Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to David & Joyce Brewster and Shelly Farnham some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Inequality in greater Seattle: Tracking the possibly healthy differences among us

    Newly available data allows us to see a picture that runs counter to some of the national impressions.

    The high and rising degree of income inequality in the United States now exceeds the highest disparity, recorded in 1927. News coverage of this issue often emphasizes the shares of income and wealth of the top 1 percent versus the 99 percent. It should interest the folks of greater Seattle that, as apparent as income inequality is in the urban landscape, our city is amazingly one of the least unequal metropolitan areas in the country — along with Minneapolis, Portland, and Salt Lake City. The most unequal metro areas are New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Houston and San Francisco.

    It will not take a statistician to spot the key difference between these two urban sets — predominantly white versus high minority share areas, reflecting the historical effects of discrimination on income opportunities. Still, inequality is great and visible on the landscape.

    It is also now possible to compare degrees of inequality within metro areas. Reasonable estimates of mean and median income have recently become available at the zip code level. This household data, which comes from the Internal Revenue Service (2009 to 2011), allows for mapping the geography of income differences, and also estimating inequality in the distribution of income.

    Median household income is considered the “typical” income of an area; that is, the income of the middle household when all households are ranked from lowest to highest. Median household income is not affected by extremes.

    Mean household income is the aggregate income of all households in an area — the areas in this case being zip codes — divided by the number of households. Mean income is extremely affected by even a few very rich or very poor households. The mean income of an area is usually higher than the median, which reflects the high concentration of wealth in the top 1 percent in contemporary America.

    Inequality is a measure of how far the distribution of incomes differs from a situation in which all households had the same income. I use a simple measure of the inequality of income, which is the difference between the median and mean, divided by the median — or the percent by which the mean is higher than the median. Values above .35 are considered quite high.

    It is the local juxtaposition of poor and rich households that leads to inequality. So it should not surprise that areas of high inequality tend to have a mix of richer families and single people, who may not be poor, but lower in income compared to families, which may have more earners.

    Because the median represents the middle household in an area, it is considered the best descriptive measure of an area’s relative income. The greater Seattle income map will, for the most part, be what the informed reader expects, but it holds a few surprises.

                                              Median income levels in greater Seattle

    Let me explain the map. This shows median income by zip code, from highest to lowest: Brown, $90,000 to $175,000. Magenta, $70,000 to $90,000. Yellow, $50,000 to $70,000. Green, $25,000 to $50,000. White, $25,000 or less.

    You'll notice the prominence of the magenta ($70,000 to $90,000 income) category, and it's basically a good sign about the region. It reflects the fact that the Seattle metro area is much richer than the rest of the state. It extends largely over the predominantly suburban and exurban single-family home neighborhoods, covering about one-third of the greater Seattle region, although it also includes some upper-middle class, single-family home Seattle city neighborhoods.

    The areas of highest incomes over $90,000 will offer no surprise (unless one expected more in Seattle), with most of the richest household areas in a contiguous belt in Eastside King County into Snohomish, and also Mukilteo, Bainbridge, and Fox Island (Pierce). In Seattle, only Magnolia and Montlake-Madrona (98112) pass the threshold. The reason is simply that most of Seattle has so many single earner households  compared to the more family-heavy Eastside suburbs.  The very richest zip codes? Medina (98039), Sammamish (98074, 98075), Mercer Island (98040), Cottage Lake to Redmond ( 98077, 98053), Eastgate-Newcastle (98006), Snoqualmie (98065) and Preston (98050) — all over $100,000.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Fri, Mar 28, 8:17 a.m. Inappropriate

    "Inequality in the distribution of income" assumes income is to be distributed. I think opportunity is to be distributed, and income be distributed only in the most dire situations and even then, temporarily. Assuming earning money is a strength we're born with that's to be force-shared, is it the only strength to be force-shared and if so, why?


    Posted Sat, Mar 29, 9:11 a.m. Inappropriate

    What is generally overlooked is that the Seattle area and Washington State have become havens for huge numbers of illegal aliens in addition to a very high number of legal immigrants, mainly because of public policy rewarding their coming here. Absorbing large numbers of people who can't speak English whose families have less than an eighth grade education does much to contribute to a constantly growing poverty cohort.
    Needless to say, this area is clearly on an unsustainability track.

    Posted Mon, Mar 31, 4:44 p.m. Inappropriate

    What would 'distributed opportunity' look like? Hmmm, how about taxing income on those making more that $250k per year to adequately fund public education? Oh wait...

    Posted Tue, Apr 1, 9:24 p.m. Inappropriate

    Oh wait...yeah let's throw more money at a broken system. So far there's no proof that more money would advance the educational prospects of students. The current system has been in effect for decades and is well past it's pull date. Trouble is the union and the educational establishment think they are doing a wonderful job. Of course the need for remedial classes at colleges is just an illusion.


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »