Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Welfare economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welfare economics is a branch of economics that uses microeconomic techniques to evaluate well-being (welfare) at the aggregate (economy-wide) level. A typical methodology begins with the derivation (or assumption) of a social welfare function, which can then be used to rank economically feasible allocations of resources in terms of the social welfare they entail. Such functions typically include measures of economic efficiency and equity, though more recent attempts to quantify social welfare have included a broader range of measures including economic freedom (as in the capability approach).

The field of welfare economics is associated with two fundamental theorems. The first states that given certain assumptions, competitive markets produce (Pareto) efficient outcomes;[2] it captures the logic of Adam Smith's invisible hand.[3] The second states that given further restrictions, any Pareto efficient outcome can be supported as a competitive market equilibrium.[2] Thus a social planner could use a social welfare function to pick the most equitable efficient outcome, then use lump sum transfers followed by competitive trade to bring it about.[2][4] Because of welfare economics' close ties to social choice theory, Arrow's impossibility theorem is sometimes listed as a third fundamental theorem.[5]

Attempting to apply the principles of welfare economics gives rise to the field of public economics, the study of how government might intervene to improve social welfare. Welfare economics also provides the theoretical foundations for particular instruments of public economics, including cost–benefit analysis, while the combination of welfare economics and insights from behavioral economics has led to the creation of a new subfield, behavioral welfare economics.[6]

Measuring social welfare

Cardinal utility

The early Neoclassical approach was developed by Edgeworth, Sidgwick, Marshall, and Pigou. It assumes the following:
  • Utility is cardinal, that is, scale-measurable by observation or judgment.
  • Preferences are exogenously given and stable.
  • Additional consumption provides smaller and smaller increases in utility (diminishing marginal utility).
  • All individuals have interpersonally commensurable utility functions (an assumption that Edgeworth avoided in his Mathematical Psychics).
With these assumptions, it is possible to construct a social welfare function simply by summing all the individual utility functions. Note that such a measure would still be concerned with the distribution of income (distributive efficiency) but not the distribution of final utilities. In normative terms, such authors were writing in the Benthamite tradition.

Ordinal utility

The New Welfare Economics approach is based on the work of Pareto, Hicks, and Kaldor. It explicitly recognizes the differences between the efficiency aspect of the discipline and the distribution aspect and treats them differently. Questions of efficiency are assessed with criteria such as Pareto efficiency and the Kaldor-Hicks compensation tests, while questions of income distribution are covered in social welfare function specification. Further, efficiency dispenses with cardinal measures of utility, replacing it with ordinal utility, which merely ranks commodity bundles (with an indifference-curve map, for example).

Criteria

Efficiency

Situations are considered to have distributive efficiency when goods are distributed to the people who can gain the most utility from them.

Many economists use Pareto efficiency as their efficiency goal. According to this measure of social welfare, a situation is optimal only if no individuals can be made better off without making someone else worse off.

This ideal state of affairs can only come about if four criteria are met:
  • The marginal rates of substitution in consumption are identical for all consumers. This occurs when no consumer can be made better off without making others worse off.
  • The marginal rate of transformation in production is identical for all products. This occurs when it is impossible to increase the production of any good without reducing the production of other goods.
  • The marginal resource cost is equal to the marginal revenue product for all production processes. This takes place when marginal physical product of a factor must be the same for all firms producing a good.
  • The marginal rates of substitution in consumption are equal to the marginal rates of transformation in production, such as where production processes must match consumer wants.
There are a number of conditions that, most economists agree, may lead to inefficiency. They include:
To determine whether an activity is moving the economy towards Pareto efficiency, two compensation tests have been developed. Any change usually makes some people better off while making others worse off, so these tests ask what would happen if the winners were to compensate the losers. Using the Kaldor criterion, an activity will contribute to Pareto optimality if the maximum amount the gainers are prepared to pay is greater than the minimum amount that the losers are prepared to accept. Under the Hicks criterion, an activity will contribute to Pareto optimality if the maximum amount the losers are prepared to offer to the gainers in order to prevent the change is less than the minimum amount the gainers are prepared to accept as a bribe to forgo the change. The Hicks compensation test is from the losers' point of view, while the Kaldor compensation test is from the gainers' point of view. If both conditions are satisfied, both gainers and losers will agree that the proposed activity will move the economy toward Pareto optimality. This is referred to as Kaldor–Hicks efficiency or the Scitovsky criterion.

Equity

There are many combinations of consumer utility, production mixes, and factor input combinations consistent with efficiency. In fact, there are an infinity of consumption and production equilibria that yield Pareto optimal results. There are as many optima as there are points on the aggregate production–possibility frontier. Hence, Pareto efficiency is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for social welfare. Each Pareto optimum corresponds to a different income distribution in the economy. Some may involve great inequalities of income. So how do we decide which Pareto optimum is most desirable? This decision is made, either tacitly or overtly, when we specify the social welfare function. This function embodies value judgements about interpersonal utility. The social welfare function shows the relative importance of the individuals that comprise society.

A utilitarian welfare function (also called a Benthamite welfare function) sums the utility of each individual in order to obtain society's overall welfare. All people are treated the same, regardless of their initial level of utility. One extra unit of utility for a starving person is not seen to be of any greater value than an extra unit of utility for a millionaire. At the other extreme is the Max-Min, or Rawlsian utility function (Stiglitz, 2000, p102)[incomplete reference]. According to the Max-Min criterion, welfare is maximized when the utility of those society members that have the least is the greatest. No economic activity will increase social welfare unless it improves the position of the society member that is the worst off. Most economists specify social welfare functions that are intermediate between these two extremes.

The social welfare function is typically translated into social indifference curves so that they can be used in the same graphic space as the other functions that they interact with. A utilitarian social indifference curve is linear and downward sloping to the right. The Max-Min social indifference curve takes the shape of two straight lines joined so as they form a 90-degree angle. A social indifference curve drawn from an intermediate social welfare function is a curve that slopes downward to the right.

Social indifference curves small.png

The intermediate form of social indifference curve can be interpreted as showing that as inequality increases, a larger improvement in the utility of relatively rich individuals is needed to compensate for the loss in utility of relatively poor individuals.

A crude social welfare function can be constructed by measuring the subjective dollar value of goods and services distributed to participants in the economy.

Fundamental theorems

The field of welfare economics is associated with two fundamental theorems. The first states that given certain assumptions, competitive markets (price equilibria with transfers, e.g. Walrasian equilibria[3]) produce Pareto efficient outcomes.[2] The assumptions required are generally characterised as "very weak".[7] More specifically, the existence of competitive equilibrium implies both price-taking behaviour and complete markets, but the only additional assumption is the local non-satiation of agents' preferences – that consumers would like, at the margin, to have slightly more of any given good.[3] The first fundamental theorem is said to capture the logic of Adam Smith's invisible hand, though in general there is no reason to suppose that the "best" Pareto efficient point (of which there are a set) will be selected by the market without intervention, only that some such point will be.[3]

The second fundamental theorem states that given further restrictions, any Pareto efficient outcome can be supported as a competitive market equilibrium.[2] These restrictions are stronger than for the first fundamental theorem, with convexity of preferences and production functions a sufficient but not necessary condition.[4][8] A direct consequence of the second theorem is that a benevolent social planner could use a system of lump sum transfers to ensure that the "best" Pareto efficient allocation was supported as a competitive equilibrium for some set of prices.[2][4] More generally, it suggests that redistribution should, if possible, be achieved without affecting prices (which should continue to reflect relative scarcity), thus ensuring that the final (post-trade) result is efficient.[9] Put into practice, such a policy might resemble predistribution.

Because of welfare economics' close ties to social choice theory, Arrow's impossibility theorem is sometimes listed as a third fundamental theorem.[5]

Social welfare maximization

Utility functions can be derived from the points on a contract curve. Numerous utility functions can be derived, one for each point on the production possibility frontier (PQ in the diagram above). A social utility frontier (also called a grand utility frontier) can be obtained from the outer envelope of all these utility functions. Each point on a social utility frontier represents an efficient allocation of an economy's resources; that is, it is a Pareto optimum in factor allocation, in production, in consumption, and in the interaction of production and consumption (supply and demand). In the diagram below, the curve MN is a social utility frontier. Point D corresponds with point C from the earlier diagram. Point D is on the social utility frontier because the marginal rate of substitution at point C is equal to the marginal rate of transformation at point A. Point E corresponds with point B in the previous diagram, and lies inside the social utility frontier (indicating inefficiency) because the MRS at point C is not equal to the MRT at point A.

Social indifference curve diagram.svg

Although all the points on the grand social utility frontier are Pareto efficient, only one point identifies where social welfare is maximized. Such point is called "the point of bliss". This point is Z where the social utility frontier MN is tangent to the highest possible social indifference curve labelled SI.

Criticisms

Some, such as economists in the tradition of the Austrian School, doubt whether a cardinal utility function, or cardinal social welfare function, is of any value. The reason given is that it is difficult to aggregate the utilities of various people that have differing marginal utility of money, such as the wealthy and the poor.

Also, the economists of the Austrian School question the relevance of Pareto optimal allocation considering situations where the framework of means and ends is not perfectly known, since neoclassical theory always assumes that the ends-means framework is perfectly defined.

Some even question the value of ordinal utility functions. They have proposed other means of measuring well-being as an alternative to price indices, willingness to pay functions, and other price-oriented measures.[citation needed] These price-based measures are seen as promoting consumerism and productivism by many.[citation needed] It is possible to do welfare economics without the use of prices; however, this is not always done.

Value assumptions explicit in the social welfare function used and implicit in the efficiency criterion chosen tend to make welfare economics a normative and perhaps subjective field. This can make it controversial.

However, perhaps most significant of all are concerns about the limits of a utilitarian approach to welfare economics. According to this line of argument, utility is not the only thing that matters and so a comprehensive approach to welfare economics should include other factors. The capabilities approach is an attempt to construct a more comprehensive approach to welfare economics, one in which an individual's well-being and agency are evaluated in terms of their capabilities and functionings.

Social programs in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Social Security Administration, created in 1935, was the first major federal welfare agency and continues to be the most prominent.[1]

Social programs in the United States are welfare subsidies designed to meet needs of the American population. Federal and state welfare programs include cash assistance, healthcare and medical provisions, food assistance, housing subsidies, energy and utilities subsidies, education and childcare assistance, and subsidies and assistance for other basic services. Private provisions from employers, either mandated by policy or voluntary, also provide similar social welfare benefits.

The programs vary in eligibility requirements and are provided by various organizations on a federal, state, local and private level. They help to provide food, shelter, education, healthcare and money to U.S. citizens through primary and secondary education, subsidies of college education, unemployment disability insurance, subsidies for eligible low-wage workers, subsidies for housing, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, pensions for eligible persons and health insurance programs that cover public employees. The Social Security system is sometimes considered to be a social aid program and has some characteristics of such programs, but unlike these programs, social security was designed as a self-funded security blanket—so that as the payee pays in (during working years), they are pre-paying for the payments they'll receive back out of the system when they are no longer working. Medicare is another prominent program, among other healthcare provisions such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Congressional funding

Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States, of which half was for medical care and roughly 40% for cash, food and housing assistance. Some of these programs include funding for public schools, job training, SSI benefits and medicaid.[2] As of 2011, the public social spending-to-GDP ratio in the United States was below the OECD average.[3] Roughly half of this welfare assistance, or $462 billion went to families with children, most of which are headed by single parents.[4]

Total Social Security and Medicare expenditures in 2013 were $1.3 trillion, 8.4% of the $16.3 trillion GNP (2013) and 37% of the total Federal expenditure budget of $3.684 trillion.[5][6]

In addition to government expenditures, private welfare spending, i.e. social insurance programs provided to workers by employers,[7] in the United States is estimated to be about 10% of the U.S. GDP or another $1.6 trillion, according to 2013 OECD estimates.[8] In 2001, Jacob Hacker estimated that public and private social welfare expenditures constituted 21% and 13–14% of the United States' GDP respectively. In these estimates of private social welfare expenditures, Hacker included mandatory private provisions (less than 1% of GDP), subsidized and/or regulated private provisions (9–10% of GDP), and purely private provisions (3–4% of GDP).[9]

History

Public Health nursing made available through child welfare services, 1935.

