Personal tools
 
Sections
Goals
Clean and Sufficient Water Preservation of Wild Lands, Habitat & Biodiversity
Indicator Maps
Goals
Climate Protection Responsible Land Use Sustainable Transportation
Indicator Maps
Goals
Food Security Health Equity Income Equity
Indicator Maps
Goals
Healthy Living Choices Quality Educational Opportunities
Indicator Maps
You are here:   Home → Social Environment → Income Distribution
Document Actions

Indicator: Income Distribution

Data and Data Discussion provided by Communities Count

Income Distribution Among Households King County, 1979, 1989, 1999, and 2004

Figure 2: Median Household Income, King County, 1979, 1989, 1999, 2004

view full size
Upstream Indicators
  •   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)
  •   High School Graduation Rate --- 91.7 percent of King County residents aged 25 and older had a high school education or greater, while the on-time graduation rate for high school students in King County in 2005 was 76.5%. No statistically significant trends were observed in the preceding 5 years.   (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)
  •   School Readiness --- School districts in King County are in the process of implementing the Early Development Instrument (EDI) survey in order to provide their communities with evidence of how ready for school their kindergarten-age children are. To date only 3 school districts have carried out the EDI survey, Bellevue and Shoreline School Districts in 2004 and Highline School District in 2005.   (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
  •   Mortality Causes by Race/Ethnicity and Income --- Among the racial/ethnic groups, the total mortality rate between 1990 and 2003 in King County declined significantly for all but American Indian/Alaska Natives but disparities in the age-adjusted death rates between different racial/ethnic groups in King County remained the same.   (view data graph)
  •   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. 
  •   Infant Mortality Rates --- Infant death rates declined throughout the 1980s and 1990s but in more recent years appear to have leveled off for most of King County and for most race/ethnic groups. The rate in Seattle continues to decline.   (view data graph)
  •   Participation in Life-Enriching Activities --- In 2004, 85% of King County adults were "very active" or "somewhat active" in at least three different activities. The increases in this indicator between 1999 and 2001 and 2001 and 2004 are not statistically significant.   (view data graph)
  •   Stress --- There was no significant increase or decrease in the average stress score for adults in King County between 2001 and 2004.   (view data graph)
  •   Teen Birth Rates --- Teen birth rates declined from 2001-2003 in each of the four King County regions and for all income and race/ethnic groups with the exception of Hispanic/Latina teens.   (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 1999, there was a shift of income away from the four lower income groups to the highest income group. In King County in 2004, the richest 20% of the population received more than ten times the income of the poorest 20%.

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 2004 the richest 20% of King County households received 47.4% of the total income that year. The poorest 20% earned only 3.6% of the total income.(Figure 1)

King County households in the highest income group earned at least $34,800 in 1979, $63,700 in 1989, and $97,700 in 1999, and $104,000 in 2004 (data not shown).

In the two decades between 1979 and 1999, there was a shift of income away from the four lower income groups to the highest income group.

National data from the US Census Bureau show that national income increases between 1979 and 1999 were 3% for the poorest fifth, 11% for the low fifth, 17% for the middle fifth, 26% for the high fifth, 53% for the richest fifth. The very richest 5% of the population saw an 81% increase in their family income during this 20 year period.

In contrast to this two-decade period of economic growth, the same data show that income actually decreased in the lowest income groups in the four years between 1999 and 2003, while staying fairly steady in the upper income groups. In this time period, the poorest fifth saw a 6% decrease in their family income, the low fifth a 4% decrease, and the middle fifth a 2% decrease. At the same time, the high and richest fifths each saw a 0.2% increase, and the very richest 5% saw a 0.1% increase.

While no local wealth data are available, nationally wealth inequality has always been substantially greater than regional income inequality. As of 2001, the richest 5% of U.S. households held more than 59% of the nation’s private wealth and the top 1% of households held more than one-third of the wealth.

The median income is the income level that separates the top and bottom half of all households. The 2004 median household income was $55,100 in King County, $47,700 in Washington State and $44,700 in the U.S. (data not shown).

Data on median household income by region were not available for 2004. In 1999, the highest and lowest regional median household incomes were in East Region ($71,100) and Seattle ($45,800), respectively. (Figure 2)

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