Wikipedia: ... 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.[25] The highest median household income was found among households headed by working babyboomers.[25]
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 workrelated income.]).[25]
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 seventyfive 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.
Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will Archive Favorite posts Twitter: @steve_hsu
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
US income distribution
Where is the middle class in this figure? If we eliminate young and old people, does the peak shift to the $30k range, or are things bleaker than I had thought? [ See links in comments for better figures. ]
Labels:
american society,
economics,
income inequality,
net worth
blog comments powered by Disqus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive

▼
2013
(211)

▼
01
(14)
 US income distribution
 Iceland: Let banks go bankrupt
 Big data from a big eye in the sky
 Learn to solve every problem that has been solved
 Wonders of science
 As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods
 USChina software arbitrage
 Discrete genetic modules can control complex behav...
 The good books
 Low hanging fruit and technological innovation
 Cognitive, Evolutionary, and Computational Models ...
 Sprints, interval training and energy expenditure
 Annals of brainpower: Oregon football
 Scientific publications by country

▼
01
(14)
Labels
 physics (286)
 finance (246)
 globalization (221)
 genetics (217)
 brainpower (196)
 photos (134)
 technology (127)
 science (123)
 american society (121)
 China (120)
 economics (120)
 psychometrics (120)
 credit crisis (115)
 travel (102)
 innovation (93)
 psychology (88)
 higher education (84)
 universities (84)
 human capital (83)
 iq (80)
 credit crunch (78)
 startups (78)
 biology (67)
 gilded age (67)
 careers (63)
 elitism (61)
 income inequality (61)
 cognitive science (60)
 autobiographical (56)
 evolution (56)
 ai (54)
 books (53)
 quantum mechanics (49)
 genetic engineering (47)
 social science (47)
 genius (46)
 genomics (46)
 bgi (45)
 caltech (45)
 cdo (45)
 kids (43)
 statistics (42)
 derivatives (41)
 talks (39)
 education (37)
 mma (37)
 history of science (36)
 mortgages (36)
 bubbles (35)
 behavioral economics (34)
 bounded rationality (31)
 hedge funds (31)
 mathematics (31)
 intellectual history (30)
 silicon valley (30)
 podcasts (29)
 literature (28)
 efficient markets (27)
 quants (27)
 MSU (26)
 academia (26)
 geopolitics (26)
 many worlds (26)
 sports (26)
 black holes (25)
 expert prediction (25)
 subprime (25)
 entrepreneurs (24)
 housing (24)
 machine learning (24)
 political correctness (24)
 sci fi (24)
 taiwan (24)
 foo camp (23)
 physical training (23)
 ufc (23)
 obama (22)
 film (21)
 harvard (21)
 jiujitsu (21)
 ultimate fighting (21)
 athletics (20)
 computing (20)
 economic history (20)
 google (20)
 history (20)
 wall street (20)
 berkeley (19)
 cds (19)
 feynman (19)
 affirmative action (18)
 bjj (18)
 goldman sachs (18)
 movies (18)
 race relations (17)
 security (17)
 treasury bailout (17)
 freeman dyson (16)
 university of oregon (16)
 von Neumann (16)
 internet (15)
 japan (15)
 singularity (15)
 blogging (14)
 neuroscience (14)
 nuclear weapons (14)
 personality (14)
 realpolitik (14)
 gender (13)
 oppenheimer (13)
 quantum field theory (13)
 biotech (12)
 conferences (12)
 happiness (12)
 india (12)
 politics (12)
 probability (12)
 scifoo (12)
 venture capital (12)
 algorithms (11)
 autism (11)
 cryptography (11)
 hedonic treadmill (11)
 malcolm gladwell (11)
 meritocracy (11)
 music (11)
 cosmology (10)
 fitness (10)
 les grandes ecoles (10)
 mutants (10)
 net worth (10)
 olympics (10)
 social networks (10)
 string theory (10)
 aspergers (9)
 chess (9)
 entropy (9)
 eugene (9)
 flynn effect (9)
 geeks (9)
 neanderthals (9)
 new yorker (9)
 wwii (9)
 ability (8)
 complexity (8)
 football (8)
 italy (8)
 keynes (8)
 nobel prize (8)
 robot genius (8)
 usain bolt (8)
 aig (7)
 alpha (7)
 ashkenazim (7)
 basketball (7)
 christmas (7)
 crossfit (7)
 dating (7)
 government (7)
 harvard society of fellows (7)
