RESEARCH & ANALYSIS
Economic Well-Being of
U.S. Households in 2022
May 2023
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
The Federal Reserve System is the central
bank of the United States. It performs five key
functions to promote the effective operation
of the U.S. economy and, more generally, the
public interest.
The Federal Reserve
■ conducts the nation’s monetary policy to promote maximum employment
and stable prices in the U.S. economy;
■ promotes the stability of the financial system and seeks to minimize
and contain systemic risks through active monitoring and engagement in
the U.S. and abroad;
■ promotes the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions
and monitors their impact on the financial system as a whole;
■ fosters payment and settlement system safety and efficiency through
services to the banking industry and U.S. government that facilitate
U.S.-dollar transactions and payments; and
■ promotes consumer protection and community development through
consumer-focused supervision and examination, research and analysis of
emerging consumer issues and trends, community economic development
activities, and administration of consumer laws and regulations.
To learn more about us, visit www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed.htm.
Contents
Executive Summary
......................................................................................................... 1
Overall Financial Well-Being ................................................................................................ 2
Income ............................................................................................................................. 2
Employment ...................................................................................................................... 2
Expenses .......................................................................................................................... 2
Banking and Credit ............................................................................................................ 3
Housing ............................................................................................................................ 3
Higher Education and Student Loans ................................................................................... 3
Retirement and Investments ............................................................................................... 3
Overall Financial Well-Being
.......................................................................................... 5
Current Financial Situation ................................................................................................. 5
Changes in Financial Situation over Time ............................................................................. 9
Main Financial Challenges ................................................................................................ 10
Local and National Economic Conditions ............................................................................ 12
Income
............................................................................................................................. 15
Level and Source of Income .............................................................................................. 15
Changes in Income and Spending ..................................................................................... 16
Income Variability ............................................................................................................. 18
Employment
.................................................................................................................... 21
Working from Home .......................................................................................................... 21
Job Searching and Advancement ....................................................................................... 23
Work Arrangements and Autonomy at Work ........................................................................ 24
Reasons for Not Working .................................................................................................. 25
The Gig Economy ............................................................................................................. 26
Expenses
......................................................................................................................... 29
Bills and Regular Expenses ............................................................................................... 29
Unexpected Expenses ...................................................................................................... 31
Health-Care Expenses ...................................................................................................... 34
Hardships from Natural Disasters ..................................................................................... 35
Banking and Credit
........................................................................................................ 39
Bank Account Ownership .................................................................................................. 39
Nonbank Check Cashing and Money Orders ....................................................................... 40
Cryptocurrency ................................................................................................................. 41
Credit Outcomes and Perceptions ..................................................................................... 43
Credit Cards .................................................................................................................... 44
Buy Now, Pay Later ........................................................................................................... 45
Payday, Pawn, Auto Title, and Refund Anticipation Loans ..................................................... 47
Housing
............................................................................................................................ 49
Living Arrangements ......................................................................................................... 49
Homeownership and Mortgages ........................................................................................ 50
i
Renters ........................................................................................................................... 51
Renter Experiences .......................................................................................................... 51
Challenges with Rental Payments ...................................................................................... 53
Higher Education and Student Loans
......................................................................... 55
Educational Attainment .................................................................................................... 55
Overall Value of Higher Education ...................................................................................... 56
Look Back on Education Decisions .................................................................................... 57
Incidence and Types of Education Debt .............................................................................. 59
Student Loan Payment Status ........................................................................................... 61
Retirement and Investments
....................................................................................... 65
Current Retirees .............................................................................................................. 65
Retirement Savings among Non-Retirees ........................................................................... 67
Financial Literacy and Experience with Financial Decisions .................................................. 70
Description of the Survey
............................................................................................. 73
Survey Participation ......................................................................................................... 73
Targeted Outreach and Incentives ...................................................................................... 73
Survey Questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 74
Survey Mode ................................................................................................................... 74
Sampling and Weighting ................................................................................................... 75
Item Non-response and Imputation .................................................................................... 76
Acknowledgements
....................................................................................................... 79
Corrections
..................................................................................................................... 81
ii Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Executive Summary
Results from the 2022 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED) indicate a
decline in peoples’ financial well-being over the previous year.
1
The survey, which was fielded in
October 2022, found that self-reported financial well-being fell sharply and was among the lowest
observed since 2016. Similarly, the share of adults who said that they spent less than their
income in the month before the survey fell in 2022 from the prior year, while the share who said
that their credit card debt increased rose. Among adults who were not retired, the survey also
showed a decline in the share who felt that their retirement savings plan was on track, suggesting
that individuals had concerns about their future financial security. The declines in financial well-
being across these measures provide an indication of how families were affected by broader eco-
nomic conditions in 2022, such as inflation and stock market declines.
While people expressed concerns about rising prices and their ability to build savings, the survey
results indicated continued labor market strength in late 2022. The share of adults who voluntarily
quit, asked for a raise, or received a raise increased slightly over the prior year’s survey, reflecting
the strong labor market. The survey found that the share of prime-age adults not working because
of difficulty finding work remained low.
Experiences at work differed, however, based on the amount of education that workers had. Those
with a bachelor’s degree were more likely than those with less education to be in jobs where they
control their schedules, have autonomy over their work activities, or have the ability to telework.
The report also provides insights into other areas that are central to individuals’ financial circum-
stances, including emergency savings, returns to education, housing situations, and retirement
savings. Across these topics, the results provide a window into how individuals’ financial well-
being has changed in recent years. In doing so, it illustrates the diversity of people’s financial
1
The Federal Reserve has fielded the SHED annually in the fourth quarter of each year since 2013. The latest survey was
fielded from October 21 until November 1, 2022. Since over 99.5 percent of respondents completed the survey in
October, this report describes the field period as October 2022. The anonymized data, as well as appendixes containing
the complete SHED questionnaire and responses to all questions in the order asked, are also available at https://
www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed.htm.
Self-reported financial well-being fell sharply and
was among the lowest observed since 2016.
1
experiences. This includes notable differences by income, education, race, and ethnicity. Key find-
ings across each of the topics covered in the report include the following:
Overall Financial Well-Being
•
Overall financial well-being declined markedly over the prior year. Seventy-three percent of adults
were doing at least okay financially in 2022, down 5 percentage points from 2021.
•
The share of adults who said they were worse off financially than a year earlier rose to 35 per-
cent, the highest level since the question was first asked in 2014.
Income
•
More adults experienced spending increases than income increases. Forty percent of adults
said their family’s monthly spending increased in 2022 compared with the prior year, while
33 percent said their monthly income increased. While some adults saw both their spending
and their income increase, 23 percent of adults said that their spending had increased but their
income had not.
•
The share of adults who said they spent less than their income in the month before the survey
fell in 2022 to below the level it had been before the pandemic.
Employment
•
As an indication of workers’ strong labor market options, one-third of adults received a raise or
promotion in 2022 and 13 percent of adults asked for a raise or promotion. This compares with
30 percent who received a raise and 9 percent who asked for one in the 2021 survey. Among
those who asked for a raise in 2022, 70 percent also said that they received one.
•
Among those working from home at least some of the time, survey results indicate that a
requirement to work in person full-time would have similar effects on retention as a 2 to 3 per-
cent pay cut.
Expenses
•
Consistent with declines in overall financial well-being, 63 percent of adults said they would
cover a hypothetical $400 emergency expense exclusively using cash or its equivalent, down
from a high of 68 percent in 2021.
•
When asked for the largest expense they could cover using only savings, rather than how they
would pay a small emergency expense, 18 percent said the largest expense they could cover
with savings was under $100 and an additional 14 percent said the largest expense they could
cover was between $100 and $499.
•
Inflation affected people’s spending and saving choices in several different ways. Nearly two-
thirds of adults stopped using a product or used less because of inflation, 64 percent switched
2 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
to a cheaper product, and just over one-half (51 percent) reduced their savings in response to
higher prices.
Banking and Credit
•
Access to financial services from banks and credit unions, which can be important for people’s
financial well-being, remained high. In 2022, 94 percent of adults had a bank account although
notable gaps remain by income, age, race, ethnicity, and disability status.
•
Use of relatively new financial services like cryptocurrency for transactions and Buy Now, Pay
Later (BNPL) remained low compared with traditional payment and credit methods. Three per-
cent of adults used cryptocurrency for financial transactions and 12 percent used BNPL in the
prior year. That said, while still low overall, use tended to be higher among Black and His-
panic adults.
Housing
•
While some people chose to rent for convenience, the survey found that financial constraints
were often a reason why people rent. Nearly two-thirds of renters said that their inability to
afford a down payment to buy a home was a reason they rent. This is consistent with levels
seen before the pandemic.
•
Some renters indicated they had difficulty keeping up with their rent payments. Seventeen per-
cent of renters were behind on their rent at some point in the prior year.
Higher Education and Student Loans
•
Education was seen as a path to higher income and greater financial well-being in 2022. More
than two-thirds of adults with a bachelor’s degree or more said the financial benefits of their
education exceeded the cost. However, a lower 3 in 10 of those who started but did not com-
plete at least an associate degree shared this view.
•
People’s difficulty handling student loans varied by the level of education they completed. Con-
sistent with their greater earnings potential, those who completed at least a bachelor’s degree
were less likely to have fallen behind on payments.
Retirement and Investments
•
Progress toward retirement savings goals declined in 2022. Thirty-one percent of non-retirees
thought their retirement savings plan was on track, down from 40 percent in 2021.
•
Building retirement savings can have implications for financial well-being later in life. Seventy-
nine percent of retirees said they were doing at least okay financially. However, retirees who
received income from sources such as wages, pensions, or investments were much more likely
to be doing at least okay financially than those who had no private income.
Executive Summary 3
Overall Financial Well-Being
The share of adults doing at least okay financially fell sharply in 2022 and was among the lowest
observed since 2016.
2
This decline in financial well-being occurred broadly across the population.
Notably, it was the first time since the survey began that adults with at least a bachelor’s degree
saw a decline in well-being. Even so, existing gaps by education and by race and ethnicity
remained large.
Current Financial Situation
At the end of 2022, 73 percent of adults were doing at least okay financially, meaning they
reported either “doing okay” financially (39 percent) or “living comfortably” (34 percent). The rest
reported either “just getting by” (19 percent) or “finding it difficult to get by” (8 percent).
The 73 percent of adults doing at least okay financially in 2022 was down 5 percentage points
from 2021 and was among the lowest observed since 2016 (figure 1). As further evidence of
declining financial well-being in 2022, the share of adults who said they were living comfortably fell
2
The survey was fielded in October 2022, and results reflect financial situations at that time. Results typically capture
financial experiences at the time of the survey or in the 12-month period before the survey rather than the precise cal-
endar year. Results discussing the period shortly after the onset of the pandemic are based on the two supplemental
surveys were fielded during the pandemic in April 2020 and July 2020.
Figure 1. At least doing okay financially (by year)
62
65
69
70
74
75 75
72
77
75
78
73
Percent
Oct.
2022
Oct.
2021
Oct.
2020
July 2020
Apr. 2020
Oct.
2019
Oct.
2018
Oct.
2017
Oct.
2016
Oct.
2015
Oct.
2014
Oct.
2013
Note: Among all adults.
5
5 percentage points. This decline in well-being may reflect the broader economic conditions in
2022, such as inflation and stock market declines. It also occurred despite a strong labor market.
As in past years, adults with at least a bachelor’s degree were much more likely to be doing at
least okay financially (88 percent) than those with less than a high school degree (49 percent).
That said, the gap in well-being between these groups has declined 6 percentage points since
2020 (figure 2).
The shrinking education gap in well-being marks a change from recent years and largely reflects a
decline in well-being among those with at least a bachelor’s degree. In fact, for the first time since
the survey began in 2013, well-being fell among adults with at least a bachelor’s degree, down
from 91 percent doing at least okay in 2021. In contrast, well-being among those with less than a
high school degree has generally remained flat in recent years.
Differences in financial well-being across racial and ethnic groups persisted in 2022. Eighty-
four percent of Asian adults were doing at least okay financially, followed by 77 percent of White
adults, and 64 percent of both Hispanic and Black adults (figure 3).
3
3
The reported categorizations reflect the largest statistical groupings but are neither exhaustive nor the only distinctions
important to understand. Sample sizes for other racial and ethnic groups and subpopulations are not large enough to
produce reliable estimates. Additionally, results for Asian adults are sometimes excluded when the sample size is insuf-
ficient to provide a reliable estimate.
Figure 2. At least doing okay financially (by year and education)
Bachelor’s degree
or more
Some college/technical
or associate degree
High school
degree or GED
Less than a high
school degree
Percent
47
55
62
42
60
62
48
64
66
46
64
68
56
69
69
49
69
72
54
66
73
45
67
72
49
70
74
49
63
70
77 77
80
82
85
87
88
89
91
88
2022202120202019201820172016201520142013
Note: Among all adults. Results for 2017 to 2019 differ slightly from previous reports because of adjustments in
education coding for consistency.
6 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
All racial and ethnic groups measured in the survey saw a decline in financial well-being over the
prior year. Well-being among Asian, Hispanic, and Black adults returned to the same level as in fall
2020, during the first year of the pandemic. Notably, well-being among White adults fell for the first
time since the survey began, down 4 percentage points to 77 percent.
Parents are one group that has seen large
swings in well-being in recent years, falling
sharply after the onset of the pandemic,
rebounding in 2021, and falling again over the
prior year. The share of parents doing at least
okay financially fell to 69 percent in 2022,
down from its peak of 75 percent in 2021
(figure 4). For additional discussion of this
decline in parents’ financial well-being in
2022, see the “Expenses” section of
this report.
Financial well-being continued to differ by
income, LGBTQ+ status, disability status, met-
ropolitan status, and neighborhood income
Figure 3. At least doing okay financially (by year and race/ethnicity)
Asian Hispanic
Black
White
Percent
65
53
56
75
68
55
55
79
71
61
63
75
72
64
64
79
77
65
66
78
78
66
67
81
79
65
66
85
80
64
64
84
81
68
71
88
77
64
64
84
2022202120202019201820172016201520142013
Note: Among all adults.
Figure 4. At least doing okay financially (by
year and parental status)
Parents (living with own
children under age 18)
All other
adults
71
68
75
71
76
72
77
71
78
67
79
75
75
69
Percent
2022202120202019201820172016
Note: Among all adults.
Overall Financial Well-Being 7
(table 1).
4
Fifty-four percent of adults with
family income less than $25,000 were doing
at least okay financially, compared with
93 percent of adults with family income
greater than $100,000. While all income
groups saw declines in well-being, those with
family income between $25,000 and $99,999
saw the largest declines.
Earlier research has shown that LGBTQ+
adults were more likely to face economic inse-
curity, suggesting LGBTQ+ status may be
associated with financial well-being.
5
Consis-
tent with this evidence, the 2022 SHED found
that 65 percent of adults identifying as
LGBTQ+ were doing at least okay financially,
compared with 75 percent of those not identi-
fying as LGBTQ+.
6
Moreover, an even lower
55 percent of transgender or nonbinary adults
were doing at least okay financially.
Finally, 56 percent of adults with a disability
were doing at least okay financially, markedly
lower than adults without a disability.
7
4
Neighborhood income is defined using the Community Reinvestment Act definition. Under this definition, low- and
moderate-income refers to communities that have a median family income of less than 80 percent of the area median
income. For details on the definition, see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA) Resources,” https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/cra_resources.htm.
