Median Household Income by Metro Area: What It Means for Housing Affordability

Median household income varies widely across the largest U.S. metro areas. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2024 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates, the median ranged from $135,590 in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont to about $76,000–$78,000 in Detroit, San Antonio, and Tampa. Twelve of the 25 most populous metros recorded a statistically significant increase in real (inflation-adjusted) median household income between 2023 and 2024. None recorded a statistically significant decrease.

Those figures describe how much households earn. They do not tell you whether housing is affordable. Higher income improves a household's capacity to absorb housing costs. However, a high income level does not make a housing market affordable on its own, and neither does fast income growth. Affordability depends on how incomes compare with housing costs, together with financing conditions and the broader state of the local market. A metro can have very high household incomes and still have housing that is expensive relative to those incomes. A metro with lower incomes can also have housing values that are lower relative to those incomes.

This article looks at what the latest metro income data shows and how to read it correctly. It also explains why income becomes much more useful when you place it next to housing values and other market signals.

About the data

The metro income figures in this article come from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates. These were the latest complete metro-income data available at the time of publication. The Census Bureau had not yet released the 2025 ACS 1-year estimates. The figures describe income reported in the 2024 survey, expressed in 2024 dollars. They are not measurements of household income in 2025 or 2026.

What the latest metro income data shows

At the national level, the Census Bureau reports that U.S. median household income was $81,604 in 2024. That compares with an inflation-adjusted $80,002 in 2023, a real increase of 2.0%, which the Bureau identifies as statistically significant.

The picture across large metros is more mixed than the national number suggests. Among the 25 most populous metropolitan areas, the Census Bureau found:

• 12 had a statistically significant increase in real median household income between the 2023 and 2024 ACS.
• 13 had no statistically significant change.
• None had a statistically significant decrease.

Roughly half of the largest metros saw measurable real income gains. For the other half, the survey cannot confidently separate any change from zero. That second group includes several metros whose point estimates were slightly negative, and it does not mean incomes fell there, a distinction covered in more detail below.

Income levels also differ sharply between metros. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont had the highest median household income among the 25 largest metros, at $135,590. Detroit ($76,403), San Antonio ($78,112), and Tampa ($78,275) formed the lowest group. The Census Bureau found those three were not statistically different from one another. The top of the large-metro range therefore sits more than $55,000 above the bottom, a gap that matters for any comparison of housing demand or cost burden across markets.

The table below shows selected metros from the Census analysis. It is a sample chosen to illustrate the range of levels and changes, not a ranking.

Median household income and 2023–2024 real change for the United States and ten selected large metros, from the 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.

Metro area	2024 median income	Real change2023–2024	Statistically significant
United StatesNational reference	$81,604	+2.0%	Yes
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA	$135,590	+3.1%	Yes
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV	$126,244	+1.0%	No
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH	$117,825	+3.4%	Yes
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA	$112,388	-1.4%	No
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	$99,897	-1.5%	No
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	$92,733	+3.7%	Yes
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA	$92,344	+3.7%	Yes
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ	$90,133	+2.2%	Yes
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	$78,275	+4.5%	Yes
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI	$76,403	+2.3%	Yes

Swipe horizontally to view all columns →

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates; ACS Brief ACSBR-025, Appendix Table 2. Changes are in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. “No” means the change was not statistically different from zero. It does not mean income was unchanged or that it declined.

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont

$135,590

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria

$126,244

Boston-Cambridge-Newton

$117,825

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue

$112,388

Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos

$99,897

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington

$92,733

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell

$92,344

Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler

$90,133

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater

$78,275

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn

$76,403

U.S. $81,604

Higher income does not automatically mean more affordable housing

A reader might see San Francisco's $135,590 median and conclude that households there are in the strongest position to afford housing. That conclusion doesn't follow from the income figure alone.

Income measures one side of the affordability equation: what households bring in. Affordability depends on the other side too: what housing costs relative to that income. In a high-income metro, housing values may have risen to levels that absorb much or all of the income advantage. Where that happens, a high-earning household can face as much housing pressure as a lower-earning household elsewhere, or more. The reverse also occurs. A metro with a median income below the national level may also have housing values that are lower relative to local household income. That relationship can be measured, but it does not show actual household carrying costs, which also depend on financing, taxes, insurance, debt, and other costs.

