howmuch.net

Tax season is in full swing, and it’s fair to wonder what you’re getting for all your money. It turns out for people living in most states, the federal government is spending a lot more than it’s receiving in tax revenue.

Buy this Visualization

40 out of 50 states are getting more, sometimes a lot more, from the federal government than they’re paying in taxes.
Taxpayers in Virginia receive more than $10,000 on a per capita basis than they pay, the biggest imbalance of any state in the country.
Several states in the Northeast pay thousands more in taxes than they receive from the federal government.

Our data come from the SUNY Rockefeller Institute of Government’s 2019 report on fiscal policy. The report breaks down how much money each state pays to the federal government through taxes on a per capita basis (pink), plus how much the feds sent back in the form of expenditures (green). Expenditures is a broad category and covers a variety of things, including direct payments to people like Social Security, contracts for local governments, wages for federal workers and sub-contracting work. We ranked the states moving clockwise from high to low on the net difference between the two figures, showing a unique take on the balance of payments between federal and state governments.

The first and most obvious insight in our visualization is to understand which people are receiving more money in federal outlays than they’re paying in taxes. Virginia, Kentucky and New Mexico top the charts as the top three getting the most money back. For example, in Virginia, people on average contribute $10,571 in federal tax revenue but benefit from $20,872 in federal outlays. Granted, many of these expenditures are payments to the federal workers who actually live in the state, but it’s still a nice return for the state.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, several states are actually in the red. Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts each contribute thousands more on a per capita basis than they receive back from the feds. California is the closest to breaking even at a net difference of $12 per person, which is slightly more than the state’s minimum wage of $11/hour. Bear in mind our visual doesn’t take into account the overall size of the allocations. California looks small only because it’s a per capita figure. In reality, we’re talking about billions of dollars in money flowing back and forth.

In the final analysis, 40 out of 50 states are getting more, sometimes a lot more, from the federal government than they’re paying in taxes. There’s a net negative balance of payments across the country. That’s why the federal government is running a massive deficit of around $1 trillion this year. Unless and until politicians are willing to let their states contribute more than they receive, this situation will likely only continue to get worse.

Data: Table 1.1

There’s a lot of power in being first. And when it comes to Initial Public Offerings, or IPOs, it pays to be one of the earliest investors.

But we wanted to understand how much it would pay, so we ran an experiment. Imagine you could go back in time and invest $100 into a handful of great companies when they first went public. What would your investments be worth today?

Of all the companies we analyzed, Nike is the clear winner. An initial investment of $100 in 1980 would be worth over $6 million today.
Walmart was a better bet than Amazon, topping the online retail giant by over $1 million in total investment growth.
The same investment into Google (Alphabet) when it first went public would be worth only $2,632.

Let’s start with how we crunched the numbers. We wanted to compare apples to apples, so we made a couple key assumptions. First, we assumed our hypothetical investment of $100 at each IPO would stay with the underlying asset for the long term, but any dividends would be taken out as cash and not reinvested. Then, we determined the present-day value of the investment through the ups and downs of stock splits, mergers and acquisitions. You can read more about our sources and methodology here. In short, you put $100 in at the IPO, and let it ride.

The surprising conclusion of our visual is that tech stocks aren’t historically the best IPOs. Nike and Walmart fare much better than Apple and Google (Alphabet). Want another surprise? Buying $100 of Coca Cola would have been a much better investment than Starbucks. But regardless of how things turned out, the overall story in our visual is the enduring value of great American companies over several decades. Even GE, a company that’s suffered its share of setbacks in the last several months, still looks like a great IPO pick after all these years. And although we aren’t excited about Google’s return ($2,632) compared to other companies, that’s still pretty good.

So it pays to be among the earliest investors, but how do you know what to invest in? All these companies initially started as one among many competitors. Some IPOs skyrocket in value only to plummet in the following years. Other IPOs take a long time to get off the ground. We don’t know how to pick the winners, but we’re confident if you bought any of these stocks early on, you’re still happy with your return today.

Correction March 4th, 2019: A previous version of this article compared an Investment of $100 in BTC vs IPOs. In order to avoid confusion we are now only comparing investments into IPOs.

Amazon backed out of its plans to build an office in New York, citing the pushback and criticism from politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Even if some people are still hoping Amazon will reconsider, the entire idea behind bringing Amazon to Queens, NY was for job creation. Getting a job working on computers is supposed to be a lucrative career path, and we wanted to understand more about how compensation for tech workers changes around the country.

Computer jobs are well paid compared to what everyone else makes.
Tech workers in some states like California enjoy above average income levels.
However, the extremely high cost of living in California more than offsets the wage premium employers are paying.

Our data come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. We focused on three types or categories of jobs, computer programmers, software developers and web developers. We plotted the average wage for each in every state, letting you easily see the best-paying tech jobs where you live and around the country.

At the highest level, software developers tend to make the most money across every state. There are only a couple exceptions on our map, including places like Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska. But how many computer jobs are really located in these states? We’ve got nothing against rural America, but they’re not exactly well known job markets for tech talent. In other words, the fact that software developers aren’t the most highly paid probably has more to do with the lack of sufficient sample sizes.

