President Trump wants Apple to move all its manufacturing to the U.S., repeatedly warning that he will slap tariffs on Apple products in an escalating trade fight with China. He might be onto something because the economy is generating factory jobs at an impressive clip, growing 3.1% over the first 21 months of his administration. This made us wonder what the best American manufacturing companies are regardless of where they locate most of their facilities.

We took IndustryWeek’s ranking of the 50 best manufacturers in the U.S., which looks at financial performance across several different indicators to uncover the strongest companies. These include profit margin, sales turnover and return on assets, among other metrics. Our visual lets you immediately digest the rankings across several different industries, focusing in particular on revenue and profitability.

We would argue that profitability is the single most important thing to measure. These are the top ten manufacturers in IndustryWeek’s list ranked in order of net income ($B).

1. Apple: $48.35B

2. Altria Group: $10.22B

3. Nike: $4.24B

4. NVIDIA: $3.05B

5. Northrop Grumman Corp.: $2.02B

6. Sherwin-Williams: $1.77B

7. Illinois Tool Works: $1.69B

8. Lear Corp.: $1.31B

9. Westlake Chemical Corp.: $1.30B

10. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group: $1.08B

Apple is clearly in a class of its own with net income approaching $50B last year. To be fair, that figure includes income across its multiple businesses, including App Store purchases, iTunes and device sales. Microsoft, Oracle and Cisco each have multi-billion dollar business models with profit margins over 20%. But the combination of revenue and profitability at Apple, together with the other technology companies in our visual, clearly indicate where the big bucks are to be made.

The tech setor isn’t the only manufacturing sector with revenue exceeding $100B. Petroleum and coal companies remain massively profitable, albeit at much tighter margins. Exxon Mobil actually generates the most revenue of any company at $244B. Chevron and Phillips 66 both hold their own at $142B and $105B, respectively. Auto manufacturers likewise crack the $100B mark, but GM deserves special mention for its negative profit margin of -2.65%, one of only five companies in our visual that’s actually losing money.

Speaking of losing money, GE is still in these rankings because the numbers come from 2017. GE is a case study in how easy it can be for major companies to fall from grace. The company’s stock has plummeted throughout 2018, and as of this writing is now trading at $7.10. And columnists are now publishing serious articles wondering if the company will even survive, much less make it back into the Dow.

All of this goes to show that manufacturing, like any of industry, is prone to ebbs and flows. Only time will tell if GE will be around long enough for next year’s rankings to come out.

Data: Table 1.1

Are you in the middle class?

You probably think you are, according to new research from the Pew Research Center, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re right. It turns out household size is a major determiner of status in the lower, middle and upper classes.

We plotted family size against the income range required to be in the lower, middle and upper classes, letting you easily see how much money people need to make to be at opposite ends of the income spectrum. And in fact, the size of your family is directly correlated with how much you need to earn to stay afloat.

Things are relatively simple for single working adults with no children. Anyone earning under $34,400 is considered in the lower income range, and anyone making over $103,200 is in the upper class. In reality, much of this depends on where you live and how much debt you’re paying off. Does the college grad who makes six figures but lives in a big city with $100,000 of student loan debt feel like he or she is in the upper class? What about the single adult making $90,000 in West Virginia, where the cost of living is cheap? Doesn’t that qualify as an “upper income”? It all depends on the cost of living for where you live in particular.

Regardless, our visualization demonstrates that adding more people to your household increases the amount you need to earn to enjoy the same standard of living. Having a child or getting married raises the bar to middle class entry to $43,693. For a household of 3 people, it goes higher to $50,697. And for two breadwinners and a pair of kids, the level goes even further up to $60,499. In other words, having a second child means you need to earn about $10,000 more just to stay at the same level, much less climb higher.

The same thing happens at the opposite end of the income spectrum. The gap between middle- and upper-income households grows the more people join a household. A single adult at the low end of the upper-income range making $103,200 would need to make $131,078 as a household of 2 people to stay at the same level. The amount jumps another $21,000 to $152,092 for households of 3, and an eye-popping $181,496 for a family of 4. That means it’s harder for well-off people to provide the same standard of living the more children they have, because, well, it’s so expensive.

All of which goes to show the dangers of “keeping up with the Joneses.” If you’re in the upper-income range and you and your spouse decide to have a second child, you don’t have to go out and earn another $29,000 just to stay in the same income range. It’s perfectly fine to slip into the middle class.

There’s a lot more we could say about how the cost of living depends entirely on where you live. Learn more by exploring our interactive calculator.

Data: Table 1.1

Happy new year to all! We’re thrilled to present our list of the top 18 visualizations from 2018.

If you’re new to HowMuch.net, this list should give you a good idea of our mission. The website’s purpose is to present interesting, informative and nonpartisan financial information about the economy.

Understanding money should be easy, and we aim to make it aesthetically pleasing too.

We are humbled by the continued growth of our audience. A big thank you to our readers for a great year, and we wish you all the best in 2019!

18. All the World’s Billionaires in a Single Map

Who wants to be a billionaire? Some countries are better at producing globe-trotting titans of industry than others. The U.S. is the clear leader, followed by China. But creating billionaires isn't exactly a sign of a well-functioning economy. There could be lots of corruption and inequality. Just take a look at how many billionaires call Russia home.

17. Comparing Cryptocurrency Against the Entire World’s Wealth in One Graph

The market for cryptocurrency is still tiny in the grand scheme of things. The market is bigger than the entire fortunes of people like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, but it's still much smaller than the market cap of several companies. And yet the numbers we're comparing can be head-spinning. For example, Apple is worth more than the entire economy of Turkey.

16. How Much Income You Need to Afford the Average Home in Every State in 2018

Owning a home is the American dream, and dreams aren't cheap. That's the lesson from our map of how much money you need to make in each state to buy a home.

15. Visualizing the Most Innovative Companies in 2018

Innovate or die. History is littered with the stories of companies with successful business models that didn't adapt to changing dynamics. This visualization highlights the companies with the largest expenditures into research and development both in overall terms and relative to their revenue. Want to bet which ones stand a chance of staying relevant 10 years from now?

14. The World's Most Valuable Brands, in One Chart

How much is a brand really worth? And which industries have the most valuable brands? Our eye-popping visualization explores the most successful brands in the country by company and industry. Like so much of the business news in 2018, tech companies dominate the center of our visual.

