Here's the average credit score for people who grew up in your area
Why it matters: Credit scores can determine people's access to loans, housing, better interest rates and more — despite their flaws and biases.
Driving the news: The data for the above map comes from The Opportunity Atlas — a joint project from the U.S. Census Bureau and Opportunity Insights at Harvard University — and is based on anonymized info from a major credit bureau.
The map shows average credit scores in 2020 by childhood county for people born 1978-1985, making them roughly 35-42 at the time of measurement.
The result: a snapshot of people's credit scores based on where they grew up, not necessarily where they lived when the snapshot was taken.
Zoom in: People in the target age range who grew up in Slope County, North Dakota (757); Emmons County, North Dakota (754) and Sioux County, Iowa (752) had the highest average credit scores as of 2020.
Those from East Carroll Parish, Louisiana (593); Allendale County, South Carolina (596) and Claiborne County, Mississippi (597) had the lowest.
Between the lines: A related Opportunity Insights study published in July found "significant differences in credit outcomes by race, class, and geography."
"In particular, Black Americans, individuals from low-income families, and those who grew up in Appalachia or parts of the South are more likely to have lower credit scores and more limited access to credit."
"These gaps emerge early, persist into adulthood, and remain stable through age 65."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
3 hours ago
- Axios
Americans now support corporate activism again: Survey
U.S. adults' stance on corporate activism has flip-flopped, according to a Wednesday Bentley University-Gallup report. Why it matters: After years of decline in support, more Americans across demographics and political affiliations want businesses to take a public stance on hot-button topics including free speech, immigration policy, diversity, climate change and health care issues. "The data underscore an important insight for businesses," the report said. "What they say, and who they say it to, matters." By the numbers: 51% of U.S. adults in the May survey said they believe companies should take public stances on current issues, per the poll. That's a 13 percentage point increase from last year and a reversal of a downward trend that began after 2022. Flashback: Last year, 38% of respondents said they thought business should take a public stance on current events. At that point, the biggest drops in sentiment were within groups of people who were previously the most receptive — Democrats, Americans under 45, Black Americans and Asian Americans. State of play: Now, 71% of Democrats and 33% of Republicans support businesses taking public stances. Support for business has risen for them to take a public stance on free speech, immigration policy and international conflicts. The intrigue: While Americans support businesses speaking out publicly, they're more apprehensive about their own employers communicating on most topics.
Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump to put additional 25% import taxes on India, bringing combined tariffs to 50%
WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to place an additional 25% tariff on India for its purchases of Russian oil, bringing the combined tariffs imposed by the United States on its ally to 50%. The tariffs would go into effect 21 days after the signing of the order, meaning that both India and Russia might have time to negotiate with the administration on the import taxes. Trump's moves could scramble the economic trajectory of India, which until recently was seen as an alternative to China by American companies looking to relocate their manufacturing. China also buys oil from Russia, but it was not included in the order signed by the Republican president. As part of a negotiating period with Beijing, Trump has placed 30% tariffs on goods from China, a rate that is smaller than the combined import taxes with which he has threatened New Delhi. Trump had previewed for reporters on Tuesday that the tariffs would be coming, saying the U.S. had a meeting with Russia on Wednesday as his administration tries to end the war in Ukraine. 'We're going to see what happens,' Trump said about his tariff plans. 'We'll make that determination at that time.' The Indian government on Wednesday called the additional tariffs 'unfortunate.' 'We reiterate that these actions are unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,' Foreign Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said in a statement, adding that India would take all actions necessary to protect its interests. Jaiswal said India has already made clear that the country's imports were based on market factors and part of an overall objective of ensuring energy security for its 1.4 billion people. Ajay Srivastava, a former Indian trade official, said the latest tariff places the country among the most heavily taxed U.S. trading partners and far above rivals such as China, Vietnam and Bangladesh. 'The tariffs are expected to make Indian goods far costlier, with the potential to cut exports by around 40%-50% to the U.S.,' he said. Srivastava said Trump's decision was 'hypocritical' because China bought more Russian oil than India did last year. 'Washington avoids targeting Beijing because of China's leverage over critical minerals, which are vital for U.S. defense and technology,' he said. In 2024, the U.S. ran a $45.8-billion trade deficit in goods with India, meaning America imported more from India than it exported, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. American consumers and businesses buy pharmaceutical drugs, precious stones and textiles and apparel from India, among other goods. As the world's largest country, India represented a way for the U.S. to counter China's influence in Asia. But India has not supported the Ukraine-related sanctions by the U.S. and its allies on Moscow even as India's leaders have maintained that they want peace. The U.S. and China are currently in negotiations on trade, with Washington imposing a 30% tariff on Chinese goods and facing a 10% retaliatory tax from Beijing on American products. The planned tariffs on India contradict past efforts by the Biden administration and other nations in the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations that encouraged India to buy cheap Russian oil through a price cap imposed in 2022. The nations collectively capped Russian oil a $60 per barrel at a time when prices in the market were meaningfully higher. The intent was to deprive the Kremlin of revenue to fund its war in Ukraine, forcing the Russian government either to sell its oil at a discount or divert money for a costly alternative shipping network. The price cap was rolled out to equal parts skepticism and hopefulness that the policy would stave off Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion. The cap has required shipping and insurance companies to refuse to handle oil shipments above the cap, though Russia has been able to evade the cap by shipping oil on a 'shadow fleet' of old vessels using insurers and trading companies located in countries that are not enforcing sanctions. But oil prices have fallen, with a barrel trading on Wednesday morning at $65.84, up 1% on the day. Boak, Roy and Hussein write for the Associated Press. Roy reported from New Delhi.
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
Stanford lays off hundreds, blaming Trump policies
Stanford University has announced staffing reductions affecting 361 people, blaming the Trump administration for funding cuts. The university pointed to policies from the administration in its decision to reduce its general budget by $140 million to support operations. The drop in money will affect research funding and support increases in endowment taxes that were passed by congressional Republicans. In June, the president and provost of Stanford told the community that while they will continue to advocate for the values of the university, 'At the same time, we need to be realistic about the current landscape and its consequences. There is significant uncertainty about how federal support for universities will evolve, but it is clear that the status quo has changed.' Funding for universities has been in a turbulent situation as President Trump has threatened federal money over alleged antisemitism on campuses, transgender athletes in women's sports and diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Collectively, the administration has paused billions of dollars to institutions including Harvard University, the University of California, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania, among others. Some schools, such as Columbia and Brown University, have been able to restore federal funding through deals with the White House, but not without agreeing to pay substantial amounts of money. Along with staff reductions, schools and departments at Stanford were asked to create plans to '[p]osition the university to be resilient as federal policy evolves.'
