Real income per person, adjusted for local prices
Income per person after allowing for how expensive the state is. The Bureau of Economic Analysis takes all the income residents receive, divides it by the state's price level and by the rise in US prices since 2017, then by the number of residents. The result is in 2017 dollars that buy about the same amount in every state. For states only.
Reported for51states — none in PR
Link to density0.05not mostly about how urban a place is
Nearby places alike—not worked out for states: the map data here has no location points to measure distances between states
Typerate2017 US$
How it has moved
Loading…
Every state, every year
One row per state and one column per year, sorted by the latest value. It shows states, not counties: nobody can scan 3,222 rows, and the pattern only shows when it all fits on one screen.
Loading…
Where it comes from
BEA Regional Price Parities · BEA SARPI line 2
Income per person after allowing for how expensive the state is, in 2017 dollars. BEA divides by the state's own price level, so it cannot be added up or averaged from smaller areas.
Combining areas: it cannot be combined, so it is shown only where its publisher works it out.
What it goes with
The strongest links that have a page of their own. Unadjusted is the link before adjusting for anything, from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). Adjusted compares places with the same population density, income and education levels, so those differences can’t explain the link. This list leaves out the 68 pairs built from the same numbers or the same model as this measure, since they are bound to match. These compare 51 states, not counties. With only about fifty places behind each figure, none of them is strong evidence on its own.
| Measure | Unadjusted | Adjusted |
|---|---|---|
| Two weeks of poor physical healthLinked across states, but mostly as both follow how urban, rich and educated a place is. Comparing only places with similar density, income and education, what is left could easily be chance. | -0.55 | -0.17 |
| Returns claiming the earned income creditLinked across states, but mostly as both follow how urban, rich and educated a place is. Comparing only places with similar density, income and education, what is left could easily be chance. | -0.55 | -0.17 |
| DiabetesLinked across states, but mostly as both follow how urban, rich and educated a place is. Comparing only places with similar density, income and education, what is left could easily be chance. | -0.58 | -0.16 |
| Fair or poor healthLinked across states, but mostly as both follow how urban, rich and educated a place is. Comparing only places with similar density, income and education, what is left could easily be chance. | -0.60 | -0.16 |
| ArthritisLinked across states, but mostly as both follow how urban, rich and educated a place is. Comparing only places with similar density, income and education, what is left could easily be chance. | -0.52 | -0.09 |
| Difficulty walking or climbing stairsLinked across states, but mostly as both follow how urban, rich and educated a place is. Comparing only places with similar density, income and education, what is left could easily be chance. | -0.54 | -0.09 |
| Difficulty running errands aloneLinked across states, but mostly as both follow how urban, rich and educated a place is. Comparing only places with similar density, income and education, what is left could easily be chance. | -0.54 | -0.08 |
Population makeup
How this measure varies with the racial and ethnic makeup of states. Every group is shown, whatever its rank. These are links across states: they describe places, not people. They say nothing about any person’s risk or behaviour based on their race. States with a larger share of one group also differ in much else, such as income, segregation, region and history. The adjusted figure only accounts for density, income and education.
| Share of residents | Unadjusted | Adjusted |
|---|---|---|
| Share White, not HispanicNot an independent finding: one is modelled from the other. It is an estimate from a statistical model that uses the other as an input, so part of the match is built in. | +0.06 | +0.20 |
| Share Black, not HispanicNot an independent finding: one is modelled from the other. It is an estimate from a statistical model that uses the other as an input, so part of the match is built in. | -0.06 | -0.01 |
| Share Hispanic or Latino, any raceNot an independent finding: one is modelled from the other. It is an estimate from a statistical model that uses the other as an input, so part of the match is built in. | +0.00 | -0.10 |
| Share Asian, not HispanicNot an independent finding: one is modelled from the other. It is an estimate from a statistical model that uses the other as an input, so part of the match is built in. | -0.02 | -0.26 |
| Share American Indian or Alaska Native, not HispanicNot an independent finding: one is modelled from the other. It is an estimate from a statistical model that uses the other as an input, so part of the match is built in. | +0.05 | +0.02 |
Highest and lowest
Of 51 states reporting it. These are the two ends of a national ranking. For most measures, that ranking mostly sorts places by income and how urban they are. That is why the place pages compare each place with similar places instead.
Highest
- District of Columbia — 79,990
- Wyoming — 75,323
- Connecticut — 71,915
- South Dakota — 69,861
- Massachusetts — 69,372
Lowest
- Mississippi — 47,517
- West Virginia — 49,071
- New Mexico — 50,620
- Alabama — 50,902
- Hawaii — 50,923
The middle state reports 57,242. The middle half of states falls between 54,204 and 60,975 (the 25th to 75th percentile).
US States With the Highest Real Income per Person, Adjusted for Local Prices · US States With the Lowest Real Income per Person, Adjusted for Local Prices
All measures · Explore its pairs · How the US county data works