13. Mapping the Most Profitable Industry in Each U.S. State

What do fishermen in Maine, aerospace engineers in Kansas and casino owners in Nevada all have in common? They're from the most profitable industries in each state, according to this surprising and interesting map.

12. Visualizing Where Tourists Spend the Most Money

Tourism increased in 2018 around the world, bringing with it billions of dollars of economic activity. The winners and losers in the competition for visitors might surprise you, with several countries posting multi-billion-dollar inflows.

11. This Map Shows Every State's Biggest Export

The American economy is much more diverse than people think. The biggest exports in every state will catch you by surprise. From airplanes to medicine, diamonds and oil, the U.S. sends huge quantities of goods into the global economy. That's why President Trump's trade war is so threatening to domestic economic stability.

10. Visualizing $21 Trillion of National Debt: Which Presidents You Should Blame the Most

The national debt is now sky-high at over $21 trillion. Who should we blame? We analyzed inflation-adjusted figures for the deficits under each U.S. President, indicating how budget-busting deficits are relatively new. And in fact, both political parties deserve part of the blame.

9. How Much You Must Earn to Afford a House in the 50 Largest U.S. Cities

The housing market became more favorable for sellers in 2018 thanks to tight inventories, high demand and low interest rates. With so many Millennials taking the plunge into homeownership, we investigated how much money someone needs to earn to afford a home in several major U.S. cities. Financial advisers recommend spending no more 28% of income on a housing payment, a ratio that puts ownership out of reach for lots of people on the coasts.

8. The iPhone X Index: This Chart Shows How Ridiculously Long You Have to Work to Get One

Apple became the first American company with a market cap over $1 trillion this year, propelled in large part thanks to iPhone sales around the world. Apple combined a luxury brand with technical know-how. Want proof? See how many hours people around the world have to work just to buy Apple's flagship product. And by the way, Apple’s valuation recently fell to third place, behind Amazon and Microsoft.

7. Visualize the Entire Global Economy in One Chart

We love making complex issues immediately understandable. This visual snapshot of the global economy lets you easily and quickly see which countries and continents flex the biggest economic muscles. Plus, with the World Cup going on in Russia, creating this type of visualization was just plain old fun.

6. Find Out How Much Your Country Spends on Research & Development

You have to buy a ticket to win the lottery, and you have to invest in research and development to spur innovation. Our visualization ranks the economic juggernauts spending the most on R&D. It highlights which countries actually stand a chance in creating long-term economic growth, and which ones are going to be left behind.

5. Visualizing the Most Expensive Natural Disasters in the Last 40 Years

2018 saw severe natural disasters all over the U.S. The year started with a "historic bomb cyclone" winter storm in the East, then a volcano exploded in Hawaii, and record-setting forest fires devastated parts of California. The cost of natural disasters keeps climbing as people repeatedly rebuild in flood-prone areas, costing the economy hundreds of billions of dollars.

4. How Much Longer Until the U.S. Debt Bubble Bursts?

Debt-fueled consumption is the engine that drives the American economy. Not all debt is bad. Mortgages, car loans and student debt can all serve as healthy forms of debt. The problem is that Americans keep taking on more and more, which will eventually have severe consequences one way or another. GIFs also tell a more powerful story than a static image, making this visual one of our top 5 favorites from 2018.

3. Visualizing How Vulnerable is Each State to a Trade War

President Trump continues to shake the business world with his trade war rhetoric, causing "yuge" amounts of unease in the financial markets. We wanted to understand which states are most vulnerable in the changing trade landscape. It turns out that many of the places that voted for Trump have the most at stake.

2. Where is the Bottom? Putting the Bitcoin Crash into Perspective

If you can't handle bitcoin's double-digit declines, you don't deserve it's triple-digit gains. The price of bitcoin crashed in 2018, but anyone with access to Google should know it has crashed lots of times before. In fact, if you take the long view, even if bitcoin hasn't reach bottom yet, it will no doubt climb back to previous levels eventually. Want proof? Check out these eye-popping crashes from bitcoin's historic volatility. 2018 was extreme but nothing new.

1. Is Cryptocurrency ‘The Mother of all Bubbles’? This Visualization Puts Things in Perspective

The media has barraged cryptocurrency investors all year long with "I told you so" stories. The price of bitcoin, Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies has indeed collapsed, but smart readers anticipated a fall and plan for the long term. Bitcoin is down 75% from 1 year ago, but it's up 400% from 2 years ago. More importantly, the size of the crypto market pales in comparison to the bubbles building up in other parts of the economy.

We look forward to creating more visualizations explaining the world of money in 2019. Be sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, or you can subscribe to our email newsletter.

Have a great 2019 everyone!

One of the most underappreciated problems facing the global economy right now is the ever-increasing rise of national debt, and the potential for investors to lose faith in a country’s ability to ever repay its obligations.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures the total value of the goods and services produced within a country over a period of time, like a year or fiscal quarter. The ratio of debt-to-GDP makes it possible to compare relative debt levels across many different countries. The U.S. is able to carry a much larger debt in overall terms than smaller countries like Belgium because the economies are of such a vastly different size. Think about it like this. It’s no problem for Bill Gates to have a credit card bill for $50,000 because he has billions in the bank, but for the average American, that would mean bankruptcy.

We used the latest (October 2018) complete set of numbers from the International Monetary Fund to plot debt-to-GDP ratios between countries in an interesting visualization. Countries with larger ratios appear bigger, redder, and toward the center of the visual. Our approach places the countries with the most significant debt problems at the center, letting you see which places are more likely to have substantial issues in the future.

Countries with the Biggest Debt to GDP Ratio 

1. Japan - 238%

2. Greece - 182%

3. Italy - 132%

4. Portugal - 126%

5. United States - 105%

6. Belgium - 103%

7. Egypt - 103%

8. Spain - 98%

9. Cyprus - 97%

10. France - 97%

The first and most obvious insight that our visualization reveals is how developed countries have the biggest debt problems. Japan immediately stands out as the single most prolific spender with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 238%. That means the entire Japanese economy, the third largest in the entire world, doesn’t produce nearly enough value in 2 years to pay off its entire debt. Greece is not far behind at 182%, followed by Italy (132%) and Portugal (126%). The U.S. has the 5th worst ratio in the world at 105%.

Immediately outside this inner ring of heavy spenders are several small or developing countries with enormous financial challenges. Egypt (103%), Cyprus (97%), Mongolia (84%), Brazil (83%) and Yemen (74%), to name only a few, clearly have debt problems that could spark financial problems for the rest of the world.