Another broad trend is that computer jobs are generally very well paid, but not everywhere. Take Wisconsin, for example. Programmers pull in $76K, software developers $86K and web developers just $53K. To put these figures in perspective, median household income in the U.S. across all workers is just over $63K. For all the hype on tech jobs, these aren’t the sort of numbers that would make an early retirement possible.

This is made all the more obvious when you consider how the traditional hotbeds of tech talent aren’t paying high six-figure salaries either. In California, software developers can take home $126K, which at first glance seems like a lot. In San Jose, you need to make at least $274K to afford a home. A married couple of software developers would still stretch their budget to put a roof over their heads.

We aren’t taking sides Amazon’s decision to pull out of New York, however, there’s no denying a job working on a computer is a great gig.

Data: Table 1.1

Personal loans are an increasingly popular product, and people are using them to either consolidate some other type of debt, cover an emergency or fuel irresponsible consumption.

That’s according to an in-depth study from LendingTree, which looked at anonymized data from customers in 2018. The study is packed with lots of great insights about consumer debt, including a breakdown of the reasons for taking out personal loans by credit score and across states. Researchers were able to show, for example, that people with low credit scores frequently use personal loans to cover everyday expenses. On the other hand, people with high credit scores tend to leverage personal loans for home improvements.

The rate at which Americans are using personal loans is increasing, totaling some $125 billion in outstanding balances.
The two most common reasons for taking out a personal loan is to consolidate debt and refinance credit card balances, symptoms of the larger problem of indebtedness in America.
Lots of people say they use personal loans for “other” reasons, suggesting they are alternatives to payday and car title loans.

The trends discussed in the LendingTree analysis are immediately clear in our visual. The vast majority of borrowers are using personal loans to consolidate debt and refinance credit cards, combining for a total of 61% for all personal loans. It’s easy to understand why. It would take most people over a year to repay credit card debt. Combining multiple debts with varying interest rates into one payment with a fixed rate makes sense.

But here’s the scary thing about our visualization. The third leading reason provided for taking out a loan is “other,” a vague category (14.6%) that could include many different things. The researchers at LendingTree suspect these loans are meant to cover everyday expenses and emergencies. That means people are turning to personal loans as a stopgap measure to avoid falling into poverty.

In fact, the figures only represent a percentage breakdown of the reasons applicants provide when taking out a loan from LendingTree. They represent only a partial view of the entire personal loan market. Our visualization also says nothing about the size of the loans. People don’t frequently take out personal loans for home improvements, but when they do, they probably take on much larger overall debt loads than those who use the money for a vacation.

Most importantly, LendingTree acknowledges that people with low credit scores often use personal loans instead of payday and car title loans. Consumers are no doubt looking for products with the most favorable terms, including the lowest interest rate and flexible repayment terms. If you’re going to take out a loan, it always pays to shop around.

Indeed, there’s a larger and deeper problem with consumer behavior when unsecured loans cannibalize other types of financially unhealthy debt. It begs the question, how long are current trends sustainable?

Data: Table 1.1

The primary season is in full swing for Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination, and that means bashing the big banks is a favorite campaign topic. Kamala Harris is taking heat for accepting money from Wall Street. Elizabeth Warren believes the economy is rigged to favor big banks. And Bernie Sanders thinks the banks are so big, the government should break them up.

The top 10 U.S. banks control an astonishing combined total of $12.2T in assets.
The sector is massively top heavy in the U.S. with some of the largest banking institutions in the world. Four banks alone account for more than $1T in assets.
There are lots of other “smaller” banks controlling only hundreds of billions of assets, suggesting the economy is still at risk from banks that are too big to fail.

We wanted to cut through the rhetoric and understand how big the biggest banks really are. Our numbers come from S&P Global from the third quarter of 2018. And it turns out, they’re enormous, controlling trillions of dollars in assets.

Here are the top ten biggest U.S. banks, listed in order of assets ($B)

1. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM): $2,615.18B

2. Bank of America Corp. (BAC): $2,338.83B

3. Citigroup Inc. (C): $1,925.17B

4. Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC): $1,872.98B

5. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS): $957.19B

6. Morgan Stanley (MS): $865.52B

7. U.S. Bancorp (USB): $464.61B

8. TD Group US Holdings LLC 380.65B

9. PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (PNC): $380.08B

10. Capital One Financial Corp (COF): $362.91B

It’s worth pointing out how these are some of the biggest banks anywhere in the world, not just the U.S. We published a list of the top 10 largest banks back in 2017, when the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China posted assets of $3,62T. That’s substantially larger than JPMorgan Chase today ($2.62T), but that’s due to direct Chinese government intervention into the economy. Certainly, the American government intervened into the U.S. economy massively in 2008 and 2009 to benefit these institutions as well, but the numbers are still amazing to compare.

The scary part about our visualization is that it actually understates how enormous the banking sector is to the U.S. economy. Sure, there are a handful of trillion-dollar institutions. But there are also 22 different companies controlling between $100B and $250B in assets. To keep that in perspective, Portugal has a GDP of $218B.

Our point is, imagine the shock to the world’s economy if a handful of these “smaller” banks suddenly became insolvent. Pretty soon, we’d be talking about another system-wide financial crash.

