Additional copies of this report ...

can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Write to

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield; VA 22161

Please include the title in your order/and enclose check or money order, payable

to NTIS. For faster service, call the NTIS order desk at 703-487-4650 and charge

your purchase to your Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or NTIS Deposit Account Indicate whether you want your copies on paper ($12.95 each) or microfiche ($6.95 each); add $3 handling charge for each order. NTIS will ship rush orders within 24 hours for an extra $10; charge your rush order by calling

800-336-4700.

The Economic Research Service has no copies for free mailing.
Transfer Payments and Investment Income in the Nonmetro United States. By

Susan E. Bentley, Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural Development Research Report

No. 71.

Abstract

Transfer payments and investment income—termed unearned income—accounted

for almost 40 percent, $3,580, of total personal income in the nonmetro United

States in 1983, up from just over 20 percent in 1969. Retirees received most transfer payments from public retirement programs like Social Security and medicare.

Most investment income came from interest rather than dividends or rent.

Unearned income represented a greater share of total personal income in nonmetro counties than metro counties, reflecting the lower incomes of rural

residents. High inflation during the late seventies and early eighties was a major

factor in the growth in transfer payments, many of which are indexed to the cost of

living. Record high interest rates led to the dramatic growth in investment income.

This report examines the various forms of unearned income and relates them to

personal income.

Keywords: Transfer payments, investment income, personal income, nonmetro

areas.

Washington, DC 20005-4788 June 1988

iif
Contents

Page

Summary ..........^................................... ....^....*...... v

Glossary...........•..•., vi

Introduction 1

Data and Methodology 1

Geographic Distribution of Unearned Income, 1983 3

Variation in Composition 3

Variation in Level 4

Variation by State 5

Growth of Unearned Income...................... 7

Growth ofTransfer Payments....... 7

Growth of Investment Income............. ......>...... 10

Growth of Personal Income^...,........................... 10

Implications..... 11

References. 12

Appendix A: Growth of Unearned Income by Nonmetro Region 13

Appendix B: Transfer and Investment Income by State.. 13

ÎV
Summary

Transfer payments and investment income—termed uneamed income—accounted

for almost 40 percent, $3,580, of total personal income in the nonmetro United

States in 1983, up from just over 20 percent in 1969. Retirees received most transfer payments from public retirement programs like Social Security and medicare.

Most investment income came from interest rather than dividends or rent.

Unearned income represented a greater share of total personal income in nonmetro counties than metro counties, reflecting the lower incomes of rural

residents. High inflation during the late seventies and early eighties was a major

factor in the growth in transfer payments, many of which are indexed to the cost of

living. Record high interest rates led to the dramatic growth in investment income.

This report examines the various forms of unearned income and relates them to

total personal income.

Transfer payments are cash or goods received largely from government programs

like Social Security, medicare, and food stamps. Most transfer payments received

by nonmetro residents in 1983 were retirement-related, although transfers providing income maintenance benefits, such as food stamps and unemployment compensation, and veterans' and military benefits also accounted for significant shares

of personal income.

Unearned income has not always played such an important role in rural America.

Transfer payments increased steadily as programs were initiated and enlarged and

as participation rose during the seventies. Investment earnings increased dramatically in the late seventies and early eighties when inflation increased the value of

assets and the real interest rate increased to historically high levels. Unearned income also contributed significantly to the growth in total personal income during

1969-83.

The fastest growing component of transfer payments to nonmetro residents was

unemployment compensation, growing nominally from almost $500 million in

1969 to $6.5 billion in 1983. The number of initial claims nationwide rose from

16 million in 1970 to more than 23 million in 1983. Most of the growth in transfer payments to rural residents—more than 70 percent—was related to retirement

programs. Income maintenance payments accounted for less than 9 percent of the

growth over the study period, contrary to the frequent complaint that welfare is

largely responsible for gross increases in government spending.

Investment income increased by almost $87 billion in nonmetro America during

1969-83. More than 80 percent of that growth was because of increased interest

earnings.

Per capita unearned income averaged $3,985 in metro counties in 1983,

compared with $3,580 in nonmetro counties. But, unearned income was

38.9 percent of total personal income in nonmetro counties, compared with

32 percent in metro counties. Total personal income was $9,195 per capita in

nonmetro counties, up 20 percent from 1969, and $12,466 in metro counties, up

15 percent.
Glossary

Business transfers to individuals. Transfer payments including personal injury payments to persons other than employees, cash prizes, unrecovered thefts of cash

and capital assets, and consumer bad debts.

Dividends. Payments in cash or other assets by corporations to noncorporate stockholder who reside in the United States.

Earned income (earnings). Personal income that is the sum of wages and salaries,

other labor income, and proprietors' income.

General retirement and disability insurance. Transfer payments including Social

Security, medicare, and workers' compensation payments that are targeted at the

general population and cover most of the work force in case of injury, disability, or

retirement.

Income maintenance. Transfer payments that include programs such as supplemental security income <SSI), aid to families with dependent children (AFDC),

general assistance, and food stamps. These programs are targeted toward the lowincome population and do not require past work experience to apply for benefits.

The Federal SSI Program provides a minimum cash income to needy disabled,

blind, and aged.persons. The Federal Food Stamp Program provides vouchers for

food to poor households nationwide. The AFDC Program is administered by State

governments, and it generally provides cash assistance to families with small children. Most States and some local governments also provide aid to the very needy

through general assistance, which may be distributed in cash or services.

Interest. Monetary interest and imputed interest. Part of imputed interest is the

value of services provided by financial institutions to depositors without charge.

Imputation also refers to the earned interest credited to life insurance or private

noninsured pension funds on behalf of the future recipient.

Investment income. Dividends, interest, and rent.

Metro areas. Metro areas are defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as one or more counties with a central place or urban core of 50,000

or more residents and a total population of 100,000 or more. The metro counties

used in this study were designated by OMB as of 1983.

Miscellaneous transfer payments. Federal education and training assistance payments, Bureau of Indian Affairs payments, compensation of victims of crimes, and

other special payments to individuals.

Nonmetro areas. Counties that are not part of a metro area. (See Metro areas.)

Personal income. Total income received from wages and salaries, other labor income, proprietors' income, investment income, and transfer payments.

Rent. Monetary rent, imputed rent, and royalty income. Monetary rent is the income of persons from the rental of real property, except the income of persons primarily engaged in the real estate business. Imputed rent is the estimated net rental

income of owner-occtipants of nonfarm dwellings. Royalty income is received by

persons from patents, copyrights, and rights to natural resources.