And then there are a host of green countries along the outside of our visual worth mentioning, especially China (47%), which has the second biggest economy in the world but a remarkably healthy national balance sheet. Granted, the country is still undergoing substantial urbanization and modernization, but the fact that it has such a low debt-to-GDP ratio suggests that it can spend buckets of additional money solving its challenges. Also take a look at Russia at only 16%. The Russian economy is plagued by corruption and slow growth, but at least it won’t have a debt crisis anytime soon.

Another way to think about this visual is in terms of spending and revenue, which is to say, should countries with high debt-to-GDP ratios spend less money or collect more tax revenue? We doubt any country can actually “grow” its way out of a crushing debt burden worth more than its entire GDP without making substantial changes to its fiscal behavior. Policymakers will eventually have to solve this problem, and either option poses serious challenges to economic growth.

Data: Table 1.1

Imagine taking a snapshot in time of Baby Boomers, Gen Xers and Millennials just as each generation was entering the workforce. On average, how would the total assets and debts compare? That’s the premise behind our newest visualization.

We took a deep dive into some recent Federal Reserve data to investigate the differences in debt and assets between Millennials, Gen Xers and Baby Boomers. First off, we broke down the types of assets each generation holds in aggregate, whether that’s equity in a home, other financial assets like stocks, business assets, equity in a vehicle and other real estate. We then compared the total debt each generation carries on average in red across the bottom, letting you easily get an idea for the relative balance of assets and income for successive generations.

It’s important to bear in mind researchers have adjusted these numbers for inflation. This lets us make a fair comparison, for example, of home values between several different decades. Interestingly enough, Millennials in 2016 on average had more equity in their homes compared to Baby Boomers in 1989, but much less than Gen Xers in 2001. In other words, despite entering the job market right after the housing crash and their reputation for delaying when they purchase a home for the first time, Millennials are actually doing just fine as homeowners.

Things get even more interesting in other asset classes. Millennials are much better savers than people from previous generations, averaging $18,800 in the bank compared to $16,800 for Gen Xers and a measly $6,600 for Baby Boomers. Part of the explanation for why is that previous generations tended to grow their wealth in the form of small businesses. In fact, according to the Small Business Administration, young people today are several times less likely to start their own companies compared to other generations. That’s because the Great Recession discouraged risk taking in the minds of many Millennials, forcing them to be more conservative with their money.

That being said, the total debt loads across each generation tell an interesting story too. Cars have gotten much more expensive, forcing people to put more of their paychecks toward building equity in a vehicle than ever before. Lots of Millennials also take out massive student loans to fund higher education. And that’s because states are routinely decreasing allocations for public institutions, not to mention the increases to tuition at private schools. College is still seen as the best way to improve future earning potential, even if lots of college grads end up in jobs that don’t require a degree. The debt load for Millennials is therefore higher at $84,600 than for Gen Xers ($79,400) and substantially more than Baby Boomers ($59,300).

Data: Table 1.1

GDP per capita is a critical metric for understanding the economy.

It’s a measure of a country’s economic output that takes into account the number of people who live there. GDP per capita takes the gross domestic product and divides it by the number of people who live there. It’s the best measurement of a country's standard of living. It tells you how prosperous a country feels to each of its citizens. 

We gathered the data for our series of maps from the International Monetary Fund. The color corresponds to the GDP per capita in each country, with dark green being the richest at over $100,000 and dark pink the poorest at less than $1,000. A few countries are shaded light gray because data were not available.

We wanted to break down this world map in a new light to really unearth the vast differences of wealth it displays. So, we added an additional dimension of size for each region also corresponding to per capita GDP, letting you quickly grasp a comparison between countries apples-to-apples. Of course, GDP per capita doesn’t necessarily indicate high levels of disposable income, but our approach does let you easily see where the wealthiest countries are.

In North America, it’s no surprise to see the United States in dark green at the head of the pack ($62,518). That’s one of the highest in the world, and it’s especially impressive given how over 328 million people live in the U.S. Canada also stands out as a rich nation ($46,733), but take a look at Puerto Rico ($32,004) and Aruba ($24,881) compared to the rest of the Caribbean and Central America. These countries are poor compared to the U.S. and Canada, but they’re several magnitudes wealthier than places like Nicaragua ($2,127) and Honduras ($2,829).

South America looks like an explosion of small pink countries, indicating a relatively low GDP per capita. Uruguay is the most well-off ($17,380), followed by Chile ($16,143). Compare these countries to Brazil ($9,127), which usually gets a lot of press attention for the overall size of its economy. Our visualization puts things in perspective that even if Brazil’s economy is critical to the world, the people who live there are relatively poor compared to their neighbors, much less North America.

The situation across the pond is eye-opening. There is a clear and obvious division between the wealthy, large and green countries in the West and the poor, small and pink countries in the East. Just compare Luxembourg ($113,954) with Moldova ($3,227). This tells you a lot about where the economic power lies on the European continent.

There is likewise a stark illustration of inequality Down Under. Australia ($56,698) boasts by far the highest GDP per capita, followed by New Zealand ($41,616), both of which are developed economies. The rest of Oceania, however, contains a large number of relatively poor countries.

Our visualization is perhaps most appealing when it comes to Asia because of the way it distorts the countries. Geographically, Russia and China dominate the entire continent, but not when it comes to GDP per capita (a measly $10,950 and $9,633, respectively). The countries with real economic clout when you consider the size of their populations are all located further south, especially in the Middle East. Macao, a gambling outpost technically part of China, is incredibly wealthy by these standards ($81,585).

And finally, there’s Africa, the all-around poorest continent on the planet. There isn’t a single country over $20,000. There are several below $1,000, including Malawi ($349), Burundi ($307) and South Sudan ($307).

It’s hard to comprehend just how enormous the disparities on our maps are. If the U.S. has a GDP per capita of $62,518 and Burundi only has $307, what does that mean? In short, all things being equal and when adjusted for population, the economy produces 203 times more for Americans.

Data: Table 1.1

President Trump loves to talk about cutting U.S. foreign aid, even if he doesn’t always follow through. What’s most often missed in media coverage about this debate is where American dollars are going, and the issues U.S. expenditures are meant to fix.

Our latest visualization lays out a nice snapshot, revealing the handful of countries with most at stake in Trump’s threats to overseas aid.

