less government cash transfers plus
capital gains and employer-provided health insurance supplements to wage or salary
income.

3. After-tax income deducts all payroll and income taxes from private sector income.

4. After-transfer income includes all money income after taxes plus the value of noncash
transfer benefits, such as food stamps, rent subsidies, and free and reduced-priced
school lunches.

5. Our most inclusive definition of income adds in the net imputed return on equity in
own home.

See Measuring the Effects of Benefits and Taxes on Income and Poverty: 1990 for a fuller
discussion of measurement issues.



Mortgages on rental property
Mortgages on other homes or real estate
Debt on business or profession

Vehicle loans

Unsecured liabilities
Credit card and store bills
Doctor, dentist, hospital and nursing
home bills
Loans from individuals
Loans from financial institutions
Educational loans
Other unsecured liabilities

The income amounts represent amounts actu-
ally received during the four-month reference peri-
od, before deductions for income and payroll
taxes, union dues, Part B Medicare premiums,
etc.

The SIPP income definition includes three
types of earnings: wages and salary, nonfarm
self-employment, and farm self- employment.

The definition of nonfarm self-employment and
farm self-employment is not based on the net cif-
ference between gross receipts or sales and op-
erating expenses, depreciation, etc. The monthly
amounts for these income types are based on the
salary or other income received from the business
by the owner of the business or farm during the
four-month period. Earnings from all jobs and
self-employment ar included.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes
quarterly averages for an earnings concept called
“usual weekly earnings” for employed, full-time
wage and salary workers. The concept differs
from the SIPP earnings concept since it is based

on usual, not actual earnings, excludes the self-
employed, and excludes earnings from second-
ary jobs.

While the income amounts from most sources
are recorded monthly for the four-month reference
period, property income amounts such as inter-
est, dividends, and rental income, were recorded
as totals for the four-month period.

Net worth. The household net worth estimates
shown in this report are based on the sum of the
market value of assets owned by every member
of the household minus liabilities (secured or un-
secured) owed by household members. The esti-
mates represent the net worth of households as of
the end of the appropriate reference period. The
net worth concept is based on the value of all as-
sets minus all liabilities listed in table B-2. The
major assets not covered in this report are equi-
ties in pension plans, the cash value of life insur-
ance policies, and value of home furnishings and
jewelry. These items were not covered because it
is particularly difficult to obtain reliable estimates
of the value of these assets in a household survey.

Median net worth. The median net worth is the
amount which divides the net worth distribution
into two equal groups, one having househcld net
worth less than that amount and the other having
net worth above that amount.

Mean net worth. The mean networth is the aver-
age obtained by dividing the total net worth of a
group by the number of households in that group.



Part I.

Money Income of
Households, Families,
and Persons

Introduction

This section presents data on the income of households, families, and persons in the United
States for the calendar year 1990. These data were compiled from information collected in
the March 1991 Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted by the Bureau of the Census.
The survey consisted of approximately 60,000 households nationwide.

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 housing, and employer-provided fringe benefits.

This part of the report begins with a section on household income, with comparisons by re-
gion, type of residence, race and Hispanic origin’, tenure and the share of aggregate income
by quintile. Following household income, is a section on family income and a section on earn-
ings of persons working year-round, full-time. The last section is on per capita income.2

Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race

2 For more detail and explanation, refer to Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 174, Money Income of
Households, Families, and Persons in the United States: 1990.



Appendix A.

efinitions and Explanations

Population coverage. This report includes the
civilian noninstitutional population of the United
States and members of the Armed Forces in the
United States living off post or with their families
on post, but excludes all other members of
Armed Forces

Farm-nonfarm residence. The farm population
refers to rural residents living on farms. The March
1980 CPS to March 1990 CPS employed a differ-
ent definition of a farm than used in past Current
Population Surveys or decennial censuses before
1980. Under the new definition, as used in the
1974 Census of Agriculture, a farm is any place in
rural territory from which $1,000 or more of agri-
cultural products were sold in the reporting year.
All other households were classified as nonfarm,
which comprises persons living in urban areas
and persons not on farms living in rural areas.
Rural persons in institutions, motels, and tourist
camps, and those living on rented places where
no land is used for farming are classified as non-
farm population. According to the old definition,
farm residence was determined by responses to
two questions: (1) “Does this place you (own/rent)
have 10 acres or more?” and (2) “During the past
12 months, how much did sales from this place
amount to (under $50, $50 to $249, $250 to $999,
or $1,000 or more)?" The household was classi-
fied as being in the farm population if either (a)
the acreage response was "yes” and sales
amounted to $50 or more or (b) the acreage re-
sponse was “no” and sales amounted to $250 or
more.

Metropolitan-nonmetropolitan residence.

The population residing in metropolitan statistical
areas (MSA‘s) constitutes the metropolitan popu-
lation. MSA\s are defined by the Office of Man-
agement and Budget for use in the presentation
of statistics by agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment. An MSA is a geographic area consisting of
a large population nucleus, together with adjacent
communities which have a high degree of eco-
nomic and social integration with that nucleus.

The definitions specify a boundary around each
large city so as to include most or all its suburbs.
Entire counties form the MSA building blocks, ex-
cept in New England where cities and towns are
used. The former term SMSA was changed to
MSA in 1983.

An area qualities for recognition as an MSA if
(1) it includes a city of at least 50,000 population,
or (2) it includes a Census Bureau-defined urban-
ized area of at least 50,000 with a total metropoli-
tan population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New
England). In addition to the county containing the
main city or urbanized area, an MSA may include
other counties having strong commuting ties to
the central county. If specified conditions are met,
certain large MSA‘s are designated as consoli-
dated MSA's (CMSA‘s) and divided into compo-
nent primary MSA‘s (PMSA‘s). References to met-
ropolitan-nonmetropolitan residence by size are
based on the population of the CMSA.

Central cities. The largest city in each MSA is
always designated a central city. There may be
additional central cities if specified requirements,
designed to identify places of central character
within the MSA, are met. Although the largest cen-
tral cities are generally included in the title of the
MSA, there may be central cities that are not part
of the title. The balance of the MSA outside the
central city or cities often is regarded as equiva-
lent to "suburbs."

Geographic regions. The four major regions and
nine Census divisions of the United States for
which data are presented in this report represent
groups of States as follow:

Northeast:
New England: Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Middle Atiantic: New Jersey, New York,
and Pennsylvania.

Midwest (formerly North Central)
East North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, and Wisconsin.



17

60

50

40

30

20

Figure 24.
Mean Income Deficit tor Families Below
Poverty Level, by Type: 1990

Thousands of dollars

Total Married
couple

Figure 25.
Work Experience of Poor Married
Couples: 1990

Percent

Female householder,
no husband present

Worked Year-round, Less than
full-time

Did not
year-round work

In 1990 the average amount of money

weeded to raise the incomes of each

poor family to its respective poverty
threshold was $5,192.

The average income deficit for a poor
family with a female householder, no
husband present ($5,661) was higher
than that for married-couple families
($4,673).

The deficit per family member was
$1,696 in 1990 for families with a female
householder, no husband present,
compared with $1,197 for married-cou-
ple families.

In 1990 there were 11.0 million poor per-
sons whose family income was between
75 percent and 99 percent of their pov-
erty threshold.

Most of the householders in married-
couple families worked in 1990
(56.2 percent).

About 35.9 percent of poor married-
couple householders who did not work
in 1990 indicated retirement as the rea-
son, while 33.3 percent gave illness or
disability as the reason, and the remain-
ing 30.8 percent gave a reason such as
unable to find work, keeping house, or
going to school.*

For nonpoor married-couple household-
ers, the vast majority (76.2 percent) of
those who did not work were retired

Nearly forty three percent of poor mar-
ried-couple householders did not work,
in comparison to 19.9 percent of non-
poor married-couple householders.

4 The percentages in this sentence are not significantly

different fram each other.



24

Poverty: 1990

Figure 31.
Poverty Rates, by Income
Definition: 1990

Official

Private-sector

After-tax’

After-transfer

All-inclusive

i) 5 10 15 20
Percent

25

Overall poverty figures changed when
specific components were subtracted or
added to the definition of income.

In 1990 the official estimate of number of
persons in poverty was 33.6 million or
13.5 percent of the population.

When the current income measure was
modified to exclude government money
transfers, the number of persons below
the poverty line rose sharply from 33.6
to 50.9 million and the poverty rate rose
from 13.5 percent to 20.5 percent.
Adding in capital gains and the value of
employer-provided health insurance had
a relatively small effect on the poverty
estimates.

Adjusting the income definition for pay-
roll taxes and Federal and State income
taxes produced an increase of 2.3 mil-
lion persons in poverty (49.4 to 51.8 mil-
lion).

The addition of all government benefits
lowered the estimate of the number of
persons in poverty to 27.3 million and
lowered the poverty rate to 11.0 percent.



Poverty of Unrelated Individuals: 1990

Figure 27.

Poverty Rate of Unrelated wate
Individuals, by Age and Black
Race: 1990 =] Hispanic*
The 7.4 million unrelated individuals who
Over 65 were poor in 1990 accounted for 22.2
| percent of the poverty population.

other age groups. For Blacks, however,
elderly unrelated individuals had the
highest poverty rate of any age group.5

—— —— = Overall, unrelated individuals 15 to 24
55 to 64 years old had higher poverty rates than

45 to 54

= Young unrelated individuals (15 to 24
years old) of Hispanic origin had poverty
rates that were significantly higher than
young White unrelated individuals (47.4
percent versus 32.3 percent)

/— 5 The poverty rates between the age groups 15 to 44

and 35 to 44 are not significantly different

35 to 44

25 to 34

15 to 24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
* May be of any race Percent

Figure 28.

Mean Income Deficit for Unrelated

Individuals Below the Poverty Level: 1990

Thousands of dollars
4 For unrelated individuals the average in-
come deficit was $2,880 in 1990.

= The mean income deficit of unrelated
individuals also varies by racial or ethnic
subgroup: for Whites the mean income
deficit was $2,817, for Blacks, $2,977,
and for persons of Hispanic origin,
$3,544. 6

— | __J 4 = For women, the average income deficit

in 1990 for unrelated individuals was
$2,645, lower than the $3,527 for men.

6 The income deficit between Blacks and Whites are
not significantly different

Total White Black Hispanic*
* May be of any race



A-2

West North Central: lowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and
South Dakota.

South:
South Atlantic: Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
East South Central: Alabama, Kentucky,
Mississippi, and Tennessee.
West South Central: Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, and Texas.

West:
Mountain: Arizona, Colorado, |daho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
Pacific: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon,
and Washington

North and West:
Northeast, Midwest, and West combined.

Tenure. A housing unit is “owner occupied” if the
owner or co- owner lives in the unit, even if it is
mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or
condominium unit is “owner occupied” only if the
owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied
units are classified as “renter occupied,” or “occu-
pied without payment of cash rent”. For some tab-
ulations, the latter of the groups are combined
into a single "renter occupied” group.

Official definition of income. For each person in
the sample 15 years old and over, questions were
asked on the amount of money income received
in the preceding calendar year from each of the
following sources: 1) earnings from longest job (or
self- employment); 2) earnings from jobs other
than longest job; 3) unemployment compensation;
4) Social Security; 5) Supplemental Security in-
come; 6) public assistance; 7) veterans’ pay-
ments; 8) survivor benefits; 9) disability benefits;
10) retirement pensions; 11) interest; 12) divi-
dends; 13) rents and royalties or estates and
trusts; 14) educational assistance; 15) alimony;
16) child support; 17) financial assistance from
outside of the household, and other periodic in-
come.

It should be noted that although the income
statistics refer to receipts during the preceding
calendar year, the demographic characteristics
such as age, labor force status, and family or
household composition are as of the survey date

The income of the family/household does not in-
clude amounts received by persons who were
members during all or part of the income year if
these persons no longer resided in the family/
household at the time of interview. However, in-
come data are collected for persons who are cur-
rent residents but did not reside in the household
during the income year.

Data on consumer income collected in the
CPS by the Bureau of the Census cover money
income received (exclusive of certain money re-
ceipts such as capital gains) before payments for
personal income taxes, Social Security, union
dues, Medicare deductions, etc. Therefore,
money income does not reflect the fact that some
families receive part of their income in the form of
noncash benefits such as food stamps, health
benefits, noncash benefits in the form of rent-free
housing and goods produced and consumed on
the farm; or that non-cash benefits are also re-
ceived by some nonfarm residents which often
take the form of the use of business transporta-
tion and facilities, full or partial payments by busi-
ness for retirement programs, medical and
educational expenses, etc. These elements
should be considered when comparing income
levels. Moreover, readers should be aware that for
many different reasons there is a tendency in
household surveys for respondents to underreport
their income. From an analysis of independently
derived income estimates, it has been deter-
mined that income earned from wages or salaries
is much better reported than other sources of in-
come, and is nearly equal to independent esti-
mates of aggregate income.

Alternative definitions of income. The income
definitions that are shown in this report are ex-
plained briefly below.

1. Money income excluding capital gains before
taxes. This is the official definition used in
Census reports.

2. Private-sector income is official money income
less government cash transfers plus capital
gains and employer- provided health insur-
ance supplements to wage or salary income.

3. After-tax income deducts all payroll and in-
come taxes from private sector income.

4. After-transfer income includes all money in-
come after taxes from private-sector income.



14

50

40

30

20

Inside
metro.

Outside
metro

Central city

Outside
central city

Farm

Nonfarm

0 5 10 15 20

Figure 19.
Poverty Rate of Persons, by Age: 1959-90

Percent

<

ears

| Less than 18

65 and over

Pie

\

‘ao

0
1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991

Figure 20.
Poverty Rate, by Area of
Residence: 1990

T r

Percent

Age has a significant influence on
poverty status.

Half the Nation's poor in 1990 were ei-
ther children under 18 years (40.0 per-
cent) or the elderly (10.9 percent).

The poverty rate for children continues,
as it has since 1975, to be higher than
that for any other age group. In 1990
the poverty rate for children under 18
years was 19.9 percent.

The poverty rate for the elderly exceed-
ed that for children until approximately
1973.

Though the poverty rate for the elderly
was lower in 1990 than that for children,
a higher proportion of elderly than chil-
dren were concentrated just over their
respective poverty threshold. Conse-
quently, 18.2 percent of the Nation's
11.3 million "near poor” persons were
elderly compared with 10.9 percent of
persons below the official poverty level.

As historically been the case, persons

living in nonmetropolitan areas in 1990
had higher poverty rates than those in

metropolitan areas.

The poverty rate outside metropolitan
areas (16.3 percent) exceeded that for
metropolitan areas (12.7 percent).

Persons living in metropolitan areas in
central cities had higher poverty rates
(19.0 percent) than those living in
suburban areas outside central cities
(8.7 percent).

The majority of poor metropolitan resi-
dents were in central cities (58.2 per-
cent), while nonpoor metropolitan resi-
dents were concentrated in suburbs
(64.0 percent).

Poor Hispanic-origin persons were more
concentrated in metropolitan areas (91.9
percent) than poor Whites (70.4) or poor
Blacks (78.2 percent).



Figure 8.
Median Income, by Type of Family and
Presence of Children: 1990

Total

With children The median income of families with a
Without children female householder, no husband present
is substantially lower than that of other
family types.

40 {+ - = In 1990, the median income of families

with a female householder, no husband _
present was $16,932, 4@=# percent lower 2 T-
30 than the median income of married-cou-

ple families ($39,895).

= Among families with children, the differ-
ence in median income between mar-
tied-couples and families with a female
householder, no husband present was
even larger. The median income of fami-
lies with a female householder with chil-
dren was $13,092, #8 percent lower 49+ 3
All Married couple — Male Female than the median for the married-couple
householder householder with children ($41,260).

Thousands of dollars

20

Figure 9.

Ratio of Black-to-White and

Hispanic-to-White Median Family Income

for Married Couples: 1967-90 The income disparity between White
and Black married-couple families
is lessening.

= In 1990, the median family income of
Black married-couple families was
Black-to-White $33,784; for White families the median
IN was $40,331—a Black to White income
IN f ratio of .84. This income ratio was much

08 VS AS higher than the Black to White income
Jn ra ratios of .76 in 1975 and .68 in 1967.
077 T = Incontrast, the income disparity be-
Hispanic-to-White /~ tween White and Hispanic origin mar-

ried-couple families is widening. The
ratio of Hispanic to White married-couple

1.0

0.9 =

0.6
family income was .69 in 1990, lower
aa than the 1984 ratio of .75 and the 1973
ratio of .74.4

fe)
1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 — 4The difference between the 1984 and 1981 ratio of

Hispanic-to-White married-couple family median income
was not statistically significant



30

120

100

80

60

40,

20

Figure 37.

Median Net Worth for Households, by
Monthly Household Income Quinitile: 1988

Thousands of dollars

Total Lowest Second Third

Fourth

Fifth

Those with higher income also had
higher net worth. .

= Net worth for the lowest income fifth

was $4,324. It increased to $28,044 in
the middle fifth and $111,770 in the
highest fifth.

Those in the highest fifth held 44.4 per-
cent of all net worth, compared to 7.0
percent for those in the lowest fifth.

The home ownership rate increased sig-
nificantly from 42 percent for the lowest
income group to 85 percent for the high-
est. Median equity in own homes in-
creased from $33,361 in the lowest fifth
to $61,209 in the highest fifth.

Other assets with large increases in
ownership rates between the lowest and
highest income groups in 1988 were
stocks and mutual funds shares (6 to 44
percent), IRA or KEOGH accounts (5 to
52 percent), and business equity (6 to
21 percent).



27

Figure 34.
Median Net Worth, by Age: 1988

Thousands of dollars
90

60

30 4 4

Under 35 35to44 451054 55to64 Over65

As expected, age is correlated with net
worth because increasing age offers an
opportunity to accumulate wealth.

= In 1988, median net worth increased
significantly from $6,078 for the youn-
gest households (those under 35 years)
to $80,032 for households in the 55-64
year old category and then declined to
$61,491 far the oldest group (75 years
and over).

® Although the older group had higher
equity in their own homes, the difference
in the distribution of net worth and in-
come was not entirely attributable to dif-
ferences in home equity. Even when
home equity was excluded, the oldest
group had a much greater net worth
than that of the youngest group.



50

40

30

20

10

20

15

10

(0)
1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991

Figure 3.

Median Income, by Region: 1990

Thousands of dollars

Northeast

Figure 4.

Midwest South

Percent Change in Median

Household Income: 1967-90 [__| Recessionary

West

period

A

J

Note: Based on the CPI-U-X1 .

Regionally, households in the Northeast
had the highest median.

= The median income of households in
the Northeast was $32,676, 9.1 percent
higher than the median for all house-
holds.

= For households in the West, the median
income was $31,761, 2.8 percent less
than the median income of households
in the Northeast.

@ The South was the only region with a
median income ($26,942) that was sig-
nificantly lower than the national median.