Data: Table 1.1

The U.S. economy hit $20.5 trillion in GDP in 2018. What does this number actually mean? Well, GDP stands for “gross domestic product”, or, the total value of goods and services produced by a country in any given year. This means the U.S. produced $20.5 trillion in goods and services over 2018. This is an impressive number in and of itself, seeing as total GDP for the entire world was about $80 trillion in 2017. Yet, what might be more impressive is breaking down GDP by each individual state, and then measuring each state against a foreign nation to see how each state fares in size. What the results show is nothing less than astounding.

Data comparing the GDP of individual states in the U.S. with foreign countries paints an interesting picture. This can be done by comparing state-level data from the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis and foreign nation data from the International Monetary Fund. When the data is put side-by-side, each state appears to be as economically powerful as a foreign nation.

The largest state in the U.S. by GDP is California, which has a $2.97 trillion economy. This makes California not only comparable to Britain, whose GDP came in at $2.81 trillion, but would also make California the 5th largest economy in the world if it were its own foreign nation! Meanwhile, as border issues heat up down south in Texas, the state could trade its local economy for that of our northern border friends in Canada. The GDP of Texas came in at $1.78 trillion while Canada’s followed close behind at $1.73 trillion.

Here are the top ten biggest U.S. states by GDP and their comparable foreign nations

1. California ($2.97T) - United Kingdom ($2.81T)

2. Texas ($1.78T) - Canada ($1.73T)

3. New York ($1.70T) - Korea ($1.66T)

4. Florida ($1.04T) - Mexico ($1.20T)

5. Illinois ($868B) - Netherlands ($910B)

6. Pennsylvania ($798B) - Saudi Arabia ($770B)

7. Ohio ($680B) - Switzerland ($709B)

8. New Jersey ($634B) - Taiwan Province of China ($603B)

9. Georgia ($595B) - Sweden ($555B)

10. Massachusetts ($577B) - Poland ($550B)

While it’s impressive that these large U.S. states outperform countries in the developed world, what might be even more impressive is how even the smallest U.S. states compare favorably to foreign nations. Montana can be viewed in similar economic terms as Ghana, while Wyoming is most similar in size to Jordan. Even the country’s smallest state in terms of GDP, Vermont ($34B), is still larger than the GDP of Sudan ($33B).

Overall, the U.S. economy is the largest in the world, squashing the size of every other nation on Earth. At the same time, its debt-to-GDP ratio, measuring the size of a country’s debt compared to its GDP, isn’t even in the world’s top 10. This shows a healthy US economy which still rules the world.

This chart shows the economic power of the United States in a fun, imaginative way. Yet, doing so makes the country look more like the United Nations than states of a unified country.

Data: Table 1.1

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 108 million American households own at least one vehicle, with 7.5 million households owning four or more vehicles. But if you’re a vehicle owner who is considering moving to a new state, you might be in for a surprise when it comes to your auto insurance bill.

Since each state sets its own insurance rates, owning a car in some states is more expensive than in others. A recent report titled The Zebra State of Auto Insurance 2019 offered a breakdown of the average annual car insurance premiums in every state. From September to December 2018, The Zebra analyzed more than 61 million auto insurance rates nationwide, using information from insurance rating platforms and public rate filings. The Zebra’s findings are shown in our latest infographic, below.

Top 5 States with the Highest Auto Insurance Rates

1. Michigan: $2,693

2. Louisiana: $2,339

3. Rhode Island: $2,110

4. Florida: $2,059

5. Nevada: $1,915

Bottom 5 States with the Lowest Auto Insurance Rates

1. Maine: $896

2. Virginia: $918

3. North Carolina: $947

4. Iowa: $988

5. Idaho: $1,018

According to the Zebra, auto insurance rates are based on five main factors: where you live, what you drive, how you drive, your coverage options, and your demographics (such as age and gender). To ensure consistency in comparing rates from state to state, The Zebra used the same demographic and auto profile for the hypothetical insured user (a 30-year-old single male with a 2014 Honda Accord EX and a good driving history).

The Zebra credits a number of more specific factors for the discrepancy in insurance rates across states. States with highly populated cities tend to have higher rates due to the risks involved with traffic congestion, crime, and the greater likelihood of having uninsured drivers. Therefore, northeastern states like New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have correspondingly high premiums. Furthermore, The Zebra claims that risks associated extreme weather or natural disasters lead to higher rates. This can account for high insurance rates in states along the hurricane-prone Gulf Coast like Louisiana and Florida, or the states in tornado country like Oklahoma and Texas.

With car transportation remaining the most common form of transportation for commuting, understanding how auto insurance affects you is essential. Learn more about different types of insurance using our cost guides.

Data: Table 1.1

There may be more financial planning to be done in the next ten years than there are financial planners. As the U.S. population ages and Baby Boomers begin to retire, the Bureau of Labor Statistics suspects that their services will be a hot commodity and that the field will grow faster than others in the same time period. How much do financial advisors make, on average, in your state?

Financial advisors earn more than $30K more than the national average of $60,336
Average income for financial advisors in the Northeast exceeds $100K except in Vermont
Advisors in the middle of the country tend to earn less than in other regions

Personal financial advisors are making pretty good money these days. The median salary for this type of position ranges from $76.1K to $166.1K across the country, and the median income for financial advisors in 2017 was $90,640.