5
For example, see Thom File and Joey Marshall, “Household Pulse Survey Shows LGBT Adults More Likely to Report
Living in Households with Food and Economic Insecurity than Non-LGBT Respondents,” America Counts: Stories Behind
the Numbers (Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Bureau, August 11, 2021), https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/
lgbt-community-harder-hit-by-economic-impact-of-pandemic.html.
6
Survey respondents could report their sexual orientation and gender identity on a demographic profile survey previously
conducted by the survey vendor. Respondents are classified as LGBTQ+ based on responses to these questions. Differ-
ences in financial well-being between adults identifying as LGBTQ+ and other adults were present even after controlling
for age.
7
Disability status is defined based on a five-question functional limitation sequence that asks about hearing, vision,
ambulatory, self-care, and independent living difficulties. This approach for determining disability status is similar to the
six-question sequence used for the American Community Survey (see U.S. Census Bureau, “How Disability Data Are Col-
lected from the American Community Survey,” https://www.census.gov/topics/health/disability/guidance/data-
collection-acs.html).
Table 1. At least doing okay financially (by
demographic characteristics)
Percent
Characteristic 2022
1-year
change
(since
2021)
3-year
change
(since
2019)
Family income
Less than $25,000 54 −1 3
$25,000–$49,999 61 −5 −5
$50,000–$99,999 78 −7 −6
$100,000 or more 93 −3 −2
Disability status
Disability 56 −4 n/a
No disability 77 −4 n/a
LGBTQ+ status
Identifies as LGBTQ+ 65 −2 1
Does not identify as LGBTQ+ 75 −5 −2
Metropolitan status
Metro area 74 −4 −2
Non-metro area 67 −5 −5
Neighborhood income
Low or moderate income 63 −3 0
Middle or upper income 77 −5 −3
Overall 73 −5 −2
Note: Among all adults. Low- or moderate-income neighbor-
hoods are defined here using the definition from the Community
Reinvestment Act. Disability status was first identifiable in the
2021 survey. Here and in subsequent tables and figures, per-
centages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
n/a Not applicable.
8 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Changes in Financial Situation over Time
The survey also measures overall financial well-being by asking respondents whether they are
better or worse off financially than they were 12 months earlier. Measuring well-being in this way
helps track changes in perceived well-being over time, as some individuals may have felt worse off
financially than they were a year earlier, for instance, even if they felt they were still doing okay
overall (or that their financial well-being was improving even if they were still struggling overall).
The share of adults who said they were worse
off financially than a year earlier increased
sharply from 20 percent in 2021 to 35 per-
cent in 2022, the highest level since the ques-
tion was first asked in 2014 (figure 5). The
share doing about the same as a year earlier
fell 8 percentage points to 46 percent, while
the share who said they were better off fell
6 percentage points to 19 percent.
The spike in those doing worse off financially
occurred across demographic groups, though
adults with higher levels of education saw the
largest change. Thirty-one percent of those
with at least a bachelor’s degree said they
were worse off financially than a year ago, up
from 13 percent in 2021 and 10 percent in
2019, before the pandemic. This pattern may
reflect the fact that those with bachelor’s degrees not only faced rising prices but, because they
are more likely to have exposure to the stock market, may have also been more affected by stock
market declines.
8
That said, those with lower levels of education continued to be the most likely to say they were
doing worse off than a year ago. In 2022, 40 percent of adults with less than a high school degree
reported doing worse off financially. The share was up from 33 percent in 2021 and was more
than double the 18 percent seen in 2019, before the pandemic.
To get a longer-term perspective, individuals were also asked to compare their current financial cir-
cumstances to how they perceived their parents’ financial situation at the same age. Looking
across generations shows evidence of economic progress over time, despite financial setbacks
8
For example, adults with over $1 million in savings or investable assets had a far larger increase in their likelihood of
saying they were worse off than was seen among those with under $50,000 of assets.
Figure 5. Financial situation compared with
12 months prior (by year)
Better off
Worse off
21
29
19
27
27
17
15
33
13
31
14
32
24
25
20
25
35
19
202220212020201920182017201620152014
Percent
Note: Among all adults.
Overall Financial Well-Being 9
during the pandemic. A majority of adults (54 percent) thought they were better off financially than
their parents had been. This compares with the 57 percent who thought so both in 2021 and in
2019, before the onset of the pandemic. Nearly one-fourth thought they were worse off than their
parents were at the same age in 2022.
People holding at least a bachelor’s degree were more likely to experience upward economic
mobility, relative to those with less education. This was particularly true among first-generation col-
lege graduates—those who completed a bachelor’s degree and whose parents did not—among
whom 69 percent thought they were better off financially than their parents were.
Main Financial Challenges
The survey further explored financial well-being by posing an open-ended question asking people
about their main financial challenges or concerns.
9
The responses were classified into broad cat-
egories based on keywords or phrases.
10
Inflation was the most common challenge, with one-third
classified into that category, followed by general needs, retirement and savings, and housing
(figure 6). Twenty-eight percent said they did not have any financial challenges or concerns.
When describing challenges related to inflation, many people mentioned the cost of food, gas, and
utilities. For example, one respondent stated that “energy costs, grocery costs, gasoline: every-
thing we buy now has increased drastically.”
Others noted that, while prices have increased, wages have often not kept up. This sentiment was
expressed by one respondent who said that “prices [are] going up but our paychecks don’t. [It is]
hard to afford what we need and our kids need.” This concern is consistent with those adults who
said their spending had increased, but their income had not (see the “Income” section of
this report).
9
The question text is as follows: “In a couple of words, please describe the main financial challenges or concerns facing
you or your family. If none please click the “None” box.” Seventy-one percent of respondents provided a text response to
the question, and 27 percent selected “None.” The remaining 2 percent of respondents who did not provide a text
response and did not check the “None” box were excluded from the analysis.
10
Text entries were categorized based on words or word stems included in the response. “Inflation” includes responses
with inflat, cost, pay more, paying more, increas, expensive, price, pricing, higher, rising, skyrocket, sky rocket, going up,
gone up. Those with bill, util, electric, heat, everything, necessities, basic needs, essential, can’t afford, not enough, get
by, getting by, surviv, struggl, no money, challenge, living expense, or food were categorized as “general needs;” those
with retire, 401k, stock, market, portfolio, pension, old age, Medicare, SSI, IRA, 401(k), Social Security, save, saving, or
fund were categorized as “retirement and savings;” those with hous, rent, home, or mortgage were categorized as
“housing;” those that mentioned work, job, wage, employ, raise, paycheck, pay check, salary, laid off, part time, hours,
full time, overtime, skills, or unemp were categorized as “employment;” those with medical, medicine, health, Medicaid,
Medicare, dental, dentist, cancer, sick, ill, doctor, hospital, or prescription were categorized as “medical;” those with
credit, loan, debt, or owe were categorized as “debt;” those that mentioned college, school, education, tuition, degree,
university, or student were categorized as “education.” Responses may be included in multiple categories or no catego-
ries, as the categories are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive.
10 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
People also expressed concerns about saving for retirement. For example, one respondent said,
“Not able to save enough for retirement. My 401K and IRA have lost a significant amount of
money. I won’t be able to retire as initially planned.” Concerns about retirement savings are con-
sistent with the finding that just 31 percent of non-retirees think that their retirement savings are
on track, as discussed in the “Retirement and Investments” section of this report.
The 2016 survey also included the same open-ended question about financial challenges, allowing
for comparison of people’s main financial challenges over time (figure 6). In 2016, 53 percent of
adults said they did not have any financial challenges or concerns, much higher than the 28 per-
cent who said so in 2022. People were much less likely to mention challenges related to inflation
in 2016, consistent with macroeconomic trends at that time.
11
They also were less likely to men-
tion general needs. Incidence for most of the other categories was generally similar in 2016
and 2022.
12
Inflation was the most common challenge among people of all income levels in 2022, suggesting
a widespread effect of higher prices across the population (figure 7).
13
The prevalence of other
challenges varied by income. For example, higher-income adults were more likely than lower-
income adults to mention financial challenges related to retirement—and this was the case
11
In 2016, no respondents directly mentioned the word “inflation” as a financial challenge, instead mentioning things like
an increasing cost of living or rising prices.
12
The specific challenges and concerns within the broader categories may have changed from 2016 to 2022.
13
In part, the lower share reporting inflation concerns among the lowest income group may reflect the different terms
people use to describe their finances—as evidenced by the higher share citing general needs. It also partially reflects
somewhat more respondents in that income group selecting “none,” which may be a form of non-response to the open-
text question.
Figure 6. Categories of self-reported main financial challenges, 2016 and 2022
2022
2016
Percent
8
33
11
22
10
13
7
10 10
9
8
6
7
5
6
5
53
28
NoneEducationDebtMedicalEmploymentHousingRetirement
and savings
General
needs
Inflation
Note: Among respondents who provided a text response or selected the “none” box. Key identifies bars in order from
left to right.
Overall Financial Well-Being 11
regardless of age—while lower-income adults were more likely than higher-income adults to men-
tion general needs and employment.
Local and National Economic Conditions
Along with questions about their own financial
circumstances, people were asked to rate
their local economy and the national economy
as “excellent,” “good,” “only fair,” or “poor.”
Thirty-eight percent of adults rated their local
economy as “good” or “excellent” in 2022,
down from 48 percent in 2021, and well below
the 63 percent of adults who rated their local
economy as “good” or “excellent” in 2019,
before the pandemic.
Declines in people’s perceptions about their
local economy occurred across census region
and metropolitan status (table 2).
Figure 7. Categories of self-reported main financial challenges (by family income)
Percent
NoneEducationDebtMedicalEmploymentHousingRetirement
and savings
General
needs
Inflation
Less than $50,000 $50,000-$99,999
$100,000 or more
31
25
29
6
6
66
7
7
4
4
44
11
1111
8
9
8
14
19
28
23
13
34
40
29
Note: Among respondents who provided a text response or selected the “none” box. Key identifies bars in order from
left to right.
Table 2. Self-assessment of local economy as
good or excellent (by census region and
metropolitan status)
Percent
Characteristic 2019 2021 2022
Census region
Northeast 63 48 38
Midwest 64 49 40
South 64 49 40
West 61 46 35
Metropolitan status
Metro area 65 50 40
Non-metro area 53 34 30
Overall 63 48 38
Note: Among all adults.
12 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
People’s perception of the national economy continued to decline. The share rating the national
economy as “good” or “excellent” fell to 18 percent in 2022, the lowest share since the survey
began asking this question in 2017. Moreover, this share has fallen a substantial 32 percentage
points since before the pandemic in 2019, when one-half of adults rated the national economy as
“good” or “excellent” (figure 8).
In contrast, people’s perception of their own financial well-being was down 2 percentage points
since 2019. As a result, the gap between people’s perceptions of their own financial well-being
and their perception of the national economy has more than doubled in recent years, widening
from 26 percentage points in 2019 to 55 percentage points in 2022.
Figure 8. Assessment of own financial well-being, local economy, and national economy (by year)
202220212020201920182017
74
75 75
57
41
64
51
63
50
75
43
26
78
73
48
38
24
18
Percent
National economy
(good or excellent)
Local economy
(good or excellent)
Own finances
(doing at least okay)
Note: Among all adults.
Overall Financial Well-Being 13
Income
A sizeable share of adults said their family’s monthly income increased in 2022 compared with a
year earlier. However, the share of adults who said their spending increased from the prior year
was even greater. Consistent with these changes in income and spending, fewer adults appear to
have margin in their family budgets. The share of adults who said they spent less than their
income in the month before the survey fell below the level it had been before the pandemic.
Level and Source of Income
In this report, family income is defined as the
cash income from all sources, prior to taxes
and deductions, that respondents and their
spouse or partner received during the pre-
vious year. Thirty percent of adults had a
family income below $25,000, and 32 percent
had a family income of $100,000 or more
(figure 9).
14
Labor earnings were the most common source
of income, but many people had other sources
of income. Nearly two-thirds of adults and
their spouse or partner received wages, sala-
ries, or self-employment income (collectively
referred to here as labor income) (table 3). Fifty-three percent of all adults received non-labor
income in 2022.
15
Some adults received both types of income: 48 percent of those with a labor
income also had some form of non-labor income. Additionally, as discussed in the “Retirement
and Investments” section of the report, receipt of non-labor income was more common among
retirees.
14
In the 2022 SHED, respondents were asked to provide the amount of their income in dollars, with a follow-up question
using income ranges for those who did not give a response. The income distribution in the 2022 SHED is broadly similar
to that from the 2022 March Current Population Survey. However, the SHED has a slightly higher share with incomes
less than $25,000 or over $100,000 but fewer with incomes between $25,000 and $99,999. These deviations in the
estimates may result from differences between the surveys in how income questions are asked.
15
Non-labor or nonwage income is defined as income from interest, dividends, or rental income; Social Security (including
Old-Age and Disability Insurance (DI)); Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), or cash assistance from a welfare program; unemployment income; or income from a pension. Non-labor income
does not include tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or in-kind benefits. It also does not include the small
number of respondents who reported receiving income but did not specify the source.
Figure 9. Family income
$100,000
or more
$50,000–
$99,999
$25,000–
$49,999
Less than
$25,000
30
15
23
32
Percent
Note: Among all adults.
15
While people received most forms of income
at similar rates as in 2021, receipt of unem-
ployment assistance dropped markedly. In
2022, the share of all adults receiving unem-
ployment income returned to the pre-pandemic
level of 2 percent, dropping from the elevated
levels of 14 percent in 2020 and 9 percent in
2021. This decline in the receipt of unemploy-
ment assistance reflects both the lower rate
of unemployment in 2022 and the termination
of enhanced unemployment assistance pro-
grams that were put into place during the
pandemic.
In addition to the income sources discussed
above, some adults relied on cash or in-kind
assistance from nonprofits and private sources—including financial support from a friend or family
member living outside of their home. Fifteen percent of adults received at least one type of assis-
tance from private or nonprofit sources in 2022. Specifically, 9 percent of all adults received free
groceries or meals through a food pantry, religious organization, or community organization, 2 per-
cent received financial assistance from a religious or community organization, and 8 percent
received financial assistance from friends or family not living with them. These rates are nearly
identical to those reported in 2021.
The likelihood of receiving financial support varied by age, with young adults being more likely than
older adults to receive assistance. For those age 18 to 29, 15 percent received financial assis-
tance from friends or family—over twice as high as the share of those age 30 and older who
received this type of financial assistance (7 percent).
Changes in Income and Spending
Many people experienced a change in their family’s monthly income and spending from a year ear-
lier. Thirty-three percent of adults said their family’s monthly income increased in 2022 compared
with the prior year, while 40 percent increased their monthly spending (figure 10). This share of
adults who reported an increase in monthly spending was 14 percentage points higher than the
share who reported this in 2021. While some adults saw both their spending and their income
increase, 23 percent of adults said that their spending had increased but their income had not.
In October 2022, just under half of adults reported spending less than their income in the past
month, down from highs reached in 2020 and 2021, and below the pre-pandemic levels in 2017
Table 3. Sources of income
Source Percent
Labor income
Wages, salaries, or self-employment 66
Non-labor income
Interest, dividends, or rental income 31
Social Security (including Old-Age and DI) 27
Pension 18
SSI, TANF, or cash assistance from a welfare
program 6
Unemployment income 2
Any non-labor income 53
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select multiple
answers. Sources of income include the income of a spouse or
partner. DI is Disability Insurance; SSI is Supplemental Security
Income; and TANF is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
16 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
to 2019 (figure 11). Nineteen percent said their spending exceeded their income, while the
remainder (32 percent) said their spending and income were about the same.
Pullbacks in spending in the early part of the
pandemic, coupled with fiscal support that
many families received in 2020 and 2021,
may have given some households more
margin in their budgets over this period. In
2022, price increases affected family budgets
for many adults and may have contributed to
the decline in the share of adults who spent
less than their income in the prior month.
