Seeing a state-vs-state comparison is interesting, but it really doesn't mean all that much to say that people making under $25,000/year take in 24.7% of the country's income, at least not unless you tell us how many people make up that "under $25k" demographic.

You're reading it backwards. 24.7% of households (not people) take in under $25k each; the infographic doesn't say what this adds up to as a fraction of total national household income.

I read that as 24.7% of people not income, could be wrong.

I have a few negative points to make about this graph.

1) Maps are generally useful for area-based values, not population-based. A simple bar graph is equally as informative.

2) The bin sizes are unequal "below 40" and "above 60" bins may be misleading depending on how many states fall into those bins. Why bin at all? Just select a color in the colormap associated with that states value.. The bins are even worse on the state-by-state graph (25k bins mixed with 50k bins).

3) I'm left to assume that the %'s in the state-by-state section is % of households in the state, but it's not clearly stated and could be interpreted as % wealth or something.. And the national breakdown would be better in-line with the other states (but segregated) so that a state can be eyeball-compared to the national breakdown.

4) green/blue is usually associated with low values and red/orange with high. I understand why the colors were chosen, but it took me a couple of seconds before I realized I was interpreting them backward.

B-

Interesting surprises (to me anyway): Oregon, Utah, and Maine

The bar graph doesn't let you compare a state to its surrounding states.

State lines are also arbitrary, so the map allows you to spot regional trends.

County-granular would be better, perhaps with a thick color-coded state outline.

It's telling that DC has the highest concentration per capita of people making more than $200,000/year.

Somewhat interesting, but useless without taking into account the cost of living in each state.

"Useless", you say. Maybe expand on that a bit?

How come Alaska is so wealthy?

I was more surprised by Maryland, just comparing the third quartiles.

Oil.

For those interested but unfamiliar, google the "permanent fund". (It is not the explanation for Alaska's income distribution; well-paying oil-related jobs are. But it is interesting in its own right and indicative of Alaska's oil wealth.)

OK, I read the infographic and its parent article, but I still haven't seen where they are sourcing the data from. Is this mint data? US Government data?

Edit: as both posts say below, it's from the US Census Bureau. I didn't see it when reading from my phone. Thanks!

Look at the bottom left of the infographic. It says source: U.S. Census Bureau.

US Census Bureau. Says at the bottom.