Top 5 States Where Financial Advisors Earn the Most

1. New York- $166.1K

2. California- $144.1K

3. Connecticut- $137.1K

4. District of Columbia- $135.8K

5. Maine- $134.4K

Compared to the national average household income of $60,336 according to the Census Bureau, financial advisors across the nation are doing pretty well for themselves. Financial advisors in states where they make the least (on average) are still making more than the average household in America is bringing in, and ‘household’ frequently means two or more incomes.

These higher-than-average salaries can be attributed to the education, skill, and extra hours put in to meet with clients on nights and weekends, but it can also be attributed to the fact that it’s a service that’s in high demand.

There’s no doubt that the U.S. population is aging. Aging people tend to want to retire, and financial planning is a big part of making that happen. Because of this, the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects the field to grow 15% between 2016 and 2026. That’s a much faster rate of growth’ than is expected of all occupations despite that robo-advisor services are becoming more common in this industry.

Despite that robo-advisor services may be cheaper, they’re not for everyone.

This means that despite the sci-fi trope about robots taking over human jobs, the technology that allows robo-advisors to operate typically works alongside real-life advisors rather than co-opting their positions.

While the numbers above won’t necessarily tell you how much you’d pay a financial planner, they might just convince you to set out on a new career path (or maybe encourage your kids to do so).

Data: Table 1.1

Government spending has been in the news a lot since the national debt reached a record $22 trillion earlier this year. While debt incurred by the federal government tends to draw headlines, government spending at the state level paints a less stark picture, especially when compared to each state’s level of production.

Our latest visualization uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Government Debt website to break down each U.S. state’s spending from state & local governments when compared to each state’s output. In gross numbers, California, Texas, New York, and Florida all have the highest output (or gross domestic product), with each exceeding $1 trillion. The good news is that every state brings in more money than it spends or incurs in debt. The wider the gap between spending and output, the better.

In addition to looking at the gross numbers shown on this visualization, we can use this information to calculate each state’s debt-to-GDP ratio to better compare how states are doing against each other. The debt-to-GDP ratio is defined as the ratio of a country's (or state’s) public debt compared to its gross domestic product (GDP), or output. This number, usually shown as a percentage, is calculated by dividing the total debt by the total output. Since the debt-to-GDP ratio compares what a state owes to what it produces, a lower percentage indicates that the state has a greater ability to repay debts and is economically better off.

Top 5 States With the Highest Debt-to-GDP Ratio.

1. New York: 23.53%

2. South Carolina: 19.19%

3. Rhode Island: 19.06%

4. Alaska: 18.69%

5. Nevada: 18.59%

Bottom 5 States With the Lowest Debt-to-GDP Ratio

1. Wyoming: 4.6%

2. Wisconsin: 7.12%

3. Idaho: 7.24%

4. North Carolina: 7.35%

5. Utah: 9.13%

There are a few other takeaways from the visualization. The states with the highest output also tend to have the highest state and local debt. States with larger populations tend to have higher aggregate levels of spending and output compared to less populous states. However, there is no clear correlation between state populations and debt-to-GDP ratios. In more than half of states, local government debt is greater than state government debt. As a whole, U.S. states have a combined state and local government debt of $3.1 trillion and gross output of $21 trillion.

Curious to see how U.S. output compares to the rest of the world? You can view that visualization here.

Data: Table 1.1

Crude oil is a fossil fuel derived from marine plants and animals that died millions of years ago, before the dinosaurs. In its liquid form, crude oil can be found underground in reservoirs, sedimentary rocks, and tar sands.

Crude oil has been used to produce petroleum products such as gasoline, waxes, and plastics. It has also been heavily used in manufacturing, industrialization, and transportation. Since crude oil is found in certain geological areas, some countries are more likely than others to be sitting on large oil reserves. Our new visualization shows how much oil is in each country’s reserves. Oil reserves are measured in Gbbl (billion barrels). Our data comes from the CIA Factbook.

Top 10 Countries With the Biggest Crude Oil Reserves

1. Venezuela: 300.9 Gbbl

2. Saudi Arabia: 266.5 Gbbl

3. Canada: 169.7 Gbbl

4. Iran: 158.4 Gbbl

5. Iraq: 142.5 Gbbl

6. Kuwait: 101.5 Gbbl

7. UAE: 97.8 Gbbl

8. Russia: 80 Gbbl

9. Libya: 48.4 Gbbl

10. U.S.: 36.5 Gbbl

About half of the countries in the top ten list are located in the Middle East/North Africa region. Six of these countries--Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Libya--are members of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). Interestingly, there is no clear correlation between the country’s size and its amount of oil reserves. For example, Kuwait, which has a landmass of 17,818 sq km, has 101.5 Gbbl in oil reserves, whereas Russia, which has a landmass almost ten times larger, only has 80 Gbbl in oil reserves.

While the products created with crude oil can make life and work easier, the costs to wildlife and the environment can be negative due to issues such as pollution and oil spills. The varied amounts of oil reserves in each country can also lead to an imbalance of energy imports and exports. Since the U.S. hosts only about 36.5 billion barrels of the world’s crude oil reserves and imports almost 8 million barrels per day, finding alternate forms of energy is more important than ever. Check out this visualization to see how some states are turning more and more to wind power.

Data: Table 1.1

Our latest visualization maps out how much state and local tax the richest 1 percent of a state pays, compared to the poorest 20 percent of the state. The data comes from a report titled Who Pays: A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All Fifty States. The report, released by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), analyzes state and local tax rates paid by all income groups to determine the fairness of each state’s tax policies.