Specific retirement and disability insurance. Transfer payments for particular

groups of employees covered by special public retirement programs like the railroad retirement and disability program. Federal civilian employee retirement program, and State and local government employee program«;

VI
Transfer payments. Cash or goods received largely from government programs, for

which no work was done in the current time period.

Transfers to nonprofit institutions. Gifts by the business sector and payments

made by Federal, State, and local governments. For example, nonprofit institutions

may receive payments from State and local governments for foster home care or

educational assistance.

Unearned income. Personal income from sources other than earned income, specifically investment income and transfer payments. (See Earned income.)

Unemployment insurance. Transfer payments to workers when they lose their jobs.

Most unemployment benefits are paid by State-administered unemployment programs, although the Federal Government administers programs for veterans, railroad workers, and Federal Government employees.

Veterans' benefit payments. Veterans' pensions and military retirement

benefits.

VII
Transfer Payments and Investment

Income m the Nonmetro United States

Susan E. Bentley*

Introduction

During the seventies and early eighties, the composition

of personal income in nonmetro America shifted dramatically. In 1969, transfer payments and investment

income accounted for 22.9 percent of total personal

income. By 1983, these types of income accounted for

38.9 percent of total personal income, $3,580 per nonmetro resident. Transfer payments are cash or goods received largely from government programs like Social

Security, medicare, and food stamps. Investment income

includes interest, dividends, and rent. The term "unearned income" refers to these types of income, as opposed to income from wages and salaries, and is not

meant to be derogatory.

Because unearned income does not require physical

movement between home and a workplace, unearned

income can be generated in one place and received in

another (/).^ Retirees, for example, can receive their Social Security and medicare benefits in any area of the

country, regardless of where they earned their benefits.

Likewise, residents of the most remote area can invest

their savings anywhere, yet receive (and spend) their

investment earnings where they live. This situation may

have enhanced the ability of some people to live in rural

areas.

Unearned income contributed significantly to the

growth of total personal income between 1969 and

1983 in the nonmetro United States. Almost 23 percent

of total income growth was attributable to the growth in

investment income, and another 21 percent to the increase in transfer payment income.

In this report, I specifically describe the composition

and geographic distribution of unearned income in the

nonmetro United States for 1983. This report also examines the growth in unearned income and its major components in metro and nonmetro counties of the United

States for 1969-83.2

Data and Methodology

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce, provided the data in this report.

* The author is a sociologist in the Agriculture and Rural Economy

Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

^ Italicized numbers in parentheses refer to literature cited at the

end of this report.

^ For more detailed information on the growth of transfer payments

through 1977, see an earlier report by Hoppe and Saupe (5).

BEA's annual personal income data provide estimates of

the total personal income received by the residents of

each State and county. These estimates include detailed

information on the sources of income, such as transfer

payments and dividends, interest, and rent.

Transfer payment income consists of income from more

than 50 sources and is generally estimated on the basis

of directly reported data from administrative records of

the individual programs at the county level. When

county records are not available. State or national data

are allocated to the county level on the basis of indirect

indicators. For example, information is available on payments to veterans under various programs at the national

and State levels, but in many cases the information is

not tabulated at the county level. When the county data

are not available, BEA allocates the State totals to counties on the basis of the counties' veteran populations.

Seventy-five percent of transfer payment income is measured on the basis of directly reported data (10).

I have categorized transfer payment programs into eight

major groups for this report, based on the source of the

benefits and the payment recipients. For example, programs which are targeted toward the general population

to protect against income loss because of injury, disability, or retirement constitute one type of transfer payment:

general retirement and disability payments. Benefit programs for veterans and military personnel are another

type, as are programs designed to provide income to the

needy.^ Business transfer payments, which are transfers

from businesses to individuals, are also a separate category. These transfers include personal injury payments to

persons other than employees, cash prizes, unrecovered

thefts, and consumer bad debts. The specific transfer

programs on which data are collected by BEA in the

local area income files are listed by category in table 1."^

Investment income consists of only three major items:

dividends, interest, and rent. Most investment income is

monetary. BEA estimates investment income on the basis

of the Internal Revenue Service (1RS) Individual Master

(File tabulations and 1RS Statistics of/ncometabulations.

When county-level data are not available, BEA allocates

State data to the county level on the basis of other

indicators.

^ Medicaid benefits, which provide medical assistance to the poor,

are not included in the BEA local area data.

"* For more information on BEA data and collection methods, see

(70).
Table 1—Components of transfer payment income^ 1983

General retirement and disability insurance:

Old age, survivors, and disability insurance payments (Social Security)

Medicare insurance payments

Workers' compensation payments (Federal and State)

Specific retirement and disability insurance:

Railroad retirement and disability payments

Federal civilian employee retirement payments

State and local government employee retirement payments

Temporary disability payments, Panama Canal construction annuity payments, and black lung payments

Unemployment insurance:

State unemployment insurance compensation

Unemployment compensation for federal civilian employees

Unemployment compensation for railroad employees

Unemployment compensation for veterans

Trade readjustment allowance payments, Redwood Park benefit payments, and public service employment benefit payments

Income maintenance:

Supplemental security income payments

Aid to families with dependent children

General assistance

Food stamps

Emergency assistance, foster home care payments, earned income tax credits, and energy assistance

Veterans' benefit payments:

Veterans'pensions and compensation and military retirement

Educational assistance to veterans, dependents, and survivors (veterans' readjustment benefit payments and educational assistance

to spouses and children of disabled or deceased veterans)

Veterans' I ife insuranee benefit payments

Payments to paraplegics, payments for autos and conveyances for disabled veterans, veterans' aid, and veterans' bonuses

Business transfers to individuals

Transfers to nonprofit institutions:

Federal Government payments

State and local payments (foster home care supervised by private agencies. State and local government educational assistance payments to nonprofit institutions, and other State and local government payments to nonprofit institutions)

Business payments

Miscellaneous other transfer payments:

Federal education and training assistance payments

Bureau of Indian Affairs payments, education exchange payments, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act payments, compensation

of survivors of pubiic safety officers, compensation of victims of crime, and other special payments to individuals

Some investment income is imputed. Most imputed interest, for example, is the value of services provided by

financial institutions to depositors without charge. Depositors receive part of their interest income in the form

of services, like check clearing/provided by banks. Imputation also refers to the credit given to life insurance

or private noninsured pension funds on behalf of the

future recipient. State estimates of imputed interest are

made by source, such as commercial banks, credit

unions, or life insurance companies, summed to the

State level and distributed to the county level in proportion to monetary interest.