We compiled the data for our visual from USAID, the agency responsible for U.S. assistance to countries around the world. We plotted the total allocation of foreign aid into a stacked bubble chart where the size of each bubble corresponds to the amount of money the U.S. sends. We added each country’s flag and its geographic boundary. We then divided the bubbles into four income groups, which the World Bank defines as gross national income (GNI) per capita. And finally, we added an additional layer in the color of each bubble’s outline representing the single biggest sector that USAID is supporting. The result is a fascinating snapshot of American assistance around the world.

Top 10 Countries Recieving the Most Aid from USA

1. Afghanistan: $5.7B

2. Iraq: $3.7B

3. Israel: $3.2B

4. Jordan: $1.5B

5. Egypt: $1.5B

6. Ethiopia: $1.1B

7. Kenya: $1B

8. South Sudan: $924M

9. Syria: $891M

10. Nigeria: $852M

We previously wrote about foreign aid 2 years ago, and it turns out not much has changed. American aid is not evenly distributed. There are a handful of countries in each income group receiving the bulk of the money. Afghanistan ($5.7B) and Iraq ($3.7B) stand out for obvious reasons given the American military engagements in those countries. 30 countries account for 82% of all USAID expenditures, and 121 receive less than $100M each. The budget is therefore top-heavy and biased toward a select number of places.

Another interesting angle to consider is the ultimate purpose of American aid by income group. For example, there are a number of countries in the low income group receiving aid for HIV/AIDS prevention and emergency responses. Among the upper middle income countries, however, government and civil society and conflict, peace and security both feature prominently. This pattern suggests that American aid correlates with where each country is in its economic development.

That being said, high income countries tend not to be major recipients of American foreign aid with the sole exception of Israel ($3.2B). The next closest country in the high income group is Austria at $38.4M. If you add up all the foreign aid that high income countries receive, Israel alone receives over 94%. That’s almost entirely because of the longstanding military alliance between the U.S. and Israel, which was itself strengthened under Trump.

At first glance, it seems like we’re talking about a lot of money. Billions of dollars are flowing from the U.S. to other countries for conflict reduction, emergency relief and HIV/AIDS prevention. But keep in mind the U.S. government maintains an annual budget deficit of over $1 trillion. USAID totals only $36.8B, a tiny fraction of the overall budget. In reality, Americans get substantial goodwill and strategic benefits for a relatively low expenditure, all things considered.

Data: Table 1.1

Want to make a lot of money? Become a doctor.

That’s the basic message behind our new map breaking down the highest paid occupations in every state. Almost every single top-ranking job is in the healthcare field.

We have together a list of the highest paying jobs in every state based on annual mean wage figures, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. We created a color-coded map by occupation, letting you easily see the regional patterns at the highest end of the labor market.

At the macro level, all the top paying jobs are from the medical profession. That’s because we’re looking at annual mean wages for large groups of people. Only some actors in California, for example, make millions of dollars. The vast majority of people don’t make very much money creating films. But doctors and dentists generally make tons of money no matter where they live.

The real question then is which types of medical professionals make the most money. Across the Northwest, there’s an obvious cluster of obstetricians and gynecologists. Internists are the highest paid in only two states, Minnesota and Arkansas. Anesthesiologists do pretty well no matter where they work.

Interestingly, our map indicates there isn’t much variation in average incomes for the highest-paid jobs across the country. Every state boasts a wage around $250k to $390k with the exceptions of Puerto Rico ($135,510), the Virgin Islands ($150,620) and Guam ($163,180). No occupation makes millions on average, and yet, regardless of where you live, if you work one of these jobs you can expect to make some decent coin.

This means that the real differentiating factor to consider is the cost of living, which determines how much money people keep after paying for their basic necessities. For example, the cost of buying a house is outrageously expensive in California compared to Ohio. An anesthesiologist only makes on average about $7,000 more in California than Ohio, but he or she would likely pay tens of thousands more housing. Although we don’t recommend picking a job based solely on how much money you’d make, it’s always helpful to know where you stand for both income and expenses.

Data: Table 1.1

Go to college and get a high-paying job.

That’s what most parents say they want for their children. But it’s hard to figure out which career path offers both high compensation and widespread demand. That’s why we created a new visualization breaking down the top 50 best jobs in America according to U.S. News & World Report.

U.S. News developed its ranking of the best jobs by taking into account a variety of factors. They considered work-life balance, stress levels, and room for long-term career advancement. We took the top 50 and narrowed the focus to the two key things that really matter, compensation and projected job growth. We maintained the same order from 1 to 50, but our approach reveals that high job growth doesn’t necessarily equate to high salaries, especially when there are low barriers to entry.

Here’s what we mean. All of the occupations at the top of the ranking generate six-figure incomes with the exceptions of statisticians ($84.1k) and occupational therapists ($83.2k). There are several jobs in the medical field where applicants can expect to earn substantially more than $200,000, including orthodontists, obstetricians and surgeons. But look at the orange bars, which indicate how many new jobs researchers expect will be created in the coming years. We can rightly infer there is a relatively high bar of entry into these fields, namely, medical school. Not just anyone can become a doctor.

Now compare these high-paying jobs with the middle and lower parts of the visual. There are a number of jobs with a reasonable degree of specialization, high pay and abundant job growth. Business operations managers, for example, can expect to make $100.4k while seeing well over 200,000 new similar positions in the next decade. And there are also very low-paid occupations with very little training required, like landscapers. 

If you’re thinking about making a career change, there are two occupations that stand out to us. The Internet Age requires software developers. They have the best job overall according to U.S. News, and it’s easy to see why with the combination of high pay and strong future job growth. Plus, the nature of writing software is engaging and intellectually difficult.

And second, Baby Boomers are entering their golden years and require lots of additional nurses, a job which requires professional certification. And although lots of people will clearly become nurses in the coming years, there’s an obvious wage floor of about $70k that would provide almost anyone with a comfortable life.

Data: Table 1.1

Lots of people make New Year’s resolutions to get their personal financial situation in order, and paying off credit card debt is usually a high priority. Credit card debt is at a $1 trillion. The combination of high borrowing limits, steep interest rates and late payment fees make it extremely difficult to get under control.

But let’s assume people in every state created a plan to pay 15% of their income toward credit card debt. We compiled research from Creditcards.com to understand how such a strategy would play out in every state across the country.

Our visualization starts with a heat map of average total credit card balances broken down by state. We then applied an average household income figure to see how many months it would take to pay off such a balance with only 15% of one’s total household income. This takes into account the compounding interest rate adding to the remaining balance each month. Of course, our analysis assumes people would stick to the plan and avoid taking on brand new credit card debt throughout the process.