According to the ITEP report, the lowest-income 20 percent of taxpayers end up paying, on average, a state and local tax rate more than 50 percent higher than the top 1 percent of households. ITEP states that nationwide, the average effective state and local tax rate is 11.4 percent for the lowest-income 20 percent taxpayers and 7.4 percent for the top 1 percent. However, these effective tax rates vary significantly from state to state, based on whether the state’s tax structure is characterized as “regressive” or “progressive.” In a regressive tax system, the average tax rate decreases as the taxable income increases. Conversely, a progressive tax system has taxpayers pay a higher tax rate as they make more money. The gap between how much the poor pay compared to the rich is wider with more regressive tax systems.

Top 10 States With the Most Regressive Tax Systems

1. Washington: 14.8% gap

2. Florida: 10.4% gap

3. Texas: 9.9% gap

4. South Dakota: 8.7% gap

5. Nevada: 8.3% gap

6. Pennsylvania: 7.8% gap

7. Tennessee: 7.7% gap

8. Arizona: 7.1% gap

9. Wyoming: 7.0% gap

10. Oklahoma: 7.0% gap

Interestingly, seven of these states (Washington, Florida, Texas, South Dakota, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming) are among those that don’t levy a state income tax. The ITEP report posits that the lack of a personal income tax in these states leads to an overreliance on local sales and excise taxes, which therefore shifts more of the tax burden to the poor. Here’s an example. Suppose a loaf of bread in Texas comes with a sales tax of $1. For someone making $100, that $1 in sales tax equates to 1 percent of their income, while for someone making $1,000, it equates to 0.1 percent of their income. Without a progressive personal income tax that has the wealthier person pay more to the government, the poorer person is stuck with the higher tax burden as a percentage of their income.

States with more progressive tax systems have higher marginal tax rates for higher-income households. ITEP reports that these states collect, on average, more than one-third of their tax revenue from income taxes (compared to the national average of 27 percent of state revenue from income taxes). States in the Northeast tend to have the most progressive tax structures in the country, while those in the West and South have the most regressive structures.

As the gap between rich and poor widens, taxes will remain a hot-button political issue. Want to learn more about income inequality by state? Here’s that visualization, too.

Data: Table 1.1

According to the World Bank, 10 percent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.90 USD per day. While this threshold is shockingly low (it would amount to an income of less than $1,000 per year), residents in some countries can make significantly more money and still be classified as living in poverty.

Eurostat defines the At-Risk-Of-Poverty (AROP) threshold as having less than 60 percent of the country’s median income. Our latest visualization uses income data from census agencies in different countries to show how much money each country’s household must make to be considered at risk of poverty.

In order to ensure consistency when comparing different countries, we translated foreign currencies into USD using publicly available exchange rates accessed in March 2019.

Top 5 Countries With the Highest At-Risk-Of-Poverty Income Thresholds

Bottom 5 Countries With the Lowest At-Risk-Of-Poverty Income Thresholds

For visualization purposes, we chose to analyze countries where the data was available and updated. Poverty thresholds and other measures of economic well-being can also vary within a country, based on median household income and cost-of-living within individual regions or cities. Interested in how income needs vary within a single country? View this visualization which details how much money Americans need for economic security in each state.

Data: Table 1.1

Our latest visualization maps out the average price of a pint of beer (defined as 11.2 oz) in major cities across the globe. The data comes from a list compiled by The Wall Street Journal, which used the Beer Price Index from travel aggregator site OMIO (formerly Go Euro) to compare prices across different cities. For comparison purposes, foreign currencies were converted into USD. For our visualization, we used the average beer price at a bar rather than at a supermarket.

Global Cities With the Most Expensive Pints of Beer

1. Hong Kong, China: $10.86
2. Geneva, Switzerland: $10.77
3. Tel Aviv, Israel: $9.53
4. New York, USA: $8.97
5. Miami, USA: $8.97

Global Cities With the Least Expensive Pints of Beer

1. Bratislava, Slovakia: $2.22
2. Delhi, India: $2.31
3. Kiev, Ukraine: $2.36
4. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: $2.58
5. Kraków, Poland: $2.70

In addition to highlighting beer prices, the visualization shows how much beer is consumed per capita. The larger the circle, the more beer the city’s residents drink. In general, people in major cities in Europe and North America consume more beer than people in Asian cities (with the exception of Ho Chi Minh City). Another overall trend is that cities with higher-priced beer (shown by the orange and pink outlines on the circles) tend to have lower amounts of per capita beer consumption compared to cities with cheaper beer (shown by the yellow and green outlines on the circles). It’s also worth noting that according to the Wall Street Journal data, the price of beer is liable to varying degrees of markups at bars. For example, the most expensive supermarket price of beer is $3.45 in Oslo, which is still significantly lower than most cities’ bar prices in the visualization.

Curious to see how other costs of living differ from city to city? You can learn that from our cost of living calculator.

Data: Table 1.1

Across the U.S., women pay more than men for certain goods, such as clothes, home health products, and personal care products. This price difference is known as the “pink tax,” since many of these products are packaged in pink. In a country where women earn 80.5 cents for every dollar men make according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, this type of price discrimination seems even more unfair.