Imputed rent is the estimated net income homeowners

would receive if they rented their homes to someone

else. Homeowners earn this amount by buying rather

than renting.^ Imputed rent for most owner-occupied

dwellings is estimated at the State level and allocated to

^ imputed rent for farm dwellings is included in farm proprietors'

income ilCf),

counties by the estimated market value of owneroccupied, single-family ndnfarm homes. The estimated

market value is derived for each county based on ttíe

number of dwellings and the median value reported in

the 1980 Census of Housing ( W).

Individuals directly receive most transfer payments and

investment income. However, some transfer payments

are received by nonprofit institutions; for example, to

care for foster children. These transfers accounted for

2.5 percent of all transfer payments in 1983, or 0.37

forcent of total personal income. Investment income

received on behalf of individuals (interest paid into a

trust fund, for example) accounted for 11.7, 21.8, and

3.1 percent of dividend, interest, and rental income.

This type of investment income amounted to 3.4 percent of total U.S. personal income in 1983 ( 7 7).

I have separated counties into metro and nonmetro categories as defined by the Office of Management and

Budget in 1983, and I have summed county data into
metro and nonmetro portions of States. I calculated the

data for nonmetro portions of States by summing nonmetro county data to nonmetro State totals. Per capita

transfer payments, for example, were calculated by summing all transfer payment income in the nonmetro counties of a State and dividing that total by the sum of all

nonmetro county populations. The same has been done

for total personal income and population.

Per capita income figures, which allow us to examine

the differences in income per person over time and between metro and nonmetro areas, were calculated by

dividing the income of an area by its population. The

population of an area was the Census population figure

for July 1 of each year.

Geographic Distribution of Unearned

Income, 1983

Unearned income can vary geographically in composition or in amount. Variations in composition, particularly of transfer payments, are relatively minor. However,

there are some more important variations in the size of

unearned income, measured per capita or as a percentage of total personal income.

Variation in Composition

The composition of transfer payment dollars may vary

because of differences in the distribution of the target

population, funding levels, and program specifications.

This section first examines the variation in the composition of transfer payments, and then investment income,

between the metro and nonmetro areas of the United

States and among the nonmetro regions.^

General retirement and disability income is a larger

component of transfer payment income in nonmetro

than metro areas, but specific retirement programs directed toward particular groups of employees, such as

Federal civilian employee retirement and railroad retirement, account for more transfer payment income in metro than in nonmetro areas (table 2). Combined, these

retirement transfers account for almost 70 percent of

total transfer income in both metro and nonmetro areas.

Despite the diversity of transfer payments and their

sources, there was little difference in composition between the metro and nonmetro areas in 1983.

Retirement-related transfer payments were the largest

^ Census regions and their component States are Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska,

Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New

Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. New Jersey and

the District of Columbia are not included in nonmetro regions because

they do not have any nonmetro counties.

component of transfer income, accounting for 68.4 percent of all transfer payments in metro areas and 69.4

percent in nonmetro areas. When ranked in order of

importance in metro and nonmetro areas, all transfer

payment categories received the same ranking in both

areas.

General retirement and disability income was the largest

component of transfer income in all nonmetro regions,

ranging from 52.5 percent of total transfer income in the

West to 63.1 percent of the total in the Midwest. General retirement transfer income was a smaller component of transfer income in the nonmetro West than in

other regions, but specific retirement was a larger component, accounting for 13.6 percent of all transfer income in that region.

Unemployment, income maintenance, and veterans'

benefits each generally account for about 6-9 percent of

total transfer income in the nonmetro regions, except

that income maintenance transfers and veterans' benefits

account for 10.7 and 10 percent of all transfer income

in the nonmetro South.

Interest income was the major component of investment

income in both the nonmetro and metro counties in

1983 (table 3). Rental income accounted for 12.2 perTable 2—Components of transfer payment income, 1983

Metro. Nonmetro

Component total Total Northeast Midwest South West

Percentage of total transfer payments

General

retirement 55.0 58.5 57.8 63.1 57.2 52.5

Specific

retirement 13.4 10.9 13.0 9.4 10.5 13.6

Unemployment

insurance 6.4 6.9 7.5 7.5 5.8 8.2

income

maintenance 9.9 9.0 7.8 7.3 10.7 8.7

Veterans'

benefits 8.1 8.1 6.6 5.9 10.0 8.6

Business

transfers 3.3 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.9

Transfers to

nonprofits 2.5 2.3 3.1 2.4 2.1 2.4

Miscellaneous

other 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 .9 3.1

Table 3—Components of investment income, 1983

Metro Nonmetro

Component total Total Northeast Midwest South West

Percentage of total investment income

Dividends 15.1 9.2 16.7 7.5 8.8 9.4

Interest 73.5 78.6 74.5 79.4 79.4 77.2

Rent 11.4 12.2 8.8 13.1 11.8 13.4
cent of total investment income in nonmetro counties,

compared with 11.4 percent in metro counties. Dividend income accounted for only 9.2 percent of the nonmetro investment income, compared with 15.1 percent

of metro investment income.

investment income was fairly consistently distributed

across the three components (dividends, interest, and

rent) within each nonmetro region, except for the nonmetro Northeast. Dividend income in that region accounted for 16.7 percent of investment income, and rent

only 8.8 percent. This distribution pattern is more similar to the metro than nonmetro pattern.

Variation in Level

Nonmetro counties, as a whole, received $3,580 per

capita in transfer and investment income, about $400

less than the $3,985 received per capita by metro counties (table 4). However, nonmetro counties were more

dependent on unearned income than metro counties.

Metro counties also had a significantly higher per capita

total personal income than nonmetro counties.

Among nonmetro counties, the amount and importance

of unearned income varied considerably. Unearned income as a share of total personal income in nonmetro

counties was lowest in the West and highest in the Midwest. The Midwest also had the highest per capita

amount of unearned income, and the West had the

highest total personal income. The nonmetro South received the least amount of unearned income per capita,

$3,222, but, because of its relatively low income, that

accounted for 37.8 percent of its total personal income.