 height (7)
 hugh everett (7)
 manhattan (7)
 nerds (7)
 real estate (7)
 television (7)
 Einstein (6)
 alan turing (6)
 anthropic principle (6)
 art (6)
 blade runner (6)
 data mining (6)
 determinism (6)
 dna (6)
 fx (6)
 games (6)
 nassim taleb (6)
 nsa (6)
 privacy (6)
 qcd (6)
 success (6)
 teaching (6)
 turing test (6)
 volatility (6)
 Fermi problems (5)
 academia sinica (5)
 bayes (5)
 bobby fischer (5)
 climate change (5)
 econtalk (5)
 encryption (5)
 energy (5)
 environmentalism (5)
 france (5)
 free will (5)
 game theory (5)
 james salter (5)
 luck (5)
 noam chomsky (5)
 philip k. dick (5)
 philosophy of mind (5)
 poker (5)
 prostitution (5)
 renaissance technologies (5)
 software development (5)
 tail risk (5)
 war (5)
 warren buffet (5)
 100m (4)
 Go (4)
 Iran (4)
 Poincare (4)
 borges (4)
 cambridge uk (4)
 charles darwin (4)
 class (4)
 creativity (4)
 fake alpha (4)
 feminism (4)
 global warming (4)
 godel (4)
 hormones (4)
 humor (4)
 inequality (4)
 iraq war (4)
 kerviel (4)
 markets (4)
 microsoft (4)
 monsters (4)
 paris (4)
 perimeter institute (4)
 pseudoscience (4)
 research (4)
 russia (4)
 soros (4)
 trento (4)
 vietnam war (4)
 200m (3)
 babies (3)
 bill gates (3)
 brain drain (3)
 censorship (3)
 charlie munger (3)
 chet baker (3)
 cold war (3)
 correlation (3)
 demographics (3)
 ecosystems (3)
 equity risk premium (3)
 facebook (3)
 fannie (3)
 fst (3)
 information theory (3)
 intellectual property (3)
 intellectual ventures (3)
 judo (3)
 kasparov (3)
 lewontin fallacy (3)
 lhc (3)
 michael lewis (3)
 mixed martial arts (3)
 moore's law (3)
 nathan myhrvold (3)
 neal stephenson (3)
 new york times (3)
 nonlinearity (3)
 patents (3)
 path integrals (3)
 quantum computers (3)
 risk preference (3)
 sad but true (3)
 search (3)
 sec (3)
 sivs (3)
 society generale (3)
 solar energy (3)
 alibaba (2)
 assortative mating (2)
 bear stearns (2)
 bruce springsteen (2)
 charles babbage (2)
 cloning (2)
 david mamet (2)
 democracy (2)
 digital books (2)
 donald mackenzie (2)
 eliot spitzer (2)
 empire (2)
 exchange rates (2)
 freddie (2)
 gaussian copula (2)
 industrial revolution (2)
 james watson (2)
 jim simons (2)
 language (2)
 ltcm (2)
 magic (2)
 mba (2)
 mccain (2)
 national character (2)
 nicholas metropolis (2)
 no holds barred (2)
 offices (2)
 oligarchs (2)
 olympiads (2)
 palin (2)
 pca (2)
 pop culture (2)
 population structure (2)
 prisoner's dilemma (2)
 rationality (2)
 skidelsky (2)
 smpy (2)
 socgen (2)
 sprints (2)
 thailand (2)
 variance (2)
 abx (1)
 anathem (1)
 andrew lo (1)
 antikythera mechanism (1)
 athens (1)
 atlas shrugged (1)
 ayn rand (1)
 bay area (1)
 beats (1)
 book search (1)
 bunnie huang (1)
 car dealers (1)
 carlos slim (1)
 catastrophe bonds (1)
 cdos (1)
 ces 2008 (1)
 chance (1)
 cheng ting hsu (1)
 children (1)
 cochranharpending (1)
 cpi (1)
 david x. li (1)
 dick cavett (1)
 dolomites (1)
 drugs (1)
 eharmony (1)
 epidemics (1)
 escorts (1)
 faces (1)
 fads (1)
 favorite posts (1)
 fiber optic cable (1)
 francis crick (1)
 gary brecher (1)
 gizmos (1)
 greece (1)
 greenspan (1)
 heinlein (1)
 hypocrisy (1)
 igon value (1)
 iit (1)
 inflation (1)
 information asymmetry (1)
 iphone (1)
 jack kerouac (1)
 jaynes (1)
 jfk (1)
 john dolan (1)
 john kerry (1)
 john paulson (1)
 john searle (1)
 john tierney (1)
 jonathan littell (1)
 las vegas (1)
 lawyers (1)
 lee kwan yew (1)
 lehman auction (1)
 les bienveillantes (1)
 lowell wood (1)
 lse (1)
 mating (1)
 mcgeorge bundy (1)
 mexico (1)
 michael jackson (1)
 mickey rourke (1)
 migration (1)
 mit (1)
 money:tech (1)
 monkeys (1)
 myron scholes (1)
 netwon institute (1)
 networks (1)
 newton institute (1)
 nfl (1)
 oliver stone (1)
 phil gramm (1)
 philanthropy (1)
 philip greenspun (1)
 portfolio theory (1)
 power laws (1)
 randomness (1)
 recession (1)
 sales (1)
 simulation (1)
 singapore (1)
 skype (1)
 standard deviation (1)
 star wars (1)
 starship troopers (1)
 students today (1)
 supercomputers (1)
 systemic risk (1)
 teleportation (1)
 tierney lab blog (1)
 tomonaga (1)
 twitter (1)
 tyler cowen (1)
 ussr (1)
 venice (1)
 violence (1)
 virtual meetings (1)
 virtual reality (1)
 war nerd (1)
 wealth effect (1)