Federal welfare programs

Colonial legislatures and later State governments adopted legislation patterned after the English "poor" laws.[10] Aid to veterans, often free grants of land, and pensions for widows and handicapped veterans, have been offered in all U.S. wars. Following World War I, provisions were made for a full-scale system of hospital and medical care benefits for veterans. By 1929, workers' compensation laws were in effect in all but four states[11]. These state laws made industry and businesses responsible for the costs of compensating workers or their survivors when the worker was injured or killed in connection with his or her job. Retirement programs for mainly State and local government paid teachers, police officers, and fire fighters—date back to the 19th century. All these social programs were far from universal and varied considerably from one state to another.

Prior to the Great Depression the United States had social programs that mostly centered around individual efforts, family efforts, church charities, business workers compensation, life insurance and sick leave programs along with some state tax supported social programs. The misery and poverty of the great depression threatened to overwhelm all these programs. The severe Depression of the 1930s made Federal action necessary[12], as neither the states and the local communities, businesses and industries, nor private charities had the financial resources to cope with the growing need among the American people[13]. Beginning in 1932, the Federal Government first made loans, then grants, to states to pay for direct relief and work relief. After that, special Federal emergency relief like the Civilian Conservation Corps and other public works programs were started.[14] In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration proposed to Congress federal social relief programs and a federally sponsored retirement program. Congress followed by the passage of the 37 page Social Security Act, signed into law August 14, 1935 and "effective" by 1939—just as World War II began. This program was expanded several times over the years.

Economic historians led by Price Fishback have examined the impact of New Deal spending on improving health conditions in the 114 largest cities, 1929–1937. They estimated that every additional $153,000 in relief spending (in 1935 dollars, or $2.2 million in 2016 dollars) was associated with a reduction of one infant death, one suicide, and 2.4 deaths from infectious disease.

War on Poverty and Great Society programs (1960s)

Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government.[17] In 2008, 28.7 percent of the households headed by single women were considered poor.[18]

Welfare reform (1990s)

Before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, welfare assistance was "once considered an open-ended right," but welfare reform converted it "into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs."[19] Prior to reform, states were given "limitless"[19] money by the federal government, increasing per family on welfare, under the 60-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.[20] This gave states no incentive to direct welfare funds to the neediest recipients or to encourage individuals to go off welfare benefits (the state lost federal money when someone left the system).[21] Nationwide, one child in seven received AFDC funds,[20] which mostly went to single mothers.[17]

In 1996, under the Bill Clinton administration, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which gave more control of the welfare system to the states, with basic requirements the states need to meet with regards to welfare services. Still, most states offer basic assistance, such as health care, food assistance, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it,"[17] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[21]

Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[20] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[17][20][22] The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care.[22] The federal government also maintains a contingency $2 billion TANF fund (TANF CF) to assist states that may have rising unemployment.[20] The new TANF program expired on September 30, 2010, on schedule with states drawing down the entire original emergency fund of $5 billion and the contingency fund of $2 billion allocated by ARRA. Reauthorization of TANF was not accomplished in 2011, but TANF block grants were extended as part of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (see Temporary Aid for Needy Families for details).

President Bill Clinton signing welfare reform legislation.

Following these changes, millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),[22] employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.[17] A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.[22] The reforms were "widely applauded"[23] after "bitter protest."[17] The Times called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years."[24] However, more recent studies have found that the reforms increased deep poverty by 130–150%.[25][26]

Critics of the reforms sometimes point out that the massive decrease of people on the welfare rolls during the 1990s wasn't due to a rise in actual gainful employment in this population, but rather, was due almost exclusively to their offloading into workfare, giving them a different classification than classic welfare recipient. The late 1990s were also considered an unusually strong economic time, and critics voiced their concern about what would happen in an economic downturn.[17]

National Review editorialized that the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 will reverse the welfare-to-work provisions that Bill Clinton signed in the 1990s, and will again base federal grants to states on the number of people signed up for welfare rather than at a flat rate.[21] One of the experts who worked on the 1996 bill said that the provisions would lead to the largest one-year increase in welfare spending in American history.[24] The House bill provides $4 billion to pay 80% of states' welfare caseloads.[20] Although each state received $16.5 billion annually from the federal government as welfare rolls dropped, they spent the rest of the block grant on other types of assistance rather than saving it for worse economic times.[19]

Spending on largest Welfare Programs
Federal Spending 2003–2013*[27]

Federal
Programs
Spending
2003*
Spending
2013*
Medicaid Grants to States $201,389 $266,565
Food Stamps (SNAP) 61,717 82,603
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 40,027 55,123
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 38,315 50,544
Housing assistance 37,205 49,739
Child Nutrition Program (CHIP) 13,558 20,842
Support Payments to States, TANF 28,980 20,842
Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP) 5,695 6,671
Low Income Home Energy Assistance 2,542 3,704
Notes:
* Spending in millions of dollars

Timeline

The following is a short timeline of welfare in the United States:[28]

1880s–1890s: Attempts were made to move poor people from work yards to poor houses if they were in search of relief funds.

1893–1894: Attempts were made at the first unemployment payments, but were unsuccessful due to the 1893–1894 recession.

1932: The Great Depression had gotten worse and the first attempts to fund relief failed. The "Emergency Relief Act", which gave local governments $300 million, was passed into law.

1933: In March 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed Congress to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps.

1935: The Social Security Act was passed on June 17, 1935. The bill included direct relief (cash, food stamps, etc.) and changes for unemployment insurance.

1940: Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) was established.

1964: Johnson's War on Poverty is underway, and the Economic Opportunity Act was passed. Commonly known as "the Great Society"

1996: Passed under Clinton, the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" becomes law.

2013: Affordable Care Act goes into effect with large increases in Medicaid and subsidized medical insurance premiums go into effect.