Investment income was higher per capita and a more

important component of total personal income than

transfer payments in the nonmetro United States. The

Table 4—Level and importance of unearned income, 1983

Nonmetro

Item Metro Total Northeast Midwest South West

Dollars per capita

Total

personal

income 12,466 9,195 9,810 9,636 8,536 9,857

Unearned

income 3,985 3,580 3,770 3,975 3,222 3,701

Transfer

payments 1,739 1,703 1,910 1,732 1,637 1,703

Investment

income 2,246 1,877 1,860 2,243 1,585 1,998

1Percentage of total personal income

Unearned

income 32.0 38.9 38.4 41.3 37.8 37.6

Transfer

payments 14.0 18.5 19.5 18.0 19.2 17.3

Investment

income 18.0 20.4 18.9 23.3 18.6 20.3

regional data reveal, however, that transfer payments

were higher per capita and as a proportion of total income than investment income in certain areas, such as

the nonmetro Northeast and South. In the Northeast,

transfer payments were particularly high, whereas in the

South, which also had the lowest per capita transfer income, investment income was particularly low.

Differences between regions reflect variation in the composition of transfer payment income, the number and

proportion of recipients, and the level of transfer payment benefits.^ Total per capita transfer payments did

not vary substantially among nonmetro regions, but specific components varied considerably (fig. 1).

General retirement and disability benefits, for example,

were 57.8 percent and 57.2 percent of total transfer payments in the nonmetro Northeast and South. However,

per capita general retirement benefits were $1,104 in

the nonmetro Northeast, compared with $936 in the

nonmetro South.

The variation in general retirement benefits can partially

be explained by the distribution of the elderly. In 1980,

the proportion of the residents over 65 was 13.2 percent

in the nonmetro Northeast and 12.8 percent in the

South (9). The nonmetro Midwest had the largest proportion of its population over 65 years old, 14.1 percent, while the nonmetro West had the smallest, 10.6

percent. The proportion of elderly and per capita retirement transfer payments were not directly correlated,

however, because retirement benefits are partially determined by the worker's past earnings.

^ Differences in per capita transfer payment income between nonmetro and metro counties generally reflect overall regional differences,

ratlier than a metro-nonmetro bias. In the Northeast and West, transfer

payments per capita were higher in the metro counties. However, in

the South and Midwest, per capita transfer payments were higher in

the nonmetro counties. The highest metro-nonmetro difference in per

capita transfer payments was $50,

Figure 1

The structure of transfer payment income

was consistent among regions in 1983,

but dollar amounts varied considerably

Dollars

2.000

1.500 -

1.000

500 -

All otiiers

Veterans'

Income maintenance

Unemployment

Specific retirement

General retirement

Nortrieast Midwest South West
Variation in per capita unemployment benefits reflects

similar factors: the number and proportion of unemployed, the wage history of recipients, the benefit levels

paid by the State unemployment programs, and the duration of unemployment covered by benefits. Per capita

unemployment transfers ranged from $94 in the nonmetro South to $144 in the nonmetro Northeast.

Demographic data partially explain the variation in income

maintenance payments. The nonmetro South had the highest per capita income maintenance benefits ($176), reflecting its 1980 poverty rate, 19.6 percent, which was the

highest regional rate. The nonmetro Northeast, Midwest,

and West had poverty rates of 11, 12, and 13.6 percent,

but per capita maintenance income did not correspond

directly with the poverty rate because of differences in Stateadministered programs (9).

The relative importance of each type of transfer payment

income is similar among regions, but differences in the

actual amounts of income by category were substantial.

These differences reflect demographic characteristics of

the regions, but they also reflect differences in program

structures and residents' willingness to participate.

The amount of income from investments varied among

nonmetro regions, from a high of $2,243 per capita in

the Midwest to $1,585 in the South (fig. 2). Dividends

as a proportion of investment Income were highest in

the Northeast, and dividend income per capita was

highest there ($311). Interest income varied the most

among regions, ranging from $1,258 per capita in the

nonmetro South to $1,780 in the Midwest. Rental income also varied regionally, from $162 per capita in the

nonmetro Northeast to $294 in the Midwest.

Differences in Investment income reflect differences in

the earnings received from property and the value of

property held by nonmetro residents in each region. In

all regions, the amount of income generated from property is substantial and may contribute to inequalities

within each region between those who possess

investment-earning property and those who do not.

Variation by State

The regional figures above obscure variation in

unearned income at the State level. This section

describes the amount and proportion of unearned income received at the State level. Transfer payments

ranged from 11.9 percent of total personal income in

nonmetro Wyoming to 25.3 percent in West Virginia

(fig. 3). The national nonmetro average was 18.5 percent. In 11 States, transfer payments were 20 percent or

more of total personal income in nonmetro areas.

Per capita transfer payments in nonmetro counties

ranged from $1,244 in Utah to $2,431 in Massachusetts

in 1983, with the national average at $1,703 (fig. 4).

Maine, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida,

Arizona, California, and Oregon were above the national

average in both per capita transfer payments and transfer

payments as a portion of total personal income. In these

States, economic and policy changes affecting transfer

payments may significantly affect personal income.

Within each State^ however, the implications differ depending on the composition of transfer payment income

and the total personal income level of the State. In nonmetro Florida, for example, where total personal income

was below the national nonmetro average, retirement

transfer income was a particularly important component

of transfer payments. Therefore, changes in Social Security policy would probably significantly affect nonmetro

Income in that area.

In several other States, the importance of transfer payment income reflected the economic conditions of the

State. Unemployment compensation income and

income maintenance payments were much higher than

average in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In these States, the dependence of the nonmetro

economy on transfer income may be reduced by better

economic conditions.

The reasons that States had different levels of transfer

and personal income are varied and complex. But, transfer income accounted for at least 10 percent of personal

income in the nonmetro counties of all States.

High levels of investment income as a proportion of total nonmetro personal income are concentrated in the

Midwest, upper New England, Florida, and the West

(fig. 5). Investment income accounts for at least 25 percent of total nonmetro personal income in five States:

Massachusetts, Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota, and Nebraska. Changes in economic conditions and investment

opportunities would probably significantly affect the

overall economic condition of those areas.

Figure 2

Most per capita investnient income in all

nonmetro regions in 1983 came from interest

OojJars

2,500

2.000 -

1.500

1.000

500

Northeast Midwest Soutti • West
Figure 3

Transfer payments as a share of total nonmetro personal income ranged from 11.9 percent

In Wyoming to 25.3 percent In West Virginia ^^i^^^^^^^

Alaska 12.6%

Hawaii 16.2%

Nonmetro transfer payments as a share of

total personal income exceeded nonmetro

national average (18 5 percent).