Our latest visualization illustrates the breadth and depth of the “pink tax,” using data from a study commissioned by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The DCA’s study estimated the price differences male and female shoppers face when buying the same types of items. The DCA derived an average price for 35 different product types based on an analysis of 794 individual items and then compared the prices of the analogous men’s and women’s products. To minimize differences between men’s and women’s items, the DCA selected products that had similar male and female versions and were closest in branding, ingredients, appearance, textile, construction, and/or marketing. Unlike the DCA’s report, our visualization does not include children’s products and only includes the categories of Adult Clothing, Toys and Accessories, Personal Care Products, and Senior/Home Health Care Products.

Top 10 Products That are Subject to the “Pink Tax”

1. Shampoo and conditioner: 48% more expensive for women
2. Personal urinals: 21% more expensive for women
3. Shirts: 15% more expensive for women
4. Supports and braces: 15% more expensive for women
5. Dress shirts: 13% more expensive for women
6. Helmets and pads: 13% more expensive for women
7. Canes: 12% more expensive for women
8. Lotion: 11% more expensive for women
9. Razor cartridges: 11% more expensive for women
10. Razors: 11% more expensive for women

According to the DCA and the visualization, there are only a few products that men pay more for. These products include underwear (29% more expensive), digestive health products (5% more expensive), and shaving cream (4% more expensive). Overall, the greatest price differential is in the personal care category, in which women pay 13% more for products than men. For both men and women, adult clothing tends to be the most expensive consumer product category.

Curious about other economic differences between the sexes? Here's our visualization on how much more money American men earn than women at every age.

Data: Table 1.1

The GSMA estimates that 5 billion people around the world have mobile devices, and more than half of these devices are smartphones. According to Pew Research Center, rates of smartphone ownership vary between countries, as well as within countries. Not surprisingly, affordability of mobile internet is one of the main factors that determines whether or not someone is able to go online.

Our latest visualization takes a deep dive into the price of mobile internet around the world. The data we used comes from Cable.co.uk and includes information from 230 countries and territories. The colors on the map correspond to the price of 1 GB of mobile data in each country, with dark green being the cheapest at less than $1 and red being the most expensive at more than $50. Countries shaded in gray do not have data available. For ease of comparison, all prices are expressed in U.S. dollars.

Africa is the poorest continent by GDP per capita. In Africa, countries in the southernmost part of the continent pay the most for 1 GB of data. Zimbabwe pays the highest price both in Africa and in the world ($75.20), and countries such as Equatorial Guinea ($65.83) and Saint Helena ($55.47) also pay more than $50. Conversely, Sudan ($0.68) and the Democratic-Republic of the Congo ($0.88) both pay less than $1 per GB.

Within the Asian continent, countries in the Middle East and East Asia tend to have the most expensive mobile data plans. The exception is Turkmenistan, a Central Asian country which has an average price of $19.81 for 1 GB and is the most expensive country in Asia for mobile data. Most countries in South Asia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia have plans that are less than $5 per GB. Some of these countries include Sri Lanka ($0.78), Indonesia ($1.21), and Kazakhstan ($0.49). The cheapest country for data around the world is India, which only charges $0.26 for 1 GB.

European countries have a great degree of variation in cost for mobile data. Several countries pay more than $10 for 1 GB, such as Portugal ($13.98), Greece ($32.71), and Switzerland ($20.22). However, Ukraine pays only $0.51.

There are no countries in North America that pay less than $5 for data, making it one of the more expensive regions. Bermuda is the most expensive with $37.74 for 1 GB, while the Bahamas only has a price of $6.89. The average cost of data in the U.S., where 77% of the population owns a smartphone, is $12.37.

Within the Oceania region, Australia pays the lowest average price for data at $2.47 per GB. By contrast, more isolated island nations such as Samoa ($30.09), Tokelau ($29.96), and Nauru ($28.13) all pay more than $10 per GB. There are no countries in the Oceania region that pay less than $1 for data.

Countries in Central America and the Caribbean charge higher rates for 1 GB of data, and the Falkland Islands charge the most at $47.39 for 1 GB. Countries in the southern most part of continental South America, such as Chile ($1.87), Uruguay ($2.80), and Argentina ($3.05) pay less compared to the rest of the region.

Cable.co.uk suggests a few possible reasons for the disparities in prices for mobile internet. For example, some countries have a fixed broadband infrastructure so providers can offer large amounts of data while maintaining cheap prices. For other countries, incomes and cost of living are much lower, so data prices follow that trend. Interested in learning about other economic differences around the world? You can view our visualization on how levels of prosperity vary between countries here.

Data: Table 1.1

The Economist’s Intelligence Unit recently released its 2019 Worldwide Cost of Living report, which compares 400 individual prices across 160 products and services in 133 cities around the world. Our latest visualization takes 20 of these cities, as provided in the free version of the report, and compares the cost of four different products or services (bread, beer, a suit, and a haircut). To more accurately compare global cities, all currencies have been converted to US dollars.