Types

Means-tested

* Spending in millions of dollars

2.3 Trillion Dollar Total of Social Security, Medicare and Means Tested Welfare is low since latest 2013 means tested data not available but 2013, the "real" TOTAL will be higher.

Social Security

The Social Security program mainly refers to the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, and possibly the unemployment insurance program. Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB), also known as Old-age Insurance Benefits, are a form of social insurance payments made by the U.S. Social Security Administration paid based upon the attainment old age (62 or older).

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD or SSDI) is a federal insurance program that provides income supplements to people who are restricted in their ability to be employed because of a notable disability.

Unemployment insurance, also known as unemployment compensation, provides for money, from the United States and the state collected from employers, to workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. The unemployment benefits are run by each state with different state defined criteria for duration, percent of income paid, etc.. Nearly all require the recipient to document their search for employment to continue receiving benefits. Extensions of time for receiving benefits are sometimes offered for extensive work unemployment. These extra benefits are usually in the form of loans from the federal government that have to be repaid by each state.

General welfare

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children.

Healthcare spending

Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by the private sector. Health insurance in the United States is now primarily provided by the government in the public sector, with 60–65% of healthcare provision and spending coming from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration. Having some form of comprehensive health insurance is statutorily compulsory for most people lawfully residing within the US.[30]

Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over; to those who are under 65 and are permanently physically disabled or who have a congenital physical disability; or to those who meet other special criteria like the End Stage Renal Disease Program (ESRD). Medicare in the United States somewhat resembles a single-payer health care system but is not.[why?] Before Medicare, only 51% of people aged 65 and older had health care coverage, and nearly 30% lived below the federal poverty level.

Medicaid is a health program for certain people and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and is managed by the states.[31] People served by Medicaid are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, including low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States.

The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a program administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides matching funds to states for health insurance to families with children.[32] The program was designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid.

The Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services Block Grant (or ADMS Block Grant) is a federal assistance block grant given by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

The Trump administration has decided to cut $9 million in Affordable Care Act subsidies by 2018.[33] This action was taken by use of Executive Order 13813, on October 12, 2017.[34] The initial goal had been for Republicans in Congress to use their majority to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act, but they proved unable to do so[35]; therefore, the Trump administration itself took measures to weaken the program.[36] The healthcare changes are expected to be noticeable by the year 2019.[37]

Education spending

University of California, Berkeley is one of the oldest public universities in the U.S.

Per capita spending on tertiary education is among the highest in the world. Public education is managed by individual states, municipalities and regional school districts. As in all developed countries, primary and secondary education is free, universal and mandatory. Parents do have the option of home-schooling their children, though some states, such as California (until a 2008 legal ruling overturned this requirement[38]), require parents to obtain teaching credentials before doing so. Experimental programs give lower-income parents the option of using government issued vouchers to send their kids to private rather than public schools in some states/regions.

As of 2007, more than 80% of all primary and secondary students were enrolled in public schools, including 75% of those from households with incomes in the top 5%. Public schools commonly offer after-school programs and the government subsidizes private after school programs, such as the Boys & Girls Club. While pre-school education is subsidized as well, through programs such as Head Start, many Americans still find themselves unable to take advantage of them. Some education critics have therefore proposed creating a comprehensive transfer system to make pre-school education universal, pointing out that the financial returns alone would compensate for the cost.

Tertiary education is not free, but is subsidized by individual states and the federal government. Some of the costs at public institutions is carried by the state.

The government also provides grants, scholarships and subsidized loans to most students. Those who do not qualify for any type of aid, can obtain a government guaranteed loan and tuition can often be deducted from the federal income tax. Despite subsidized attendance cost at public institutions and tax deductions, however, tuition costs have risen at three times the rate of median household income since 1982.[39] In fear that many future Americans might be excluded from tertiary education, progressive Democrats have proposed increasing financial aid and subsidizing an increased share of attendance costs. Some Democratic politicians and political groups have also proposed to make public tertiary education free of charge, i.e. subsidizing 100% of attendance cost.

Food assistance

In the U.S., financial assistance for food purchasing for low- and no-income people is provided through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program.[40] This federal aid program is administered by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but benefits are distributed by the individual U.S. states. It is historically and commonly known as the Food Stamp Program, though all legal references to "stamp" and "coupon" have been replaced by "EBT" and "card," referring to the refillable, plastic Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards that replaced the paper "food stamp" coupons. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, the recipients must have incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line, and also own few assets.[41] Since the economic downturn began in 2008, the use of food stamps has increased.[41]

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is a child nutrition program for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five. The eligibility requirement is a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines, but if a person participates in other benefit programs, or has family members who participate in SNAP, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they automatically meet the eligibility requirements.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is a type of United States federal assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to states in order to provide a daily subsidized food service for an estimated 3.2 million children and 112,000 elderly or mentally or physically impaired adults[42] in non-residential, day-care settings.[43]

Public housing

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 created Section 8 housing, the payment of rent assistance to private landlords on behalf of low-income households.

Impact


According to the Congressional Budget Office, social programs significantly raise the standard of living for low-income Americans, particularly the elderly. The poorest 20% of American households earn a before-tax average of only $7,600, less than half of the federal poverty line. Social programs increase such households' before-tax income to $30,500. Social Security and Medicare are responsible for two thirds of that increase.[44]

Political scientist Benjamin Radcliff has argued that more generous social programs produce a higher quality of life for all citizens, rich and poor alike, as such programs not only improve life for those directly receiving benefits (or living in fear of someday needing them, from the prospect of unemployment or illness) but also reduce the social pathologies (such as crime and anomie) that are the result of poverty and insecurity. By creating a society with less poverty and less insecurity, he argues, we move closer to creating a nation of shared prosperity that works to the advantage of all. Thus, his research suggests, life satisfaction (or "happiness") is strongly related to the generosity of the social safety net (what economists often call decommodification), whether looking across the industrial democracies or across the American states.[45]

Cato Institute says: The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work.[46]

Analysis

Household characteristics


Characteristics of Households by Quintile 2010[47]