There are several big takeaways. First, there’s a regional trend in overall credit card balances. Dark red states like New York ($8,510), Texas ($9,100) and Alaska ($10,685) carry the biggest balances, but the Upper Midwest looks relatively financially healthy. Wisconsin ($6,737) and Iowa ($6,726) have the lowest averages in the country.

Most Americans would need at least a year to pay off their credit cards, and even longer for states in the South. New Mexico, Louisiana and West Virginia have the longest timelines at 17 months each, and Massachusetts has the shortest at just 9 months. The average across all 50 states is 12.7 months, meaning it would have to be a New Year’s resolution for 2019 and 2020 for lots of people.

And finally, there’s the imperfect relationship between how long it would take to pay off the debt and the total debt load. The states with the highest balances don’t necessarily need the most time. Take Massachusetts as an example, where the average credit card debt stands at $7,994 but would only take 9 months to pay off. Compare it to Iowa at $6,726 and 11 months. That’s because people in Massachusetts make a lot more money than people in Iowa. Things generally cost a lot more in the Northeast too, which makes it harder to achieve financial security too.

Data: Table 1.1

President Trump loves railing against the trade deficit even as it reaches a 10-year high. But here’s the thing. Countries with large surpluses have to do something with all that cash, and there’s only so many domestic investments available.

Instead, much of that money finds its way into foreign direct investment (FDI). And it turns out, the U.S. receives over $275B, by far the most FDI of any country in the world. That’s according to a new set of numbers released by the United Nations for 2017, the latest year for which complete figures are available.

Foreign direct investments (FDIs) occur when one company or person buys an ownership stake in another company located in a different country. We created a color-coded map corresponding to the level of FDI inflows each country received in 2017, excluding countries with less than $1B. We then adjusted the size to also indicate the level of investment, creating a unique world geography of capital flows.

Ten countries that received the most FDIs in 2017

1. United States: $275.4B

2. China: $136.3B

3. Hong Kong: $104.3B

4. Brazil: $62.7B

5. Singapore: $62B

6. Netherlands: $58B

7. France: $49.8B

8. Australia: $46.4B

9. Switzerland: $41B

10. India: $39.9B

To start, the U.S. ($275.4B) and China ($136.3B) are clearly the two biggest beneficiaries. We technically separated Hong Kong ($104.3B) from China in the list above, and even still China passed the $100B mark. Things get more interesting the further down the list you look. Brazil is the only country in Latin America to crack $50B, and it’s followed closely by the small city-state of Singapore ($62B). And then there are a smattering of Western European countries pulling in tens of billions of FDI, led by the Netherlands ($58B). India rounds out the top 10 ($39.9B) as a developing country with billions of people but less than $40B in FDI.

The most interesting thing about our map is how it distinguishes between rich, developing and poor countries. We excluded for visualization purposes any country seeing less than $1B in FDI, and as a result almost the entire continent of Africa disappeared. Eastern Europe and the Middle East both likewise seem tiny as they’re sandwiched between rich nations in the West and developing ones in the East. Most of South and Central America similarly pale in comparison to Brazil and North America. Special mention should be made of the British Virgin Islands ($38.4B), where clearly lots of overseas capital is looking for opportunities in a warmer climate.

It’s worth pointing out that Trump’s policies have decreased FDI to the U.S. even if he’s recently changed his mind about severe restrictions. There are legitimate national security concerns for allowing companies with close ties to foreign governments to invest in companies with key U.S. military technologies. That being said, FDI is generally seen as a great thing because it’s directly responsible for some 12 million U.S. jobs. Who wouldn’t want billions of dollars of foreign capital spent on job creation?

Data: Table 1.1

Selling weapons to other countries is big business. It’s so lucrative that President Trump famously refused to cancel an American arms deal with Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. So just how big is the international market?

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the World Bank keep detailed figures on international arms imports and exports, counting every major conventional weapon from missiles to radar systems and military airplanes. We used the latest available complete data, sometimes going as far back as 2016 for some countries, to create a unique set of maps. The larger a country appears, the more arms it imports or exports. Plus, we added a color-coded outer ring corresponding to the level of each country’s contribution. Let’s start by looking at who’s selling the most weapons. The U.S. stands out as the world leader by a long shot, shipping well over $12B in arms to other countries. To be sure, a significant amount of American arms exports go to Israel, but there are several other large customers across the Middle East as well, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE.

To understand the extent to which Americans dominate the international market for weapons, just look around the world. The second most prolific exporter, Russia, only sees half as much business ($6.15B). France ($2.16B) is the only other country topping $2 billion, with the rest of the major players from Western Europe contributing less. Israel for its part is actually a net exporter of arms ($1.26B exports vs. $528M imports). And China, despite being the second largest economy in the world, only exports some $1.13B. There is only one country from Africa on our map (South Africa at $74M), and only a couple from Latin America. This means that developed countries in the West are, by far, the biggest exporters of arms around the world.

But let’s see who’s buying all those weapons. The world map of importers looks radically different from the exporters. For starters, Saudi Arabia and India are major players, soaking up some $4.11B and $3.36B of the market, respectively. Each country is surrounded by a smattering of other countries making big purchases too.

There are lots of reasons why some countries are major importers. There’s efficiency in a global market where a country can simply purchase weapons as opposed to manufacturing everything at home. Why would Australia, for example, try to build military aircraft when it can simply buy them from the U.S.? There are also lots of regional conflicts pressuring countries to spend top dollar for the latest military technologies, like India and Pakistan. And then there are a number of disreputable countries led by strongmen or oligarchies. They have their own agenda, and clearly they’re willing to spend big bucks for the best weapons.

Data: Table 1.1
 

The economy is rigged.

That’s the message behind our recent analysis of price changes over the last 20 years. We looked at everything from mass market consumer items, like TVs, cell phones and apparel, to critical life-altering purchases, like healthcare, college tuition and textbooks. It turns out that the most important things in life keep getting more and more expensive, while the things that don’t really matter keep getting cheaper.
 

Proper credit for inspiring our visualization belongs to Mark J. Perry at the American Enterprise Institute. His original visualization was so good that we couldn’t resist using the same basic idea for our purposes. The underlying data come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which keeps detailed records of consumer goods as well as average hourly earnings. Of course, these figures take into consideration inflation.