Household income in 1990 was
2.9 percent higher than in 1973.

& Income tends to fall during recessions
and rise during recoveries.

= Between 1973 and 1975 household in-
come declined by 5.7 percent; during
the 1979 to 1982 recession, household
income fell 5.1 percent.

@ The 1976 to 1978 period shows a 4.5
percent real increase in income and the
1983 to 1990 period shows 8.6 percent.



Income of Households: 1990

Figure 1.
Median Household Income, by
Race and Hispanic Origin: 1990

Thousands of dollars

40

30

20

10

Total White Black Hispanic
origin*

* May be of any race

Figure 2.
Median Household Income, by Type of
Residence: 1990

Thousands of dollars
50

40

201 = = |

Central city Suburbs Nonmetropolitan

Households are persons sharing one
housing unit. Half of households

more than $29,943 in 1990 and
half earned less.

= The median income of White, Black, and
Hispanic households was quite differ-
ent. Half of White households received
$31,231 or more income, while Blacks
received 67.2 percent less, $18,676,
and Hispanics received $22,330, 39.9
percent less.

Median household income was signifi-
cantly higher inside metropolitan areas.

= Nationally, households inside metropoli-
tan areas (central city and suburbs) had
a median income 34.2 percent higher
than those in nonmetropolitan areas in
1990 ($31,823 vs $23,709).

Suburban households fared better than
their counterparts in our Nation's cities.

= The median income of households in the
suburbs ($36,038) was substantially
higher than those inside central cities
($26,052)



15

25

20

15

25

20

15

10

Figure 21.
Poverty Rate, by Region: 1990
Percent
Northeast Midwest South West
Figure 22.

Poverty Rate of Persons, by Years of
School Completed: 1990

Percent

Under 4 years — High school, College,
of high school no college 1 year or more

As has been the case since 1985, the
Northeast had the lowest poverty rate
among the Nation’s four regions.

= The poverty rate was highest in the
South (15.8 percent) followed by the
West (13.0 percent) and Midwest
(12.4 percent).3 The poverty rate in
the Northeast was 11.4 percent.

TM The South continues to have a dispro-
portionately large share of the Nation's
poverty population, 40.1 percent
compared to only 33.3 percent of U.S.
population with income above the
poverty level.

3 The poverty rate in the West and Midwest are not
significantly different,

Poverty rates decreased as educational
attainment increased.

= About 24.5 percent of persons 18 years
and over with less than 4 years of high
school were poor in 1990, compared to
9.6 percent for those who completed
high school and 4.9 percent for those
with 1 or more years of college.

TM The proportion of the poor who had less
than high school education (48.3 per-
cent) was larger than the proportion of
the poor who had completed high
schoo! but had not attended college
(34.3 percent). The smallest proportion
of the poor were those who had one or
more years of college (17.4 percent).



Income of Families: 1990

Figure 7.

Median Family Income, by Total

Age, Race, and Hispanic White

Origin: 1990 Black

s | Hispanic*
Over 65
55 to 64
|
45 to 54
]

3810 44 ]
25 to 34
15 to 24

i) 10 20 30 40 50

Thousands of dollars

* May be of any race

Families are persons living together who
are related by blood or marriage.

= Median family income is highest among
families with a householder between the
ages of 45 and 54.

= The median income of families with a
householder between the ages of 15 and
24 was $16,219 in 1990, less than one-
half of the median income for all families
($35,353).

® Black/White family income ratios vary
widely by age; for families‘with a house-
holder between the ages of 15 and 24,
the Black/White median income ratio in
1990 was .40. The comparable ratio for
families with a householder 35 to 44
years of age was .63.3

= The Hispanic/White family income ratios
did not vary widely by age as the Black/
White income ratios. For families with a
householder between the age of 15 to
24, the Hispanic/White median income
ratio in 1990 was .71; the comparable
ratio for families with a householder 35 to
44 years of age was .64. This difference
is not significant.

3 The ratios for families with a householder 35 to 44,

45 to 54, 55 to 64, and 65 and over are not significantly
different



22

Income: 1990

Figure 29. _
Median Household Total
income, by Income White
Definition: 1990 Black
|_| Hispanic*
Official
Private-sector
After-tax
<7
All-inclusive ]
0 10 20 30 40 50

Thousands of dollars

* May be of any race

The equalizing effect of taxes and
transfers efiects income comparisons
between subgroups of the population.

m= Under the official income definition the
median income of Black households was
59.8 percent of the White median.

= Subtracting cash transfers and adding
capital gains and health insurance
supplements (private-sector income)
reduced the ratio to 55.2 percent.

= The subtraction of federal and state in-
come taxes and payroll taxes (after-tax
income) results in an increase in the ratio
to 59.7 percent.1

= The addition of cash and noncash
transfers (after-transfer income) results in
a further increase in the Black to White
income ratio to 67.3 percent

= Based on the official income definition,
the median income of Hispanic house-
holds ($22,330) was 71.5 percent of that
of White households ($31,231). Using
the after-transfer income the ratio was

76.7 percent.

1 Black-to-White income ratios under the official in-
come definition and the after tax income definition were
not statistically different from one another.



CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS
Consumer Income
Series P-60, No. 179

Issued July 1992

by
Leatha Lamison-White

iN
ey

U.S. Department of Commerce
Barbara Hackman Franklin, Secretary
Rockwell A. Schnabel, Deputy Secretary

Economics and Statistics Administration
J. Antonio Villamil, Acting Under Secretary
for Economic Affairs and Administrator

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Barbara Everitt Bryant, Director



B-6

Table 16. Poverty Rate, by Type of Residence: 1990

Residence Rate
Inside metro . 12.7
16.3
peteteeeeeeeees 19.0
Outside Central City... 20. eee 87
Farm. cece 11.2
Nonfarm 13.6
Source: Current Population Reports, Series, P-60, No.175,
table 1
Table 17. Poverty, by Income Definition: 1990
Pri Atl
Characteristic Offi-| vate} After! After} inclu-
cial| sector] tax| transfer} sive
Race and Hispanic
origin"
Total . ses] 13.5{ 205] 208] 11.0] 9.8
White ....... -| 10.7] 17.7] 18.0 90} 7.9
Black... 31.9| 39.7} 399] 243) 223
Hispanic origin’......| 28.1] 33.7] 34.5] 22.7] 21.4
Type of Householder
Married couple ......| 6.9] 11.5] 12.3 5.4] 4.7
Female Householder,
no spouse present..| 37.2] 44.5] 45.3] 28.5] 26.8
Age
Under 18 years 20.6] 22.5] 23.4] 188) 149
18 to 24 years ......| 15.9] 184] 19.8) 14.3| 13.6
2510 44 years ......] 10.4] 12.1] 13.0] 86) 8.1
45 to 64 years .. g6| 13.8] 14.1 7.6) 60
65 years and over 12.2| 46.1) 46.8 95} 62

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Current Population Reports Series, P-60, No. 176 RD,

table 2 and table 3.

Table 18. tribution of Net Worth, by Race: 1988
Hispanic
Asset Total| White} Black! origin’
Own home. .... 43.1] 42.2] 67.6] $8.2
Vehicles 2.2.00 seeeeeeees 58| 55| 108 8.4
Business... 2... eee as} 39] 39 63
Rental property.......... 73| 739| 78 96
Interest earnings. | 183] 186] 87 0.3
Other 2.2... : 169) 16.7) 11 7A

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 22, table J.

Table 19. Median Net Worth, by Household Type: 1988

(Number in thousands. Families as of March of the following year)

Total White Black Hispanic origin’
Household type Median [Standard Median Standard Median [Standard Median | Standard
Number| income} error| Number| income} error| Number| income} error} Number| income] error
Married couple ........| 51,697| 57.134] 1,139] 46,766] 62,386] 1.273] 3,630] 17,635] 1,701} 3,281] 15,691] 3,146
Female householder. . . 25,437 | 13,571 1,023] 20,352} 22,099 1,270 1,927 757 179 1,011 736 381
Male Householder 14,383} 13,053 988} 12,051] 16,584 1,373 4,721 1,457 369 1,625 2,973 1,272

Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 22, table L



Earnings of Persons, Working
Vear-Round, Full-Time: 1990

Figure 12.
Median Earnings for Year-Round,
Full-Time Workers, by Sex: 1890

Thousands of dollars
50

Male
Female

40

30

20/4

Total White Black

* May be of any race

Figure 13.

Female-to-Male Ratio of Earnings
for Year-Round, Full-Time Workers:
1960-90

0.8

Hispanic
origin*

0.7

0.6R== ————a

05

0.4

ca

je)
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

Note: Data for 1974, 1979, and 1983 are revised.

1985

1990

Difference in earnings between males
and females 15 years old and older who
worked year-round, full-time are larger
for Whites than for Blacks or those of
Hispanic origin.

= In 1990, the median earnings of males
working year-round, full-time was 39.6
percent higher than that of females.

a White males had median earnings 44.0
percent higher than White females. For
Blacks and those of Hispanic origin, the
differences between males and fernales
who worked year-round, full-time were
only 17.0 and 22.1 percent, respectively.

The differing trends in male and female
earning patterns is responsible for a
significant increase in the female-to-
male ratio.

= In 1990, the female-to-male earnings
ratio reached an all-time high of .71, rep-
resenting an 18.3 percent increase over
1980 ratio of .60.



50

40

30

20

30

25

20

15

Figure 10.
Median Income, by Family Type
and Race: 1990

0 H
1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991

Married-couple
Thousands of dollars Female householder
Total White Black Hispanic
* May be of any race ongin
Figure 11.

