Personal tools

Your Central Puget Sound Information Source for Making Sustainable Choices

 
You are here:   Home → Social Environment → Income Distribution
Document Actions

Indicator: Income Distribution

Data and Data Discussion provided by Communities Count

Figure 1: Income Distribution in King County

view full size
Upstream Indicators
  •   Living Wage --- Almost half of all jobs do not provide enough income for a family of 4 with 2 full-time wage earners. Because this indicator is measured differently than in previous years, it is difficult to make comparisons.  (view data graph)
  •   Wages and Percent Employed by Sector --- Almost all sectors saw positive employment growth in 2006 and most have seen their highest growth from 2004 onwards. Not all clusters are seeing increases in the number of establishments. However, there have been four straight years of business establishments growth in clusters overall.  (view data graph)
  •   Educational Background --- The educational level of King County residents has steadily increased over the past 25 years with more people getting high school diplomas, some college experience, and bachelor's degrees.   (view data graph)
  •   Housing Affordability by City --- Homes prices have increased at a greater rate than incomes over the last two decades, making home ownership less affordable. However, rents have increased at a slower rate, generally in line with median household incomes.  (view data graph)
  •   Voter Turnout --- General elections always have higher participation compared with primaries while presidential elections (2000 and 2004) provide the highest turnout among voters.  (view data graph)
more info
Downstream Indicators
  •   Debt to Income Ratio --- According to Federal Reserve Board statistics, the ratio of household debt to disposable income in the U.S. rose from approximately 100 percent in March 2001 to well over 120 percent towards the end of 2005. Debt has expanded by 30.3 percentage points to 108.4 percent of income – the first time since the Federal Reserve started conducting consumer finance surveys that debt exceeded income. Despite low interest rates, debt payments surged to new highs. In 2004, the typical family spent more than 18 percent of its income on debt payments – the largest share since the Federal Reserve started collecting these data. The share of heavily indebted households continues to rise. The share of households with debt payments greater than 40 percent of income rose from 12.8 percent in 2001 to 13.7 percent in 2004. From: Drowning in Debt: America’s Middle Class Falls Deeper in Debt as Income Growth Slows and Costs Climb  
  •   Incarceration Rates --- Incarceration rates in King County jails have remained in the range of 130 to 150 per 100,000 in population over the past decade.  (view data graph)
  •   Infant Mortality Rates --- Infant death rates continue to decline. Rates remain highest in high poverty areas and are lower in East Region than other regions in the County.  (view data graph)
  •   Adequate Food --- Compared to 2003, fewer adults (6.8% of the population) in 2007 reported that household food money often or sometimes did not last. Fewer people in East Region said their household food money often or sometimes did not last compared to Seattle, South Region or King County as a whole.  (view data graph)
  •   Housing Affordability Gap --- The ratio of median income sales price to median household incomes has increased in all four Central Puget Sound counties from 1995 to 2007. (2) Median income levels generally have kept better pace with increases in average rents from 2000 to 2006. (1)  (view data graph)
  •   Freedom from Discrimination --- Indicator information is based on three surveys conducted in 2001 2004, and 2007. There were no significant changes over the three survey years for the county as a whole. However, there are differences in reporting of experiencing of discrimination according to age, race/ethnicity,and smaller geographic areas.  (view data graph)
more info
Related Goals

Sustainability Snapshot:

The widening gap between rich and poor is a root cause of social unsustainability – the loss of connectedness in our communities and trust in our social institutions. Income gained from employment is as unequally distributed today as it was during the 1920’s, the Gilded Age. (1) And like the 1920’s, growing income inequality may presage an economic collapse. In addition to the social consequences of economic inequality, such as discrimination, food insecurity, homelessness, and despair, the gap between rich and poor also has a detrimental effect on equal opportunity in education and health care. As Paul Krugman, eminent Princeton economist and New York Times columnist reports, “A society with highly unequal results is, more or less inevitably, a society with highly unequal opportunity, too.”

Sustainability Trend:

In the two decades between 1979 and 2007, income has shifted from the four lower income groups to the highest income group.

Data Discussion

The Indicator Defined

Income Distribution Among Households by Household Income Group, King County measured by the share of total income received by different fifths - or quintiles - of the total number of households in the population.

Data Interpretation/Evaluation

The income distribution in King County can be measured by the percentage of total income in one year earned by each fifth of the households, arranged by increasing income. Each income group has an equal number of households.

In King County, between 1979 and 2007,income has shifted from the four lower income groups to the highest income group. In 2007, the richest 20% of households received 48.9% of all income earned by King County households in that year. The poorest 20% earned only 3.5% of total income. King County households in the richest income group earned at least $34,800 in 1979 and $124,800 in 2007. The poorest income group earned at most $21,700 in 1979 and $29,400 in 2007 (data not shown).

Nationally, between 1999 and 2007, calculated in 2007 dollars, the poorest fifth saw a 6% decrease in their family income, the low fifth a 3% decrease, and the remaining three fifths showed negligible change. At the same time, the very richest 5% saw a 2% decrease. In contrast, income had increased for all groups between 1979 and 1999 (data not shown). While local data are not available on household wealth, nationally wealth inequality has always been substantially greater than income inequality. As of 2004, the richest 5% of U.S. households held 59% of the nation’s private wealth and the top 1% of households held more than one-third of the wealth. Between 1983 and 2004, average household wealth increased by 78% for the top 1%. By comparison the bottom 40% experienced a 59% loss (data not shown).

Data Source and Limitations

Data was accessed through Communities Count (www.communitiescount.org).  Original data for 1979, 1989 and 1999 are from the 1980, 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census respectively. For these data, the geographic boundaries of King County and the four subregions are defined by aggregating census tracts. Data for 2004 are from the 2004 American Community Survey data. These survey data are from a sample and therefore are subject to error. At the time of publication the 2004 data were not available by region.

The income data estimate the number of households in various income ranges. “Income” consists of pretax wages, interest, rental income, and other personal receipts, including government cash transfers. These figures do not include other types of income such as capital gains, employer-paid health insurance, or in-kind government assistance such as food stamps. Most of the non-money income is received by the more affluent households. Furthermore, this indicator does not measure accumulated wealth such as property, savings, and other assets. Nor does it consider varying tax rates paid by the different income groups.

collapse all

Additional Resources

  • State of the Dream 2009: The Silent Depression
    In this report by United for a Fair Economy, it is shown that people of color are experiencing a silent economic depression. Racial barriers continue to impede many people of color from achieving the same economic success as their white counterparts
  • Gini Index by County 2006
    This chart shows recently released census income statistics for Washington State counties. Ratio column shows how many times greater the average income of the top 20 percent is compared to the bottom 20 percent, a measure of the equality of income distribution. GINI is also a measure of distribution, with 0 indicating that everyone shares equally in the income of a region, and 1 indicating all the income is made by a single person. The places with the highest level of inequality tend to be poor places in the South, and those with the lowest tend to be middle class suburbs in the Midwest. The highest county in the United States is New York County at 0.599 while the lowest is Kendall County, Ill., a Chicago suburb, at 0.317. This table was published by the New York Times from US Census data.