Figure 4

Per capita transfer payments in nonmetro counties ranged from $1,244 in Utah to $2,431

in Massachusetts In 1983

Alaska $1.995

Hawaii $1.629

2 State per capita transfer payments in

nonmetro counties exceeded national

; nonmetro average ($1.703).
Rgure 5

Investment income as a share of total nonmetro personal income ranged from 10.6 percent

in Aiasica to 29.7 percent in Nebrasica in 1983

27.5%

187%

20.6%

17.5%

20.4%

Alaska 10.6%

Hawaii 21.5%

Nonmetro investment income as a share of

total personal income exceeded nonmetro

national average (20.4 percent).

Per capita investment income in tiie nonmetro counties

ranged from $1,213 in Alabama to $3,533 in Massachusetts in 1983 (fig. 6). States with high per capita invest*

ment income also had high proportions of total personal

income from investment income. Investment income

was relatively high and accounted for a large share of

income in many farming States.

Transfer payment income and investment income comprise a large proportion of personal income in many

nonmetro areas. The nonmetro counties of Florida, with

the highest proportion of unearned income, received

48.1 percent of total personal income from unearned

sources in 1983. Similarly, the nonmetro counties of

Massachusetts, Iowa, and Missouri received more than

45 percent of total personal income from transfer and

investment income. Unearned income accounted for

more than 40 percent of total personal income in the

nonmetro counties of 16 States in 1983.

Unearned income has not always played such an important role in nonmetro America. Unearned income grew

significantly during the inflationary early eighties.

Growth of Unearned Income

Unearned income increased both per capita and as a

proportion of total income during 1969-83. Transfer

payments have increased steadily as programs have been

initiated and enlarged and as participation has risen.

Investment earnings grew significantly in the late seventies and early eighties when inflation increased the

value of assets and the real interest rate increased to historically high levels. Both transfer and investment income increased more rapidly in nonmetro than metro

counties.

Growth of Transfer Payments

During 1969-83, transfer payment income increased

from $66.7 billion to $405 billion. During that time,

nonmetro transfer payment income increased 525 percent, from $15.2 biIlion to $95 billion, and metro transfer payment income increased at a slightly slower rate

(503 percent), from $51.4 billion to $310.1 billion.s

Per capita transfer payment income in the United States

steadily increased from $331 in 1969 to $1,731 in

1983. Even after adjustment for inflation, the increase in

real per capita transfer payment income remains high,

over 90 percent. Per capita transfer payments were

® in 1983 constant dollars, which adjust for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), transfer payments increased 124 percent between 1969 and 1983, from $181 billion to $405 billion. Nonmetro

transfer payment income increased slightly more, 129 percent, from

$41 billion to $95 billion. Metro transfer payment income increased

122 percent, to $310 billion in 1983.
Figure 6

Per capita investment income in nonmetro counties ranged from $1,213 in Aiabama to $3,533

in Massachusetts in 1983

Alaska $1,682

Hawaii $2,159

^ Slate per capita investment income in

nonmetro counties exceeded national

nonmetro average ($1,877)

$3,533

slightly smaller in nonmetro areas than metro areas during 1969-83 (fig. 7).9

Despite the similarities in per capita transfer payments

in metro and nonmetro counties during 1969-83, transfer payments have always been a larger proportion of

^ Per capita transfer payments and transfers as a share of income for

1969-83, by nonfnetro region, are shown in app. figs. 1 and 2.

total personal income in nonmetro counties (fig. 8). The

difference reflects the lower income levels in nonmetro

counties. Even small transfer payments can be a large

part of income in lower income areas.

Changes in government transfer payments to individuals

can be attributed to automatic cyclical effects, automatic

inflation effects, and legislation and other factors (3, 4.

Figure 7

Per capita transfer payments rose more tlian

fivefold in both metro and nonmetro counties

during 1969-83

Dollars

1.800

1,500

1989 71 73 75 77 79 81 83

Figure 8

Transfers have remained a more important

part of total personai Income in nonmetro

counties than in metro counties

Percent

20

18

16

14

12

10

^s^'^'fnitwnnn,^^

1969 71 73

Nonmetro

VS^^^^

k^^^*'

/ '•""""".„, /

J^ ""/iimmr>

Metro

75 77 79

\: I,

81 83
Automatic cyclical effects are the result of changes in

several transfer payment programs, such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and veterans' readjustment benefits, in response to changes in the

unemployment rate. As the unemployment rate changes,

so does the number of beneficiaries or the payments per

beneficiary in these programs. As the unemployment

rate increased during the 1974-75, 1980, and 1981-82

recessions, so did transfer payments. Unemployed workers and their families apply for programs like food

stamps and unemployment compensation to tide them

over. People also tend to retire at a younger age during

recessions and collect Social Security earlier than they

would have normally. Cycle-related transfer payments

also decreased between and after those recessions as the

unemployment rate declined (4).

Automatic inflation effects occur as transfer payments

respond to changes in the general level of prices. Programs which are linked by legislation to changes in a

price index include Social Security; railroad, military,

and Federal retirement; food stamps; and supplemental

security income (SSI). Medicare benefits are not legislatively linked to a price index, but change as the cost of

medical care changes. Likewise, as inflation increases

wages, unemployment benefits, which are based on

earnings, also increase. Inflation effects are generally

cumulative, and present benefit levels reflect both recent

and past adjustments to price indexes, inflation-induced

changes in transfer payments have occurred continuously during the seventies and eighties, reflecting rising

prices during that period.

Changes in transfer payments due to legislation were

especially important in the early seventies when Social

Security benefit increases were legislated, rather than

indexed.^0 Other factors affecting transfer payments include demographic changes, noncydical growth in

^^ Indexing of Social Security benefits began in 1975.

wages, and the willingness of beneficiaries to apply for

programs. Much of the growth in-Social Security and

medicare, for example, can be attributed to growth in

the population over 62 years old. Forty-eight percent of

the total change in Federal transfer payments to individuals during 1970-81 was related to automatic inflation

effects, 6 percent to automatic cyclical effects, and 47

percent to legislation and other factors (3, p. 26).

Another way to analyze the growth of transfer payments

is to look at each program's contribution to increases.