This article does not attach a housing-cost figure to San Francisco or any other metro, because that would mean pairing the 2024 1-year income data with housing data from a different source or estimate type. The point is conceptual. The income figure shows that San Francisco households have high incomes compared with other large metros. It says nothing, by itself, about whether those incomes are high relative to local housing costs. Answering that question requires a second measurement.

The same caution applies to income growth. San Francisco's statistically significant 3.1% real increase is meaningful. But if housing costs in a metro rise faster than incomes over the same period, affordability can still get worse even while incomes grow. Income growth tells you the direction of household earnings. It does not tell you the direction of affordability.

Why the price-to-income relationship matters

The simplest way to add housing costs to the picture is a price-to-income ratio: a measure of housing value or price divided by household income. In plain terms, it asks how many years of the typical household's income would equal the value of a typical home. A higher ratio means housing is more expensive relative to what households earn. A lower ratio means it is less expensive relative to earnings.

This ratio shows the relationship between the two sides of the affordability equation, which income alone cannot. Two metros with identical median incomes can have very different ratios, and two metros with very different incomes can end up with similar ones. That makes the ratio a more useful starting point for comparing housing pressure across markets than either income or home values viewed separately.

It is still a starting point, not a complete measure. The actual monthly cost of owning a home depends on factors the ratio doesn't capture:

• Mortgage interest rates, which determine how much a given home value costs to finance each month
• Property taxes and homeowners insurance, which vary considerably by state and locality
• Down payment requirements and the savings a household has available
• Existing household debt, which affects both loan qualification and monthly budgets
• Local supply conditions, which influence whether homes at a given price point are actually available

Monthly financing costs can rise even when the price-to-income ratio remains unchanged, for example when mortgage rates increase. Two metros with similar ratios can also involve very different monthly costs if their tax and insurance burdens differ. Price-to-income is best read as a structural indicator of how housing values compare with earnings. It should be interpreted alongside financing and cost conditions, not in place of them.

How Metro Analytics uses this relationship

Metro Analytics' methodology treats affordability as a relationship between ACS median home value and ACS median household income. That is a version of the price-to-income concept built from Census data. A few features of that approach matter for interpretation.

• Home value is owner-estimated. ACS median home value reflects what owners report their homes are worth. It is not a live sale price or listing price, and it can differ from current market transactions.
• Local conditions use ACS 5-year estimates. The affordability component of the Metro Analytics Market Score draws on ACS 5-year data for local housing and demographic conditions. Those are different estimates from the 2024 1-year figures used in this article, which is why this article does not combine the two in a single numerical comparison.
• Financing and macro conditions are separate inputs. Mortgage rates, unemployment, and inflation enter the Metro Analytics framework as distinct macroeconomic inputs, not as part of the home-value-to-income calculation.
• Market Scores describe current conditions. They are heuristics for current market conditions, not forecasts. Metro Analytics' forecasting system is separate.

Household income

+

Housing value

+

Financing conditions

+

Local supply

↓

A more complete affordability picture

Conceptual illustration only — not a formula, score, or weighting of Metro Analytics' Market Score.

Income growth can look different across metros

The 2023–2024 changes show that large metros did not move together, and that the reported percentage alone can mislead.

Several metros recorded real gains that the Census Bureau identifies as statistically significant:

• Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater: +4.5%
• Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington: +3.7%
• Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell: +3.7%
• San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont: +3.1%

These cover a wide range of income levels. Tampa sits among the lowest-income large metros and San Francisco at the top, yet both saw measurable real growth. Income growth isn't limited to either high-income or lower-income markets.

Other metros had point estimates that were small, flat, or negative, but not statistically significant:

• Washington-Arlington-Alexandria: +1.0%
• Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue: −1.4%
• Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos: −1.5%

The Seattle and Austin point estimates were negative, but neither change was statistically different from zero at the Census Bureau's 90% confidence level. The evidence therefore does not support describing either metro as having a confirmed decline in median household income. Washington's +1.0% point estimate was likewise not statistically significant and should not be described as confirmed growth.

For housing analysis, the practical conclusion is that the 12 metros with significant gains have evidence of real income improvement between the two survey years. For the other 13, no statistically significant change was detected. Neither group's income trend, by itself, tells you whether affordability improved, because that depends on what happened to housing costs and financing over the same period.