Percent Change in Median

Family Income: 1967-90 (J Recessionary

period

anal

|

re

Note: Based on the CPI-U-X1

The median income of families with
female householder, no husband present
remains substantially below married-
couple families.

= In 1990, the median income in White
female householder, no husband present
families was 51.6 percent that of White
married-couple families.

= The median income in Black female
householder, no husband present
families was 37.9 percent that of White
female householder families. For fami-
lies of Hispanic origin the percent was
38.9 that of White female householder
families.

Family income in 1990 was 5.9 percent
higher than in 1973.

® Income tends to fall during recessions
and rise during recoveries.

@ Between 1973 and 1975 family income
declined by 4.4 percent; during the 1979
to 1982 recession, income fell 7.4 per-
cent. The 1976 to 1978 period show a
3.6 percent real increase in income and
the 1983-90 period shows 9.2 percent.



B-2

Table 3. Median Earning of Persons 25 Years Old and Over Working Year Round, Full-Time, by Sex: 1990

(Numbers are in thousands)

High College
school 4 years 5 years
Sex 4 years 3 or more or more
8 years |Standard {earn- |Standard [Standard team- (earn- | Standard
Number error | Number | i error | Number error| Number} ings) Number | Number] —ings)| error
Mate...] 2,260] 16,840] 353] 16,658] 25,872| 154] 9,324 200] 13,516] 41,131] 252] 5,862| 47,131 633
Female @57| 11,831 302| 11,801] 17.412] 127] 6,474 183| 7,662] 28,992] 323] 2,960] 31,969 355

Table 3A. Median Eamings For Year Round, Full-Time Workers, by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1990
Hispanic
Total White Black origin
(earn-| Standard {earn-| Standard fearn- | Standard (earn-| Standard
Number ings) error} Number ings) error} Number} ings) error| Number error
Male..| 45,014] 29,987 166] 39,578] 30,598 117| 3,934 22,176 382| 3,178 397
Female | 28,649] 20,556 102| 24,001] 20,759 110] 3,560] 18,838 376| 1,815 421
*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 174, table 29.
Table 4. Median Eamings of Persons 15 Years Old and Older Working Year Round, Full-Time, by Sex and
Occupation: 1990
(Numbers in thousands.)
Male Standard Female Standard
Occupation Number | (earnings) error Number| —_{eamings) error
Executive, administrative, and 4 managerial
‘occupations 7,873 40,546 393 4,857 25,858 255
Professional speciality occupations . . : 6,192 41,100 327 4,982 29,181 353
Technical, sale, and administrative suppor
‘occupations . 10,024 28,626 428 14,267 18,735 150
Clerical/administrative support. 2,835 26,192 376 9,760 18,475 164
Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 174, table 32.
Table 5. Median Household Income, by Income Definition : 1990
Official Private sector After tax After transfer All inclusive
Characteristic Median |Standard| Median|Standard| Median|Standard| Median|Standard| Median} Standard
Number| income} error| income| error} income| —error| income} error income error
Race
Total.....ccccceeeeeee | 94,312] 29,943 153| 28,779} | 180| 23,947) 131| 27,720} 118] 29,615 122
White ........ccceeeeeeeeee] 80,968] 31,231 143| 30,330]  176| 25,069] 139] 28,812} 125] 30,828 134
Black... 2... eeeceeeees 10.671| 18,676]  426| 16,757| 386] 14,966] 350] 19,391 293| 20,391 317
Hispanic origin 6,220| 22.330] 458] 21.802] 515| 19,072] 438] 22,087 353] 23,193 431
Type of household
Total . 94,312| 29,943} 153] 28,779] 180] 23,947] 131] 27,720] 118} 29,615 122
Martied-couple "] 52!147| 39,996] 206] 40,217) 231 33,108] = 171| 36.328/ 154) 38,721 161
Female household, no hus-
band present ....-........--| 11,268] 18,069}  351| 15,929] 352] 14,609} 276) 19.399] 229] 20.423 259
Gini Index (NA)| 0.426] 0.0037| 0.490] 0.0038] 0.463] 0.0037] 0.384] 0.0037] 0.383] 0.0037

*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Current Population Survey, P60, No. 176 RD, table 1.



29

70

60

40

30

10

* May be of any race

“Figure 36.
Median Net Worth, by
Household Type and Total
Race: 1988 White
Black
Thousands of dollars Hispanic*
—
Married-couple Female Male
householder householder

The net worth holding of married-
couple, female, and male-maintained
households differ significantly.2

= Married-couple households were the
largest category of households and
overall had the largest median net
worth,

= Female-headed households had a
median net-worth of $13,571 in 1988
approximately one-fourth that of mar-
ried-couple households, while male-
maintained households had the lowest
net worth of $13,053, approximately
one-fifth that of married-couple
households.?

The distribution of types of households
among White, Black, and Hispanic origin
households may explain part of the dif-
ference in median net worth between
White and Black households.

= In 1988 Black households had approxi-
mately one-tenth of the median net
worth of White households.

= Married-couple households had the
largest median net worth for all house-
holds whether they were White, Black,
or of Hispanic origin.

= The difference in Black and White
median net worth may be partially ex-
plained by the fact that only 35 percent
of black households were married-
couple households, whereas 60 percent
of White households were married-
couple households. In addition, Black
households were on average, younger
than White households.

2 The median net worth for male-headed and temale-
headed households are not significantly different



B-7

Table 20 . Median Net Worth, by Age, Race, and
Hispanic Origin
; Standard
Characteristic Number] Median error
Race
Total 91,554 35,752 779
White. 79,168| 43,279 924
Black . 10,278 4,169 446
Hispanic origin’ 5.916] 5.524 796
Age
Under 35 years ... 25,379| 6,078 291
35 years to 44 years . 19,916 33,183, 1,264
45 years to 54 years .. 13,613) 57.466| 1,953
55 years to 64 years... 13,090] 80,032] 2684
68 years or over .. 19,556] 73,471| 1.950

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 22,

table 1.

Table 21. Distribution of Net Worth: 1988

Age Rental Interest

9 Own home Vehicles Business property earning Other

Under 35 years . 45.1 15.6 14.6 6.8 13.6 43

35 to 44 years . 49.1 7.6 12.0 6.7 11.5 13.0

45 to 54 years 43.2 57 119 11.3 12.1 158

55 to 64 years... 41.0 47 9.4 80 18.7 aaa

65 years and over 40.4 34 3.0 67 29.2 17.6

Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 22, table G.
Table 22. Median Net Worth, by Quintile: 1988
Total White Black Hispanic origin’

Quintile Net [Standard Net [Standard Net [Standard T Net] Standara

Number worth error | Number worth error | Number worth error | Number worth error

Lowest . 18,299] 4,324| 390] 14,049/ 8,839] 1,190| 3,840 : 32] 1,621] 377 262

18,378 | 28,044) 1,405{ 16,154] 32,802| 1.836] 1.840| 8,461| 1,965] 1.233] 6,695] 2,374

18,314 |111,770| 4,755| 16,959|119,057| 4,856] 839| 47.160| 5,361] 761] 58,731| 7,288

*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 22, table L.

Table 23. Median Value of Holdings for Asset
Owners, by Region and Quintile: 1988

Area Standard
Number] Median error

Region
Northwest 18,418| §1,637| 2,428
Midwest . 23,649| 36,304] 1,231
South. 31,219] 28.987] 1.004
West . 18,268| 36,081| 2,259

Quintile
Total . 91,554 35,752 7739
Lowest . 18,299] 4,324 390
Second . 18,253| 19.694/ 1,484
Third . 18,378| 28.044] 1.405
Fourth 18,310| 46,253] 1.677
Fifth 18,314| 111,770] 4,755



28

Figure 35
Distribution of Net Over 65
Worth, by Age and 3 e 8
i lo
Asset Type: 1988 381044
Under 35
|
Own home 1
Vehicles
Business
Rental
property
Interest
earnings
]
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

Home equity was the major asset
holding for the under 45 age group, but
was somewhat less important for older
householders.

m= Home equity constituted about 45 per-
cent of net worth for householders under
35, not significantly different from 49 per-
cent for householders 35 to 44 years old.

= Home equity represented about 40 per-
cent of net worth of households with a
householder 65 years old and older, not
significantly different from the under-35
age group.

= Equity in motor vehicles declined signifi-
cantly with increasing age, from 16 per-
cent of all net worth for those less than
35 years old to 3 percent for those 65
and older.

= interest-earning assets at financial
institutions represented 11 percent of
net worth for those under 35 years of
age and 22 percent for those over 65
years old.

For explanation of “Other” category, see
footnote 1.

1 Other categories include checking accounts, stocks
and mutual funds, U.S. saving bonds, IRA and KEOGH,
other financial investments, other real estate, and unse-
cured liabilities.



Figure 5.
Median Household Income, by
Tenure: 1990

Owner
Thousands of dollars Renter
50
40
30}4
2014 4
10} 4 |
Total White Black Hispanic
origin*
* May be of any race
Figure 6.
Share of Aggregate Household 4970
Income: 1980 1980
Percent 1990
60
50
40 H H
30 H H
20 H 1
10 H H
ie} — 7
Lowest Middle 60% Highest

Nationally, the median household
income of owner-occupied households
was 75.2 percent higher than renters

in 1990.

The median household income of owner-
occupied households was $36,298
compared to $20,722 for renters.

The median income of White owner-
occupied households ($36,810) was
67.6 percent higher than that of White
renter-occupied households ($21,962).

Black owner-occupied households had
a median income ($27,377) 96.5 percent
higher than Black renter-occupied
($13,929).