We start by using prices in 1998 as a benchmark, plotting the relative percentage increase or decrease for each category over the last 20 years. The result is a snapshot of the American economy, providing several key insights about both the standard of living for most Americans and the unique challenges companies face to remain relevant.

Let’s start with the things that have become more affordable in the last 20 years, consumer goods. It costs substantially less money to purchase a TV now than it ever has in the past, dropping some 97% since 1998. We see similar eye-popping declines for other mass consumer products like toys, computers and cellphones. It’s worth pointing out that all these things are not just cheaper, but they’re also objectively better. Almost all TVS are now high definition flat screens with Internet connections. Cell phones are like miniature computers in your pocket, and toys are designed for cognitive development. They’re cheaper and a lot better.

There are several items that haven’t really changed that much in terms of price. Apparel, household furnishings and new cars all cost about as much as they did in 1998. Similar to TVs, cell phones and computers, cars have also gotten substantially better with the creation of new technologies. Adaptive cruise control automatically adjusts to the flow of traffic, and lane assist keeps the vehicle where it’s safe. Even backup cameras are relatively new in automotive history, and yet they come standard in most new cars.

And then there are things that have exploded in relative price, especially compared to average hourly earnings. Healthcare is now over 225% more expensive, and getting a higher education is not far behind at 183%. Both categories have more than doubled the growth rate of average hourly earnings, making them less affordable for middle class families. College textbooks alone now run students almost 150% more than they used to.

Why have these prices increased so much, whereas consumer goods have become cheaper and cheaper? It’s debatable to what extent healthcare and educational outcomes have improved over the last 20 years. And there are lots of possible reasons why they cost a lot more than they used to. Government regulations, market conditions, monopolies and professional certifications all play a role. There’s also a strong bias in both fields for reputation and pedigree. Will we ever get to a place where all the technology in the world could replace the judgement of a Harvard-educated doctor? Maybe, but in the meantime, consumers are paying top dollar for the things that determine major life outcomes while demanding lower prices for other products.

Data: Table 1.1

Tens of millions of people are in slavery around the world, and lots of them live in your country. That’s according to the 2018 Global Slavery Index, a detailed analysis of modern human trafficking and slavery around the world from the Walk Free Foundation.

The best way to start to understand the global landscape of slavery is by looking at absolute numbers, paying no attention to population size. A glance at our worldwide map reveals the staggering scale of the problem. There are well over 40M people in slavery around the world. Our color-coded approach lets you easily see how the vast majority of human slavery, measured in overall terms, occurs in places like Southeast Asia, India, China, Russia and a few countries in Africa, like Mauritania and South Sudan.

We’re quick to point out that hundreds of thousands of people are trapped in slavery throughout the West. In fact, several Eastern European countries have lower overall numbers than Spain, France, England and Germany. A number of countries in Africa and South America have a better track record than the U.S.

It’s worth pausing to clarify the methodology used to gather these numbers. First of all, slavery can be difficult to define, and researchers used a few different concepts, including forced marriage, bondage, indentured servitude and human trafficking. If people are being treated like property, it’s slavery.

How did researchers arrive at total numbers encompassing all these activities for so many countries? They administered a survey to 71,000 respondents across 48 countries. They then extrapolated results for other countries with similar risk profiles. These are some of the best and most widely reported numbers available even if some governments and scholars disagree with the findings. You can read more about the study’s methodology here.

Absolute numbers only give a sense for how many people are involved in slavery overall, but some countries are significantly more populated than others. We therefore applied the same color-coded methodology to see how many people out of 1,000 are in slavery, shifting the lens to places where a great proportion of people live in slavery.

The Walk Free Foundation finds that North Korea is the global capital of human slavery, affecting an estimated 105 out of every 1,000 people. Eritrea has the second highest rate at 93. The extent of human tragedy in these places is truly astonishing.

Focusing on per capita enslavement also reveals how Central Africa and the Middle East have proportionally more significant problems than surrounding regions. China falls off the list of worst offenders, and no country in Western Europe has a rate higher than 5 out of 1,000 people. Venezuela and Haiti are the only countries in the entire Western Hemisphere shaded dark red.

And finally, we put together a deeper analysis of global slavery as it relates to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We adjusted the size of each country according to the overall number of people in slavery, and we color-coded each one according to its GDP per capita. The combination of both datasets reveals how rich economies see lower rates of enslavement. Take Asia and Africa, for example, where only a few countries are shaded blue. The large countries shaded orange indicate a high overall number of enslaved individuals combined with very low GDP per capita. Compare that with the maps for Europe and North America, where there are relatively small countries colored blue. That indicates these countries have low overall slavery numbers, but high GDP per capita.

We’re clearly onto something even if the correlation between GDP per capita and enslavement isn’t perfect. It’s not like countries just need to grow their economies and slavery will simply vanish. In fact, the U.S. has more people in slavery than Mexico (403K vs. 341K). Germany has a higher number than Belarus (167K vs. 103K). This suggests that countries must tackle the issue head on in addition to pursuing economic development.

Data: Table 1.1


 

Imagine President Trump could directly control how many jobs the American economy produces. He would no doubt want to see tens of millions of more jobs before the next election, more than any other administration in American history.

To be sure, presidents control some parts of the job creation process. They can set tariffs on goods produced overseas, eliminate onerous regulations and generally give consumers confidence about the future. And they certainly campaign on the economy. President Trump kicked off his State of the Union by pointing to job creation numbers during his tenure.

• U.S. presidents don’t really control how many jobs get created in the economy, and yet job creation is a constant campaign theme. Our analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ranks each president since World War II, letting you see for yourself who has the best track record.

• The economy under President Clinton created more jobs than any other administration, and FDR oversaw the highest percentage increase in the workforce.

• Job growth boomed from the 1960s through the 1990s, before tapering off over the last 19 years.

We created a timeline of official numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics over the last several administrations, going all the way back to FDR in the Great Depression. Thanks to the researchers at The Balance for originally gathering the data. We plotted a series of bubbles indicating both the overall number created and the percentage change in job growth. This lets you easily and see how presidential track records compare against each other.

The overall number of jobs created is the easiest statistic to grasp, but there are a few things to keep in mind. For starters, the U.S. economy grew throughout the years represented on our timeline. The labor force is much, much bigger today than 30, 50 or 70 years ago. That means it’s more common to see millions of jobs created each year than before. The economy generated 304,000 new jobs just last month alone.

