The Geography of Lower, Middle and Higher Income Households in the United States

Data on incomes of households for US counties allow us to see the geographic patterns of poorer, average and richer households. Covering the numbers of households and shares of households that are relatively poor to rich, we get a fascinating picture of American economic diversity. 

Four maps are used, one each for numbers and shares of lower income: under $40,000, middle income: $40,000 to $100,000, and higher income: over $100,000. These three are the main focus, but I also show a map of mean incomes (aggregate income of the county divided by the number of households), instead of the familiar map of median or typical income, which provides us with some interesting insight into the impact of ultra-affluent households.

In addition, I present a few tables listing the more “extreme” counties: those highest and lowest in mean income, those with the highest share of rich, middle class and poorer households, and counties with the greatest inequality. These numbers, it should be add, do not factor in the cost of living, nor distinguish between families and non-families, which might produce very different results.

Lower income households

Areas with highest shares of lower income households (< $40,000), shown in orange, red and almost black, are quite distinct. Poorest America is concentrated within a massive contiguous zone, punctuated by less poor urban islands, spreading over much of the South and border states, and also encompassing Appalachia and Ozarkia. The northern portion, MO, northern AR, KY, TN, WV, into OH, and western VA and NC, are mainly white and  rural, small town. And there are some mainly white rural low income counties in TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC, and NC. But lower income black households dominate in AR, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC into VA, and some American Indian areas in OK.

Outside the southern core region, there are several  distinct areas of poorer households, (1), core metropolitan counties in Megalopolis (Baltimore, Philadelphia, NJ-NY), (2), heavily Hispanic areas in Texas, along the border with Mexico, (3), Indian reservation areas across the West, (4) and most interesting, several clusters of declining resource dependent counties in ME, northern MI, and a relatively unknown stretch of resource dependent communities in the Pacific Northwest and CA. . 

In contrast areas with the lowest shares of low income households include suburban Megalopolis, Minneapolis and Chicago, and the Pacific coastal metropolitan areas in general.

Table 1 lists the very highest share of poorer households for the lower income, < $40,000. The map shows the 30 counties from Table 1 with a higher than 70% share of lower income. These include 11 from Appalachia. Even more counties, 19, are minority dominated. Two are Hispanic and one American Indian. Of the 44 counties with highest share of the poorest category, < $25,000, 14 are in Appalachia, 8 are Hispanic, mostly in TX, 19 are black majority counties in the south,  1 is Indian and 2 are characterized by many poor whites as well as blacks.

It is fascinating that while the poor black, Hispanic and Indian poorer areas tend to vote Democratic, the northern poor white areas, especially in Appalachia, now generally support Republicans.

Middle income households:  $40,000-$100,000

While it could be argued that my $40 to $100k range is too narrow for middle classes, I don’t think so, at least for most areas, and I feel that the data reveal the income polarization of American society, with middle classes getting squeezed by the rising shares of the poorer and richer.

From the map the most telling feature is how sparse are counties with the highest shares of middle incomes. There is a polarization, reflecting a processes of deindustrialization, and the increasing income disparities between professional and the new service workers.  Shares over 40% are predominantly suburban and exurban in the eastern half of the country. They are well represented across the South, most prominently in TX, OK, TN, and VA, but far more pervasive in the Midwest, most notably in MN (greater Minneapolis), WI, IA, MO, IL, IN, and to some degree around cities that still have an industrial base and/or a productive hinterland. A secondary set of counties with high middle income shares are spread across the Mountain West, but different in character, often rural to small city, and notably in UT, CO, and WY. Note their total absence in mighty CA, where the middle class, as we define it, is clearly shrinking.

In table 2 I list the 45 counties with 46 to 64% middle income shares. Many are quite small and none is very populous. The state with the most such counties is UT, then MN, CO, VA, NE, and IA. It may be significant that Utah has by far the highest share of these high middle income counties. Generally counties with high shares of middle class households have the lowest income inequality.

High Income counties

The geography of higher income counties is again completely different - and rather amazing. Higher shares of richer households are located overwhelmingly in large metropolitan areas in all regions of the country, predictably but most dominant around greater New York City. The few rural small town counties are generally the resort playgrounds of the rich, as found in CO. 

Table 3A lists the counties with the highest shares of higher incomes (>$100,000). Of the 32 higher income counties, 23 are in Megalopolis, including the 3 richest areas, from 53% to 59% high income. Of the 32 richest counties, 11.1% to 19% of the households are above $200,000, again 22 counties are in Megalopolis, then 4 in CA (Bay Area). 

Table 3B which lists the 37 counties with the highest MEAN incomes, including 9 around Washington DC, 8 around New York, and 3 around San Francisco, reinforcing the fact of the concentration of wealth.   

Table 3C lists the counties with the most extreme income inequality, characterized by high shares of the poorer and the richer, with lower shares of the middle classes. The list includes both inequality based on high shares of lower income (<$4,000) and higher income (>$100,000), and as estimated from highest shares of the poorest (<$25,000) and richest (>$200,000) households. Many counties are on both lists. New York (Manhattan) and San Francisco top both lists. Other counties prominent on both include Fairfield, CT; Westchester, NY; Norfolk, MA; Monmouth, NY; Contra Costa, CA; Rockland NY; and Goochland, VA – all suburban or exurban. Summit, UT and Pitkin, CO are rural resort areas in the west.  Many of the core counties on the lists are high in minority populations, e.g., New York; Fulton, GA; Washington, DC; and Alameda, Contra Costa, Orange, and Ventura, CA.

It doesn’t take much of a cynic to conclude that the way to get rich is to be around Wall Street (the pinnacle of capital) or around the U.S. Congress, the pinnacle of government largess (including lobbyists for Wall Street). Do you doubt? Please see the final map of mean income. Yes, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Atlanta are represented at the table, as is the San Diego to San Francisco corridor, but Megalopolis dwarfs them all.

As if this were not scary enough, consider the relation between these income figures and how Americans voted in for president in 2012. Without showing a map, I can simply state that the areas that provided the extra millions of votes for Obama are precisely the giant metropolitan areas, suburbs and exurbs as well as core counties, with the highest mean income and shares of the rich. While it is also true that Obama carried poorer minority areas, rural as well as metropolitan, he LOST most areas of poor to middle income whites, urban and rural. Weirdly, both the rich (professionals) and the poor (minorities) in the most unequal counties are cores of Democratic strength. The traditional economic basis for Democrat versus Republican partisan difference has essentially disappeared, replaced by distinctions of culture and race, leading to the current screwed up state of not only our political party system, but of governance more widely, and yes, of society itself.

Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).