Household Income
Bracket (%)
0–20 21–40 41–60 61–80 81–100
Earners Per Household 0.4 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.0
Marital Status
Married couples (%) 17.0 35.9 48.8 64.3 78.4
Single Parents or Single (%) 83.0 64.1 51.2 35.7 21.6
Ages of Householders
Under 35 23.3 24 24.5 21.8 14.6
36–64 years 43.6 46.6 55.4 64.3 74.7
65 years + 33.1 29.4 20.1 13.9 10.7
Work Status householders (%)
Worked Full Time (%) 17.4 44.7 61.1 71.5 77.2
Worked Part Time (%) 14.3 13.3 11.1 9.8 9.5
Did Not Work (%) 68.2 42.1 27.8 17.7 13.3
Education of Householders (%)
Less than High School 26.7 16.6 8.8 5.4 2.2
High School or some College 61.2 65.4 62.9 58.5 37.6
Bachelor's degree or Higher 12.1 18.0 28.3 36.1 60.3
Source: U.S. Census Bureau[unreliable source?]
Social programs have been implemented to promote a variety of societal goals, including alleviating the effects of poverty on those earning or receiving low income or encountering serious medical problems, and ensuring retired people have a basic standard of living.

Unlike in Europe, Christian democratic and social democratic theories have not played a major role in shaping welfare policy in the United States.[48] Entitlement programs in the U.S. were virtually non-existent until the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the implementation of the New Deal programs in response to the Great Depression. Between 1932 and 1981, modern American liberalism dominated U.S. economic policy and the entitlements grew along with American middle class wealth.[49]

Eligibility for welfare benefits depends on a variety of factors, including gross and net income, family size, pregnancy, homelessness, unemployment, and serious medical conditions like blindness, kidney failure or AIDS.

Drug testing for applicants

The United States adopted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, which gave individual states the authority to drug test welfare recipients. Drug testing in order for potential recipients to receive welfare has become an increasingly controversial topic. Richard Hudson, a Republican from North Carolina claims he pushes for drug screening as a matter of "moral obligation" and that testing should be enforced as a way for the United States government to discourage drug usage.[50] Others claim that ordering the needy to drug test "stereotypes, stigmatizes, and criminalizes" them without need.[51] States that currently require drug tests to be performed in order to receive public assistance include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah.[52]

Demographics of TANF recipients

A chart showing the overall decline of average monthly TANF (formerly AFDC) benefits per recipient 1962–2006 (in 2006 dollars).[53]

Some have argued that welfare has come to be associated with poverty. Political scientist Martin Gilens argues that blacks have overwhelmingly dominated images of poverty over the last few decades and states that "white Americans with the most exaggerated misunderstandings of the racial composition of the poor are the most likely to oppose welfare".[54] This perception possibly perpetuates negative racial stereotypes and could increase Americans' opposition and racialization of welfare policies.[54]

In FY 2010, African-American families comprised 31.9% of TANF families, white families comprised 31.8%, and 30.0% were Hispanic.[55] Since the implementation of TANF, the percentage of Hispanic families has increased, while the percentages of white and black families have decreased. In FY 1997, African-American families represented 37.3% of TANF recipient families, white families 34.5%, and Hispanic families 22.5%.[56] The population as a whole is composed of 63.7% whites, 16.3% Hispanic, 12.5% African-American, 4.8% Asian and 2.9% other races.[57] TANF programs at a cost of about $20.0 billion (2013) have decreased in use as Earned Income Tax Credits, Medicaid grants, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), child nutrition programs, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), housing assistance, Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP), along with about 70 more programs, have increased to over $700 billion more in 2013.[58]

Costs

The Great Recession made a large impact on welfare spending. In a 2011 article, Forbes reported, "The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is $717 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending of about $210 billion, total welfare spending for 2010 reached over $920 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)"—and increasing fast.[59] The previous decade had seen a 60% decrease in the number of people receiving welfare benefits,[22] beginning with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, but spending did not decrease proportionally during that time period. Combined annual federal and state spending is the equivalent of over $21,000 for every person living below poverty level in America.

Household income in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. real median household income (1984–2016)
 
Map of states by median household income in 2015. Darker blue indicates higher income; the detail is included in the image page.

Household income is an economic measure that can be applied to one household, or aggregated across a large group such as a county, city, or the whole country. It is commonly used by the United States government and private institutions to describe a household's economic status or to track economic trends in the US.

One key measure is the real median level, meaning half of households have income above that level and half below, adjusted for inflation. According to the Census, this measure was $59,039 in 2016, a record high. This was the largest two year percentage increase on record.[1]

The distribution of U.S. household income has become more unequal since around 1980, with the income share received by the top 1% trending upward from around 10% or less over the 1953–1981 period to over 20% by 2007.[2] After falling somewhat due to the Great Recession in 2008 and 2009, inequality rose again during the economic recovery, a typical pattern historically.[3][4]

Definition

A household's income can be calculated various ways but the US Census as of 2009 measured it in the following manner: the income of every resident of that house that is over the age of 15, including wages and salaries, as well as any kind of governmental entitlement such as unemployment insurance, disability payments or child support payments received, along with any personal business, investment, or other recurring sources of income.[5]

The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income.[6] As households tend to share a similar economic context, the use of household income remains among the most widely accepted measures of income. That the size of a household is not commonly taken into account in such measures may distort any analysis of fluctuations within or among the household income categories, and may render direct comparisons between quintiles difficult or even impossible.[7]

Recent trends

U.S. economic growth is not translating into higher median family incomes. Real GDP per household has typically increased since the year 2000, while real median income per household was below 1999 levels until 2016, indicating a trend of greater income inequality.[8]
 
Total compensation's share of GDP has declined by 4.5 percentage points from 1970 to 2016. This implies that the share attributed to capital increased in that period.
 