Hispanic owner-occupied households
($32,321) had a median income 83.3
percent higher than Hispanic renter-
occupied ($17,632).

The growing inequality of the income
distribution has been a topic of interest
over the last few years. A commonly
used measure of income inequality is the
share of aggregate income received by
each fifth of the population.

The proportion of the aggregate income
received by the highest fifth of house-
holds has grown over the past 20 years
from 43.3 percent in 1970 to 46.6 per-
cent in 1990.

The share of aggregate income received
by the middle 60 percent of households
declined from 52.7 percent in 1970 to
49.5 percent in 1990.



75

50

25

Figure 26.
Work Experience of Poor
Female Householders, No Total
Husband Present: 1990 White
Black
Percent Hispanic*
Worked Year-round, Less than Did not

full-time year-round

* May be of any race

work

About 45.4 percent of poor female
householders with children worked in
1990, with 8.2 percent working year-
round, full-time.

= The comparable percentages for non-
poor female-householder families with
children were 69.4 percent who worked,
and 39.8 percent worked year-round,
full-time.

= The predominant reason given by those
who did not work was family responsibili-
ties (64.1 percent for the poor and 69.5
percent for the nonpoor).

= ~While the proportions of all racial and
ethnic groups working year-round full-
time were about 8.5 percent, a much
larger proportion of poor Hispanic fe-
male householders did not work at all
(67.9 percent) compared to 57.3 percent
for Black householders and 52.0 percent
for White householders.



A-5

from 1961 to 1970 were inflated to estimates
derived from the 1960 census. The data for the
years prior to 1961 were based on the 1950
census.

Computation of aggregate income by fifths.
The data shown on aggregate income and dollar
cutoffs for fifths (and top 5 percent) of households
and families, ranked by size of their total money
income, were calculated using sorted microdata.

Computation of constant dollar distributions.
For the years since 1967, adjustments for price
change have been made by converting the in-
comes of households, families, or persons on the
microdata file into constant dollars on the basis of
the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U or CPI-U-X1).
The microdata were then tallied into the appropri-
ate income interval.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U or CPI-U-X1)
is an index designed to measure changes in fami-
ly purchasing power. While the CPI is a good
measure of the changes in prices paid by the av-
erage family represented in the index (urban con-
sumers), it is not necessarily a good measure of
the changes in prices faced by consumers of dif-
ferent characteristics and income levels. These
limitations should be noted when comparing fig-
ures adjusted to constant dollars using the CPI
since the same index was used for all families
and all income levels.

Poverty definition. Poverty statistics presented
in this report are based on a definition developed
by the Social Security Administration in 1964 and
revised in 1969 and 1981 by interagency commit-
tees. This definition was established as the offi-
cial definition of poverty for statistical use in all
Executive departments by the Bureau of the Bud-
get (in Circular No. A-46) and later by the Office
of Management and Budget (in Statistical Direc-
tive No. 14).

The original poverty index provided a range
of income cutoffs adjusted by such factors as
family size, sex of the family head, number of chil-
dren under 18 years old, and farm-nonfarm resi-
dence. At the core of this definition of poverty
was the economy food plan, the least costly of
four nutritionally adequate food plans designed
by the Department of Agriculture. It was deter-
mined from the Department of Agriculture's 1955

survey of food consumption that families of three
or more persons spent approximately one-third of
their income on food; the poverty level for these
families was, therefore, set at three times the cost
of the economy food plan. For smaller families
and persons living alone, the cost of the economy
food plan was multiplied by factors that were
slightly higher in order to compensate for the rela-
tively larger fixed expenses of these smaller
households. Annual revisions of these SSA pov-
erty cutoffs were based on price changes of the
items in the economy food budget.

As a result of deliberations of a Federal Inter-
agency Committee in 1969, the following two
modifications to the original SSA definition of pov-
erty were recommended: (1) that the SSA thresh-
olds for nonfarm families be retained for the base
year 1963, but that annual adjustments in the lev-
els be based on changes in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) rather than on changes in the cost of
food included in the economy food plan; and (2)
that the farm thresholds be raised from 70 to 85
percent of the corresponding nonfarm levels. The
combined impact of these two modifications re-
sulted in an increase of 360,000 poor families and
1.6 million poor persons in 1967.

{n 1980, another interagency committee rec-
ommended three additional modifications what
were implemented in the March 1982 CPS as was
the 1980 census: (1) elimination of separate
thresholds for farm families, (2) averaging of
thresholds for female-householder and “alt other”
families, and (3) extension of the poverty matrix to
families with nine or more members. For further
details, see the section, "Changes in the Definition
of Poverty,” in Current Population Reports, Series
P-60, No. 133. The poverty thresholds rise each
year by the same percentage as the annual aver-
age Consumer Price Index.

Weighted average thresholds at the poverty
level. The poverty cutoffs used by the Bureau of
the Census to determine the poverty status of
families and unrelated individuals consist of a set
of 48 thresholds arranged in a two-dimensional
matrix consisting of family size (from one person,
ie., unrelated individuals, to nine or more per-
sons) cross-classified by presence and number of
family members under 18 years old (from no chil-
dren present to eight or more children present).
Unrelated individuals and two- person families are
further differentiated by the age of the individual



A-6

or family householder (under 65 years and 65
years and over).

The total family income of each family in the
sample is tested against the appropriate dollar
threshold to determine the poverty status of the
family. If the family’s total income is less than its
poverty level. The average thresholds shown in
these tables were weighted by the presence and
number of children. For a given size of family, the
weighted average threshold for that group is ob-
tained by multiplying the threshold for each pres-
ence and number of children category within the
given family size by the number of families in that
category. These products are then aggregated
across the entire range of presence and number
of children categories, and the total aggregate is
divided by the total number of families in the
group to yield the weighted average threshold at
the poverty level for that size family. Because
family composition does not remain constant from
year to year, the weighted average thresholds for
1990 will not reflect, identically, the change in the
CPI between 1990 and earlier years. Since the
basic thresholds used to determine the poverty
status of families and unrelated individuals are
applied to all families and unrelated individuals,
the weighted poverty thresholds are derived us-
ing all families and unrelated individuals rather
than just those famities and unrelated individuals
Classified as below the poverty level. In a few
instances these weighted thresholds are slightly
different from those published in earlier reports
due to corrections to the CPS files.

Income deficit. Income deficit is the difference
between the total income of families and unre-
lated individuals below the poverty level, and their
respective poverty thresholds. In computing the
income deficit, families reporting a net income
loss are assigned zero dollars and for such cases
the deficit is equal to the poverty threshold. This
measure provides an estimate of the amount
which would be required to raise the incomes of
all poor families and unrelated individuals to their
respective poverty thresholds. The income deficit
is thus a measure of the degree of impoverish-
ment of a family or unrelated individual. However,
caution must be exercised in comparing the aver-
age deficit of families classified by the race or sex
of the householder. Since the poverty thresholds
used in this report are based on family size and

composition, apparent differences in the average
income deficits may, to some extent, be a function
of the differences in these characteristics.

Median income deficit. The mean income deficit
is the amount which divides the distribution into
two equal groups, one having an income deficit
above the median and the other having an in-
come deficit below the median.

Mean income deficit. The mean income deficit
is the amount obtained by dividing the total in-
come deficit of a group below the poverty level
by the number of families or unrelated individuals
(as appropriate) in that group.

Deficit per family member. The deficit per family
member is the average amount of money neces-
sary to raise every man, woman and child in a
family out of poverty. The deficit per family mem-
ber is derived by dividing the total family income
deficit of a group by the number of family mem-
bers in the same group.

Monthly income. The monthly income estimates
shown in this report for households are based on
the sum of the monthly income received by each
member of the household age 15 years old or
over at the date of interview. The figures repre-
sent the average monthly amounts received by
households during the appropriate four-month
reference period for each rotation group. To cal-
culate the monthly income figures, the composi-
tion of the household was fixed at the date of the
interview and the total cash income of household
members 15 years and older for the four- month
reference period was divided by four. The cash
income concept used in this report includes the
sum of all income received from any of the source
listed in table B-1. Rebates, refunds, loans, and
capital gain or loss amounts from the sale of as-
sets, and interhousehold transfers of cash such
as allowances are not included. Accrued interest
on individual Retirement Accounts, KEOGH retire-
ment plans, and U.S. Saving bonds are also ex-
cluded. This definition differs somewhat from that
used in the annual income reports based on the
March CPS income supplement questionnaire.
The data in those reports, published in the Con-
sumer Income Series, P-60, are based only on
income received in a regular or periodic manner
and, therefore, exclude lump-sum or one-time
payments, such as inheritances, or insurance



Part IV.
Household Wealth and
Asset Ownership: 1988

Introduction

This section presents data on the wealth of U.S. households in 1988. The data are from the
1986 and 1987 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and repre-
sent information collected in January through May 1988.

Wealth is a particularly important dimension of well-being for certain subgroups of the popu-
lation such as the elderly, who tend to have lower retirement incomes but higher wealth hold-
ings. Household surveys are the primary means of obtaining data on the wealth holdings of
various subgroups of the population, but it should be noted that the holdings of certain types
of wealth tend to be underreported in household surveys.

The household net worth estimates shown in this report are based on the sum of the market
value of assets owned by every member of the household minus liabilities (secured or Unse-
cured) owed by household members.

The median net worth is the amount which divides the net worth distribution into two equal
groups, one having household net worth less than that amount and the other having net worth
above that amount.



