San Francisco


Indicator: EC.3.a Income inequality

Descriptive Title: Income inequality

Geographic Unit of Analysis: County

See Method

80/20 income inequality percentile ratio = $114,119/$21,175 = 5.4.
The distribution of income in San Francisco is illustrated in the graph below.

Income Inequality in the Bay Area (2006-2010)

County

Gini**

Gini MOE*

80/20 ***

80/20 MOE*

20th percentile

20th MOE*

80th percentile

80th MOE*

Alameda County

0.46

0.00

5.15

0.10

$26,669

$394

$137,449

$1,306

Contra Costa County

0.45

0.01

4.57

0.11

$32,724

$560

$149,503

$1,270

Marin County

0.50

0.01

5.11

0.22

$35,012

$1,241

$178,870

$5,810

Napa County

0.46

0.01

4.35

0.23

$30,006

$1,397

$130,528

$3,988

San Francisco County

0.51

0.00

6.38

0.16

$23,739

$812

$151,519

$2,405

San Mateo County

0.47

0.01

4.36

0.11

$38,170

$619

$166,527

$1,978

Santa Clara County

0.45

0.01

4.64

0.08

$35,759

$712

$165,795

$1,607

Solano County

0.40

0.01

3.96

0.12

$30,887

$687

$122,372

$2,103

Sonoma County

0.44

0.01

4.35

0.14

$27,370

$921

$119,138

$1,211

* MOE = 90% margin of error

** The Gini coefficient measures the distribution of income relative to the distribution of people--how much income do the poorest 10% of the population control, the poorest 20%, and so on. The Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, with larger values indicating greater inequality.

*** The "80/20 percentile ratio" illustrates the ratio of income at the 80th percentile cutpoint to income at the 20th percentile cutpoint.

Interpretation and Geographic Equity Analysis

Income inequality metrics aim to describe inequalities in the distribution of income in a specific population. Some measures like the Gini coefficient are measures based on the entire distribution of income and others capture relative differences in incomes at specific points in the distribution or between different populations.  The tables and charts above illustrate income inequality in San Francisco compared to California and the United States by population quintile, by ethnicity, and by household type from 2006 to 2010.  The fourth table presents income inequality by Gini Coefficient and the 80/20 percentile ratio for the nine Bay Area counties during the same time period. 

All four charts illustrate that there is significant income inequality among San Francisco residents.  The Bay Area, and San Francisco County in particular, have some of the highest income disparities in the state of California.

The first chart and table show the average income for the populations of San Francisco, California and the United States by quintile, or fifth of the population.  The quintile with the highest income in San Francisco earns 22.6 times more than the quintile with the lowest income.  By comparison, the highest quintile in California and the United States earns 15 times more than the lowest quintile in California and the United States respectively. 

Although the median income and the second, third, fourth and highest quintiles of household income are lower in California than in San Francisco, the household income of the lowest quintile of San Franciscans is less than the household income of the lowest quintile of Californians.  This would suggest that very low income people in San Francisco are poorer on average than very low income people in California generally, even though household incomes for all other income quintiles are higher on average in San Francisco than in California.

The significant disparity between high and low income earners is further affirmed by the Gini Coefficient and the 80/20 percentile ratio in the fourth table (See methods section below for description of these two measures).  The Gini Coefficient in San Francisco (0.51) is higher than all other eight Bay Area counties, suggesting greater income inequality in San Francisco.  By comparison, the Gini Coefficient for Los Angeles is 0.48 and for the US as a whole is 0.47.   

The San Francisco household with earnings at the 80th percentile earns over 6.4 times more than the household at the 20th percentile ($151,519 vs. $23,739).  These estimates represent an increase in income inequality since 2000, when the Gini Coefficient for San Francisco was 0.44, for Los Angeles was 0.39 and for the US as a whole was 0.41; and the 80th percentile SF household earnings were 5.4 times more than households at the 20th percentile ($114,119 vs. $21,175).

IncomeEthnicity

The above table illustrates household incomes by different income brackets and ethnicity both in ACS population estimates and as a percentage of the ethnicity’s population.   Overall, the household incomes and ethnicity table illustrates that on average, people of color in San Francisco have lower household incomes than Whites/Caucasians. 

IncomeFamily

The table above illustrates household incomes by household type, comparing San Francisco estimates to those of California and the United States overall.  The table illustrates that roughly one of every three family households have children under 18 in San Francisco compared to one of every two in CA and the US, yet unlike CA and the US, families with their own children under 18 earn more on average than those without their own children.  Female-headed households (with no husband present) earn 46% and male-headed households (with no wife present) earn 58% of the household income of married- couple households in San Francisco.  Although male-headed households earn proportionally the same amount in California and the United States as they do in San Francisco relative to married-couple households, female-headed households earn proportionally less in California (44%) and the US (41%) compared to San Francisco.  Similarly, females living alone in San Francisco earn more on average (58% of the SF median household income) compared to females living alone in California (49% of CA median household income) or in the United States (46% of the US median household income).Comparisons of both the estimated number and the percentage are important for identifying income inequalities to demonstrate magnitude and relative inequity.  For example, although there are three times more White/Caucasian households earning less than $25,000 per year than Black/African American households (27,542 vs. 9418), roughly one of every two Black/African American households earns less than $25,000 per year (42.9%) compared to one of every six White/Caucasian households (16%).  Similarly, although White/Caucasian households represent 40% of all households earning less than $60,000, 74.2% of Black/African American households, 53% of Hispanic/Latino households, and  49.6% of Asian/Pacific islander/Native Hawaiian households earn less than $60,000 per year, in comparison to 35.1% of White/Caucasian households.  White/Caucasian households are more than seven times as likely as Black/African Americans, three times as likely as Hispanics/Latinos, and more than twice as likely as Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiians to be earning more than $200,000.

Across the United States, income inequalities have grown larger since the 1970s.  The U.S. Census provides the following description of income inequality in the United States: "Generally, the long-term trend has been toward increasing income inequality. Since 1969, the share of aggregate household income controlled by the lowest income quintile has decreased from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent in 1997, while the share to the highest quintile increased from 43.0 percent to 49.4 percent. Most noticeably, the share of income controlled by the top 5 percent of households has increased from 16.6 percent to 21.7 percent.” (http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-16.pdf)  

Between 1987 and 2009, 35.5% of income gains went to the wealthiest 1% of Californians (or 144,000 taxpayers) and 71.3% of income gains went to the wealthiest 10% of Californians.  During this time, the average inflation-adjusted income of the top 1% of California’s taxpayers increased by 50.2% (from $778,000 to $1.2 million), whereas the average income of taxpayers in each of the bottom four fifths of the distribution lost purchasing power.  For more about the widening inequality in California, see the California Budget Project 2011 presentation: http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2011/111101_A_Generation_of_Widening_Inequality.pdf

As noted by the Alameda County Public Health Department, income inequality in the United States over the past thirty years has been impacted by declining welfare benefits, regressive tax cuts, cuts to education and health programs, and the erosion of workers’ collective bargaining power.  These changes have resulted in rising wage inequalities and a widening of the rich-poor gap in life expectancy, despite initial gains from civil rights legislation and Great Society programs in the 1960s. Accessed at: http://www.acphd.org/media/53628/unnatcs2008.pdf

Data Source

U.S. Census.  American Community Survey 5 Year Sample (2006-2010).  Tables:

Obtained via American Factfinder.  Charts and tables created by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section.