U.S. real wages (i.e. production) for ordinary (i.e. non-supervisory) workers remain slightly below their 1970s peak.[9]
 
The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016, exceeding any previous year. This was the fourth consecutive year with a statistically significant increase by their measure.[10]

Changes in median income reflect several trends: the aging of the population, changing patterns in work and schooling, and the evolving makeup of the American family, as well as long- and short-term trends in the economy itself. For instance, the retirement of the Baby Boom generation should push down overall median income, as more persons enter lower-income retirement. However, analysis of different working age groups indicate a similar pattern of stagnating median income as well.[11]

Journalist Annie Lowrey wrote in September 2014: "The root causes [of wage stagnation] include technological change, the decline of labor unions, and globalization, economists think, though they disagree sharply on how much to weight each factor. But foreign-produced goods became sharply cheaper, meaning imports climbed and production moved overseas. And computers took over for humans in many manufacturing, clerical, and administrative tasks, eroding middle-class jobs growth and suppressing wages."[12]

Another line of analysis, known as "total compensation," presents a more complete picture of real wages. The Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a study in 2013 which shows that employer contributions to employee healthcare costs went up 78% from 2003 to 2013.[13] The marketplace has made a trade-off: expanding benefits packages vs. increasing wages.

Measured relative to GDP, total compensation and its component wages and salaries have been declining since 1970. This indicates a shift in income from labor (persons who derive income from hourly wages and salaries) to capital (persons who derive income via ownership of businesses, land and assets). This trend is common across the developed world, due in part to globalization.[14] Wages and salaries have fallen from approximately 51% GDP in 1970 to 43% GDP in 2013. Total compensation has fallen from approximately 58% GDP in 1970 to 53% GDP in 2013.[15] However, as indicated by the charts below, household income has still increased significantly since
the late 1970s and early 80s in real terms, partly due to higher individual median wages, and partly due to increased opportunities for women.

According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%.[16] However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth.[17]

Uses

Use of individual household income: The government and organizations may look at one particular household's income to decide if a person is eligible for certain programs, such as nutrition assistance [18] or need-based financial aid,[19] among many others.

Use at the aggregate level: Summaries of household incomes across groups of people - often the entire country - are also studied as part of economic trends like standard of living and distribution of income and wealth. Household income as an economic measure can be represented as a median, a mean, a distribution, and other ways. Household income can be studied across time, region, education level, race/ethnicity, and many other dimensions. As an indicator of economic trends, it may be studied along with related economic measures such as disposable income, debt, household net worth (which includes debt and investments, durable goods like cars and houses), wealth, and employment statistics.

Median inflation-adjusted ("real") household income

Median inflation-adjusted ("real") household income generally increases and decreases with the business cycle, declining in each year during the periods 1979 through 1983, 1990 through 1993, 2000 through 2004 and 2008 through 2012, while rising in each of the intervening years.[16] Extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per person per day before government benefits, more than doubled from 636,000 to 1.46 million households (including 2.8 million children) between 1996 and 2011, with most of this increase occurring between late 2008 and early 2011.[20]
 
US county household median income 2012.

CBO income growth study

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office conducted a study analyzing household income throughout the income distribution, by combining the Census and IRS income data sources. Unlike the Census measure of household income, the CBO showed income before and after taxes, and by also taking into account household size.[21] Also, the CBO definition of income is much broader, and includes in kind transfers as well as all monetary transfers from the government.[21] The Census' official definition of money income excludes food stamps and the EITC, for example, while CBO includes it.

Between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%. This compares with the Census' growth of 10%.[16] However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth.[17]

While median gross household income showed much stronger growth than depicted by the Census, inequality was shown to still have increased. The top 10% saw gross household income grow by 78%, versus 26.5% for the median. The bottom 10%, using the same measure, saw higher growth than the median (40%).[17]

Mean household income

Another common measurement of personal income is the mean household income. Unlike the median household income, which divides all households in two halves, the mean income is the average income earned by American households. In the case of mean income, the income of all households is divided by the number of all households.[22] The mean income is usually more affected by the relatively unequal distribution of income which tilts towards the top.[23] As a result, the mean tends to be higher than the median income, with the top earning households boosting it. Overall, the mean household income in the United States, according to the US Census Bureau 2014 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, was $72,641.[24]

The US Census Bureau also provides a breakdown by self-identified ethnic groups as follows (as of March 2014):

Mean household income by ethnicity[24]
Ethnic category Mean household income
Asian alone $90,752
White alone $79,340
Hispanic or Latino $54,644
Black $49,629

Mean vs. median household income

Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group. The means and medians for households and families are based on all households and families. Means and medians for people are based on people 15 years old and over with income.
— US Census Bureau, Frequently Asked Question, published by First Gov.[22]

Aggregate income distribution

The aggregate income measures the combined income earned by all persons in a particular income group. In 2007, all households in the United States earned roughly $7.723 trillion.[25] One half, 49.98%, of all income in the US was earned by households with an income over $100,000, the top twenty percent. Over one quarter, 28.5%, of all income was earned by the top 8%, those households earning more than $150,000 a year. The top 3.65%, with incomes over $200,000, earned 17.5%. Households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $75,000, 18.2% of households, earned 16.5% of all income. Households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $95,000, 28.1% of households, earned 28.8% of all income. The bottom 10.3% earned 1.06% of all income.

Household income and demographics

Racial and ethnic groups

White Americans made up roughly 75.1% of all people in 2000,[26] 87.93% of all households in the top 5% were headed by a person who identified as being White alone. Only 4.75% of all household in the top 5% were headed by someone who identified as Hispanic or Latino of any race,[27] versus 12.5% of persons identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino in the general population.[26]

Overall, 86.01% of all households in the top two quintiles with upper-middle range incomes of over $55,331 were headed by someone identifying as White alone, while 7.21% were being headed by someone who identified as Hispanic and 7.37% by someone who identified as African American or Black.[27] Overall, households headed by Hispanics and African Americans were underrepresented in the top two quintiles and overrepresented in the bottom two quintiles. Households headed by people who identified as being Asian alone were also overrepresented among the top two quintiles. In the top five percent the percentage of Asians was nearly twice as high as the percentage of Asians among the general population. Whites were relatively even distributed throughout the quintiles only being underrepresented in the lowest quintile and slightly overrepresented in the top quintile and the top five percent.[27]

In terms of race in 2010 data, Asian American households had the highest median household income of $57,518, European-American households ranked second with $48,977, Hispanic or Latino households ranked third with $34,241. African-American or Black households had the lowest median household income of all races with $30,134.

Education and gender

Median annual household income in accordance with the householder's educational attainment. The data only applies to household with a householder over the age of twenty-five.[29]

Household income as well as per capita income in the United States rise significantly as the educational attainment increases.[30] In 2005 graduates with a Master's in Business Administration (MBA) who accepted job offers were expected to earn a base salary of $88,626. They were also expected to receive an "average signing bonus of $17,428."[31]

According to the US Census Bureau persons with doctorates in the United States had an average income of roughly $81,400. The average for an advanced degree was $72,824, with men averaging $90,761 and women averaging $50,756 annually. Year-round full-time workers with a professional degree had an average income of $109,600 while those with a master's degree had an average income of $62,300. Overall, "…[a]verage earnings ranged from $18,900 for high school dropouts to $25,900 for high school graduates, $45,400 for college graduates and $99,300 for workers with professional degrees (M.D., D.P.T., D.P.M., D.O., J.D., Pharm.D., D.D.S., or D.V.M.).[32]

Individuals with graduate degrees have an average per capita income exceeding the median household income of married couple families among the general population ($63,813 annually).[32][33] Higher educational attainment did not, however, help close the income gap between the genders as the life-time earnings for a male with a professional degree were roughly forty percent (39.59%) higher than those of a female with a professional degree. The lifetime earnings gap between males and females was the smallest for those individuals holding an associate degrees with male life-time earnings being 27.77% higher than those of females. While educational attainment did not help reduce the income inequality between men and women, it did increase the earnings potential of individuals of both sexes, enabling many households with one or more graduate degree householders to enter the top household income quintile.[32] These data were not adjusted for preferential differences among men and women whom attend college. For example, men often study fields of engineering while women often pursue social sciences.

Household income also increased significantly with the educational attainment of the householder. The US Census Bureau publishes educational attainment and income data for all households with a householder who was aged twenty-five or older. The biggest income difference was between those with some college education and those who had a Bachelor's degree, with the latter making $23,874 more annually. Income also increased substantially with increased post-secondary education. While the median annual household income for a household with a householder having an associate degree was $51,970, the median annual household income for householders with a bachelor's degree or higher was $73,446. Those with doctorates had the second highest median household with a median of $96,830; $18,289 more than that for those at the master's degree level, but $3,170 lower than the median for households with a professional degree holding householder.[29]
 
Median household income in 2003 dollars according to educational attainment.[29]

The change in median personal and household since 1991 also varied greatly with educational attainment. The following table shows the median household income according to the educational attainment of the householder. All data is in 2003 dollars and only applies to householders whose householder is aged twenty-five or older. The highest and lowest points of the median household income are presented in bold face.[29][34] Since 2003, median income has continued to rise for the nation as a whole, with the biggest gains going to those with associate degrees, bachelor's degree or more, and master's degrees. High-school dropouts fared worse with negative growth.

Age of householder

U.S. family pre-tax income and net worth distribution for 2013 and 2016, from the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances.[35]

Household income in the United States varies substantially with the age of the person who heads the household. Overall, the median household income increased with the age of householder until retirement age when household income started to decline.[36] The highest median household income was found among households headed by working baby-boomers.[36]

Households headed by persons between the ages of 45 and 54 had a median household income of $61,111 and a mean household income of $77,634. The median income per member of household for this particular group was $27,924. The highest median income per member of household was among those between the ages of 54 and 64 with $30,544 [The reason this figure is lower than the next group is because pensions and Social Security add to income while a portion of older individuals also have work-related income.].[36]

The group with the second highest median household income, were households headed by persons between the ages 35 and 44 with a median income of $56,785, followed by those in the age group between 55 and 64 with $50,400. Not surprisingly the lowest income group was composed of those households headed by individuals younger than 24, followed by those headed by persons over the age of 75. Overall, households headed by persons above the age of seventy-five had a median household income of $20,467 with the median household income per member of household being $18,645. These figures support the general assumption that median household income as well as the median income per member of household peaked among those households headed by middle aged persons, increasing with the age of the householder and the size of the household until the householder reaches the age of 64. With retirement income replacing salaries and the size of the household declining, the median household income decreases as well.[36]

Household size

While median household income has a tendency to increase up to four persons per household, it declines for households beyond four persons. For example, in the state of Alabama in 2004, two-person households had a median income of $39,755, with $48,957 for three-person households, $54,338 for four-person households, $50,905 for five-person households, $45,435 for six-person households, with seven-or-more-person households having the second lowest median income of only $42,471.[37]

Geography

Considering other racial and geographical differences in regards to household income, it should come as no surprise that the median household income varies with race, size of household and geography. The state with the highest median household income in the United States as of the US Census Bureau 2009 is Maryland with $69,272, followed by New Jersey, Connecticut and Alaska, making the Northeastern United States the wealthiest area by income in the entire country.[38]

Regionally, in 2010, the Northeast reached a median income of $53,283, the West, $53,142, the South, $45,492, and the Midwest, $48,445.[39] Each figure represents a decline from the previous year.

Income by state

In 2010, the median household income by state ranged from $35,693 in Mississippi to $66,334 in Maryland. Despite having the highest median home price in the nation[40] and home prices that far outpaced incomes,[41] California ranked only ninth in income, with a median household income of $61,021.[42] While California's median income was not near enough to afford the average California home or even a starter home, West Virginia, which had one of the nation's lowest median household incomes, also had the nation's lowest median home price.[40][42]

By Census Bureau Region, of the 15 states with the highest median household income, only Minnesota is located in the Mid-West, while eight are in the Northeast (New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and New York) and the other six (Alaska, Hawaii, California, Washington, Colorado and Utah) are in the West.