(See the “Expenses” section of this report for
more on the effect of price increases.)
Likely reflecting their higher income and
stronger financial circumstances generally,
adults with more education were more likely to
say they spent less than their income in the
past month. Thirty-two percent of adults with
less than a high school degree said their
spending was less than their income, compared with 58 percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree
or more (figure 12). However, adults with more education also saw a larger drop between 2021
and 2022 in the share spending less than their income.
Figure 10. Increase in monthly income and
spending from 12 months earlier (by year)
Monthly spending increasedMonthly income increased
202220212020
24
30
33
20
25
40Percent
Note: Among all adults. Key identifies bars in order of
left to right.
Figure 11. Total spending less than income in
the prior month (by year)
202220212020201920182017
50
51
52
55 55
49
Percent
Note: Among all adults.
Figure 12. Total spending less than income in
the prior month (by year and education)
20222021
2020
35
49
53
65
36
49
52
67
32
45 45
58
Bachelor’s
degree
or more
Some college/
technical or
associate
degree
High school
degree
or GED
Less than a
high school
degree
Percent
Note: Among all adults. Key identities bars in order of
left to right.
Income 17
Income Variability
The total level of yearly income may mask changes in income from month to month, and mis-
matches between the timing of income and expenses can lead to financial challenges.
16
In 2022,
most adults had income that was roughly the same each month, but nearly 3 in 10 had income
that varied from month to month, similar to previous years.
Income variability was related to the type of income people received. Adults who received only
wages or other sources of labor income were more likely to report their income varied from month
to month (33 percent), compared with those with only non-labor income (13 percent).
Income variability continued to differ greatly by industry in 2022.
17
Workers in the leisure and hos-
pitality industry were the most likely to have varying monthly income (figure 13). The high rate of
income variability for leisure and hospitality workers has occurred since before the pandemic.
Monthly variations in income may cause financial hardship for some families. In 2022, 10 percent
of adults reported they struggled to pay their bills in the past 12 months because their income
varied, up from 9 percent in 2021.
16
For additional information on monthly income variability, see Jonathan Morduch and Julie Siwicki, “In and Out of Poverty:
Episodic Poverty and Income Volatility,” Social Service Review 91, no. 3 (2017): 390–421.
17
This variability can come from any aspect of household income, however, and is not necessarily related to the person’s
income from the industry they work in.
Figure 13. Income varied at least occasionally from month to month (by industry)
Armed Forces
Professional and Business Services
Public Administration
Information
Manufacturing
Financial Activities
Education and Health Services
Natural Resources and Mining
Transportation and Utilities
Wholesale and Retail Trade
Other Services
Construction
Leisure and Hospitality
Percent
44
41
41
39
38
37
30
28
28
24
24
23
11
Note: Among adults who reported industry of employment.
18 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
The likelihood of experiencing income vari-
ability and related hardship differed by educa-
tion, race, and ethnicity. Adults with less edu-
cation were more likely to experience hardship
from varying income. Twenty-one percent of
adults with less than a high school degree
said they had difficulty paying bills in the past
year because their income varied, compared
with 5 percent of adults with a bachelor’s
degree or more (table 4). Black and Hispanic
adults also were more likely to experience
income variability and related hardship, com-
pared with White and Asian adults.
Table 4. Varying income and related hardship
(by education and race/ethnicity)
Percent
Characteristic
Varying
income,
causes
hardship
Varying
income,
no hard-
ship
Varying
income,
overall
Education
Less than a high school degree 21 16 38
High school degree or GED 13 17 30
Some college/technical or
associate’s degree 12 20 32
Bachelor’s degree or more 5 18 23
Race/ethnicity
White 8 18 26
Black 14 19 34
Hispanic 16 20 36
Asian 7 15 22
Overall 10 19 29
Note: Among all adults.
Income 19
Employment
Workers’ relationships with their employers vary substantially. For example, workers with at least a
bachelor’s degree were more likely than those with less education to telework, control their sched-
ules, and have autonomy over their work activities.
That said, measures of workers’ opportunities in the job market, such as the share asking for or
receiving a raise, increased over the prior year, and this was the case among those with and
without a bachelor’s degree.
Working from Home
A major change in many people’s work lives since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was the
increased prevalence of working from home, also known as remote work. In October 2022, 19 per-
cent of adults who worked for someone else (“employees”) worked entirely from home in the week
before the survey and 20 percent did so some of the time. The share working entirely from home
was down from 29 percent in 2020 and 22 percent in 2021, but well above the 7 percent who
worked mostly from home in 2019, before the pandemic.
18
Job type, employer rules, and personal preferences influenced whether people worked from home.
Just under half (48 percent) of employees said they had a job that could not be done from home.
Eleven percent of employees felt that their job could be done from home and that they would
prefer to do so, but their employer would not allow it. A smaller 3 percent said that they could
work from home but chose not to.
Employees who completed more education continued to be more likely to work from home. Twenty-
seven percent of employees with at least a bachelor’s degree worked entirely from home com-
pared with 9 percent of those with a high school degree or less (figure 14).
One explanation for the differences by education is that employees with more education were
more likely to have a job where they could work from home. Three-fourths of employees with at
least a bachelor’s degree either worked from home or said that they could if their employer would
let them, compared with 25 percent among employees with a high school degree or less.
18
The question asked in 2019 was different from later years. The 2019 survey asked where people worked in their main
jobs most of the time.
21
Common reasons for preferring to work from home were spending less time commuting, work-life
balance, and increased productivity (table 5). Concerns about COVID-19 were less frequently cited.
Additionally, the share of those working from home who cited COVID-19 concerns as a reason for
their preference declined substantially in 2022 from that seen in the previous survey—falling from
56 percent to 40 percent.
In addition to asking about why employees preferred to work from home, the survey also asked
those who worked from home about the likeli-
hood of actively looking for another job or
leaving their job if their employer required
them to work in person each day. To provide
context on these results, respondents were
also asked if they would actively look for work
if their employer froze their pay or cut their pay
by different amounts.
Nearly 3 in 10 employees (28 percent) who
worked from home at least some of the time
said they would be very likely to actively look
for another job if their employer required them
to work in person each workday (figure 15).
Employees viewed a hypothetical in-person
work requirement similarly to a hypothetical
small decrease in pay. Of employees currently
Table 5. Reasons employees prefer to work
from home
Reason Percent
Work-life balance 88
Less time commuting 87
More productive working at home 73
Able to live in a different area 48
Concerns about COVID-19 40
Note: Among adults who worked for someone else and worked
from home at least some of the time. Respondents could select
multiple answers.
Figure 15. Very likely to actively look for
another job or leave their job if employer
changes pay or requires in person work (by pay
cuts and exclusive in person work)
Percent
18
23
28
38
52
Lower
pay
by 10%
Lower
pay
by 5%
Report
in person
Lower
pay
by 1%
Freeze
pay
Note: Among adults who worked for someone else and
worked from home at least some of the time.
Figure 14. Amount of work done from home
(by education)
AllSomeNone
Bachelor’s degree
or more
Some college/
technical or
associate degree
High school
degree or less
84
7 9
15
27
12
31
73
42
Percent
Note: Among adults who worked for someone else.
Key identifies bars in order from left to right.
22 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
working from home at least some of the time, 18 percent would be very likely to look for another
job if their employer froze their pay, while 52 percent would look for another job if their employer
cut their pay by 10 percent (figure 15). For those currently working from home, the likelihood of
looking for another job after a full-time in-person work requirement is consistent with that expected
from a 2 to 3 percent pay cut.
Job Searching and Advancement
Indicators of workers’ opportunities for new
positions and pay advancement strengthened
compared with 2021, as the share who
received a raise, asked for a raise, or volun-
tarily left a job increased, while the share who
lost a job decreased. Thirty-three percent of
adults said they received a raise or a promo-
tion in the prior 12 months, up slightly from
2021.
19
A higher share also said they asked
for a raise or promotion in 2022 than during
2021 (figure 16). Five percent of adults lost a
job during the prior year, down from 7 percent
in 2021.
Adults with more education were more likely to
ask for or receive a raise than those with less
education. They also were more likely to have
applied to a new job, started a new job, or vol-
untarily left a job in the prior year. For
example, 26 percent of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree applied for a new job in the prior
year and 17 percent started a new job. Among those with a high-school degree or less, a lower
19
Restricting the sample to just those who are working, the likelihood of asking for or receiving a raise is higher. Among
those who were working in the month of the survey, 21 percent asked for a raise and 54 percent received one.
For those currently working from home, the
likelihood of looking for another job after a
full-time in-person work requirement is consistent
with that expected from a 2 to 3 percent pay cut.
Figure 16. Job actions taken in prior 12
months (by year)
20222021
Got laid off or
lost a job
Voluntarily
left a job
Started
a new job
Applied for
a new job
Asked for a raise
or a promotion
Received a raise
or a promotion
30
33
9
13
20
23
13
15
9
11
7
5
Percent
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select
multiple answers. Key identifies bars in order from top
to bottom.
Employment 23
18 percent applied for a new job and 11 percent started one. These indicators of how workers are
faring in the job market were either similar to or above that seen in the prior year for each educa-
tion group.
Most people who asked for a raise received one. Among those who asked for a raise in 2022,
70 percent also said that they received a raise. This share was similar in 2021 and was up 4 per-
centage points from 2019, before the pandemic.
Those who searched for a job also frequently found new work. Among people who applied for a
new job, 52 percent reported starting a new job in 2022, up 3 percentage points from 2021 and
up 7 percentage points from 2019.
Work Arrangements and Autonomy at Work
In addition to pay, other important dimensions of job quality are the duration of jobs, job schedules
and autonomy. Seven percent of working adults (4 percent of all adults) said their main job was a
temporary position. These temporary positions were most frequent among young workers and
older workers. Nine percent of workers under age 30, and 11 percent of those age 60 or older,
indicated that they had a temporary position, compared with 5 percent of workers between ages
30 and 59.
Although many people have regular work schedules, this is not the case for all workers. More than
one-fourth (27 percent) of employees had irregular work schedules in 2022. This includes 16 per-
cent who had a work schedule that varied based on their employer’s needs, and 11 percent whose
schedule varied at their own request.
Employees were also asked about how much choice they had to decide what tasks to work on and
how to do those tasks. In general, employees were more likely to have control over how to com-
plete tasks than which tasks they worked on. Nearly 6 in 10 employees said they often or always
chose how to complete tasks, compared with 37 percent who said they often or always chose
which tasks to work on.
Employees with at least a bachelor’s degree reported higher levels of autonomy at work than
those with lower levels of education (table 6). Forty-four percent of employees with at least a bach-
elor’s degree said they often or always chose what tasks to work on, and more than two-thirds said
they chose how to complete tasks. In contrast, around one-third (32 percent) of employees without
24 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
a bachelor’s degree often or always chose
what tasks to work on and one-half chose how
to complete tasks.
20
Autonomy at work also differed by race and
ethnicity, though these differences were
smaller than those by education (table 6).
About one-third of both Black and Hispanic
employees said they often or always chose
what tasks to work on, compared with 39 per-
cent of White employees. Black and Hispanic
employees were also less likely to report that
they chose how to complete tasks.
Reasons for Not Working
Twenty-three percent of prime-age adults (ages
25 to 54) were not working in the month
before the survey, matching the share who were not working in 2021. This share is less than the
26 percent who were not working in 2020 during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic but is
greater than the 21 percent not working in 2019, before the pandemic.
21
Health limitations or disability, as well as family or personal obligations besides childcare, were
the most commonly cited reasons for not working, followed by an inability to find work. Consistent
with the continued strength of the labor market, the 6 percent of prime-age adults said that they
were not working because they could not find work was similar to the share of adults who cited
this reason in 2021 (5 percent), and in late 2019, before the pandemic (5 percent).
Notable differences existed in prime-age employment rates by gender. Twenty-eight percent of
prime-age women were not working, compared with 18 percent of prime-age men.
This difference may reflect greater family and childcare responsibilities held by women. Prime-age
women were more likely than men to cite both childcare and other family or personal obligations
20
The different types of jobs people work in based on their level of education is likely a contributing factor for these differ-
ences in levels of autonomy by education. For example, 40 percent of business and professional services workers—
most of whom have a bachelor’s degree—say that they often or always chose what tasks to work on, while a lower
26 percent of transportation and utilities workers—most of whom have less than a bachelor’s degree—say they have
this level of control over their work.
21
Despite differences in question wording, this pattern is consistent with that observed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
which reported 20 percent of prime-age adults not working in October 2022, down from 24 percent not working at the
time of the survey in 2020, and similar to the percent in October 2019. See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “(Seas)
Employment-Population Ratio—25–54 yrs.,” https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060.
Table 6. Share who often or always choose
what tasks to work on and how to complete
tasks (by education and race/ethnicity)
Percent
Characteristic
What tasks
to work on
How to com-
plete tasks
Education
Less than a high school degree 35 49
High school degree or GED 31 49
Some college/technical or
associate degree 32 51
Bachelor’s degree or more 44 68
Race/ethnicity
White 39 61
Black 32 52
Hispanic 34 54
Asian 35 61
Note: Among adults who worked for someone else.
Employment 25
as a reason for not working (table 7). More-
over, among prime-age adults living with their
children under age 18, one-third of women
were not working in October 2022, compared
with 12 percent of men. Prime-age men and
women who did not live with their children
under age 18 had similar rates of not working
to each other.
The Gig Economy
Individuals who perform gig work or other gig
activities may be contributing to the economy
in ways not observed through traditional
employment measures. Gig activities in this
report include selling items at places such as
flea markets and garage sales or through online marketplaces, short-term rentals of items or prop-
erty, and freelance gig work such as ridesharing or other roles where people are paid for specific
tasks and generally have flexibility about when and how to work.
Overall, 16 percent of adults performed gig
activities over the prior month, matching the
share in 2021. This includes 11 percent who
sold things, 2 percent who offered short-term
rentals, and 6 percent doing other freelance or
gig work (with some people performing more
than one type of gig activity) (figure 17).
Gig activities were typically not full-time jobs.
Twenty-nine percent of adults who performed
gig activities (5 percent of all adults) said they
spent more than 20 hours doing so over the
prior month. Fifty-three percent of gig workers
(8 percent of all adults) also had another job
working for someone else.
22
22
Gig questions were asked separately from the standard employment questions. One percent of all adults said that they
were both not employed and spending at least 20 hours on gig activities in the prior month.
Table 7. Reasons for not working among
prime-age adults (by gender)
Percent
Reason Overall Male Female
Health limitations or disability 8 8 8
Family and personal obligations
besides childcare 7 5 10
Could not find work 6 6 6
Childcare 4 1 7
Concerned about COVID-19 4 3 5
Would lose access to
government benefits 3 3 3
School or training 2 2 2
Retired 2 2 2
Note: Among adults ages 25 to 54. Respondents could select
multiple answers.
Figure 17. Gig activities performed
Any gig
activity
Freelance or
gig work
Offering
short-term
rentals
Selling items
11
2
6
16
Percent
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select
multiple answers.
26 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Consistent with their part-time nature, gig activities were rarely people’s main source of income.
Only 12 percent of gig workers (2 percent of all adults) said they earned more than half of their
income from gigs over the prior month. An even lower 6 percent of gig workers (1 percent of all
adults) said that they earned at least 90 percent of their income from gig activities.
