E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mint.com
Our series of stories on people living on the national household median income of about $50,000 has generated thousands of comments from users, many of whom point out that $50,000 in Kansas is a lot different than $50,000 in New York.
An infographic produced by Mint.com makes that precise point, graphically.
Using Census Bureau data similar to what we are using for our own series, the Mint.com map shows that the states in the center of the country are closest to the national average, with median incomes that generally range from $40,000 to $55,000.
States in the Northeast tend to have a much higher household median above $60,000, while those in the Southeast have the lowest.
Mississippi ranks lowest with a household median income of about $36,600, while Maryland ranks highest at more than $69,000.
Via Business Insider.
Click here to see previous stories in our "We are the median" series. We’re also sharing our thoughts — and yours — on Twitter (hashtag #median), Facebook and Google Plus. We invite you to comment on our posts — but keep it civil and on topic, please!
Finally, please share your story of what it’s like to be living on about $50,000 a year by clicking here to send e-mail. We’ll feature some of your stories in future Life Inc. posts.
Leave a Comment:
"An infographic produced by Mint.com makes that precise point, graphically."
I don't think so. The graph shows median household income by state, but it doesn't adjust to cost of living. What people have been pointing out (not in a gentlemanly way, granted) is that you can't make straight comparisons across states and say that the average Marylander is more affluent than the average Texan. Yes, the median household in Maryland does make more money than the median household in Texas, but cost of living in Maryland is much higher. A family making $100,000/yr and living in Sugar Land, TX probably lives much more comfortably than a family making $100,000/yr (or even $120,000/yr) in Bethesda, MD. And that was the point people were making with how far $50,000 takes you in Kansas as opposed to N.Y.
On the other hand, some people seem to think that data not adjusted to cost of living is completely useless. That's not true. A Home Theater set costs the same in Texas and Maryland. A subscription to The Economist costs the same in Massachusetts and Mississippi. There are lots of goods and services that cost the same across countries and therefore, other things equal, a higher median household income means people from one state can afford those things more easily than people from a state with a lower median household income. This as opposed to comparisons across countries. The average Swiss worker may earn more nominally than the average American worker, but virtually everything you can think of (except for, perhaps, authentic Swiss cheese) is more expensive in Switzerland than in America. As a result, PPP-adjusted average annual compensation is higher in the U.S. than in Switzerland (according to the OECD).
What I don't see is the need for people to make disparaging comments about journalists who are just publishing the data disclosed by the Census Bureau. If the Census Bureau doesn't disclose cost-of-living adjustments, journalists are not obligated to do so. It'd be nice of them to mention their importance in making comparisons, but not doing so is not grounds for having them fired, for Pete's sake.
Correction: it turns out that even after adjusting for cost of living, the median household income in Maryland is higher than in Texas, or at least it was as of 2009. But before cost-of-living adjustments, Maryland's MHI was $69,300 and Texas' was $48,300—a significant gap; and after cost-of-living adjustments, the gap shortened to Maryland's $55,500 versus Texas' $53,000. Oh well, I still think it was a decent example.
Also, "There are lots of goods and services that cost the same across countries," I meant states, not countries. Otherwise what I said wouldn't make sense.
Wow - you posted and then replied to yourself twice. There is a word for people who walk around talking to themselves...
Anyway, that is correct - the map does not show the difference in cost of living vs. income. For example, it is possible to buy a livable house in West Virginia for $40,000. If you could even find a house for $40,000 in New York state, it would be a horrible wreck that needed to be gutted and rebuilt - by some overpriced snotty contractor who wears khakkis to his work sites "because jeans would be a disrespect to the (insert Italian or Polish name) family name." Said contractor would charge $200,000 to renovate the $40,000 house making it an exercise in futility.
"Wow - you posted and then replied to yourself twice."