The increase in general retirement payments (from $8.3

billion to $55.5 billion) accounted for 59.3 percent of

the growth of transfer payment income in the nonmetro

United States (table 5). General retirement's contribution

to transfer payment growth ranged from 63.8 percent in

the Midwest to 53.1 percent in the West.

Since 1969, new income maintenance programs have

been introduced, and both new and established programs expanded. For example, the Food Stamp Program,

enacted in 1964, was expanded to a nationwide program in 19 74. In 1979, the cash purchase requ i rement

was dropped, increasing accessibility to the poor. However, income maintenance transfers accounted for only 9

percent of the total growth in transfer payments, contrary to the common belief that welfare is largely responsible for gross increases in government spending.

The fastest growing component of transfer income in the

nonmetro United States during 1969-83 was unemployment compensation, which grew from almost $500 million to $6.5 billion. In 1970, there were 16 million initial claims for unemployment insurance nationwide; in

1983, there were over 23 million (72). Furthermore, the

wages on which benefits were based had risen. Because

unemployment compensation is not a large portion of

total transfer income, however, the growth in unemployment insurance accounted for only 7.6 percent of total

transfer income growth.

Table 5—Growth in transfer payments by component, 1969-83

Nonmetro

Mptrn

Item total Total Northeast Midwest South West

Billion dollars

1983 total 310.1 94.9 10.7 30.1 40.6 13.5

1969 total 51.4 15.2 1.8 5.3 6.1 1.9

Growth 258.7 79.6 8.8 24.8

Percentage of total growth

34.4 11.5

General retirement 56.1 59.3 58.8 63.8 58.2 53.1

Specific retirement 13.6 11.1 13.0 9.4 11.0 13.9

Unemployment insurance 7.0 7.6 8.1 8.4 6.4 8.8

income maintenance 9.6 8.9 8.1 7.5 10.3 8.4

Veterans' benefits 7.0 6.9 5.4 4.6 8.8 7.6

Business transfers 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.8

Transfers to nonprofits 2.1 1.9 2.5 2.0 1.7 2.1

Miscellaneous transfers 1.6 1.6 1.5 1:6 1.0 3.3
Transfer payments which contributed significantly to total transfer income growth iñ particular regions include

specific retirement in the West (13.9 percent) and Northeast (13 percent) and Jncome maintenance transfer payments in the South (10.3 percent).

Growth of Investment Income

Total investment income grew rapidly during l%9-83,

especially during the late seventies and early eighties, in

nonmetro counties, investment income increased 493

percent from $17.6 billion in 1969 to $104.5 billion in

1983. Investment income in metro counties increased

369 percent, from $85.5 billion to $400.4 bilñon^ Per

capita investment income grew at slightly lower rates

(fig. 9).

Interest income, the main component of investment income growth, can increase for two reasons: increases in

holdings of interest-bearing assets and increases in the

interest rate earned on these assets. The sharp increase

in interest rates during the late seventies and early eigh^

ies was the primary cause of pemonal interest income

growth. In the late seventies and early eighties, both

nominal and real interest rates rose rapidly. The prime

rate increased from 7.91 percent in 1970 to a high of

18.87 percent in 1981 ( 12, p. 505>. Investors also

shifted their portfolios toward higher yielding assets,

making the average interest rate even higher (Ô).

Per capita investment income was consistently lower in

nonmetro than metro areas, and by 1983, the absolute

difference widened (fig. 9).iV1n relative terms^ however,

per capita investment income in nonmetro areas was

equal to 84 percent of the per capita investment income

in metro areas in 1983, compared with on^ly 67 percent

in 1969.

In 1969, investment income accounted for 13.2 percent

of nonmetro total personal income and 13.9 percent of

metro total personal income. By 1983, investment income accounted for 20.4 percent of nonmetro total personal income and 18 percent of metro total personal

income. Throughout the early seventies, investment income remained under 15 percent of personal income,

but grew sharply during 1978-82 (fig. 10).

Between 1969 and 1983^ investment income increased

by almost $87 billion in nonmetro America (table 6).

Growth in interest income accounted for more than 75

percent of the growth in investment income in both metro and nonmetro counties.

The relative importance of each category of investment

income to overall growth was similar in the nonmetro

Midwest, West, and South, approximating the national

nonmetro average. In the Northeast, however, dividend

income accounted for amuch larger share of total investment income growth than the nonmetro average.

Growth of Personal Income

Unearned income in the United States contributed significantly to the overall growth in total personal income

during 1969-83 (table 7). Personal income (in nominal

dollars) increased 266 percent over that period.^^

In nonmetro America, however, unearned income was

an even more important factor in total personal income

See app. figs. 3 and 4 for regional data on investnnent ineome.

^^ In 1983 constant dollars, which adjust for inflation using the Consumer Price index (CPI), U.S. per capita personal income increased

15.8 percent during 1969-83, from $10,093 to $11 ;687. Nonmetro

per capita personal income increased 20.2 percent, from $7,648 to

$9,195; metro per capita personal income increased 15 percent, from

$10,843 to $12,466. Although table 7 shows nominal values, because

all components of income would be adjusted by the same CPI, the

relative contributions of earnings, investment, and transfer income

would remain the same even after adjusting for inflation.

Figure 9

Per capita investment incerme grewr slightly

faster in nonmetro counties than in métro

counties

Dollars

2400

.^^.^^'»'*"'***'''' Nonmetro

.nu«r"r'""r I

Fjgure 10

Investment income has become a larger

share of total personal income in nonmetro

counties than in metro oounties

Percent

22

20

18

16

14

12

-

Nonmetro;^/'

-

^^^ ^

^^^^^...^^^J^

1 1 i II

Metro

1 II 1 \ r 1 1—

1969 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 1969 71 73 75 n 79 81 83

10
Table 6—Growth in components of investment income, 1969-83

Non metro

Item total Total Northeast Midwest South West

Billion dollars

1983 total 400.4 104.5 10.4 39.0 39.3 15.8

1969 total 85.5 17.6 2.2 7.5 5.6 2.3

Growth 314.9 86.9 8.2 31.5

Percentage oftotaJ growth

33.7 13.5

Dividends 12.9 8.2 14.3 6.8 7.9 8.7

Interest 77.^ 82.0 78.0 83.8 82.4 79.4

Rent 9.6 9.8 7J 9.4 9.7 11.9

Table 7—Components of personal income growth, 1969-83

Item U.S. total Metro Nonmetro

Billion dollars

1983 total personal income

1969 total personal income

Growth

2,734.5 2,222.3 512.2

747.5 614.4 133.2

1,986.9 1,607.9 379.0

Percentage of total growth

Earnings

Investment income

Transfer income

62.8 64.3 56.1

20.2 19.6 22.9

17.0 16.1 21.0

growth, contributing 43.9 percent of overall growth. The

growth in investment income was slightly more important than the growth in transfer income in its contribution to overall personal income growth. Jn contrast, the

growth in investment and transfer income contributed

35.7 percent of total personal income growth in metro

areas.