Employment 27
Expenses
The share of adults who would cover a relatively small emergency expense using cash or its
equivalent dropped back down to the level in 2019, before the pandemic. The share of adults who
said they were able to pay all their bills in full also declined to the level last seen in 2018. Most
adults said that the prices they paid had increased over the prior year and a majority adjusted
their spending in response to higher prices.
Bills and Regular Expenses
To understand how people were handling their regular household expenses, the survey asked
about their ability to pay their monthly bills. As of October 2022, 82 percent of adults said they
expected to be able to pay all their bills in full that month—down 4 percentage points from 2021,
and near the level last seen in 2018.
Lower-income adults were less likely to be able to pay all their bills. In the month of the survey,
67 percent of adults with a family income less than $25,000 expected to pay all their bills in full,
compared with 94 percent of adults with a family income of $100,000 or more (table 8). In addi-
tion, Black and Hispanic adults were less likely than White or Asian adults to be able to pay all
their bills in full in October 2022.
The most common type of bill people did not
expect to pay in full was a credit card bill.
Nine percent of adults said they did not
expect to pay a credit card bill in full that
month. Other bills, such as a water, gas or
electric bill (6 percent) or a phone or cable bill
(6 percent), were somewhat less common
responses.
Price increases can make it more difficult to
keep up with bills and expenses. In
October 2022, nearly all adults said the prices
they paid had increased at least somewhat in
the prior 12 months on one or more types of
purchases. Over 90 percent of adults said
Table 8. Able to pay current month’s bills in full
(by family income and race/ethnicity)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 67
$25,000–$49,999 78
$50,000–$99,999 86
$100,000 or more 94
Race/ethnicity
White 86
Black 70
Hispanic 73
Asian 88
Overall 82
Note: Among all adults.
29
that the prices they had paid for food and
gasoline had increased, and 85 percent said
prices for utilities had increased (figure 18).
23
Although fewer people said their rent or mort-
gage increased than said they experienced
rising prices for other expenses, the preva-
lence of housing cost increases differed sub-
stantially by homeownership status. Renters
were more likely than homeowners to say that
these housing costs had gone up. Sixty-
four percent of renters said their rent had
increased over the prior 12 months, including
30 percent who said it had increased a lot. In
contrast, 22 percent of homeowners said their
mortgage had increased in the past year, with
7 percent saying it had increased a lot.
Consistent with the widespread experience of higher prices over the prior year, most adults said
that their family budgets had been affected by price increases. Eighty-five percent of adults said
their family budgets had been affected at least somewhat by price increases, including 54 percent
of adults who said their budgets had been affected a lot by price increases on at least one type of
expense. Adults with income under $100,000 were more likely to say that their family budget was
affected a lot by rising prices, compared with higher-income adults (table 9). Parents living with
children under age 18, Black and Hispanic adults, and those with a disability were also more likely
to say their budget had been affected a lot by higher prices.
Most people took some action in response to higher prices. The most common actions were
spending changes, including using less of a product or stopping using it (66 percent), switching to
a cheaper product (64 percent), or delaying a major purchase (49 percent) (table 10). Just over
one-half of adults reported they reduced savings (51 percent). Increasing borrowing was less
common, as were activities to generate additional income, such as working more or asking for
a raise.
23
Consumer Price Index (CPI) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that in October 2022, gasoline costs were
up by 17.5 percent year-over-year and food costs were up by 10.9 percentage points (see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, “Consumer Price Index–October 2022,” news release, November 10, 2022, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/
archives/cpi_11102022.pdf). A difference between the CPI and the SHED results reported here is that the SHED
focuses on the share of people who say they experienced increases in prices rather than the specific amount of
increases.
Figure 18. Prices paid increased in prior 12
months (by product type)
Percent
Rent or
mortgage
Medical care,
medication, or
health insurance
Home or auto
insurance
Utilities (electricity,
heating fuel, etc.)
Gasoline and
other motor fuels
Food
Somewhat
A lot
71 25
19
44
75
41
40
18
34
16
20
97
94
85
58
50
34
14
Note: Among all adults. Key identifies bars in order
from left to right.
30 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Adults who had less margin between their
spending and their income appeared more
likely to take action in response to higher
prices. Among adults who said their spending
exceeded their income in the month before
the survey, 93 percent took at least one
action in response to higher prices. Among
those whose spending was less than their income, a lower 76 percent took at least one action.
Unexpected Expenses
Relatively small, unexpected expenses, such as a car repair or a modest medical bill, can be a
hardship for many families. When faced with a hypothetical expense of $400, 63 percent of all
adults in 2022 said they would have covered it exclusively using cash, savings, or a credit card
paid off at the next statement (referred to, altogether, as “cash or its equivalent”). The remainder
said they would have paid by borrowing or selling something, or said they would not have been
able to cover the expense.
The share who would pay using cash or its equivalent was down 5 percentage points from 68 per-
cent in 2021, and back at the level in 2019 (figure 19).
24
This decrease may reflect some reduc-
24
Since 2013, when this question was first asked, and the 2022 survey, median household incomes increased as did con-
sumer prices. To check how changes in price levels affect responses to this question, the 2022 survey asked one-fifth
of respondents how they would handle a $500 expense instead. Changing the threshold only altered the share who
would pay in cash by 0.5 percentage points, suggesting that shifts in the price level have not materially affected the
trend in this series. The discussion in this section only includes those respondents who are asked the question with the
$400 threshold.
Table 9. Family budget affected a lot by price
increases in the prior 12 months (by demo-
graphic characteristics)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 60
$25,000–$49,999 64
$50,000–$99,999 59
$100,000 or more 41
Race/ethnicity
White 52
Black 57
Hispanic 62
Asian 48
Disability status
Disability 66
No disability 51
Parental status
Not living with own children under age 18 51
Parents (living with own children under age 18) 63
Overall 54
Note: Among all adults.
Table 10. Actions taken in response to higher
prices in the prior 12 months
Action Percent
Spending
Used less or stopped using products 66
Switched to cheaper products 64
Delayed a major purchase 49
Saving/borrowing
Reduced savings 51
Increased borrowing 15
Income
Worked more or got another job 18
Asked for a raise 8
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select
multiple answers.
Expenses 31
tion in the savings buffers that households had accumulated because of the pullback in spending
and fiscal relief measures that boosted saving during 2020 and 2021.
25
Some groups saw larger changes in the share who would cover a $400 emergency expense with
cash or its equivalent. In 2022, parents saw a drop of 7 percentage points in this measure to
57 percent. This decline reversed the 7 percentage point increase in the share of parents who
would cover a $400 expense with cash or its equivalent that had been seen in 2021. By com-
parison, adults not living with their own children under age 18 saw a smaller increase of 3 per-
centage points in 2021, and a smaller drop in 2022 of 4 percentage points. One possible reason
behind these larger changes for parents is that some parents received payments from the tempo-
rary expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) in 2021 that were no longer in effect at the time of the
2022 survey.
26
Among those who would not have covered a $400 expense completely with cash or its equivalent
(37 percent of adults), most would pay some other way, and some said that they would be unable
25
For details on the increase in savings during the pandemic, see Aditya Alandangady, David Cho, Laura Feiveson, and
Eugenio Pinto, “Excess Savings during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series Notes
(Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 21, 2022), https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-
7172.3223; and for details on the effects of relief measures on incomes through the pandemic, see Jeff Larrimore,
Jacob Mortenson, and David Splinter, “Earnings Business Cycles: The Covid Recession, Recovery, and Policy Response,”
Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2023-004 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
2023), https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2023.004.
26
In 2021, the most common way parents used their CTC payments was saving them, potentially improving their ability to
handle unexpected expenses. For a discussion of the expansion of the Child Tax Credit in 2021 and the ways parents
used these payments, see the “Income” section in Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Economic Well-
Being of U.S. Households in 2021 (Washington: Board of Governors, May 2022), https://www.federalreserve.gov/
publications/files/2021-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202205.pdf.
Figure 19. Would cover a $400 emergency expense completely using cash or its equivalent (by year)
2022202120202019201820172016201520142013
50
53
54
56
59
61
68
64
63 63
Percent
Note: Among all adults.
32 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
to pay the expense at all. For these adults, the
most common approach was to use a credit
card and then carry a balance, although many
indicated they would use multiple approaches.
Thirteen percent of all adults said they would
be unable to pay the expense by any means
(table 11), up from 11 percent in 2021 and
12 percent in 2020 and 2019.
Some of those who would not have paid an
unexpected $400 expense with cash or its
equivalent likely still had access to $400 in
cash. Instead of using that cash to pay for the
expense, they may have chosen to preserve
their cash as a buffer for other expenses. To
explore this potential difference between how
people would pay for a $400 expense and
whether they could pay for it with cash or the
equivalent, the 2022 SHED included a new
question asking what is the largest emergency
expense people could handle using only sav-
ings. Sixty-eight percent of adults said they
could pay an expense of at least $500 using
only their current savings (table 12). This is a
somewhat larger share than the 63 percent of
adults who said they would pay an unexpected
$400 expense with cash or the equivalent,
suggesting that some people do choose to pay with other methods, even if they have cash savings
available to them.
27
Some financial challenges, such as a job loss, require more financial resources than would an
unexpected $400 expense. One common measure of financial resiliency is whether people have
savings sufficient to cover three months of expenses if they lost their primary source of income. In
2022, 54 percent of adults said they had set aside money for three months of expenses in an
emergency savings or “rainy day” fund—down from a high of 59 percent of adults in 2021.
27
See box 3 from Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. House-
holds in 2019, Featuring Supplemental Data from April 2020 (Washington: Board of Governors, May 2020), https://
www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2019-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202005.pdf.
Table 11. Other ways individuals would cover a
$400 emergency expense
Characteristic Percent
Put it on my credit card and pay it off over time 16
By borrowing from a friend or family member 9
Sell something 6
Use money from a bank loan or line of credit 2
Use money from a payday loan, deposit advance,
or overdraft 2
Would not be able to pay for the expense right
now 13
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select multiple
answers.
Table 12. Largest emergency expense
individuals could handle right now using only
savings
Amount Percent
Under $100 18
$100 to $499 14
$500 to $999 11
$1,000 to $1,999 11
$2,000 or more 46
Note: Among all adults.
Expenses 33
For those who did not set aside money for this purpose, some would have dealt with a loss of their
main source of income by borrowing, selling assets, or drawing on other savings. Sixteen percent
of all adults said that they could have covered three months of expenses in this way. Thirty percent
of adults indicated they could not cover three months of expenses by any means.
Health-Care Expenses
Out-of-pocket spending for health care is a common unexpected expense that can be a substantial
hardship for those without a financial cushion. As with the financial setbacks discussed above
many adults were not financially prepared for health-related costs at the time of the survey.
Twenty-three percent of adults had major, unexpected medical expenses in the prior 12 months,
with the median amount between $1,000 and $1,999. Sixteen percent of adults had debt from
their own medical care or that of a family member (not necessarily from the past year).
Many went without medical care in the prior 12 months because of the cost. Twenty-eight percent
of adults went without some form of medical care in 2022 because they could not afford it, up
from 24 percent in 2021 but below the 32 percent seen in 2013 (figure 20). Dental care was the
most frequently skipped, followed by visiting a doctor (table 13). Some people also reported skip-
ping prescription medicine, follow-up care, or mental health visits. The increase in this measure
may, in part, reflect consumer responses to inflation as medical care is an area where people can
save money by cutting back on spending.
The likelihood of skipping medical care because of cost was strongly related to family income.
Among those with family income less than $25,000, 38 percent went without some medical care
because they could not afford it, compared with 11 percent of adults making $100,000 or more.
Ability to afford health care may contribute to the finding that, as family income rises, the likeli-
hood a person reported being in good health increases substantially. Among those in families with
Twenty-eight percent of adults went without some
form of medical care in 2022 because they could
not afford it.
34 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
income less than $25,000, 75 percent
reported being in good health, compared with
91 percent for those in families with income
of $100,000 or more.
Health insurance is one way that people can
pay for routine medical expenses and protect
against the financial burden of large, unex-
pected expenses. In 2022, 91 percent of
adults had health insurance, similar to 2021.
Those without health insurance were more
likely to forgo medical treatment because they
couldn’t afford it. Among the uninsured, 42 percent went without medical treatment because they
couldn’t afford it, compared to 26 percent among the insured.
Hardships from Natural Disasters
Those without a financial cushion may face unique and particularly severe challenges in the event
of natural disasters. Natural disasters may cause disruptions to people’s financial lives by
affecting their ability to work, displacing people from their homes, and resulting in unexpected
property damage.
Figure 20. Skipped medical treatment because of cost (by year)
32
31
27
25
27
24
25
23
24
28
2022202120202019201820172016201520142013
Percent
Note: Among all adults.
Table 13. Forms of medical treatment skipped
because of cost in the prior 12 months
Type Percent
Dental care 21
Seeing a doctor or specialist 16
Prescription medicine 10
Follow-up care 10
Mental health care or counseling 10
Any treatment 28
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select
multiple answers.
Expenses 35
In 2022, 13 percent of adults were directly affected by a natural disaster during the prior
12 months.
28
Those who were affected experi-
enced one or more of the following five events
as the result of a natural disaster or severe
weather event: (1) property damage, (2) an
income loss or work disruption, (3) the injury
or death of a family member or close friend,
(4) a temporary evacuation, or (5) longer-term
displacement from home. The two most
common ways that people were affected by
natural disasters were property damage and
an income loss or work disruption (figure 21).
The likelihood of being affected by natural
disasters varied across demographic groups.
Adults with lower income were more likely to
be affected by natural disasters than those
with higher income (table 14). Nineteen per-
cent of adults with family income below
$25,000 reported any disaster-related hard-
ship, compared with 9 percent of adults with
family income of $100,000 or more. Com-
28
Because natural disasters can have long-lasting effects on people, some may also be continuing to feel the repercus-
sions of natural disasters that occurred more than 12 months ago.
Figure 21. Disruptions from natural disasters in prior 12 months
Percent
Any disruption
Long-term displacement
Temporary evacuation
Injury or death
of family or friend
Income loss or
work disruption
Property damage
7
5
3
2
1
13
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select multiple answers.
Table 14. Disruptions from natural disasters in
the prior 12 months (by family income,
race/ethnicity, and census region)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 19
$25,000–$49,999 15
$50,000–$99,999 12
$100,000 or more 9
Race/ethnicity
White 11
Black 19
Hispanic 17
Asian 11
Census region
Northeast 9
Midwest 11
South 19
West 10
Overall 13
Note: Among all adults.
36 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
pared to those living in other census regions in the U.S., adults living in the South were more likely
to report they were affected by a natural disaster in the prior 12 months. Black or Hispanic adults
were also more likely to be affected than White or Asian adults.
29
To reduce their financial risks from natural disasters, some people undertook mitigation activities
such as improving their property or purchasing additional insurance. Those who had been affected
by a natural disaster in the prior 12 months were more likely to report they had taken action to
reduce risks from natural disasters (table 15).
30
Mitigation activities also differed by homeowner-
ship status. Renters were about twice as likely to investigate other places to live than home-
owners, whereas homeowners were far more likely to improve their property to mitigate the risks
of disasters. Among all adults, a smaller share purchased additional insurance to mitigate their
natural disaster risk, compared with the shares who investigated other places to live or improved
their property.
29
Income differences and differences in the likelihood of living in different areas of the country could contribute to some of
the differences by race and ethnicity in the likelihood of experiencing disruptions from natural disasters. However, after
controlling for income and census region (or state), Black and Hispanic adults were still more likely to be affected by
natural disasters in one of these ways than White adults.