Are you 8? I wasn't "replying to myself." I was correcting the information I posted on my first reply, since I couldn't edit it anymore. Are you saying it's autistic to be thorough in making sure that whatever I posted made sense? If so, I'm sure I'll want to have a talk with your teacher at your elementary school.
It would be interesting to know which are so-called "right to work" states & which are strong union states. Bet those behind the anti-collective bargaining bills being floated around the nation don't want us to know that
It looks like the right-to-work states are those typically on the lower side of average as compared to non-right to work states. But right-to-work states also have a lower cost of living compared to most union states. But all that shows is correlation, to prove causation(or make an brash assumption in order to promote your own ideology) would be unwise with only that data.
Well Scott here is a link to a map showing Right to Work and Union states do your comparison.
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
It seems to show that the Right to Work States are basically in the Median of the Income Range. But you can make make up your own mind.
I know I wasn't the one who asked for it, but thanks for the map.
It would appear to me as if, out of the 22 "right-to-work" states, four have annual incomes above $50,000, whereas 16 out of the 28 forced-unionism states have median annual incomes above $50,000, including all where median incomes are above $60,000. I don't have the time to do the math right now, but I'd like to see how the two groups of states do when cost of living is taken into account, since forced-unionism states generally have a higher cost of living.
"...since forced-unionism states generally have a higher cost of living."
AndresTM, I would like to know where you gathered the information for the comment I have quoted above.
P.S. thank you for your efforts in correcting your comments when needed. : )
I am at this "average" income in the "rich" state of Maryland. I desperately want to move but there is absolutely no market for my home. Huge tax bills, gigantic condo fee. Don't see any way out. Oh yes, I saved everything I was told to do and get a stinking 1%. Welcome to retirement. Oh yes, I am bitter.
This graphic doesn't account for the cost of living in those states that have higher median income so don't go packing your bags and head to D.C. or Alaska. I live in Texas and our cost of living is pretty low, however many of those with high salaries work in the energy industry where they earn a butt load of money. Makes me wonder if those living on the East Coast who have high median income are politicians. I wouldn't doubt it.
Border Patrol Agents and Military men figured this out decades ago. An agent assigned to Laredo Texas making $38,000 annual lived in a nice ranch house and had trucks and pools while the agents assigned to San Diego Ca could barely afford an apartment without working off duty jobs, both making $38,000.
I purchased a 2100 sq ft ranch home on 10 acres for $114,000 in Tucson Arizona, that same amount would not get a small 600 sq ft condo in California.
You live where your money goes the farthest or endure.
Usually you can't just pick up and go to a place where the cost of living is lower and at the same time maintain the same level of earning.
we live in the south, and we have 2300sq ft, for $199k, my folks in California have the same house for $600k. You have to live where your dollars can go the farthest or endure the high cost. Household income $160k, and we live very comfortable(benz, suv, suburbs, private schools), mind you we have no cc debt,cars are 5 yrs old and paid off. I laugh at people that talk about folks in the south, while the new yorkers ,east coasters or ect, complain about paying high rent(forget about owning)...but we have the best life, and I praise God for it.
Most people live where the jobs are. We are technically "migrant workers", depending the economical seasons, or reasons. Our salaries are somewhat related to the cost of living in that area. Living within your means is the ultimate success in living. When more than half of your salary goes to rent or mortgage payment, obviously you feel poor.
I live in MD well below the listed median and well below the 50,00 median. The cost of living is ridiculous. I live an hour from D.C. and pay $925 for a small two bedroom. I pay more to live in a nice little town instead of the same for the closest city in a bad area. It's lovely to say - well move - but I can't save enough money to afford to move. It's a catch -22.
East Tennessee - Retired / $920 month -$125 month Medicare = $805 income. Some people complain about "Just getting by" on $50,000 / divide that by 1/2 for 2 people getting by on UNDER $25,000..... I have to pay for medicare and have medical provided by the VA (veteran). REALITY check. Grandchildren may be getting an "IOU" this year.