Poverty of Unrelated Individuals: 1990
Poverty Rate of Unrelated Individuals, by Age and Race: 1990
Mean Income Deficit for Unrelated Individuals Below the Poverty Level: 1990

Part Ill. .
Measuring The Effect of Benefits and Taxes on Income and Poverty
Introduction

Income: 1990
Median Household Income, by Income Definition: 1990
Gini Index, by Income Definition: 1990

Poverty: 1990
Poverty Rates, by Income Definition: 1990

Part IV.
Household Wealth and Asset Ownership: 1988
Introduction

Distribution of Net Worth: 1988

Median Net Worth, by Quintile: 1988

Median Net Worth, by Age: 1988

Distribution of Net Worth, by Age and Asset Type: 1988

Median Net Worth, by Household Type and Race: 1988

Median Net Worth for Households, by Monthly Household Income Quintile: 1988
Percent of Net Worth Held, by Selected Asset Types and Race: 1988

Appendixes
A. Definitions and Explanations
B. Detailed Tables
C. Source and Accuracy

19
19

21

22
23

24



Table 12. Poverty Status of Families, by Type of Family: 1959 to 1990

Married Married
Year All] couple} FHNHP Year alll couple] FHNHP
1959. 18.5 way] 42.6 97 6.1 32.6
1960... 18.1 (NA) 424 9.4 5.5 33.0
1961. 18.1 (NA) 32.1 9.3 5.3 31.7
1962. 17.2 wa} 42.9 91 52; 31.4
1963. 15.9 (NA)] 40.4 9.2 5.4 30.4
1964. 15.0 (NA) 36.4 10.3 6.2 32.7
1965. 13.9 (NA) 38.4 11.2 68} 34.6
1966. 118 (NA) 33.1 12.2 7.6} 36.3
1967 114 (NA) 33.3 12:3 76| 36.0
1968. 10.0 (Na) 32.3 11.6 69 34.5
1969. 97 (NA) 32.7 114 67 34.0
1970. 10.1 (NA) 32.5 10.9 61 34.6
1971. 10.0 (NA) 33.9 10.7 58] 34.2
1972 9.3 (NA) 32.7 10.4 5.6 33.4
1973. 8.8 5.3 32.2 10.3 5.6 32.2
1974... a8 63] 32.1 10.7 5.7 33.4
Source: Current Pupolation Reports, Series P-60, No. 175, table 4.
Table 13. Median Net Worth, by Household Type:
1988
Hispanic
Type Total] White! Black} origin’
Married couple ............] 7,134] 62,386] 17,635| 15,691
Female householder........] 13,571] 22,099] '757| ‘736
Male householder... 13,053| 16,584| 1,457| 2,973
Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 22, table L.
Table 14. Mean Income Deficit for Families Below Poverty Level, by Type: 1990
(Number in thousands. Families as of March of the following year)
Total White Black Hispanic origin’
Characteristic Median [Standard Median [Standard Median [Standard Median | Standard
Number | income error | Number | income error | Number | income error | Number} income error
Total .......... 7,098] 5,192] 64] 4,622] 4,863 77| 2,193] 5,845] 120] 1,24] 5,352] 158
Married Couple . . . 2,981 4,673 102 2,386 4,656 113 448 4,350 252 605 5,128 232
Female householder, no
spouse present......| 3,768| 5,661 a5} 2,010) 5.150] 107| 1,648} 6,336] 137| 573] 5,678] 224
Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Current Population Survey, P-60, No. 175, table 5.
Table 15. Mean Income Deficit for Unrelated Individuals Below Poverty Level, by Sex: 1990
Total White Black Hispanic origin’
Sex Median |Standard Median {Standard Median [Standard Median | Standard
Number] income] error| Number] income| — error| Number| income} error | Number | income| error
Total ... 7.446| 2,880] 38 5,739] 2.817] 43] 1.491| 2,977 82} 774} 3,544/ 126
Male 2\887| 3,257| — 63| 2,099] 3,206 73| 671{ 3.302| 128} 404] 3.715] 175
Female 4,588 2,645 46 3,640 2,592 52 820 2,711 103, 369 3,357 182

*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Current Population Survey, P-60, No. 175, table 22.



B-3

Table 6. Work Experience in 1990 of Poor Married- ecouple Householder and Poor Female Householder, no Husband
: 1990

Present, by Race and Hispanic Origi

Characteristic Total White Black} Hispanic origin’
Married-couple households ..... 56.2 59.1 45.3 66.6
Worked year-round, full-time. 24.4 25.4 18.5 28.9
Worked less than year-round, full- 275 29.5 20.3 34.4
Did not work 42.5 39.8 82.7 32.7
Female Householder, no Husband Present
Worked . 43.6 46.1 41.0 31.4
Worked year-round, rull-time 8.0 8.5 78 9.2
Worked less than year-round, full-time . 29.8 319 27.4 178
Did Not Work . 56.4 53.9 59.1 68.6
‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Current Population Survey, P60, No. 175, table 14.
Table 7. Poverty Status of Persons, by Age and Race: 1959 to 1990
Age Race
Year 65 and Hispanic
Total] Under 18} 18 to 64 over Total White Black origin’
1959... 22.4 27.3 17.0 35.2 22.4 18.1 55.1 {NA}
1960 22.2 26.9 22.2 178 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA)
1961 219 25.6 21.9 17.4 (NA) (NAY {NA} {NA}
1962 21.0 25.0 21.0 16.4 (NA) (Na) (NA) (NA)
1963 . 19.5 23.1 19.5 15.3 (NA) (Na) (NA) (NA)
1964... 19.0 23.0 19.0 14.9 «nay (NA) (NA) (NA)
1965 17.3 21.0 17.3 13.3 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA)
1966 14.7 17.6 10.5 28.5 14.7 11.3 418 (NA)
1967 13.2 16.6 10.0 29.5 13.2 11.0 39.3 {NA}
1968 12.8 15.6 9.0 25.0 12.8 10.0 34.7 (NA)
1969 . 12.1 14.0 8.7 25.3 12.1 9.5 32.2 (NA)
1970 12.6 15.1 9.0 24.6 12.6 9.9 33.5 (NA)
1971 12.5 15.3 9.3 21.6 12.5 9.9 32.5 (NA)
1972 11.9 15.1 8.8 18.6 11.9 9.0 33.3 (NA)
1973... Wt 14.4 8.3 16.3 Wt 8.4 31.4 21.9
1974... 11.2 15.4 8.3 14.6 11.2 8.6 30.3 23.0
1975 .. 12.3 171 9.2 15.3 12.3 97 31.3 26.9
1976 . 11.8 16.0 9.0 15.0 11.8 9.0 311 24.7
1977 11.6 16.2 8.8 14.1 11.6 89 31.3 22.4
1978 14 15.9 8.7 14.0 114 87 30.6 21.6
1979 17 16.4 8.9 15.2 11.7 9.0 31.0 21.8
1980 13.0 18.3 10.1 15.7 13.0 10.2 32.5 25.7
1981 14.0 20.0 W1 15.3 14.0 Wt 34.2 26.5
1982 15.0 21.9 12.0 14.6 15.0 12.0 35.6 29.9
1983 15.2 22.3 12.4 13.8 15.2 12.1 35.7 28.0
1984... 14.4 215 17 12.4 14.4 115 33.8 28.4
1985... 14.0 20.7 11.3 12.6 14.0 11.4 31.3 29.0
1986 ..... 13.6 20.5 10.8 12.4 13.6 11.0 314 27.3
1987 13.4 20.3 10.6 12.5 13.4 10.4 32.4 28.0
1988 13.0 19.5 10.5 12.0 13.0 10.4 313 26.7
1989 12.8 19.6 10.2 11.4 12.8 10.0 30.7 26.2
1990 .. 13.5 20.6 10.7 12.2 13.5 10.7 31.9 28.1

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Current Population Survey, P60, No. 175, table 2 and table 3.



Part Il.
Poverty in the
United States: 1990

Introduction

This section presents social and economic characteristics of the population below the poverty
level in 1990 based on the March 1991 Current Population Survey (CPS) and historical data
based on the CPS from 1959 to present. The poverty definition used in this report is that
adopted for official government use by the Office of Management and Budget and consists
of a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. Families or
individuals with income below their appropriate poverty threshold are classified as below the
poverty level. These poverty statistics exclude inmates of institutions, (Armed Forces mem-
bers living in barracks), and unrelated individuals under 15 years of age. Poverty thresholds
are updated every year to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. For example, the
average poverty threshold for a family of four was $12,674 in 1989 but $13,359 in 1990. Av-
erage poverty thresholds in 1990 varied from $6,652 for a person living alone to $26,848 for a
family of nine or more members. The poverty definition is based on pre-tax money income
only, excluding capital gains, and does not include the value of noncash benefits such as
employer-provided health insurance, food stamps, or Medicaid.



50

40

Figure 18.

Poverty Rate of Persons, by Race: 1959-90

Percent

30

La}

d

20

mN
TTM

NY

Hispanic origin

Total
NK
.

eas

White

”

0 .
1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991

From 1983 to 1989 both the number of
poor and the poverty rate declined. In
1990, however, both the number and the
rate increased from 1989.

= From 1959 to 1969 the overall rate
dropped about 10 percent, from 22.4 to
12.1 percent; for the next 10 years the
rate fluctuated only between 11.1 and
13.0 percent.

= Between 1970 and 1980, the poverty
rate increased from 12.6 to 13.0 percent
and the number of poor increased from
25.4 million to 29.3 million."

= From 1960 through 1990, the poverty
rate for Blacks has been significantly
higher than the poverty rate for any other
race group, followed by the rate for per-
sons of Hispanic origin. The poverty
rate for Whites was lowest.