The southern states had, on average, the lowest median household income, with nine of the country's fifteen poorest states located in the South. However, most of the poverty in the South is located in rural areas. Metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Birmingham, Dallas, Houston, and Miami are areas within the southern states that have above average income levels. Overall, median household income tended to be the highest in the nation's most urbanized northeastern, upper midwestern and west coast states, while rural areas, mostly in the southern and mountain states (like New Mexico, Montana and Idaho), had the lowest median household income.[42]

As of 2015, the median household income ranged from $40,037 in Mississippi to $76,805 in Maryland.

Rank State 2015[43][44] 2009 2008 2007 2004–2006
1 Maryland $76,805 $77,491 $78,641 $78,808 $77,548
2 New Hampshire $75,675 $60,567 $63,731 $62,369 $60,489
3 Alaska $75,112 $66,953 $68,460 $64,333 $57,639
4 Connecticut $72,889 $67,034 $68,595 $65,967 $59,972
5 District of Columbia $70,071 $59,290 $57,936 $54,317 $47,221
6 Minnesota $68,730 $55,616 $57,288 $55,082 $57,363
7 New Jersey $68,357 $68,342 $70,378 $67,035 $64,169
8 Massachusetts $67,861 $64,081 $65,401 $62,365 $56,236
9 Washington $67,243 $56,548 $58,078 $55,591 $53,439
10 Colorado $66,596 $55,430 $56,993 $55,212 $54,039
11 Utah $66,258 $55,117 $56,633 $55,109 $55,179
12 Hawaii $64,514 $64,098 $67,214 $63,746 $60,681
13 California $63,636 $58,931 $61,021 $59,948 $53,770
14 Virginia $61,486 $59,330 $61,233 $59,562 $55,108
15 Wyoming $60,925 $52,664 $53,207 $51,731 $47,227
16 Iowa $60,855 $48,044 $48,980 $47,292 $47,489
17 Oregon $60,834 $48,457 $50,169 $48,730 $45,485
18 Nebraska $60,747 $47,357 $49,693 $47,085 $48,126
19 Illinois $60,413 $53,966 $56,235 $54,124 $49,280
20 Pennsylvania $60,389 $49,520 $50,713 $48,576 $47,791
21 Vermont $59,494 $51,618 $52,104 $49,907 $51,622
22 Missouri $59,196 $45,229 $46,867 $45,114 $44,651
23 New York $58,005 $54,659 $56,033 $53,514 $48,201
24 Delaware $57,756 $56,860 $57,989 $54,610 $52,214
25 North Dakota $57,415 $47,827 $45,685 $43,753 $43,753
26 Texas $56,473 $48,259 $50,043 $47,548 $43,425
27 Rhode Island $55,701 $54,119 $55,701 $53,568 $52,003
28 Wisconsin $55,425 $49,993 $52,094 $50,578 $48,874
29 South Dakota $55,065 $45,043 $46,032 $43,424 $44,624
30 Kansas $54,865 $47,817 $50,177 $47,451 $44,264
31 Michigan $54,203 $45,255 $48,591 $47,950 $47,064
32 Ohio $53,301 $45,395 $47,988 $46,597 $45,837
33 Arizona $52,248 $48,745 $50,958 $49,889 $46,729
34 Nevada $52,008 $53,341 $56,361 $55,062 $50,819
35 Indiana $51,983 $45,424 $47,966 $47,448 $44,806
36 Idaho $51,624 $44,926 $47,576 $46,253 $46,395
37 Montana $51,395 $42,322 $43,654 $43,531 $38,629
38 North Carolina $50,797 $43,674 $46,549 $44,670 $42,061
39 Georgia $50,768 $47,590 $50,861 $49,136 $46,841
40 Maine $50,756 $45,734 $46,581 $45,888 $45,040
41 Florida $48,825 $44,736 $47,778 $47,804 $44,448
42 Tennessee $47,330 $41,725 $43,614 $42,367 $40,676
43 Oklahoma $47,077 $41,664 $42,822 $41,567 $40,001
44 South Carolina $46,360 $44,625 $43,329 $40,822 $39,454
45 Louisiana $45,922 $42,492 $43,733 $40,926 $37,943
46 New Mexico $45,119 $43,028 $43,508 $41,452 $40,827
47 Alabama $44,509 $40,489 $42,666 $40,554 $38,473
48 West Virginia $42,824 $37,435 $37,989 $37,060 $37,227
49 Arkansas $42,798 $40,489 $41,393 $42,229 $41,679
50 Kentucky $42,387 $40,072 $41,538 $40,267 $38,466
51 Mississippi $40,037 $36,646 $37,790 $36,338 $35,261

The median personal income per person, after adjusting for costs of living with local regional price parities and the national PCE price index, averaged $44,255 in 2015 (in 2009 chained dollars). Median adjusted personal income per capita varied from $36,814 in Mississippi to $57,520 in Connecticut (and $57,943 in the District of Columbia). The states closest to the national average were California and Texas, at $44,269 and $44,173 respectively.[45]

Social class

Household income is one of the most commonly used measures of income and, therefore, also one of the most prominent indicators of social class. Household income and education do not, however, always reflect perceived class status correctly. Sociologist Dennis Gilbert acknowledges that "... the class structure... does not exactly match the distribution of household income" with "the mismatch [being] greatest in the middle..." (Gilbert, 1998: 92) As social classes commonly overlap, it is not possible to define exact class boundaries.
According to Leonard Beeghley[citation needed] a household income of roughly $95,000 would be typical of a dual-earner middle class household while $60,000 would be typical of a dual-earner working class household and $18,000 typical for an impoverished household. William Thompson and Joseph Hickey[citation needed] see common incomes for the upper class as those exceeding $500,000 with upper middle class incomes ranging from the high 5-figures to most commonly in excess of $100,000. They claim the lower middle class ranges from $35,000 to $75,000; $16,000 to $30,000 for the working class and less than $2,000 for the lower class.

Distribution of household income

Distribution of household income in 2014 according to US Census data

Percentage of persons and households in each of the income groups shown.

The percent of households with six figure incomes and individuals with incomes in the top 10%, exceeding $77,500.

Functional programming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming In computer sc...