Top 6 Cities With the Highest Cost of Living

1. Paris, France (tie)
1. Hong Kong, China (tie)
1. Singapore, Singapore (tie)
4. Zurich, Switzerland
5. Geneva, Switzerland (tie)
5. Osaka, Japan (tie)

Bottom 5 Cities With the Lowest Cost of Living

1. Caracas, Venezuela
2. Damascus, Syria
3. Tashkent, Uzbekistan
4. Almaty, Kazakhstan
5. Bangalore, India

According to The Economist, this is the first time that three cities claim the title of the world's most expensive city – Singapore, Hong Kong and Paris. The cities with the highest costs of living tend to be located in Western Europe or East Asia, while the cities with the lowest cost of living are in South Asia, Central Asia, and South America. For the most part, the more expensive cities by cost of living had higher prices across all four products/services. For example, among the cities in the visualization, bread was the most expensive in Seoul ($15.59) and least expensive in Damascus ($0.60). The exception to this general trend is beer, which is most expensive in Bangalore ($4.15). New York was the most expensive city for a 2-piece suit ($2,729.77) and a woman’s haircut ($210.00).

Want to see how other prices vary across global cities? View our visualization about how much a pint of beer costs around the world

Data: Table 1.1

Owning a home is one of the biggest financial milestones. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that the homeownership rate nationwide is 64.8%, slowly reversing a downward trend that started in 2004. Despite these recent gains, homeownership is still out of reach for many people. One of the main reasons for this is that wages haven’t kept pace with soaring home prices, and many people are priced out of the real estate market.

Fortunately, some parts of the U.S. are friendlier to potential homebuyers’ wallets than others. Our latest visualization illustrates the salary that a household needs to make in order to buy a median-priced home in the 50 largest metro areas in the U.S.

The data for this visualization comes from the mortgage information site HSH Associates. In conducting their analysis, HSH compiled median-home price data from the National Association of Realtors, national mortgage rate data from Freddie Mac and the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, and property tax and homeowner’s insurance costs data to determine the annual salary it takes to afford a home (including principal, interest, property tax and homeowner's insurance, or PITI) in the nation's 50 largest metropolitan areas. The analysis also assumed a down payment of 20%.

The Top 5 Metro Areas With the Highest Salary Required for Buying a Home

1. San Jose, CA - $254,835.73
2. San Francisco,CA - $198,978.01
3. San Diego, CA - $131,640.79
4. Los Angeles, CA - $123,156.01
5. Boston, MA - $106,789.93

The Bottom 5 Metro Areas With the Lowest Salary Required for Buying a Home

1. Pittsburgh, PA - $37,659.86
2. Cleveland, OH - $40,437.72
3. Oklahoma City, OK - $41,335.41
4. Memphis, TN - $41,400.93
5. Indianapolis, IN - $42,288.92

In general, metro areas in the Midwest and the South require lower salaries than metro areas on the West Coast and the East Coast. The most expensive metros are located in California, especially near Silicon Valley. For example, San Jose requires the highest salary ($254,835.73) for a median-priced home and San Francisco requires the second-highest salary ($198,978.01). Metros in the Northeast, like Boston ($106,789.93) and New York ($105,684.33) are similarly expensive. On the flip side, Pittsburgh only requires a salary of $37,659.86 to buy a median-priced home. Metro areas like Memphis ($41,400.93) and Oklahoma City ($41,335.41) require about one-sixth the salary required in San Jose.

HSH notes that when looking at the nation overall, you would need to earn $61,453 in order to buy a home. However, 24 of the largest 50 metro areas require a higher salary to make it affordable. It’s also worth noting that even within metro areas, home prices and salaries can differ by zip code or neighborhood, so final costs could vary even more. Overall, when deciding where to buy a home or look for a job, taking the area’s salaries and housing costs into consideration becomes even more important.

Curious how this differs from the most expensive metro areas last year? Compare to our 2018 visualization on this topic.

Data: Table 1.1

Spurred by new technology, concerns about the environment, and the rise of industry giants such as Tesla, electric vehicles (EVs) are making a big comeback as an alternative to traditional gasoline-powered cars. EVs can be friendlier for your wallet, too. Gasoline prices are measured as price per gallon. To compare prices for electric vehicles, the Department of Energy uses a metric called the “electric gallon,” or “eGallon,” which represents the cost of driving an electric vehicle the same distance a gasoline-powered vehicle could travel on one gallon of gasoline.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Saving on Fuel and Vehicle Costs report, while fuel powered by electricity saves an average of 56.87% nationwide compared to fuel powered by gasoline, the cost savings differ from state to state. Our latest visualization uses data from this report to see which states benefit the most from electricity-powered fuel. Some gallon prices are estimated based on a multi-state average price by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). For national averages, the cost of a gallon of gasoline is $2.62 and the cost of an eGallon is $1.13.

Top 10 States With the Highest Cost Savings From Choosing Electricity Over Gasoline

1. Washington - 71.28% ($2.96 gasoline vs. $0.85 eGallon)
2. Oklahoma - 68.75% ($2.56 gasoline vs. $0.80 eGallon)
3. North Dakota - 67.58% ($2.56 gasoline vs. $0.83 eGallon)
4. Missouri - 67.19% ($2.56 gasoline vs. $0.84 eGallon)
5. Louisiana - 66.39% ($2.38 gasoline vs. $0.80 eGallon)
6. Nebraska - 66.02% ($2.56 gasoline vs. $0.87 eGallon)
7. Oregon - 65.96% ($2.85 gasoline vs. $0.97 eGallon)
8. West Virginia - 64.80% ($2.50 gasoline vs. $0.88 eGallon)
9. Arkansas - 64.29% ($2.38 gasoline vs. $0.85 eGallon)
10. Kentucky - 63.67% ($2.56 gasoline vs. $0.93 eGallon)

Most of the states with the highest cost savings are located in the South or Midwest, rather than on the coasts. By contrast, eGallons have the lowest cost savings in states in the Northeast. In 18 states, the cost of one eGallon is less than $1, while in 3 states, the cost of one eGallon is more than $2. Hawaii is the only state in which eGallons ($2.92) are more expensive than gasoline ($2.85).