= Asians and Pacific Islanders represented
2.6 percent of the Nation's poor, with a
poverty rate of 12.2.

= About 17.9 percent of the poor in 1990
were of Hispanic origin. This fraction was
only 10.3 percent in 1973.2

' The poverty rates in 1970 and 1980 are not signifi-
cantly different.

2 Data on the poverty status of persons of Hispanic
origin were first published in 1973. In 1990, persons of
Hispanic origin represented 8.6 percent of the popula-
tion, while they only represented 5.2 percent in 1973.



Contents

Part I.

Money Income of Households, Families, and Persons
Introduction

Income of Households: 1990
Median Household Income, by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1990
Median Household Income, by Type of Residence: 1990
Median Income, by Region: 1990
Percent Change in Median Household Income: 1967-90
Median Household Income, by Tenure: 1990
Share of Aggregate Household Income: 1990

Income of Families: 1990
Median Family Income by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1990
Median Income, by Type of Family and Presence of Children: 1990
Ratio of Black-to-White and Hispanic-to-White Median Family Income
for Married Couples: 1967-90
Median Income, by Family Type and Race: 1990
Percent Change in Median Family Income: 1967-90

Earnings of Persons, Working Year-Round, Full-Time: 1990
Median Earnings for Year-Round, Full-Time Workers, by Sex: 1990
Female-to-Male Ratio Earnings for Year-Round, Full-Time Workers: 1960-90
Median Earnings of Persons Working Year-Round, Full-Time, by Occupation: 1990
Median Earnings of Persons 25 Years and Over Working
Year-Round, Full-Time, by Education: 1990

Per Capita Income
Per Capita Income Over Time: 1967-90

Part Il.
Poverty in the United States: 1990

Introduction

Poverty of Persons
Distribution of Poor, by Race: 1990
Poverty Rate of Persons, by Race: 1959-90
Poverty Rate of Persons, by Age: 1959-90
Poverty Rate, by Area of Residence: 1990
Poverty Rate, by Region: 1990
Poverty Rate of Persons, by Years of School Completed: 1990

Poverty of Families
Poverty Rate of Families, by Type: 1959-90
Mean Income Deficit for Families Below Poverty Level, by Type: 1990
Work Experience of Poor Married Couples: 1990
Work Experience of Poor Female Householders, No Husband Present: 1990

Page

aRRWoONND

a

12
13
14
14
15
15

16
17
17
18



A-4

not related to her, a lodger not related to the
householder or to anyone else in the household,
and a servant living in an employer's household
with no relatives are examples of unrelated indi-
viduals.

Related children under 18 years of age ina
family include sons and daughters, including
stepchildren and adopted children, of the house-
holder and all other children in the household who
are related to the householder by blood, mar-
riage, or adoption.

Age classification is based on the age of the per-
son at his last birthday.

Race is based on five groups: (1) White, (2)
Black, (3) Asian or Pacific Islander, (4) American
Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo, and (5) other.

Persons of Hispanic origin are identified by a
question that asks for self-identification of the per-
son's origin or descent. Respondents are asked
to select their origin (and the origin of other
household members) from a “flash card” listing
ethnic origins. Persons of Hispanic origin, in par-
ticular, are those who indicate that their origin is
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South
American, or some other Hispanic origin. It should
be noted that persons of Hispanic origin may be
of any race.

Years of school completed are derived from the
combination of answers to questions concerning
the highest grade of school attended by the per-
son and whether or not that grade was finished.
The questions of educational attainment apply
only to progress in “regular” schools. Such
schools include public, private and parochial ele-
mentary and high schools (both junior and se-
nior), colleges, universities, and professional
schools (whether day schools or night schools)
Thus, regular schooling is that which may ad-
vance a person toward an elementary school cer-
tificate, a high school diploma, or a college, uni-
versity, or professional school degree. Schooling
in other than regular schools is counted only if the
credits obtained are regarded as transferable to
school in the regular school system.

The median years of school completed is de-
fined as the value which divides the distribution
into two equal groups, one having completed

more schooling and one having completed less
schooling than the median. These medians are
expressed in terms of a continuous series of num-
bers representing years of school completed. For
example, a median of 9.0 represents the comple-
tion of the first year of high school and a median
of 13.0 means completion of the first year of col-
lege

Occupation data in this report refer to the job
held longest during the income year. The occupa-
tion groupings were derived from occupation sub-
groups delineated on the basis of the classifica-
tion system used in the 1980 census. For more
detailed information, see the February 1983 issue
of “Employment and Earnings," Bureau of Labor
Statistics.

Work experience is based on work for pay or
profit or work without pay on a family-operated
farm or business at any time during the previous
year on a part time or full time basis.

Year-round, full-time indicates 50 or more weeks
of full-time employment during the previous calen-
dar year.

Workers are persons who worked one or more
days during the previous calendar year.

Symbols. A dash (-) represents zero or rounds to
zero, the symbol "B" means that the base for the
derived figure is less than 75,000, the symbol “x”
means not applicable, the symbol “NA” means
not available, and the symbol “r” means revised.
Rounding. Percentages are rounded to the near-
est tenth of a percent; therefore, the perceritages
in a distribution do not always add to exactly
100.0 percent. The totals, however, are always
shown as 100.0. Moreover, individual figures are
rounded to the nearest thousand without being
adjusted to group totals, which are independently
rounded; percentages are based on the un-
rounded numbers.

Base figures since 1979 are based on civilian
noninstitutional population controls for age, race,
and sex established by the 1980 census. The
base figures shown for 1971 to 1978 were pre-
pared by inflating weighted sample results to
agree with independent estimates of the popula-
tion based on statistics updated from the 1970
census, whereas the base figures for the years



23

Figure 30.
Gini Index, by Income Definition: 1990

I I I I The degree of income inequality is sum-
marized by the Gini Index, a statistic
that varies between 0 (perfect equality)

T I I I and 1 (perfect inequality).

Private-sector @ In 1990, the Gini index of official house-
hold income was .426.

Official

TM Employer contributions to health insur-
After-tax ance represent a major source of private
sector compensation as shown in the
private-sector income definition, however
After-transfer| there was no significant change in the
Gini index under this income definition.

I L I
= The payment of taxes (after-tax income)
All-inclusive lowered inequality as measured by the
r 1 ; Gini index 5.5 percent.
fe) 01 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 & The inclusion of government benefits

(after-transfer income) lowered the Gini
index 17.1 percent.

= The inclusion of net imputed return on
home equity (all-inclusive income) did
not have an effect on the Gini index, a
reflection of the fact that homeowners
are spread throughout the income
distribution.



< ed
Economics and Statistic Administration

J. Antonio Villamil, Under Secretary
for Economic Affairs and Administrator

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Barbara Everitt Bryant, Director
C.L. Kincannon, Deputy Director

William P. Butz, Associate Director
for Demographic Programs

HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD
ECONOMIC STATISTICS
Daniel H. Weinberg, Chief

SUGGESTED CITATION

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 179, income, Poverty, and
Wealth in the United States: A Chartbook, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1992



B-8

Table 24. Median Family Income by Age, Race, and Hispanic 01

Total White Black Hispanic origin’

Age Medium |Standard Medium |Standard Medium |Standard Medium | Standard

Number] income| — error| Number| income] error] Number | income| error] Number] income| error

1510 24 years.......) 2,726] 16,219] 453] 2,163] 18,234 788] 476| 7,218] 707 —423/ 13,.009| 1,160
24 1034... 14'590| 31.497|  295| 12.189] 33.457/  349| 1,943] 17,130] 706) 1,495| 20,439] ‘806
35 to 44 years. 17.078| 41.061| 323] 14,431] 42.632] 395] 2,023] 27.025] 1,020] 1,323 27.350] 1,097
45 to 54 years 11,701 47,164| 483] 9.990] 49,269] 595] 1.249] 30,847 1.445) 808| 29,908] 1,581
55 to 64 years.......| 9.326} 39.035] 492] 8.232] ao.a16| se6| 856] 26.442| 11674] 527) 30,839| 2,036
65 and over 10,900} 26.048] 310] 9.797| 25.864] 320] 923] 16,585/ 744) —405| 17,962] 1.263

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 174, table 13 B to 24.

Combe tier

Table 25 4Percent Change in Median Family Income:
1967 to 1990

{In 1990 dollars)

Families Families
Year CPLUX1 Year CPLU-X1
1967 . 0.0} 1979 .. 21.1
1968 | 4.8| 1980 |. 16.9
1969 |... g.6igat occ... 13.7
1970. 9.3] 1982.0... 12.2
1971 9.2| 1983 . 13.4
1972. 14.6| 1984 | 16.4
1973. 16.8| 1985 17.8
197402. 13.8/ 1986... 23.0
1975. 11.7] 1987 . 24.7
1976... 15.2] 1988 ..... 24.5
1977 15.9| 1989 . 26.3
1978 19.6 | 1990 23.8



Figure 38.
Percent of Net Worth
Held, by Selected Asset Total
Types and Race: 1988 White
Black
Thousands of dollars || Hispanic*
Own home
Business Lb
Rental
property
Interest
earnings
Other =
i?) 20 40 60 80
Percent

* May be of any race

Net worth holding differed by race and
ethnicity of householder.

Compared with White households, Black
households held a significantly greater
percentage of their net worth in durable
goods such as housing (68 versus 42
percent) and motor vehicles (11 versus
6 percent).

Black households held a significantly
lower percentage than white households
in financiai assets such as stocks and
mutual fund shares (1 versus 7 percent)
and deposits at financial institutions (8
versus 14 percent).