Because investment income grew considerably during a

period of high inflation and high real interest rates, such

high rates of investment income growth probably could

not continue over long periods of time. Consequently,

the growth of these sources of personal income observed during 1969-83 in nonmetro America may not

be sustainable over the long run.

Implications

Transfer payments and investment income, $3,580 per

person, accounted for almost 40 percent of personal

income in the nonmetro United States in 1983. Metro

counties received more unearned income per capita, but

unearned income was a more important component of

total personal income in the nonmetro United States.

Transfer payments provided an important source of personal income in many nonmetro counties because of

their magnitude. But small per capita transfer payments

also accounted for a vital portion of income in lower

income counties. These transfer payments were generally targeted at populations in need of income, specifically the elderly, the disabled, and the poon Public |

assistance payments did not account for a large propos

tion of transfer payment income, but public assistance

payments helped the neediest residents of nonmetro

communities.

Most transfer income is retiremen^related and recei\èd

through Social Security medicare, and specific Government retirement programs. Retirees also receive investment earnings on the assets accumulated over their lifetimes. This retirement income has been described as a

development tool for rural areas (7). Transfer payment

income may also provide a relatively stable source of

income during variable economic conditions.

Increases in transfer payment and investment income

have contributed significantly to the growth of personal

income in the nonmetro United States. But as investment income increases, income inequality may increase,

as such income accrues to those who have investments.

Because unearned income is so important in rural America, nonmetro communities and residents have a major

interest in policies affecting investment and transfer income (6). Changes in general retirement programs, such

as Social Security and medicare, and in unemployment

compensation programs would significantly affect many

nonmetro counties, where those programs account for a

large portion of personal! ncome. Legislative changes in

tax codes and changes in economic conditions affecting

investments and their earnings would also influence the

composition and growth of personal income in the nonmetro United States.

11
References

(1) Beyers, William B. ''Contemporary Trends in the

Regional Economic Development of the united

Staiesy Professional Geographer, Vol 31/Ho. A

(1979), pp. 34-44.

(2) Carson, Carol S., and George Jaszi. 'The National

Income and Products Accounts of the united

States: An Overview," Survey of Current Business,

Vol. 61, No. 2 (Feb. 1981), pp. 2-34.

(3) Holloway, Thomas M. "Sources of Change in Federal Government Transfer Payments to Persons,

1970-81/' Survey of Current Business, Vol. 62, No.

10(Oct. 1982), pp. 25-32.

(4) and Jane S. Reeb. "Sources of

Change in Federal Transfer Payments to Persons: An

Update," Survey of Current Business,Vol. 66] No. 6

Oune 1986), pp. 21-25.

(5) Hoppe, Robert A., and William E. Saupe. Transfer

Payments in Nonrnefropo//fan /Areas. Staff Report

AGES820827. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv.,

Sept. 1982.

(6) Pulver, Glen C. "Economic Growth in Rural America," New Dimensions in Rural Policy: Building

upon Our Heritage. U.S. Congress, Joint EconomIc

Committee, July 5, 1986.

(7) Summers, Gene F., and Thomas A. Hirschl. "Retirees as a Growth Industry" Rural Development

Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Feb. 1985), pp. 13-16.

(8) Sur^y of Current Business, "Spécial Note: Personal

Interest Income," Vol. 61, No. 9 (Sept. 1981), pp.

4-5,

(9)

(10)

(ÍD

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1980 Census ofPopulation: Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population. Chapter C General Social

and Economic Characteristics, Part 1 United States

Summary, PC80-1-C1. Dec. 1983.

—^ , Bureau of Economic Analysis, ¿oca/

Area Personal Income 1978-83. Vol. A\ Summary,

including Methodology and Classification ofMetropolitan Areas, \ux\e \9B5.

_, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Unpublished worksheets, 1986.

(12) Statistical Abstract of the United

States: 1986. 106th ed., 1985.

12
Appendix A: Growth of Unearned Income by

Nonmetro Region

Growth in transfer payment income per capita was

steady in the nonmetro portions of all regions during

1969-83 (app. fig. 1). Per capita transfer payments remained higiiest in the nonmetro Northeast in relation to

the other regions and lowest in the South during that

period.

Per capita transfer payments increased steadily for that

15 years, but transfer payments as a proportion of total

personal income jumped sharply between 1973 and

1975, declined through 1979, and increased again

through 1983 (app. fig. 2). Since 1971, variation in the

importance of transfer payments among the regions has

become more pronounced. Transfer payments were especially important in the nonmetro portions of the

Northeast and South when measured as a percentage of

personal income.

Investment ineomé per capita also increased between

1969 and 1983, especially in the late seventies and

early eighties (app. fig. 3). During that time, absolute

régional differences became more pronounced, with the

nonmetro South receiving over $650 less per resident

than the nonmetro Midwest in 1983. Investment income

was also more important in the nonmetro Midwest in

1983 than in other regions throughout the time period

(app. fig. 4).

Appendix B: Transfer and Investment

Income by State

This report has examined the growth, composition, and

distribution of transfer payments and investment income

in the nonmetro United States. These tables present the

nonmetro data shown in figures 3 through 6 and metro

data for comparison.