30
This could relate to how those who recently experienced a natural disaster assess future risks. In a separate question,
those who had been affected by a natural disaster in the prior 12 months were more likely to say they expected their
risk of a natural disaster to be higher in five years (46 percent), compared with adults who had not been affected
(32 percent). Overall, 34 percent of adults expected risks of a natural disaster to increase, and 62 percent expected
risks to be about the same in five years.
Table 15. Natural disaster mitigation activities (by whether affected in the prior 12 months and
homeownership status)
Percent
Characteristic
Investigated other
places to live
Improved property to
reduce risk
Purchased additional
insurance
Any disruption
Affected by disaster in past year 25 35 12
Not affected by a disaster 10 11 4
Homeownership status
Homeowner 9 18 6
Renter 18 7 5
Overall 12 14 5
Note: Among all adults. Respodents could select multiple answers.
Expenses 37
Banking and Credit
Access to financial services from banks and credit unions can be important for people’s financial
well-being. Most adults had a bank account and were able to obtain credit in 2022, but notable
gaps in access to financial services still exist, particularly among those with low income, Black
and Hispanic adults, and those with a disability.
Use of relatively new financial services like cryptocurrency for transactions and Buy Now, Pay Later
(BNPL) remained low compared with use of traditional payment and credit methods. That said,
while still low overall, use of these products tended to be higher among lower-income adults and
among Black and Hispanic adults.
Bank Account Ownership
Six percent of adults were “unbanked” in
2022, meaning neither they nor their spouse
or partner had a checking, savings, or money
market account. This share was unchanged
from 2021.
Unbanked rates were particularly high among
adults with low income. Seventeen percent of
adults with income below $25,000 were
unbanked compared with 1 percent of adults
with income of $50,000 to $99,999.
Unbanked rates were also higher among
younger adults, Black and Hispanic adults,
and adults with a disability (table 16).
Overall, 11 percent of adults with a bank
account said they paid an overdraft fee in the
prior 12 months, unchanged from 2021.
Certain population segments were more likely
to have paid an overdraft fee. For example,
banked adults with income less than $50,000
were more than twice as likely to have paid an
Table 16. Unbanked rate (by demographic
characteristics)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 17
$25,000–$49,999 4
$50,000–$99,999 1
$100,000 or more *
Age
18–29 10
30–44 8
45–59 5
60+ 2
Race/ethnicity
White 3
Black 13
Hispanic 10
Asian 5
Disability status
Disability 10
No disability 5
Overall 6
Note: Among all adults.
* Less than 0.5 percent
39
overdraft fee as people with an income of
$100,000 or more. Across races and ethnici-
ties, a larger share of Black and Hispanic
adults paid an overdraft fee in the past
12 months than Asian or White adults
(table 17).
Nonbank Check Cashing and
Money Orders
Thirteen percent of adults used nonbank
check cashing or money orders, unchanged
from 2021, and down 3 percentage points
from 2019.
Both banked and unbanked adults used non-
bank providers to conduct financial transac-
tions, but the unbanked were much more likely
to have done so. Twelve percent of banked
adults used a nonbank money order or check
cashing service, compared with 31 percent of
unbanked adults (figure 22).
Use of nonbank money orders and check
cashing has fallen among both unbanked and
banked adults since 2019, although it has
been flat among banked adults over the past
two years (figure 22). The market for financial
products and services continues to evolve,
particularly in the digital space. As a result,
people may be substituting away from money
orders and check cashing services to other
nonbank products and services not asked
about on the survey.
Similar to demographic patterns in bank
account ownership, use of nonbank check
cashing and money orders was more common
among those with lower income, Black and
Hispanic adults, and adults with a disability
Table 17. Paid an overdraft fee on a bank
account in the prior year (by demographic
characteristics)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 16
$25,000–$49,999 15
$50,000–$99,999 11
$100,000 or more 6
Age
18–29 14
30–44 15
45–59 12
60+ 6
Race/ethnicity
White 9
Black 17
Hispanic 16
Asian 7
Disability status
Disability 17
No disability 9
Overall 11
Note: Among adults with a bank account.
Figure 22. Use of nonbank check cashing and
money orders (by bank account ownership)
31
35
40
47
12
12
12
15
2022202120202019
Banked
Unbanked
Percent
Note: Among all adults.
40 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
(table 18). Use among Black adults was par-
ticularly high at nearly 3 in 10.
Cryptocurrency
Cryptocurrencies are relatively new digital
assets that may be held as an investment or
used for conducting financial transactions.
31
One in ten adults held or used cryptocurrency
in 2022, down 2 percentage points from
2021. This overall decline reflects a drop in
the share of adults who bought or held crypto-
currencies as an investment, which fell from
11 percent in 2021 to 8 percent in 2022
(table 19), potentially reflecting a response to
declines in cryptocurrency asset values prior
to the survey.
The share of adults using cryptocurrency for
financial transactions was unchanged from
2021. It also remained less common than
holding cryptocurrency as an investment.
Overall, 3 percent of adults said they used
cryptocurrency to make a financial transaction in the prior 12 months: 2 percent used cryptocur-
rency to buy something or make a payment,
and 2 percent used it to send money to
friends or family (table 19).
32
The survey asked those who used cryptocur-
rency to make financial transactions for the
main reason they did so (table 20). The three
most cited reasons for using cryptocurrencies
for transactions were that the person or busi-
ness receiving the money preferred cryptocur-
rency, to send the money faster, and privacy.
31
Cryptocurrencies are decentralized digital assets that have a distributed ledger and can be used for peer-to-peer pay-
ments. For additional information on cryptocurrencies, see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Money
and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation (Washington: Board of Governors, January 2022),
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/money-and-payments-discussion-paper.htm.
32
Because the survey is conducted online, the sample population may be more technologically connected than the overall
population, which could increase the share of adults reporting use of emerging technologies such as cryptocurrencies.
Table 18. Use of nonbank check cashing and
money orders (by demographic characteristics)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 22
$25,000–$49,999 17
$50,000–$99,999 10
$100,000 or more 4
Age
18–29 13
30–44 17
45–59 13
60+ 9
Race/ethnicity
White 8
Black 28
Hispanic 19
Asian 7
Disability status
Disability 22
No disability 10
Overall 13
Note: Among all adults.
Table 19. Cryptocurrency use
Percent
Use 2021 2022
Bought or held as an investment 11 8
Used to buy something or make
a payment 2 2
Used to send money to friends
or family 1 2
Any use of cryptocurrency 12 10
Note: Among all adults. Respondents could select multiple
answers.
Banking and Credit 41
Each of these reasons was cited by about
one-fifth of transactional cryptocurrency users.
Use of cryptocurrency varied by people’s will-
ingness to take financial risks. Adults who
said they were very willing to take financial
risks were more likely to use cryptocurrency,
either as an investment or for transactions.
Just above one-fourth of those very willing to
take financial risks used cryptocurrency in the
prior year, compared with only 4 percent
among those not at all willing to take financial
risks.
33
Use of cryptocurrency also differed across
demographic and socioeconomic characteris-
tics (table 21). Use was more common among
younger adults and men, both for investment
and transactions. This was the case even
after controlling for people’s self-reported will-
ingness to take financial risks.
In contrast with age and gender, patterns by
income, race, and ethnicity differed by whether
the cryptocurrency was used for investment
purposes or to conduct financial transactions.
Adults with income of $100,000 or more were
more likely than adults with lower incomes to
hold cryptocurrency as an investment,
whereas those with income less than
$25,000 were more likely than those with
higher incomes to use cryptocurrency for
financial transactions. Looking across race
and ethnicity shows that holding cryptocur-
rency as an investment was most likely among
33
Respondents were asked to rate their willingness to take financial risks on a scale of 0 (i.e., not at all willing to take
financial risks) to 10 (very willing to take financial risks).
Table 20. Main reason people used
cryptocurrency for financial transactions
Reason Percent
Person or business recieving the money preferred
cryptocurrency 21
To send the money faster 21
Privacy 20
Cheaper 13
Safer 9
Don’t trust banks 5
Other 10
Note: Among adults who used cryptocurrency for financial
transactions.
Table 21. Cryptocurrency use (by demographic
characteristics)
Percent
Characteristic
Invest-
ment only
Transac-
tions
Any
Family income
Less than $25,000 5 4 9
$25,000–$49,999 5 2 7
$50,000–$99,999 8 2 10
$100,000 or more 10 2 12
Age
18–29 10 4 14
30–44 11 4 15
45–59 7 2 10
60+ 2 1 3
Race/ethnicity
White 7 1 9
Black 6 6 12
Hispanic 7 4 12
Asian 12 3 15
Gender
Male 10 3 14
Female 5 2 7
Note: Among all adults.
42 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Asian adults. In contrast, use of cryptocurrency for financial transactions was more common
among Black and Hispanic adults than White or Asian adults.
Use of cryptocurrency for financial transactions was more common among the unbanked, as well
as those who used nonbank check cashing and money orders. Five percent of unbanked adults
used cryptocurrency for financial transactions, compared with 3 percent among banked adults.
Regardless of bank account ownership, those who used nonbank check cashing or money orders
had a greater propensity to use cryptocurrency for transactions—8 percent among those who used
nonbank check cashing or money orders compared with 2 percent among those who did not. That
said, use of cryptocurrency for financial transactions remained very low, even among groups who
were more likely to use cryptocurrency in this way.
Credit Outcomes and Perceptions
Thirty-five percent of adults applied for credit in 2022, down 3 percentage points from 2021. And
among those who applied, the share who were either denied credit, or approved for less credit
than they requested, rose 2 percentage points to 30 percent.
Consistent with the higher denial rates, consumer confidence about credit card applications
declined. Sixty-three percent of adults were “very confident” that their application would be
approved if they applied for a credit card, down 2 percentage points from 2021. Similarly, the
share of adults “not confident” that their application would be approved rose 2 percentage points
to 14 percent.
The share of adults who were denied credit, or approved for less than requested, differed by
income level. Forty-six percent of credit applicants with income below $50,000 experienced such
actions, compared with 13 percent of those with income above $100,000.
One in ten adults held or used cryptocurrency in
2022, down 2 percentage points from 2021.
Banking and Credit 43
Denial rates also differed by race and eth-
nicity, with Black and Hispanic applicants
being particularly likely to report a denial or an
approval for less credit than requested. More-
over, Black and Hispanic adults saw higher
denial rates regardless of income level
(figure 23).
Credit Cards
People use credit cards in different ways.
Some use credit cards merely as a way to pay
expenses, paying off their balances in full
each month and avoiding any interest costs.
Others carry a balance and thus use credit
cards as a true source of credit to defer
paying expenses.
Eighty-two percent of adults had a credit card
in 2022.
34
They were nearly evenly split
between the people who paid off their bal-
ances in each of the previous 12 months and
people who carried balances from month to month at least once in the prior year. Among those
who carried a balance at least once, 73 percent were carrying a balance at the time of the survey.
Almost all people with an income of at least $100,000 had a credit card. At lower income levels,
having a credit card was somewhat less common, though adults at these income levels who did
have credit cards were more likely to use them to carry balances from month to month. Conse-
quently, middle-income adults were the most likely to have a credit card that they used to finance
purchases by carrying balances from one month to the next. Almost half of people with income
between $25,000 and $99,999 carried a balance on a credit card at least once in the past
12 months, exceeding the shares of adults with either lower or higher income levels who did so
(table 22).
Credit card usage also differed by race and ethnicity, age, and disability status. Over 90 percent of
Asian adults had a credit card, followed by 87 percent of White adults and just over 70 percent of
34
This share is higher than the 72 percent of households with a credit card in the 2021 FDIC Survey of Unbanked and
Underbanked Households (https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/2021report.pdf). One potential reason for
this difference is that some respondents with a debit or prepaid card may consider that to be a credit card when
answering the SHED questionnaire.
Figure 23. Denied credit or approved for less
than was requested (by family income and
race/ethnicity)
58
53
24
46
32
10
25
18
39
Hispanic
Black
White
$100,000 or more
Hispanic
Black
White
$50,000–$99,000
Hispanic
Black
White
Less than $50,000
Percent
Note: Among adults who applied for some form of
credit in the past 12 months.
44 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Black and Hispanic adults. While credit card ownership was lower among Black and Hispanic
adults, those who did have a credit card were more likely to carry a balance. Young adults and
those with a disability were also less likely to have a credit card than were older adults or those
without a disability.
To get a sense of how credit card balances change over time, the survey asked respondents
whether they had more, less, or about the same amount of credit card debt than they did a year
ago. Among those with outstanding credit card debt, the share who said they were carrying more
debt now than a year ago increased to 44 percent, up from the 29 percent who said so in 2021.
Buy Now, Pay Later
BNPL provides consumers the option to pay for a purchase with a small number of equal pay-
ments, often without being charged interest. For example, someone purchasing a $100 item may
Table 22. Credit card access and usage (by demographic characteristics)
Percent
Characteristic Has a credit card
Carried a balance
(among credit
card holders)
Carried a balance
(among all adults)
Family income
Less than $25,000 57 56 32
$25,000–$49,999 83 57 47
$50,000–$99,999 94 53 50
$100,000 or more 98 38 37
Age
18–29 67 44 29
30–44 79 53 42
45–59 86 57 49
60+ 92 40 37
Race/ethnicity
White 87 42 37
Black 71 78 56
Hispanic 73 62 46
Asian 92 27 25
Disability status
Disability 69 57 39
No disability 85 46 40
Overall 82 48 40
Note: Among all adults.
Banking and Credit 45
be able to make one payment of $25 at the
time of purchase, then make three additional
monthly payments of $25.
Twelve percent of people used BNPL in the
prior 12 months, up slightly from 10 percent
in 2021. Just under 1 in 10 adults were
making payments under a BNPL plan at the
time of the survey—about half of whom were
paying on just one purchase.
The top two reasons for using BNPL were
wanting to spread out payments (87 percent)
and convenience (83 percent) (figure 24).
Additionally, 56 percent of those who used
BNPL cited it being the “only way I could afford
it” as a reason.
The use of BNPL was more common among
people with low and middle income, Black and
Hispanic adults, and women (table 23). Four-
teen percent of those with incomes below
$100,000 used BNPL in the prior year, com-
pared with 8 percent of those with an income
of $100,000 or more. Differences by race and
ethnicity were large, with Black and Hispanic
adults about twice as likely to use BNPL as
White or Asian adults. Additionally, very little
of this difference can be explained by other
factors, such as income, age, and self-
perceived credit rating.
People also differed in their use of BNPL
according to their self-reported credit rating
(figure 25). Those who rated their credit as
“fair” were the most likely to use BNPL, fol-
lowed by those rating their credit as “poor” or
“very poor.” Moreover, among those who used
BNPL, adults with lower self-reported credit
ratings were also more likely to cite “only way
Figure 24. Reasons for using Buy Now, Pay
Later (BNPL)
21
46
54
56
59
87
83
Only accepted
payment method
I had
Wanted a fixed
number of payments
Did not want to
use a credit card
Only way I
could afford it
Avoid interest
charges
Convenience
Wanted to spread
out payments
Percent
Note: Among adults who have used BNPL in the past
year. Respondents could select multiple answers.
Table 23. Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) use (by
demographic characteristics)
Percent
Characteristic Used BNPL
Paid late
(among users)
Family income
Less than $25,000 14 28
$25,000–$49,999 14 17
$50,000–$99,999 14 11
$100,000 or more 8 5
Age
18–29 16 20
30–44 15 23
45–59 13 13
60+ 6 7
Race/ethnicity
White 9 12
Black 21 25
Hispanic 19 20
Asian 9 n/a
Gender
Male 10 17
Female 14 17
Overall 12 17
Note: Among all adults.
n/a Not applicable.