Although EVs are usually more expensive to purchase at the outset, the fuel costs are substantially lower. Fortunately, there are also government tax credits and other incentives to encourage the use of EVs and reduce the initial cost.

Interested in other analyses of energy economics? View our visualization about which countries have the biggest crude oil reserves or this chart on which states are investing the most in wind power.

Data: Table 1.1

In April 2019, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the latest Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) report to analyze broader economic trends related to consumer spending. Our new visualization uses the BLS data from this report to paint a picture of how the average American household allocates its budget.

The BLS report uses data from 2017, the most recent year available. According to the BLS, consumer spending increased 4.8% in 2017 compared to the year before, despite a 1.5% decrease in average income before taxes. In this time frame, consumer expenditures also increased more than the Consumer Price Index (a key indicator of inflation), which rose by 2.1%. Average consumer expenditures in 2017 amounted to $60,060.

Given the rise in consumer expenditures, we wanted to visualize how the average American household was spending its money. In creating the visualization, we used selected categories of the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) to represent average household expenses, including housing, food, and insurance. Almost all of these categories experienced expenditures increases from 2016 to 2017.

The Largest Spending Categories for the Average American Consumer

1. Housing - $19,884 (33.1%)
2. Transportation - $9,576 (15.9%)
3. Food - $7,729 (12.9%)
4. Personal insurance and pension - $6,771 (11.3%)
5. Healthcare - $4,928 (8.2%)
6. Entertainment - $3,203 (5.3%)
7. Other expenses - $2,214 (3.7%)
8. Cash contributions - $1,873 (3.1%)
9. Apparel and services - $1,833 (3.1%)
10. Education - $1,491 (2.5%)

There are a few other takeaways from the BLS report. Average household income after taxes was $63,606, leaving $3,546 to be allocated toward savings after all expenditures were accounted for. However, these numbers represent the U.S. average and don’t tell the whole story. Consumer spending varies significantly from household to household, based on factors such as income, location, cost of living, household debt, and whether someone is a homeowner or a renter. According to the BLS report data, the average consumer in the bottom 60% of earners spent more than they earned. Similarly, the average consumer under the age of 25 and the average consumer over the age of 65 had expenditures greater than their income.

Want to see how cost-of-living, household size, and occupation affect your household budget? Use our Cost of Living Calculator to help create a budget that works for you.

Data: Table 1.1

Since the United Kingdom (UK) voted in June 2016 to leave the European Union (EU), international markets have experienced uncertainty about how trade with the UK would change. In April 2019, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development released a report titled Brexit. Implications for Developing Countries, which analyzes the consequences that the UK’s changing tariff structure as a result of Brexit will have on other countries. If the UK and the EU were to agree on an exit plan, the UK would maintain its current trade agreements with international partners for the next two years before implementing trade deals of its own. However, if the UK does not reach an agreement with the EU (“No-Deal Brexit”), existing trade agreements between the UK and other countries will no longer apply. This means that other, non-EU countries that export goods to the UK will be subject to highly expensive MFN tariffs, dramatically tipping the balance of exports around the world. This change in trade balances is the subject of our most recent visualization.

Our visualization takes a look at which countries stand to gain and lose the most in the event of a No-Deal Brexit. Shades of pink indicate the countries will lose exports, while shades of green indicate that countries will gain exports. The size of each country corresponds to the magnitude of the effect. For visualization purposes, we are not showing countries which have an export change of less than $1 million.

Top 5 Countries That Stand to Gain the Most From No-Deal Brexit

1. China - $10.2 billion increase in exports
2. United States - $5.3 billion increase in exports
3. Japan - $4.9 billion increase in exports
4. Thailand - $3.9 billion increase in exports
5. South Africa - $3 billion increase in exports

Top 5 Countries That Stand to Lose the Most From No-Deal Brexit

1. European Union - $3.6 trillion decrease in exports (not shown on the map)
2. Turkey - $2.4 billion decrease in exports
3. South Korea - $714 million decrease in exports
4. Pakistan - $497 million decrease in exports
5. Norway - $209 million decrease in exports

According to the UN report, the UK is currently responsible for 3.5% of world trade and imported $680 billion worth of goods from other countries in 2018. Although the European Union stands to lose the most in the event of a No-Deal Brexit, the report states that developing countries with a high percentage of exports to the UK, including Turkey and Pakistan, would also experience severe economic harm. By contrast, countries that currently have higher tariffs than the UK, including China, the U.S., and Japan, would gain the most exports. Overall, the effects on world trade remain to be seen depending if the EU and the UK reach a deal or not.

Want to learn more about each country’s share of the global economy? Learn more here.

Data: Table 1.1