Appendix figure 1

Per capita transfer payment income in

nonmetro counties, by region

Dollars

2.000

1.500 -

1.000 -

500 -

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

Appendix figure 3

Per capita investment income in nonmetro

counties; by region

Dollars

2400

2.000

1.600

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

1969 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 1969 71 73 75 77 79 81 83

Appendix figure 2

Transfer payment income as a proportion

of total personai income in nonmetro

counties, by region

Percent

Appendix figure 4

investment income as a proportion of

total personal income in nonmetro counties,

by region

Percent

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

Northeast

•€outh

1969 71 73 75 77 79 81 83

I I

1969 71 73 75

J_

77 79 81 83

13
Appendix table 1—Per capita transfer payments and transfer payments as a percentage of income for States, by metro and

nonmetro residence, 1983

Metro Nonmetro

Per Share of Per Shareof

Region/State capita personal income capita personal income

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Northeast 1,945 14.8 1,910 19.5

Connecticut 1,677 11.1 1,662 13.1

Maine 1,799 16.7 1,800 19.4

Massachusetts 1,875 14.1 2,431 18.9

New Hampshire 1,403 11.1 1,645 14.6

New Jersey 1,798 12.8 NA NA

New York 2,002 14.9 1,833 19.7

Pennsylvania 2,118 17.9 2,086 22.3

Rhode Island 2,017 1 7.3 1,963 16.5

Vermont 1,309 11.7 1,708 17.8

Midwest 1,710 14.0 1,732 18.0

Illinois 1,743 13.5 1,901 19.1

Indiana 1,483 13.4 1,534 16.2

Iowa 1,576 13.4 1,674 16.9

Kansas 1,543 11.8 1,702 15.3

Michigan 1,839 15.2 1,944 21.6

Minnesota 1,472 11.2 1,675 17.6

Missouri 1,632 13.1 1,780 21.3

Nebraska 1,408 11.6 1,572 15.2

North Dakota 1,300 10.6 1,631 14.4

Ohio 1,863 15.9 1,738 18.5

South Dakota 1,352 11.5 1,539 16.2

Wisconsin 1,682 13.8 1,764 18.4

South 1,587 13.5 1,637 19.2

Alabama 1,696 17.1 1,598 20.0

Arkansas 1,572 15,6 1,757 21.4

Delaware 1,496 11.0 1,703 16.1

District of CoJumbia 3,254 20.8 NA NA

Florida 2,056 17.3 2,113 23.9

Georgia 1,368 11.9 1,477 17.5

Kentucky 1,591 14.0 1,666 21.5

Louisiana 1,442 12.9 1,515 18.4

Maryland 1,794 13.5 1,773 18.3

Mississippi 1,455 15.1 1,599 21,2

North Carolina 1,334 12.2 1,495 17.6

Oklahoma 1,461 12.1 1,733 18.3

South Carolina 1,395 14.1 1,452 17.9

Tennessee 1,507 14.5 1,560 19.8

Texas 1,247 10.3 1,594 16.3

Virginia 1,695 12.7 1,658 18.3

West Virginia 1,953 18.6 2,123 25.3

West 1,753 13.6 1,703 17.3

Alaska 1,797 9.5 1,995 12.6

Arizona 1,653 14.4 1,716 21.3

California 1,822 13.6 2,004 20.0

Colorado 1,467 11.0 1,512 14.4

Hawaii 1,618 12.7 1,629 16.2

Idaho 1,464 12.5 1,443 16.0

Montana 1,576 14.1 1,682 17.6

Nevada 1,699 13.4 1,664 14.5

New Mexico 1,577 14.2 1,452 17.3

Oregon 1,825 16.1 1,868 19.5

Utah 1,211 13.0 1,244 15.5

Washington 1,816 14.6 2,038 18,5

Wyoming 1,232 8.5 1,365 11.9

14
Appendix table 2—Per capita investment income and investment income as a percentage of income for States^ by metro and

nonmetro residence, 1983

Metro Nonmetro

Per Share of Per Share of

Region/State capita personal income capita personal income

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Northeast 2,429 18.4 1,860 19.0

Connecticut 2,988 19.7 2,612 20.6

Maine 1,745 16.2 1,642 17.7

Massachusetts 2,306 17.4 3,533 27.5

New Hampshire 1,921 15.2 2,315 20.6

New Jersey 2,443 17.5 NA NA

New York 2,620 19.5 1,736 18.6

Pennsylvania 2,120 17.9 1,601 17.1

Rhode Island 2,131 18.3 2,221 18.7

Vermont 1,664 14.9 1,970 20.5

Midwest 2,144 17.5 2,243 23.3

Illinois 2,427 18.8 2,561 25.7

Indiana 1,837 16.6 1,945 20.5

Iowa 2,249 19.2 2,904 29.3

Kansas 2,404 18.4 2,660 23.9

Michigan 1,908 15.8 1,694 18.8

Minnesota 2,216 16.8 2,361 24.8

Missouri 2,352 18.9 1,996 23.9

Nebraska 2,167 17.9 3,084 29.7

North Dakota 2,422 19.8 2,959 26.1

Ohio 2,000 17.1 1,729 18.4

South Dakota 2,199 18.7 2,342 24.7

Wisconsin 2,148 17.7 1,959 20.4

South 2,050 17.4 1,585 18.6

Alabama 1,574 15.6 1,213 15.2

Arkansas 1,580 15.7 1,647 20.1

Delaware 2,427 17.8 1,850 17.5

District of Columbia 3,091 19.7 NA NA

Florida 2,844 24.0 2,134 24.2

Georgia 1,643 14.3 1,375 16.3

Kentucky 1,912 16.8 1,296 16.7

Louisiana 1,849 16.6 1,507 18.3

Maryland 2,096 15.8 2,002 20,4

Mississippi 1,417 14.7 1,244 16.5

North Carolina 1,599 14.7 1,367 16.1

Oklahoma 2,090 17.3 2,143 22.6

South Carolina 1,357 13.8 1,244 15.3

Tennessee 1,645 15.8 1,348 17.1

Texas 2,055 16.9 2,389 24.4

Virginia 2,028 15.2 1,639 18.1

West Virginia 1,724 16.4 1,222 14.5

West 2,427 18.8 1,998 20.3

Alaska 2,207 11.6 1,682 10.6

Arizona 2,361 20.5 1,374 17.1

California 2,567 19.1 2,258 22.6

Colorado 2,239 16.8 2,354 22.4

Hawaii 2,208 17.4 2,159 21.5

Idaho 2,154 18.5 1,810 20.0

Montana 2,273 20.3 2,328 24.4

Nevada 2,252 17.8 2,280 19.8

New Mexico 2,049 18.4 1,466 17.4

Oregon 2,209 19.5 1,999 20.9

Utah 1,505 16.2 1,453 18.1

Washington 2,257 18.2 2,377 21.5

Wyoming 3,111 21.5 2,362 20.6

NA = Not applicable.

*U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING Orr ICE :198B-201-039 :8D193/E:RS 15