46 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
I could afford it” or “only accepted payment
method I had” as reasons for using BNPL than
adults who rated their credit higher. Use of
BNPL was equally common among those with
and without a credit card.
Most people who used BNPL made their pay-
ments on time. Overall, 17 percent of people
who used BNPL in the prior 12 months were
late making a payment, up 2 percentage
points from 2021. However, late payments
were more common among those with lower
income, Black and Hispanic adults, and
younger adults (table 23). Fifty-five percent of
those late making a payment (9 percent of
those who used BNPL) said they were charged
extra for being late.
Payday, Pawn, Auto Title, and Refund Anticipation Loans
Five percent of adults used a payday, pawn, auto title, or tax refund anticipation loan in 2022,
unchanged from 2021. This share has remained flat in recent years, except for a slight decline in
2020, after the onset of the pandemic.
Similar to those who used BNPL, adults with lower self-reported credit ratings were more likely to
use one of these products (figure 26). Nearly 1 in 5 of those rating their credit as “very poor” did
so, compared with only 1 percent of those rating their credit as “excellent.” Unlike BNPL, however,
use of these products was much higher among those who did not have a credit card (11 percent)
than among those who did (3 percent).
Adults with a lower income, Black and Hispanic adults, and those with a disability were more likely
to use a payday, pawn, auto title, or refund anticipation loan (table 24). Differences by race, eth-
nicity, and disability status were present even after controlling for other factors like income, age,
and self-reported credit rating.
Figure 25. BNPL use (by self-reported credit
rating)
Percent
6
20
20
27
14
6
ExcellentGoodFairPoorVery
poor
Don’t
know
Note: Among all adults.
The top two reasons for using BNPL were wanting
to spread out payments and convenience.
Banking and Credit 47
Figure 26. Use of payday, pawn, auto title, and
refund anticipation loans (by self-reported
credit rating)
3
19
16
14
3
1
ExcellentGoodFairPoorVery
poor
Don’t
know
Percent
Note: Among all adults.
Table 24. Use of payday, pawn, auto title, and
refund anticipation loans (by demographic
characteristics)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 8
$25,000–$49,999 6
$50,000–$99,999 3
$100,000 or more 1
Age
18–29 5
30–44 8
45–59 4
60+ 1
Race/ethnicity
White 3
Black 9
Hispanic 8
Asian 2
Disability status
Disability 10
No disability 3
Overall 5
Note: Among all adults.
48 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Housing
Housing represents the largest expense for most families and, consequently, housing decisions
have the potential to substantially affect economic well-being. The majority of adults owned their
homes. Adults who rented their homes were disproportionately lower income, Black, or Hispanic.
Some renters faced challenges paying their rent and were more likely to be behind on rent in 2022
than before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Living Arrangements
Eighty-six percent of adults lived with other
people, usually a spouse or a partner and fre-
quently their children under age 18 (table 25).
Some adults also live with people other than
their spouse, partner, or minor children,
including 14 percent of adults who lived with
their parents, and 17 percent who lived with
their children age 18 or older.
People live with others besides their spouse,
partner, or minor children for a variety of rea-
sons, and these reasons can change over
time. Those in their 20s who lived with their
parents most commonly did so to save money.
The prevalence of living with one’s parents to save money declines with age, although just above
half of adults ages 45 to 59 who lived with their parents still said that they did so at least in part
to save money (table 26). Conversely, the share of adults living with their parents who said that
Table 25. Other people living in household
Category Percent
Live alone 14
Spouse or partner 65
Children under age 18 26
Adult children age 18 or older 17
Parents 14
Brothers or sisters 7
Other relatives 5
Other non-relatives 5
Note: Among all adults. Respondents (others than those who live
alone) could select multiple answers.
Table 26. Reasons for living with parents (by age)
Percent
Reason 22–24 25–29 30–44 45–59
To save money 90 87 72 51
To help them financially 33 42 60 60
To provide help with childcare or medical care 11 15 29 40
To receive help with childcare or medical care 8 14 26 14
Prefer living with others 36 39 37 32
Note: Among adults living with parents. Respondents could select multiple answers.
49
they did so to provide financial assistance
generally increases with age. Providing finan-
cial assistance is the most common reason
for living with parents among those ages
45 to 59.
Homeownership and Mortgages
Sixty-three percent of adults owned their
homes. Yet, the likelihood of owning varied
substantially across demographic groups.
Nearly 90 percent of adults with a family
income of $100,000 or more owned their
home, compared with 36 percent among
those with less than $25,000 in income.
Differences were also present by race and
ethnicity, even among those with higher
income (table 27).
Nearly two-thirds of adults who owned their
home had a mortgage in 2022. The median
monthly mortgage payment was $1,400
(table 28).
35
Mortgage payment amounts dif-
fered across census regions. Mortgage pay-
ments were higher in the Northeast and West,
compared with the Midwest and South.
The median share of family income that home-
owners with a mortgage spent on their mort-
gage payment was 17 percent.
36
Differences
across census regions in the median mort-
gage payment-to-income ratio were smaller
compared with mortgage payments, as the
median mortgage payment-to-income ratio
helps to account for regional differences in
cost of living.
35
Owners with a mortgage were asked for the total mortgage payment that they send to their bank, which will typically
include escrow payments for taxes and homeowners insurance but will not include utilities.
36
The income measure used here is the family income of the respondent and their spouse and not that of the entire
household. To the extent that people other than the respondent and their spouse pays part of the housing costs, it
would reduce these ratios.
Table 27. Homeownership rate (by demo-
graphic characteristics)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 36
$25,000–$49,999 52
$50,000–$99,999 73
$100,000 or more 88
Race/ethnicity
White 70
Black 47
Hispanic 51
Asian 65
Note: Among all adults.
Table 28. Median mortgage payment and
mortgage payment-to-income ratio (by census
region)
Median
Census region
Median
mortgage
payment,
dollars
Median
mortgage-
to-income
ratio
Northeast 1,500 0.16
Midwest 1,195 0.15
South 1,300 0.17
West 1,700 0.19
Overall 1,400 0.17
Note: Median mortgage payment is calculated among adults
who own their own home and report a positive monthly mortgage
payment. Median payment-to-income ratios are calculated
among adults who own their own home and report a positive
monthly mortgage payment and positive family income.
50 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Renters
Just above one-fourth of adults (27 percent)
rented their home in 2022.
37
Lower-income
and Black and Hispanic adults were dispropor-
tionately likely to rent as opposed to own.
Additionally, those who live in low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods or who live in
metro areas were more likely to be renters
(table 29).
Renters’ monthly payments were smaller than
monthly mortgage payments made by home-
owners. During 2022, the median monthly
rent payment was $1,000, which was $400
less than the median mortgage payment.
38
That said, renters typically paid a larger share
of their family income on housing costs
because they frequently had lower incomes
than homeowners (table 30). Renters paid a
median of 32 percent of their family income
on rent, nearly twice that of homeowners.
Consistent with mortgages, monthly rent pay-
ments were higher in the Northeast and West,
compared with the Midwest and South. Even
though the median rent in both the Northeast
and West was $1,200, renters in the West
spent a higher share of their family income on
rent (table 30).
Renter Experiences
Renters cited multiple reasons for renting
their homes, with many renting their home
instead of owning because of their financial
37
The share who own plus the share who rent does not sum to 100 percent because some people live rent free in a
house that neither they nor their spouse or partner own.
38
Renters were asked for the amount that they pay in rent each month but were not asked what utilities are included in
that payment. Hence, for some renters this amount may include some or all utilities as part of the payment.
Table 29. Share who rent (by demographic
characteristics)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 40
$25,000–$49,999 39
$50,000–$99,999 24
$100,000 or more 11
Race/ethnicity
White 22
Black 41
Hispanic 35
Asian 28
Disability status
Disability 37
No disability 24
Metropolitan status
Metro area 28
Non-metro area 20
Neighborhood income
LMI neighborhood 42
Non-LMI neighborhood 21
Note: Among all adults.
Table 30. Median rent amount and rent-to-
income ratio (by census region)
Median
Census region
Median
rent, dollars
Median rent-
to-income
ratio
Northeast 1,200 0.31
Midwest 790 0.30
South 900 0.31
West 1,200 0.36
Overall 1,000 0.32
Note: Median rent amount is calculated among renters who
report a positive monthly rent. Median rent-to-income ratios are
calculated among adult renters who report a positive monthly
rent and positive family income.
Housing 51
circumstances. Consistent with that seen in
2019, when this question was last asked, the
most cited reason for renting was an inability
to afford a down payment—in 2022, nearly
two-thirds of renters cited this as a reason.
Four in ten renters indicated that they rent
because they cannot qualify for a home mort-
gage, and 44 percent said they rent because
they can’t afford the monthly mortgage pay-
ment (table 31). Many renters who expressed
challenges with affording a mortgage cited
several of these reasons.
Although many renters noted financial con-
straints, these were not the only reasons for
renting. Benefits of renting include the flex-
ibility to move more easily as well as the con-
venience of not having to manage repairs.
Over half of renters (56 percent) said that renting is more convenient, and 42 percent rent their
homes because they perceive owning as a larger financial risk (table 31). Forty-two percent of
renters found it cheaper to rent than own.
Rent inflation and changes in the cost of housing have the potential to cause some people to
move. However, even with the increase in rent prices in 2022, relatively few renters moved pri-
marily because of an increase in rents. Three percent of current renters (15 percent of current
renters who moved in the past year) said that the main reason that they moved was because rent
increased at their previous home.
Other renters moved because of an eviction or the threat of an eviction. Two percent of current
renters said that they moved in the prior year because of an eviction or the threat of an eviction.
39
This represents 13 percent of current renters who moved during 2022.
40
39
In this report, people who experienced an eviction or the threat of eviction are considered those who reported they were
evicted or received an eviction notice; had a landlord tell them or a person they were staying with to leave; missed a rent
Table 31. Reasons for renting (by year)
Percent
Reason 2022 2019
Can’t afford down payment 65 62
More convenient or flexible to rent 56 52
Can’t afford mortgage monthly pay-
ment 44 n/a
Cheaper to rent 42 55
Renting is less financially risky 42 50
Can’t qualify for home mortgage 40 41
Prefer to rent 36 n/a
Trying to buy 32 35
Note: Among renters. Respondents could select
multiple answers. The survey question differed slightly in 2019
compared with the 2022 version. Response options “Prefer to
rent” and “Can’t afford mortgage monthly payment” were not
included in the 2019 SHED instrument. Other responses had
slightly different wording.
n/a Not applicable.
The most cited reason for renting was an inability
to afford a down payment.
52 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Challenges with Rental Payments
Many renters faced challenges paying their rent in 2022. Seventeen percent of renters reported
that they had been behind on their rent in the past year, matching the share in 2021.
Black and Hispanic renters were more likely to
be behind on rent payments than White and
Asian renters in 2022, continuing a pre-
pandemic pattern (figure 27).
41
In 2022,
Black renters were more than twice as
likely—and Hispanic renters were twice as
likely—than White renters to report being
behind on rent in the past year.
Forty-five percent of those renters who
reported being behind on rent in the past year
still owed money for back rent or fees at the
time they took the survey. This represents
8 percent of all renters, or 2 percent of all
adults, and matches the share who still owed
back rent or fees at the time of the 2021
survey. Among those who still owed money for
back rent or fees, the median amount owed was $1,200.
payment and thought they would be evicted; or were living in a property that was condemned by the city, forcing them
to leave.
40
Some people who were evicted may have moved in with friends or family or moved to other living arrangements that do
not require paying cash rent. However, among all people who moved in the past year and did not own their previous
home, a similar 14 percent report that they moved because of an eviction or the threat of an eviction.
41
The pre-pandemic 2019 results are based on a retrospective question on the 2021 survey.
Figure 27. Share of renters behind on rent
during the year (by year and race/ethnicity)
20222021
2019
7
13
12
14
21
26
12
22
24
9
8
9
AsianHispanicBlackWhite
Percent
Note: Among renters. Results for 2019 are based on a
retrospective question asked in 2021. Key identifies
bars in order from left to right.
Housing 53
Higher Education and Student Loans
Education is widely recognized as a path to higher income and greater financial well-being, and
most adults who attended college feel that the investment paid off. However, some groups—
including those who started college but did not complete their degree and those who attended pri-
vate for-profit institutions—had less favorable assessments. Additionally, student loans continue
to relate to people’s perceptions of the returns to their education as they evaluate whether their
educational choices improved their financial well-being.
Educational Attainment
Most adults have enrolled in at least some
post-secondary education. Seventy percent of
adults have ever enrolled in an educational
degree program beyond high school, whereas
just under one-half have received at least a
certificate or technical degree, and 36 percent
have received at least a bachelor’s degree.
However, consistent with increasing rates of
college attendance over time, the share of
adults who have ever enrolled in a degree pro-
gram after high school was higher for younger
adults than for older adults (table 32).
42
Col-
lege attendance rates also vary substantially
by race and ethnicity, with Hispanic adults
being much less likely than others to have
ever attended college, while Asian adults were
more likely than average to have attended
college.
The likelihood of obtaining a college degree
was higher among those whose parents were
college graduates. Among adults who have at
least one parent with a bachelor's degree,
42
Though college enrollment rates among recent high school completers peaked at about 70 percent in 2009 and have
since stagnated or fallen, enrollment rates remain historically high, averaging more than two-thirds of recent high school
completers from 2010–19 compared with 45 percent in 1960 (see the National Center for Education Statistics web site
at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_302.20.asp). College enrollment declined to 63 percent in
2020 amid the pandemic.
Table 32. Educational attainment (by age,
race/ethnicity, and parental education)
Percent
Characteristic
Ever
attended
college
Received
bachelor’s
degree or
more
Age
18–29 75 34
30–44 72 42
45–59 69 36
60+ 65 32
Race/ethnicity
White 73 40
Black 67 26
Hispanic 57 20
Asian 91 66
Parental education
Both parents high school degree or
less 52 19
At least 1 parent with some college,
neither with a bachelor’s degree 79 36
At least 1 parent with a bachelor’s
degree 92 64
Overall 70 36
Note: Among all adults.
55
64 percent received a bachelor's degree themselves. In contrast, 19 percent of adults whose par-
ents did not attend college obtained a bachelor's degree.
The type of institution attended also varied with parental education, race, and ethnicity. Most
adults who attended college went to public institutions (71 percent), while just less than one-
fourth attended private nonprofit schools and 5 percent attended private for-profit schools.
43
Although for-profit schools comprised a relatively small share of the higher education attendance
for students of a range of backgrounds, adults whose parents did not attend college were some-
what more likely to attend a for-profit institution than those who have a parent with a bachelor’s
degree—7 percent compared with 3 percent. Additionally, 12 percent of Black adults and 7 per-
cent of Hispanic adults who went to college attended for-profit schools.
44
Overall Value of Higher Education
Consistent with higher rates of financial well-being among those who have more education dis-
cussed in the “Overall Financial Well-Being” section of this report, just more than one-half of
adults who went to college said that the lifetime financial benefits of their higher education
exceeded the financial costs. Meanwhile, just above one-fifth said that the costs are higher. The
rest saw the benefits as about the same as the costs. These self-assessments of the financial
value of education have changed little in recent years.
The self-assessed value of higher education, while generally positive, depends on several aspects
of a person’s educational experience. In particular, those who completed their program and
received a degree were more likely to see net benefits than those who did not complete a degree.
Among those who went to college but did not complete at least an associate degree, 30 percent
said the benefits of their education exceeded the cost. This fraction jumped to 42 percent of
those with an associate degree and 68 percent of those with at least a bachelor’s degree.