Our numbers also ignore recessions and depressions, when lots of people lose their jobs. President George Bush lost a lot of jobs after the 2001 recession, to say nothing of the Great Recession in late 2008 and 2009, which technically happened under Obama. Usually, there’s a surge of hiring in the years following an economic contraction, which typically makes up for any job losses and then some. That partly explains why so many jobs were created under FDR, to say nothing of the country’s focus in producing weapons for World War II.

The percentages tell a deeper story. For example, President Obama oversaw 8.9M in job creation, only 6.2% growth. FDR, on the other hand, oversaw 9.5M, an incredible 21.5% growth. Granted, FDR was in power longer than Obama, but the point still stands. President Reagan deserves special mention because he oversaw the best percentage job in the post-World War II era. Clinton came close at 15.6%, but Reagan was clearly the best.

Republican or Democrat, politicians like to take credit for things when it’s convenient. Job creation is difficult if not impossible for one person to directly control. As the 2020 campaign season gets underway, at least now you will have the real numbers to decide who’s right.

Data: Table 1.1

Who doesn’t want to retire early?

There’s a new movement among financial advisors called FIRE (Financial Independence / Retire Early). The basic idea is to live below what you could theoretically afford, so that you can maximize retirement savings and exit the workforce as soon as possible. So how much money would it really take to retire as early as 55 years old? What about 45, or even 35 years old?

• You might not need as much money as you think to retire early, according to our new set of maps. Depending on where you live, you could retire on as little as $1.5 million if you’re 35 years old.

• Mississippi is the best state for early retirees, but Hawaii, California and New York are prohibitively expensive.

GoBankingRates collected the information from a few different sources. The researches started by figuring out the annual cost of living expenditures for people at 35, 45 and 55 years old, which came to $69,034, $73,905 and $64,972 respectively. They then adjusted the cost of living on a state-by-state basis using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2017 Consumer Expenditure Survey and the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center. They divided each state’s annual expenditures by .04, which is the rate at which savers would draw down their accounts each year. The result is a total savings figure, or nest egg, for each state.

Granted, there are a few things to keep in mind about the data behind our maps. For one thing, our figures presume a flat 4% withdrawal each year regardless of what the market does. There’s no adjustment for inflation, and there’s no flexibility to change the withdrawal from year to year. We also make the assumption that your cost of living will stay constant. If you retire at age 35, you probably have 50 or more years left. In short, there’s no doubt we’re simplifying reality for illustration purposes.

Our series of color-coded maps highlight a few insights about saving for retirement. $1 million isn’t nearly enough to last a lifetime, as we demonstrated in a previous article. The South is cheaper than the Northeast and the West Coast, making it particularly attractive for retirees on a fixed income looking for warmer climates. Mississippi is the most affordable state in the country for all ages of retirees, and Hawaii is the most expensive.

An interesting thing happens to Upper Midwestern states for older savers. From Wisconsin stretching west to Idaho, a number of states fall below $1.6M for early retirees aged 55, but not for 45- or 35-year-olds.. This means it gets relatively easier to retire the older you get in these states, both because you’ll have more time to save money, but you’ll also need a smaller nest egg to live comfortably. Financial independence doesn’t always mean retirement, which itself isn’t fun for everyone. Instead, it’s knowing that you’re financially secure no matter what the future brings.

Data: Table 1.1

The most innovative fintech companies have two things in common. They’re getting a lot of attention from investors, and they’re using technology to dramatically simplify financial transactions.

That’s our conclusion from reading a new ranking from Forbes on the most innovative fintech companies in 2019. And when you pause to consider what each company is trying to do, it’s easy to see why investors believe there is significant value to be had in competing against traditional players.

• Fintech companies focused on processing payments are receiving the lionshare of outside investments, according to a new set of figures from Forbes.

• Companies built on the blockchain and cryptocurrencies are also a distinct and growing category in the fintech world, earning more than $1B in investments.

• Regardless of industry, the most innovative fintech companies are using technology to make previously complex or difficult tasks incredibly easy for consumers.

Forbes only looked at private companies in the U.S., broadly defined as either a physical headquarters, an operational presence or a target market of American consumers. We created a bubble according to the size of each company’s funding, then we color-coded and grouped each one based on the main type of business it conducts. We added the logos for easy reference, letting you quickly see where the biggest action is for fintech companies this year.

39 companies received more than $100M in outside funding, led by Opendoor at $1B. Remember, these are not total valuations, which would all be significantly higher. In fact, according to Forbes, 19 out of the 50 are valued at $1B or more. Instead, these figures indicate investments that people and companies are making into fintech. All told, there’s over $11B represented in our visualization.

In terms of market dominance, payment companies are taking the lionshare of funding, totalling some $2.94B. Stripe ($685M) is the obvious standout with a global business centered around making it easy for businesses to accept payments from customers. The company is valued at an incredible $23B. That’s more than twice its value the last time we wrote about Stripe just 16 months ago. We’ll have to see how its involvement in the investigation into President Trump’s inauguration influences future investments.

The personal finance industry is the second leading category in private fintech investments, most notably Credit Karma ($869M). Any company that successfully makes it easy to manage personal finances will no doubt attract a lot of attention from investors. We should also mention Lemonade ($180M), a company that’s disrupting the renters and homeowners insurance industry by using analytics to approve applications and process claims.

There are lots of other cutting edge tech companies in our visualization too. Robinhood ($539M) offers $0 commissions to trade individual stocks, making it fast and easy to trade on a smartphone. Betterment ($275M) provides consumers with a tailored financial advice to fit their individual needs. And then there are a number of cryptocurrency and blockchain companies, like Coinbase ($525M), one of the leading platforms for buying and selling bitcoin. 

Categorizing companies like this will always be somewhat arbitrary. For example, you can buy bitcoin on Robinhood, but we’re still calling it an investment company because you can also buy traditional stocks and mutual funds. It’s still a useful exercise because a small but growing group of companies using blockchain technologies is threatening to disrupt a variety of different industries. The five companies shaded red on our visual have already received over a combined billion dollars in funding. We’re betting they will continue to grow and challenge the underlying business models of more established companies.

Data: Table 1.1

The 2018 tax season is off to a slow start. According to the IRS, refunds are 8% lower than last year, and taxpayers appear to be taking their time filing their returns.

But refunds will likely still run as high as two or three thousand dollars. Exactly how big your refund will be depends entirely on where you live, a subject that our latest map breaks down in detail.

• The last day to file your 2018 taxes without an extension is Monday, April 15, 2019.