Statistically significantNot statistically significant

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont

+3.1%

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria

+1.0%

not sig.

Boston-Cambridge-Newton

+3.4%

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue

-1.4%

not sig.

Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos

-1.5%

not sig.

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington

+3.7%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell

+3.7%

Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler

+2.2%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater

+4.5%

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn

+2.3%

Non-significant changes, including the negative point estimates for Seattle and Austin, should not be read as confirmed increases or decreases.

How to read metro income data correctly

Metro income figures are easy to misread. Four points will cover most professional uses.

Real versus nominal income

The changes in this article are real: the 2023 figures have been adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2024 dollars before the comparison. A real increase means household purchasing power rose, not just the number of dollars. A nominal comparison, using unadjusted dollars, would overstate growth during periods of inflation.

Statistical significance

The ACS is a sample survey, so every estimate comes with a margin of error. A change is statistically significant when the difference between two years is large enough, relative to that uncertainty, that the Census Bureau can conclude it is real. When a change is not significant, the correct reading is "no statistically significant change detected," whatever the sign of the point estimate. That does not mean the underlying value was exactly unchanged. It means the survey could not distinguish the difference from zero with sufficient confidence. Two metros with different point estimates may also be statistically indistinguishable, as with Detroit, San Antonio, and Tampa at the lower end of the large-metro range.

ACS estimate timing

The ACS collects responses throughout the year and asks households about their income over the preceding 12 months. A household surveyed in early 2024 reports income mostly earned in 2023, while one surveyed late in 2024 reports income mostly earned in 2024. A "2024 ACS" income figure therefore reflects income received over a window spanning parts of two calendar years. Comparing the 2023 and 2024 ACS is useful, but it is not the same as comparing two clean calendar-year income totals.

Income level versus income growth

These answer different questions. The level shows how much the typical household in a metro earns now. Growth shows how that figure changed between survey years. A metro can have a high level and no statistically significant growth, as with Washington and Seattle in these estimates. It can also have a lower level and strong growth, as with Tampa. Neither measure is "better." Which one matters depends on whether you are assessing current capacity or recent direction.

What household income can—and cannot—tell you about a housing market

Household income is a useful input for understanding housing-market context. It indicates the general capacity of local households to pay for housing, and it provides the denominator for affordability measures such as price-to-income. Across metros, it supplies the income side of any comparison between housing values and what local households earn.

Its limits are just as important. Median household income does not, on its own, tell you:

• Housing supply: how much housing exists, how much is being built, or whether supply is keeping pace with household formation
• Vacancy: whether the existing stock is tight or loose
• Mortgage costs: what it costs to finance a purchase at current rates
• Employment conditions: whether local jobs are expanding, stable, or weakening, and in which industries
• Home-value movements: whether housing values are rising or falling, or how fast
• Demographic change: whether population is growing, shrinking, or shifting in age and household composition
• Future market performance: where prices, rents, or values will move next

Income and these conditions are related, but the relationships are not simple or one-directional. Higher incomes can coincide with higher housing values, for instance, without the data establishing which drives which, or whether both reflect some third factor such as job concentration. The data in this article shows association and context, not causation. It also carries no forecast. Nothing in the 2023–2024 income changes indicates how any metro's housing market will perform.

Put income in context with other market signals

The most useful way to work with metro income data is to use it as one layer in a broader market picture. That means placing income next to housing values, supply and vacancy conditions, financing costs, and local economic indicators, and then asking what the combination suggests.

Metro Analytics is built for that kind of comparison. You can explore individual U.S. housing markets and look at income alongside affordability, supply, vacancy, and economic conditions. The Metro Analytics methodology explains how those measures are constructed, including how affordability is calculated from ACS home values and incomes, and how Market Scores differ from forecasts. For the financing side of affordability that income and home values alone do not capture, the economic indicators page provides mortgage-rate and broader economic context.

The takeaway

Median household income is an important part of understanding a housing market, and the 2024 ACS shows real, measurable income gains across roughly half of the largest U.S. metros. But income answers only part of the affordability question. A high income level does not mean housing is affordable, and income growth does not mean affordability is improving. Income becomes meaningful when you compare it with housing values, supply conditions, and financing costs.

If you want to examine those relationships for a specific metro, you can start with Metro Analytics Markets, or review the Methodology to see how income, home values, and affordability are measured.