In addition to varying by level of education, the self-assessed value of higher education also gener-
ally increased with age. Among those who completed at least an associate degree, those who are
age 45 and older had more positive assessments of the value of their education than those under
43
Individuals do not self-report the type of institution in the survey. Instead, the institution type is assigned by matching
the name and location of the college reported by the individual with data from the Center on Postsecondary Research at
the Indiana University School of Education (https://cpr.indiana.edu/). For individuals who completed an associate or
bachelor’s degree, institution type is based on the school from which they received the degree. For other individuals, it is
based on the last school attended.
44
William R. Emmons and Lowell R. Rickets, “College Is Not Enough: Higher Education Does Not Eliminate Racial and
Ethnic Wealth Gaps,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 99, no. 1 (2017), 7–40 found significantly different
wealth outcomes between racial and ethnic groups within the same education level, which could not be explained by
observable characteristics such as age, family structure, financial decisionmaking, or luck. While likely not fully
explaining the gap, one characteristic that could contribute to these differences in wealth returns to education across
racial and ethnic groups is the type of school attended, since students’ outcomes vary significantly between for-profit
schools and other colleges.
56 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
age 45 who completed the same level of edu-
cation (figure 28).
45
These shifting views on
the benefits of college may reflect that older
respondents have had a longer time to experi-
ence the benefit of higher earnings based on
their education compared with younger
respondents. It may also be driven by the
rising costs of higher education and the
increased use of student loans, which make
costs remain more salient into adulthood.
46
Reflecting the potential importance of student
loans to perceptions of higher education,
43 percent of adults with outstanding student
loans from their own education said the finan-
cial benefits of their higher education exceeded the costs. By comparison, 53 percent of adults
who had completely paid off their student loans or who went to college but never had debt said
the benefits of their education exceeded the cost.
The type of institution attended also was related to differences in how people viewed their educa-
tion. Fifty-three percent of those who attended public institutions and 58 percent of those who
attended private nonprofit institutions saw the financial benefits of their educational as greater
than their costs. However, a far lower 31 percent of those who attended for-profit institutions felt
their education was worth the cost.
Look Back on Education Decisions
Another way to assess the financial value of education is to consider what people would have
done differently if given the chance. Most people valued the education they received, but with the
benefit of hindsight and life experience, it was also common to think that different educational
decisions could have been better. This provides an additional way to explore how people’s views
on their educational investments relate to their current financial well-being.
45
A similar age profile is not observed for those who have not yet completed a degree, although this is because currently
enrolled students who have not yet completed a degree generally have positive assessments of the value of their educa-
tion. When restricting to those who are not enrolled, non-completers age 45 and older are more likely to say that their
education produced net financial benefits than are younger non-completers (29 percent and 18 percent say the benefits
exceed the cost, respectively).
46
From 1995 to 2015, the average net tuition, fees, room, and board rose 54 percent at public four-year institutions and
29 percent at private, nonprofit, four-year institutions. However, the average net tuition, fees, room, and board at both
public and nonprofit institutions declined from 2015 to 2022. See College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2014,
https://research.collegeboard.org/pdf/trends-college-pricing-2014-full-report.pdf and College Board, Trends in College
Pricing and Student Aid 2022, https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-in-college-pricing-student-aid-
2022.pdf.
Figure 28. Benefits of education exceed costs
(by education and age)
Graduate or
professional
degree
Bachelor’s degree
Associate degree
Percent
33
30
45
55
56
58
65
76
61
65
79
85
30–44
18–29 45–59
60+
Note: Among adults who attended at least some col-
lege. Key identifies bars in order from top to bottom.
Higher Education and Student Loans 57
Of those with lower levels of education, the most common change that people would make would
be completing more education.
47
Forty-seven percent of adults who attended college (and either
completed at least an associate degree or were not currently enrolled) said that they would have
completed more education in hindsight. Sixty-four percent of those who had less than a bachelor’s
degree would have completed more education as would 32 percent of those who completed at
least a bachelor’s degree. A far smaller 9 percent of people who went to college said that they
would have completed less education or not gone to college if they could make their education
decisions again.
Additionally, reassessments of educational decisions varied by the type of institution attended.
Forty-eight percent of those who received a bachelor’s degree from a for-profit institution said they
would have attended a different school in hindsight, compared with 24 percent of those who
received their bachelor’s degree from a private nonprofit institution and 20 percent who received
their bachelor’s degree from a public institution.
48
This difference remains even after accounting
for the selectiveness of the institution, level of education completed, the parents’ level of educa-
tion, and demographic characteristics of the student.
49
Of those adults who completed at least some college, the changes they would have made to their
educational decisions were also related to the type of educational program they completed most
recently.
50
Those whose most recent program was in engineering, computer or informational sci-
ences, or health were the least likely to say they would have chosen a different field (figure 29).
51
Many adults who studied any of the fields considered still value the education they have, though
47
The questions about changes to education are asked of people who completed at least some higher education and
either completed their associate or bachelor’s degree or are no longer enrolled.
48
These results are similar if those who completed less than a bachelor’s degree are included.
49
Selectiveness is based on definitions from “The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education,” web page,
http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.
50
These results are consistent with research that financial returns to education vary by field of study. See, for example,
Douglas A. Webber, “The Lifetime Earnings Premia of Different Majors: Correcting for Selection Based on Cognitive, Non-
cognitive, and Unobserved Factors,” Labour Economics 28 (June 2014): 14-23; and Joseph G. Altonji and Seth D. Zim-
merman, “The Costs of and Net Returns to College Major,” in Productivity in Higher Education, ed. Caroline M. Hoxby and
Kevin Stange (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), 133–176.
51
Each category of educational programs may contain multiple fields of study, so it is possible that some respondents
who said they would choose a different field of study in hindsight would not change their educational program. Addition-
ally, respondents are asked to identify the educational program for their most recent degree, whereas the question
about changing fields of study in hindsight asks respondents about undergraduate degrees. Because of this, these
questions do not ask about the same degree program for people with more than a bachelor’s degree. However, these
findings do not substantially change when people with more than a bachelor’s degree are excluded.
Of those with lower levels of education, the most
common change that people would make would
be completing more education.
58 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
views on the benefits of education vary along similar lines. For example, 72 percent of those who
studied engineering said the financial benefits of their education exceeded the cost—the highest
share of any field considered.
Incidence and Types of Education Debt
Many people finance their education by taking on debt. Thirty percent of all adults—representing
more than 4 in 10 people who went to college—said they took out student loans for their educa-
tion.
52
This includes 21 percent of college attendees who still owed money on outstanding loans
(“student loan borrowers”) and 21 percent who borrowed but fully repaid their education debts.
The share of adults who took out student loans for their education varied across age groups.
Adults ages 30 to 44 were most likely to have taken out student loans for their education, while
older adults were less likely to do so, consistent with the upward trend in educational borrowing
52
Respondents were asked about their student loan debt as of July 2022, before the Department of Education’s
August 24 announcement of a policy to forgive $10,000 or $20,000 in federal student loan debt for most borrowers
(see U.S. Department of Education, “Biden-Harris Administration Announces Final Student Loan Pause Extension
Through December 31 and Targeted Debt Cancellation to Smooth Transition to Repayment,” news release, August 24,
2022, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-student-loan-
pause-extension-through-december-31-and-targeted-debt-cancellation-smooth-transition-repayment). For more information
on how people expected to use any potential student loan forgiveness, see box 1.
Figure 29. Would now choose different field of study (by most recent educational program)
Overall
Engineering
Computer/information
sciences
Health
Law
Business/management
Life sciences
Undeclared/other
Vocational/technical
training
Education
Physical sciences/
math
Social/behavioral
sciences
Humanities/arts
Percent
49
43
41
40
40
39
38
36
36
31
29
26
37
Note: Among adults who attended at least some college. Adults who have not completed an associate or bachelor’s
degree and are currently enrolled in college are excluded.
Higher Education and Student Loans 59
over the past several decades (figure 30).
53
Adults under age 30 were also less likely to
have taken out student loans than adults ages
30 to 44, potentially because many young
adults have not yet completed their education.
Consistent with this, adults who completed
higher levels of education were more likely to
have taken out student loans than those who
completed lower levels of education.
Most student loan borrowers with outstanding
debt owed less than $25,000 on their own
educational loans. The median amount of edu-
cation debt in 2022 among those with any
outstanding debt for their own education was
between $20,000 and $24,999. Just above
one-fourth of student loan borrowers had less than $10,000 in outstanding student debt from
their own education.
Student debt balances also varied across different demographic groups. Borrowers with lower
levels of education were more likely to carry lower balances of student loan debt. Black borrowers
were more likely to carry higher balances on student loan debt (figure 31).
The incidence of education debt varied by the type of institution attended. Among those who
attended public institutions, 40 percent either previously held debt or currently had debt in 2022,
compared with 56 percent of those who attended private nonprofit and 65 percent who attended
for-profit institutions.
Some people also took out student loans to assist family members with their education through
either a co-signed loan with the student or a loan taken out independently. Although this was less
common than borrowing for one’s own education, 6 percent of adults had student loans that paid
for a child’s or grandchild’s education. The median amount of debt held for a child or grandchild’s
education was between $15,000 and $19,999.
53
Student loan borrowing has declined since its peak in 2010–11 but remains substantially above the levels from the mid-
1990s. (Jennifer Ma and Matea Pender, Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2022 (New York: The College Board,
2021), https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-in-college-pricing-student-aid-2022.pdf).
Figure 30. Acquired student loans for own
education, including repaid debt (by age and
education)
60+45–5930–4418–29
Percent
Graduate
degree
Bachelor’s
degree
Associate
degree
Some college
or technical
degree
31
34
27
16
37
50
47
23
56
60
45
32
58
68
63
44
Note: Among adults who attended at least some col-
lege. Key identifies bars in order from top to bottom.
60 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Student Loan Payment Status
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and subsequent executive
orders in response to COVID-19 paused payments on federal student loans beginning in 2020.
54
As a result, most adults with outstanding student loans were not required to make monthly pay-
ments on their student loans at the time of the survey.
Fifteen percent of borrowers with debt from their own education reported that they were behind on
payments or in collections for one or more of their student loans. Borrowers with less education or
lower income were more likely to be behind on their student loan payments. Twenty-eight percent
of borrowers with loans outstanding who completed less than an associate degree reported being
behind, as did 25 percent of borrowers earning less than $25,000 (table 33).
55
54
Beginning on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act granted relief to student loan borrowers by temporarily pausing
payments—including principal and interest—on federally held student loans. This payment pause for federal student
loan borrowers was extended multiple times by executive orders during the COVID-19 pandemic and was in place at the
time of the 2022 survey. (See U.S. Department of Education, “COVID-19 Emergency Relief and Federal Student Aid,”
https://studentaid.gov/announcements-events/covid-19.) Federal student loans account for most student loans (see
Education Data Initiative web page, https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics). Borrowers with private stu-
dent loans were still required to make monthly payments.
55
A small number of individuals who reported that they have student loans from their own education but are not enrolled
in college and reported no education beyond high school are excluded from these results. Currently enrolled students
are frequently not required to make payments, so they are less likely to fall behind. Among those with less than an asso-
ciate degree who are not currently enrolled, a larger 34 percent of borrowers are behind.
Figure 31. Share of borrowers with at least $25,000 of student loan debt from their own education (by
race/ethnicity and education)
45
57
39
52
28
39
50
71
47
Overall
Graduate degree
Bachelor’s degree
Associate degree
Some college or
technical degree
Education
Race/ethnicity
Asian
Hispanic
Black
White
Percent
Note: Among adults with outstanding student loans for their own education, excluding those who don’t know
the amount.
Higher Education and Student Loans 61
Difficulties with student loan payments also
varied by the type of institution attended.
Three in 10 borrowers who attended for-profit
institutions were behind on student loan pay-
ments, compared with 11 percent who
attended public institutions and 7 percent who
attended private nonprofit institutions.
Although discussions of student loans fre-
quently consider only those with outstanding
debt, many people who borrowed for their edu-
cation had repaid their loans completely.
Excluding people who have paid off their debt
could overstate the share people who bor-
rowed who had difficulties with repayment.
Indeed, the share of adults who were behind
on their payments was much lower when accounting for all who ever borrowed, including those who
had completely repaid that debt.
Among those who ever incurred debt for their education, 8 percent were behind on their payments
at the time of the 2022 survey, 43 percent had outstanding debt and were current on their pay-
ments, and one-half had completely paid off their loans. Nevertheless, the demographic and edu-
cational characteristics of those who were behind on payments remain similar when also incorpo-
rating those who had paid off their loans.
Table 33. Behind on student loan payments (by
family income and education)
Characteristic Percent
Family income
Less than $25,000 25
$25,000–$49,999 21
$50,000–$99,999 12
$100,000 or more 5
Education
Some college or technical degree 28
Associate degree 19
Bachelor’s degree 7
Graduate degree 6
Note: Among adults with outstanding student loans for their own
education.
62 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Box 1. Expected Uses of Potential Student Loan Forgiveness
An important question for monitoring consumer spending is how individuals would adjust their spending
in response to potential policy changes that impact their financial lives. Previous research has explored
consumer uses of stimulus payments and tax credits.
1
Building off of that research, the SHED consid-
ered the potential effects of a policy to forgive a portion of student loan debt. At the time of the survey,
a majority of student loan borrowers expected some or all of their student loans to be forgiven, and the
survey asked respondents how they would use any savings from such forgiveness.
2
A majority of borrowers said that if they had student loans forgiven, they would use the largest portion
of any monthly savings from forgiveness to pay off debt. However, borrowers’ expected uses of poten-
tial savings from student loan forgiveness varied by age and race (table A). Although the largest share
of borrowers across all races and age groups expected to primarily use any savings to pay off debt,
younger borrowers were more likely to expect to use debt forgiveness savings to save for a home pur-
chase. Black borrowers were more likely than other borrowers to expect to use most of any savings
from debt forgiveness to pay off other debt.
Table A. Expected main use of savings from potential student loan forgiveness (by age and
race/ethnicity)
Percent
Characteristic Pay off debt
Save for home
purchase
Save for
other things
Spend it on
other things
Age
18–29 49 19 28 4
30–44 56 12 25 7
45–59 67 4 22 8
60+ 56 4 29 11
Race/ethnicity
White 56 10 27 8
Black 62 11 21 6
Hispanic 54 12 27 6
Asian 51 11 29 9
Overall 57 10 26 7
Note: Among adults with outstanding student loans for their own education, adults with outstanding student loans for a child or grand-
child’s education, and adults whose spouse or partner has outstanding student loans for their education.
1
See, for example, Claudia R. Sahm, Matthew D. Shapiro, and Joel Slemrod, “Household Response to the 2008 Tax Rebates: Survey
Evidence and Aggregate Implications,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2009-45 (Washington: Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 2009); Oliver Coibion, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Michael Weber, “How Did U.S. Consumers Use Their
Stimulus Payments,” NBER Working Paper 27693 (Cambridge: NBER 2020), https://www.nber.org/papers/w27693; and Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2021 (Washington: Board of Governors, May
2022), https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2021-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202205.pdf.
2
Those who said they expected student loan forgiveness were asked how they expected to use the largest share of any monthly
savings from student loan forgiveness. Those who said they didn’t expect forgiveness or were not sure were asked how they would
use the savings if their student loans were forgiven.
63
Retirement and Investments
In 2022, retirees’ descriptions of their reasons for retirement and their income sources were con-
sistent with recent years. Retirees generally report high levels of financial well-being, but those
with income from employment, pensions, or investments were doing better than those who relied
solely on Social Security or other public income sources. Among non-retirees, a lower share said
they felt like their retirement savings were on track compared with 2021. Differences by age and
race or ethnicity in retirement preparedness among non-retirees also remained similar to ear-
lier years.