• The average tax refund is over $2,700, but the amount differs wildly by state.

• There are regional patterns in tax refunds, suggesting that conditions in similar states determine the size of refunds.

Special thanks to Business Insider for collecting the data from the IRS. Keep in mind these figures are for federal refunds only from 2018. A lot of people also receive refunds from their state governments too, meaning there’s potentially a lot more money flowing back to taxpayers each year than even our figures illustrate. Even so, a lot can be said about tax policies just by looking at our map.

First of all, there’s substantial variability in average refunds depending on where you live. Texans are in store for the largest refunds at $3,206, while Mainers are set for the lowest at $2,336. That’s a spread of nearly $1,000, enough money to make a real dent in credit card debt or start saving for retirement.

We can also see some regional patterns in the average size of tax refunds. There’s a band of states stretching across the northern part of the country where average taxpayers can expect to receive relatively less than their Southern counterparts. In general, the further South you move, the higher your refund. There is an obvious exception to the rule in the Northeast, where high-tax states like New York and Massachusetts nevertheless enjoy sizeable federal tax refunds.

There are lots of underlying reasons explaining these differences. The federal government has lots of different tax policies favoring specific behaviors, like owning a home, having children and giving money to charity. The Earned Income Tax Credit is an additional benefit for low-income filers that juices tax returns. If you are a childless renter who never gives to charity despite having a high-paying job, your tax refund will probably be quite low.

To be sure, getting a tax refund feels like a windfall, but in reality it’s an interest-free loan that you’re giving the government. It would be much better to file your return and get a refund of $0, meaning you paid your exact tax liability, and nothing more, throughout the entire year. Instead of getting a nice check from Uncle Sam this spring, you would’ve had more money to spend throughout all of 2018.

Data: Table 1.1

The gender pay gap is real, and it’s worse for older workers than younger ones. That’s the message behind a set of figures that map the average differences between what men and women earn throughout their careers.

• There is an enormous gender wage gap in the U.S. for workers at every stage in their careers.

• The problem gets worse as people get older, increasing from $2,000 when people start working to $16,000 when they get ready to retire.

• The wage gap accelerates for workers in their 30s and 40s, suggesting that choices around having children play a role in widening gender pay disparities.

Inc. originally gathered the data from IPUMS USA, a research organization that collects and preserves U.S. Census data for the public. The underlying data for our visual comes from the 2017 American Community Survey, which is an annual survey that the Census performs between the decennial survey. These figures provide a deeper look at gender pay disparities than what we previously published, and they contain lots of insights about American workers.

First of all, a substantial gap exists for people no matter how old they are. It’s there when people first join the workforce, and it persists until retirement. The fact is that women make less than men from the very start. The initial difference for 18-year-old men and women is $2,000. That’s a lot of money to teenagers, and it’s a gap of more than 10%. To put that another way, a woman would have to work an additional 5.7 weeks each year just to take home as much money as men.

The gap starts out enormous, but it stays relatively stable in the earliest decades of a worker’s career. As both men and women gain more experience and advance in their careers, they both earn more money than before. Expressed as a percentage of income, it stays around 10 or 11% even as it grows in overall terms from $2,000 to $5,000 by age 30.

And then the wage gap explodes as workers advance into their 30s and start to settle down in their careers. Just as Americans get married, buy homes and start families, men start earning even more than women. The gap reaches its height at $16,100 at age 56, which comes out to a 25% premium.

Lots of people deny the gender pay gap exists. And even if it does exist, they argue it’s entirely explainable by choices related to career paths, or perhaps parenting preferences are to blame. After all, our visualization indicates how the gap expands just when people start families.

But that’s only looking at part of the picture. There’s a deeper dynamic going on than differences in parenting choices and career outcomes. The proof is that women never catch back up to men, even in their late 50s and early 60s. And more to the point, the wage gap exists long before most workers have children in the first place. The wage gap should be called exactly what these numbers suggest. It’s discrimination.

Data: Table 1.1

 

President Trump likes to argue that other countries should pay more to fund international groups like NATO and the United Nations. He frequently criticizes globalism and advocates for his “America First” foreign policy agenda. Among other things, this has meant decreasing the money the U.S. spends for on the UN.

We decided to dig beneath the headlines to uncover exactly how much money different countries and continents contribute to the UN. As it turns out, the President has a good point about how much Americans contribute compared to everyone else.

• The U.S. contributes hundreds of millions more than any other country in support of the UN, providing some 22% of the organization’s total budget.

• Developed countries with the largest economies tend to spend more on UN operations than the countries directly benefiting from UN programs.

• China and Japan are the only two non-Western countries spending over $100M each.

Our figures come from the United Nations’ Secretariat’s December 2018 report on member contributions. We applied the UN’s own methodology for grouping countries by continent to create the divisions in our visualization. The size of each piece of the visual corresponds to the size of each country’s allocation to the UN, which is calculated in two ways. First, there’s a real financial outlay of money from countries directly to the UN. And second, there’s a contribution of staff and resources to run the organization. Our visual takes into account the combined total of both types of support.

The U.S. alone contributes an incredible $674.2M, or 22% of the entire world’s outlay. No other country comes anywhere close. China, the second leading contributor in the world, provides almost $300M less than the U.S. at $367.9M or 12%, and Japan comes in third at $262.4M or 8.5%. Only a handful of other countries surpass the $100M mark, with the vast majority providing far less. The Russians notably only spend $73.7M despite being a member on the UN’s permanent Security Council.

There are a few other insights we can glean from our visualization. Developed countries in the West tend to contribute significantly more than the rest of the world. The combined total of all European countries comes to $844M. Including China, this means that the major world powers with the biggest economies pay the most for the UN. Meanwhile, the countries most likely to receive direct aid from the UN pay relatively little.

That’s because some countries clearly benefit from the UN’s existence more than others. The UN was originally created after World War II to promote world peace and de-escalate tensions, especially between the U.S. and Russia. More recently, the organization is well known for its humanitarian work, for example, raising awareness of human rights violations. Developed countries in the West as well as the East have a shared interest in stability and economic development.

Are these benefits worth the size of the American investment? To keep things in perspective, the millions spent on the UN is a rounding error in the U.S federal budget of $4.1T. That being said, the budget deficit keeps growing, and just hit $319B for the first 3 months of the government’s 2019 fiscal year. If the deficit is only going to get worse, then perhaps every penny of U.S. expenditures deserves scrutiny.

Data: Table 1.1