For explanation of the “Other” category
see footnote 1 in this section.



Appendix B.
etailed Tables

Table 1. Median Income of Households, by Selected Characteristics, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder:
1990

(Numbers in thousands. For meaning of symbols, see Appendix A.)

All races White Black Hispanic origin’
Characteristic Median {Standard Median {Standard Median {Standard Median | Standard
Number] income] error} Number] income| —error| Number| income| —error| Number| income| error
Al households. .... 94,312| 29,943] 183] g0,968| 31,231] 143] 10,671] 18,676] 426| 6,220] 22,330] 458
Type of residence
Nonfarm 92,670] 29,901] 158 79,373] 31,216] _ 145| 10,645] 18,734]  426/ 6,180| 22,326 459
Farm 1,642} 31,589] 1,262| 1.595] 31.819] 1,337 27 (8) 8) 40 (8) (8)
Inside metropolitian
area... 73,135} 31,823] 154] 61,842] 33,460] 203) + 897| 20,121] 409] 5,776| 22.737} 500
Inside central cities. ..] 29,897| 26,052]  239| 22,435] 28,368] 339] 6,223] 17.476] 474| 3.313] 19,896| 632
central cities.| 43,238] 36,038} 215] 39,407| 36,536| 226] 2.744| 26,299] 85| 2'463| 26968| 740
Outside metroploitian
areas. 21,177} 23,709| 314] 19,127] 24,887} 329] 1,704] 43,119] 901| 44a] 18,302] 1,453
Region
Northeast 19,271] 32,676} 337] 16,870] 34,387] 373] 1,952| 20,674] 778] 1,123) 18,128| 1,013
Midwest. 23,223} 29,897 307} 20,772] 31,054] 263] 21121] 17.204] 796] 408] 24/346] 2/053
South . 32,312] 26,942] 221 26,104 29,162) 297| 5.737] 17.662] 525] 1,982] 21.702] 842
West 19,506| 31,761| 292] 17,222] 31,794] 306] 862] 23,987] 1.837] 2'706| 24/148| 777
Tenure
Owner occupied 60,395] 36,298] 185] 64,527] 36,810] 193| 4,526! 27.377| 725] 2,423] 32,321 786
Renter occupied .. 32,218] 20,722| 164 24,976| 21,962] 180] 5,945] 13,929] 436| 3.677| 17.632| 507
Per capita Income. ..... j248,886/ 14.387] x) 208,754] 15,265} x0| 30,895| 9,017| x) 21,437] 8,424 00

"Households of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 174, table A and table 1.

Table 2. Share of Aggregate Household Income, by

Quintile 1970, 1980, 1990

Percent distribution of aggregate income

Year Lowest |Second| Third | Fourth] Highest

fith| fifth] fifth} fifth | fifth

1990 39] 96] 159| 240] 466
1980 42] 102] 168/ 248| 44.1
1970 41} 108] 17.4) 245] 433

Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 174, table B.



26

Own home

Interest
earnings

Other interest
earnings

Rental
property

Stocks/
mutual funds

IRA/KEOGH

140
120
100
80
60
40

20

ole

Figure 32.
Distribution of Net Worth: 1988

I I r

i

ie} 10

20 30

Percent

40 50

Figure 33.
Median Net Worth, by
Quintile: 1988

Total
White
Black
Hispanic*

Thousands of dollars

Lowest Third Highest

* May be of any race

Overall, home equity constituted the
largest share of net worth in 1988.

Home ownership was reported by
almost two-thirds of all households and
accounted for 43.0 percent of total

net worth.

Deposits at financial institutions ac-
counted for 14.1 percent of net worth
and other interest earning assets made
up another 4.2 percent of net worth.

Stocks and mutual funds shares were
owned by 21.8 percent of households
and accounted for 6.5 percent of

net worth.

IRA and KEOGH accounted for 4.2 per-

cent of net worth and rental property
accounted for 7.9 percent.

Net worth holdings differ by the race and
ethnicity of the householder. The largest
differential in wealth occurred between
White and Black householders.

White householders had a median net
worth of $43,279, while the figure for
Black householders was $4,169. House-
holders of Hispanic origin had median
net worth of $5,524. The median net
worth of Black householders and house-
holders of Hispanic origin were not
significantly different.

The relative difference in median net
worth was smaller for upper income
householders than householders

in general.

In the highest income fifth of household
(quintile) the White-to-Black ratio of net
worth was 2.5. In the middle fifth, the
ratio was significantly higher (3.9).

In the lowest fifth, median net worth for
White householders was $8,839 while
that of Black householders in this quintile
was $0.



Figure 14

Median Earnings of Persons
Working Year-Round, Full-Time,
by Occupation: 1990

Males
Thousands of dollars Females
404
30/4
20|44 = L
10/4 | | | |
Executive, Professional Technical — Clerical/
Administrative, Administrative
Managerial
Figure 15

Median Earnings of Persons 25 Years
and Over Working Year-Round,
Full-Time, by Education: 1990

Male

Thousands of dollars Female
50
40

30 L

20 H 4 H

10H H H L F
0

ayrs 1-3yrs 4+ college 5+ college
~ highschool college

Spore
ov’ fesw

The median earnings of women are
significantly lower than men in every
occupational category.

= Males working year-round, full-time in
executive, administrative, and manag-
erial occupations had median earnings
56.8 percent higher than females.

= In professional occupations, the median
earnings for men was 40.8 percent high-
er than that of women; male medians
were 52.8 percent higher in technical
occupations and 41.8 percent higher in
clerical occupations.

The correlation between educational
attainment and earnings is very strong.

@ Median earnings in 1990 was $16,840
for males who had completed 8 years or
less of school, compared to $11,831 for
females. The differences were even
greater for high school graduates,
$25,872 and $17,412, respectively.

= The difference in median earning of mal-
es and females increased with educa-
tion. Differences range between $5,009
for persons with 8 years or less of schoo
to $15,162 for persons with 5 or more
years of college.



\

Appendix C. \

Source and Accuracy

of Estimates

Source of Data \
Most estimates in this chart book come from data
obtained in March of years 1960 through 1991 in
the Current Population Survey (CPS). The Bureau
of the Census conducts this survey every month,
although this chart book uses only March data for
its estimates. The March survey uses two sets of
questions, the basic CPS and the supplement.
The basic CPS collects labor force data for the
civilian noninstitutional population ages 15 years
and older. In March, supplemental data is col-
lected on money income received the previous
calendar year.

Some estimates in this chart book come from
data obtained in the Survey of Income and Pro-
gram Participation (SIPP). The 1988 data were
collected during the fourth interview of the 1987
panel and the seventh interview of the 1986 panel
of SIPP in a supplement to the standard question-
naire. The SIPP universe is the noninstitutional-
ized resident population living in the United States
and at least 15 years of age. However, the in-
formation collected for the supplement from per-
sons living in group quarters were not included in
the tabulations shown in this report.

Survey estimates. The estimation procedures
used for CPS and SIPP data inflates weighted
sample results to independent estimates of the
civilian noninstitutional population of the United
States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic/non-His-
panic categories. These independent estimates
are based on statistics from decennial censuses;
statistics on births, deaths, immigration, and
emigration; and statistics on the size of the Armed
Forces. The estimation procedure for 1981
through 1990 (1980 for income estimates) data
used independent estimates based on the 1980
decennial census; 1970 through 1979 data used
independent estimates based on the 1970 decen-
nial census; 1960 through 1969 data used inde-
pendent estimates based on the 1960 decennial

census. This change in independent estimates
had relatively little impact on summary measures,
such as medians and percent distributions, but
did have a significant impact on levels. For ex-
ample, use of the 1980 based population controls
resulted in about a 2 percent increase in the civil-
ian noninstitutional population and in the number
of families and households. Thus, estimates of
levels for 1980 and later will differ from those for
earlier years by more than what could be attrib-
uted to actual changes in the population. These
differences could be disproportionately greater
for certain population subgroups than for the total
population.

Accuracy of Estimates

Since the CPS and SIPP estimates are based on
samples, they may differ somewhat from the fig-
ures from a complete census using the same
questionnaires, instructions, and enumerators.
There are two types of errors possible in an esti-
mate based on a sample survey: sampling and
nonsampling. The standard errors provided in
most Current Population Reports primarily indi-
cate the magnitude of the sampling errors. They
also partially measure the effect of some nonsam-
pling errors in response and enumeration, but do
not measure any systematic biases in the data.
Bias is the difference, averaged over all possible
samples, between the estimate and the desired
value. The accuracy of a survey result depends
on the net effect of sampling and nonsampling
errors. Particular care should be exercised in the
interpretation of figures based on a relatively
small number of cases or on small differences
between estimates.

Nonsampling variability. As in any survey work,
the results are subject to errors of response and
nonreporting in addition to sampling variability.
Nonsampling errors can be attributed to many
sources, e.g., inability to obtain information about
all cases in the sample, definitional difficulties,



12.

Poverty of Persons

Figure 17.
Distribution of Poor, by Race: 1990

Percent
80
60
40
20}+—_}
ie)
White Black Asians,

Pacific Islanders

In 1990, the majority of the Nation’s poor
were White.

m Even though the poverty rate for Whites
was lower than that of the other groups,
the majority of the poor persons in 1990
were White (66.5 percent).

® Blacks constituted 29.3 percent of all
persons below the poverty level.

@ ) The remaining 4.2 percent were persons
of “other” races. Most of this group
were Asians or Pacific Islanders who,
combined, represented 2.6 percent of
the Nation's poor.