Current Retirees
Retirees represent a sizeable portion of the adult population. Twenty-seven percent of adults in
2022 considered themselves to be retired, even though some were still working in some
capacity.
56
Thirteen percent of retirees had done some work for pay or profit in the prior month.
Consequently, 4 percent of all adults considered themselves retired and were still working. Part-
time work was more common among retirees than full-time work (10 percent and 3 percent of
retirees, respectively). In addition, retirees with more education were more likely to work in retire-
ment. Eighteen percent of retirees with a bachelor’s degree or more reported they were still
working, compared with 9 percent of retirees with a high school degree or less.
In deciding when to retire, most retirees indicated that their preferences played a role, although
life events contributed to the timing of retirement for a substantial share. Many indicated that mul-
tiple factors contributed to their timing. Fifty-one percent of retirees said a desire to do other
things or to spend time with family was important for their decision to retire, and 47 percent said
they retired because they reached a normal retirement age.
Nonetheless, 30 percent of retirees said that a health problem was a factor in their decision of
when to retire, and 17 percent said they retired in part to care for family members. One in 10 said
they were forced to retire or that work was not available. Collectively, health problems, caring for
family, and lack of work contributed to the timing of retirement for 46 percent of retirees.
Social Security remained the most common source of retirement income, but 79 percent of
retirees had one or more sources of private income. This included 56 percent of retirees with
income from a pension; 42 percent with interest, dividends, or rental income; and 32 percent with
56
In this report, descriptions of current retirees include everyone who reported being retired, including those who also
reported that they are working.
65
labor income (table 34).
57
Seventy-
eight percent of retirees received income from
Social Security in the prior 12 months,
including 92 percent of retirees age 65
or older.
Retirees who reported that their family income
included labor income (such as wages, sala-
ries or self-employment income) were gener-
ally younger than retirees overall, and many
had a working spouse. The median age of
retirees whose family income included labor
income was 65, compared with a median age
of 69 for all retirees. Moreover, while 36 per-
cent of retirees whose family income included labor income said they worked for pay or profit in
the month prior to the survey despite being retired, a larger 60 percent reported they had a
spouse who worked for pay or profit in the prior month.
While retirees as a group had generally high levels of financial well-being, this varied depending on
the individual’s sources of income. In 2022, 79 percent of all retirees said they were doing at
least okay financially. Among retirees whose family income included wages or other sources of
labor income, a slightly higher share (83 percent) reported they were doing at least okay
financially.
Among retirees who did not have labor income, those who had pensions or income from interest,
dividends or rents were doing better financially than those who were reliant solely on Social Secu-
rity and cash transfers from other government programs or reported no income sources in
57
The type of pension was not specified, so pension income may include income from defined benefit plans, which pay a
fixed monthly amount, and defined contribution plans, such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans.
Table 34. Sources of income among retirees
(by age)
Percent
Income source 65+ Overall
Social Security (including Old-Age
and DI) 92 78
Pension 65 56
Interest, dividends, or rental income 47 42
Wages, salaries, or self-employment 25 32
Cash transfers, other than Social
Security 5 9
Note: Among retirees. Respondents could select multiple
answers. Sources of income include the income of a spouse or
partner. DI is disability insurance.
Thirty percent of retirees said that a health
problem was a factor in their decision of when to
retire, and 17 percent said they retired in part to
care for family members.
66 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
2022.
58
Fifty-three percent of retirees who did
not have private income said they were doing
at least okay financially (table 35). This was
far below the share of retirees who had
income from private sources such as pen-
sions and investments who were doing at
least okay financially. Additionally, retirees
without labor income who had both a pension
and investment income were more likely to be
doing okay financially than those who had just
one or the other of these income sources.
Retirement Savings among
Non-Retirees
Although almost three-fourths of non-retired adults had at least some retirement savings, about
28 percent did not have any (figure 32). This share who did not report any retirement savings was
up from 25 percent in 2021. Among those with retirement savings, these savings were most fre-
quently in defined contribution plans, such as a 401(k) or 403(b), with 54 percent of non-retired
adults having money in such a plan. These accounts were more than twice as common as tradi-
tional defined benefit pension plans. Forty-seven percent of non-retirees had retirement savings
outside of formal retirement accounts.
While most non-retired adults had some type of retirement savings, only 31 percent of non-retirees
thought their retirement saving was on track, down from 40 percent in 2021. The share of non-
retirees who thought their retirement saving was on track was also below the shares who thought
their saving was on track in 2017 through 2020 (figure 33). Because retirement saving strategies
differ by circumstances and age, survey respondents assessed whether or not they felt that they
were on track, but they defined that for themselves. Despite the individualized nature of retirement
plans, declines in stock and bond prices during 2022 likely contributed to many respondents’
assessments of their retirement preparedness.
Retirement savings and perceived preparedness differed across demographic groups. Younger
adults were both less likely to have retirement savings and to view their savings as on track than
older adults. Compared with all non-retirees, Black and Hispanic non-retirees were less likely to
have retirement savings and to view their retirement savings as on track, while White and Asian
58
For context on the income sources highlighted here, a “three-legged stool” has been used as a metaphor for a retire-
ment savings strategy that includes Social Security, private pensions, and other savings and investments. For a history
of this metaphor, see Larry DeWitt, “Origins of the Three-Legged Stool Metaphor for Social Security,” Research Notes &
Special Studies by the Historian’s Office (Washington: Social Security Administration, May 1996), https://www.ssa.gov/
history/stool.html.
Table 35. Financial well-beng among retirees
without labor income (by other sources of
private income in the prior 12 months)
Percent
Income source
At least okay
financially
No private income 53
Pension 78
Interest, dividends, or rents 87
Pension + interest, dividends, or rents 96
Note: Among retirees without labor income. Sources of income
include the income of a spouse or partner. Categories are mutu-
ally exclusive, so “Pension,” for example, indicates the retiree
had income from a pension but not interest, dividends, or rents.
Retirees may have received income from public sources as well.
Retirement and Investments 67
non-retirees were more likely to have such savings and say they were on track (table 36). Groups
who reported larger balances of self-directed retirement savings, including older adults and White
and Asian adults, saw larger declines between 2021 and 2022 in the share saying their savings
were on track. Given the substantial declines in stock and bond prices in 2022, these groups with
higher balances likely experienced larger dollar declines in their investments.
The lower rates of savings among Black and
Hispanic non-retirees partly reflect the fact
that Black and Hispanic adults were, on
average, younger than the non-retired popula-
tion overall. Even within age cohorts, however,
significant differences remained in retirement
savings by race and ethnicity, consistent with
patterns seen in previous years.
Non-retirees with a disability were also less
likely to have retirement savings and to view
their savings as on track. Among non-retirees
with a disability, just 47 percent had retire-
ment savings and 13 percent viewed their sav-
ings as on track. Adults with a disability have
a lower rate of employment compared with
adults without a disability. In addition, adults
with a disability who receive means-tested benefits may face asset limits that would deter holding
any savings they may have accrued.
Figure 32. Forms of retirement savings among non-retirees
54
47
34
20
11
8
28
None
Business or real estate
Other
retirement savings
Defined
benefit pension
IRA
Savings not in
retirement accounts
Defined
contribution pension
Percent
Note: Among non-retirees. Respondents could select multiple answers.
Figure 33. View retirement savings plan as on
track (by year)
Percent
202220212020201920182017
38
36
37
36
31
40
Note: Among non-retirees.
68 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Occasionally, retirement savings can also act
as a source of emergency funds for non-
retirees who face economic hardships.
Overall, 8 percent of non-retired adults tapped
their retirement savings—matching the share
who tapped accounts in 2021. Non-retirees
who had experienced economic shocks in the
past year were more likely to have borrowed
from, or cashed out, funds from their retire-
ment accounts in the prior 12 months. Thir-
teen percent of non-retirees who had unex-
pected, out-of-pocket major medical expenses
in the past 12 months borrowed from, or
cashed out, these accounts, compared with
7 percent of those who did not have this type
of expense. Fourteen percent of non-retirees
who experienced a layoff in the past
12 months tapped their retirements accounts,
compared with 8 percent of those who had
not been laid off.
59
Self-directed retirement accounts frequently rely on individuals to have the skills and knowledge
required to manage their own investments. Non-retirees with self-directed retirement savings
varied in their comfort with making investment decisions for their accounts. Sixty-one percent of
non-retirees with self-directed retirement savings expressed low levels of comfort in making invest-
ment decisions with their accounts.
Among those non-retirees with self-directed savings, a higher share of men was comfortable man-
aging their retirement investments compared to women (figure 34). Sixty percent of men with a
bachelor’s degree were mostly or very comfortable making investment decisions, compared to
32 percent of women with this level of education who were mostly or very comfortable. In fact, the
32 percent of women with a bachelor’s degree who were comfortable investing was similar to the
36 percent of men with a high school degree or less who expressed the same level of comfort.
59
For more on early withdrawals and the relationship with economic shocks and income, see Robert Argento, Victoria L.
Bryant, and John Sabelhaus, “Early Withdrawals from Retirement Accounts during the Great Recession,” Contemporary
Economic Policy 33, no. 1 (2015), 1–16.
Table 36. Have retirement savings and view
retirement savings plan as on track (by age,
race/ethnicity, and disability status)
Percent
Characteristic
Any retire-
ment savings
Retirement
savings on
track
Age
18–29 57 24
30–44 72 32
45–59 81 34
60+ 88 41
Race/ethnicity
White 80 37
Black 60 22
Hispanic 56 20
Asian 84 38
Disability status
No disability 76 34
Disability 47 13
Overall 72 31
Note: Among non-retirees.
Retirement and Investments 69
Financial Literacy and
Experience with Financial
Decisions
To get some sense of individuals’ financial
knowledge, respondents were asked three
questions—on interest, inflation, and risk
diversification, respectively—that are com-
monly used as measures of financial literacy
(figure 35).
60
Higher shares of adults provided correct
answers to questions about interest and infla-
tion than to the question on risk diversifica-
tion. The average number of correct answers
was 1.8 out of 3, and 35 percent of adults got
all three correct.
Financial literacy was higher among adults who were involved with financial decisionmaking. This
could reflect specialization and division of responsibilities within a household, and financial knowl-
edge can also be gained through experience. Adults who said they made most of the financial
decisions in their household or who shared in these decisions with someone else answered over
6 in 10 financial literacy questions correctly (62 and 63 percent, respectively). However, adults
who said that another member of the household made most of the decisions averaged fewer cor-
rect answers (49 percent).
Measures of financial literacy were also correlated with self-assessed comfort in managing invest-
ments. Among those with self-directed retirement accounts, on average, those who expressed
comfort with managing their investments answered a larger share of questions correctly (77 per-
cent) than those who expressed little or no comfort (63 percent) (table 37). Overall, however, non-
retirees with such accounts still answered more financial literacy questions correctly, on average,
than either non-retirees who did not have such accounts or people who were already retired.
60
These questions were developed by Annamaria Lusardi and Olivia Mitchell and have been widely used to study financial
literacy. (See Annamaria Lusardi and Olivia Mitchell, “Financial Literacy around the World: An Overview,” Journal of Pen-
sion Economics and Finance 10, no. 4 (2011): 497–508.) In the 2022 SHED, half of the respondents received the ques-
tions and answer choices developed by Lusardi and Mitchell, and the results reported here reflect their responses. The
other half of the respondents received the same questions without the “don’t know” answer option. The discussion in
this section only includes those respondents who are asked the question with the “don’t know” option. Full question
wording is available in appendix A and results from the group who received the alternative formulation are included in
appendix B of this report.
Figure 34. Mostly or very comfortable
investing self-directed retirement savings (by
gender and education)
Bachelor’s degree or more
Some college/technical
or associate degree
High school degree or less
Percent
Women
Men
36
41
60
22
27
32
Note: Among non-retirees with self-directed retirement
savings. Key identifies bars in order from top
to bottom.
70 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
Gender differences in financial literacy mirrored differences in being comfortable with investment
decisions. Women, on average, answered a lower share of financial literacy questions correctly
(54 percent) than men (66 percent). Women were also more likely to select “don’t know” (37 per-
cent) than men (25 percent). As a result, women, on average, had lower levels of financial literacy
by this measure. Some evidence suggests that one driver of this gender difference may relate to
different levels of experience with financial decisions.
61
61
Some of the gender gap in financial literacy may relate to specialization in financial tasks within a household, with
women being less likely to handle the finances. Joanne Hsu finds that women’s financial literacy increases after the
death of a spouse. (See Joanne W. Hsu, “Aging and Strategic Learning: The Impact of Spousal Incentives on Financial
Literacy,” Journal of Human Resources 51(4) (Fall 2016): 1036–67.)
Figure 35. Responses to financial literacy
questions
Diversification
Inflation
Interest
69 19
12
67
24
9
45
51
4
IncorrectDon’t knowCorrect
Percent
Note: Among all adults. Key identifies bars in order
from left to right.
Table 37. Share of financial literacy questions
answered correctly (by retirement savings and
comfort investing)
Presence of retirement savings and level of
investing comfort
Percent
Has self-directed retirement savings 68
Mostly or very comfortable investing 77
Not or slightly comfortable investing 63
No self-directed retirement savings 37
Retired 65
Overall 60
Note: Among all adults.
Retirement and Investments 71
Description of the Survey
The Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking was fielded from October 21 through
November 1, 2022. This was the 10th year of the survey, conducted annually in the fourth quarter
of each year since 2013.
62
Staff of the Federal Reserve Board wrote the survey questions in con-
sultation with other Federal Reserve System staff, outside academics, and professional
survey experts.
Ipsos, a private consumer research firm, administered the survey using its KnowledgePanel, a
nationally representative probability-based online panel. Since 2009, Ipsos has selected respon-
dents for KnowledgePanel based on address-based sampling (ABS). SHED respondents were then
selected from this panel.
Survey Participation
Participation in the 2022 SHED depended on several separate decisions made by respondents.
First, they agreed to participate in Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel. According to Ipsos, 9.3 percent of indi-
viduals contacted to join KnowledgePanel agreed to join (study-specific recruitment rate). Next,
they completed an initial demographic profile survey. Among those who agreed to join the panel,
60.8 percent completed the initial profile survey and became a panel member (study-specific pro-
file rate). Finally, selected panel members agreed to complete the 2022 SHED.
Of the 18,430 panel members contacted to take the 2022 SHED, 11,775 participated and com-
pleted the survey, yielding a final-stage completion rate of 63.9 percent.
63
Taking all the stages of
recruitment together, the cumulative response rate was 3.6 percent. After removing a small
number of respondents because of high refusal rates or completing the survey too quickly, the
final sample used in the report included 11,667 respondents.
64
Targeted Outreach and Incentives
To increase survey participation and completion among hard-to-reach demographic groups, Board
staff and Ipsos used a targeted communication plan with monetary incentives. The target
groups—young adults age 18 to 29; adults with less than a high school degree; adults with
62
Data and reports of survey findings from all past years are available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/
consumerscommunities/shed.htm.
63
Four hundred seventy-four respondents were not included in the analysis because they started, but did not complete, the
survey (known as break-offs). The study break-off rate for the SHED was 3.9 percent.
64
Of the 11,775 respondents who completed the survey, 108 were excluded from the analysis in this report because of
either leaving responses to a large number of questions missing, completing the survey too quickly, or both.
73
household income under $50,000 who are under age 60; and those who are a race or ethnicity
other than White, non-Hispanic—received additional email reminders during the field period, as
well as additional monetary incentives.
All survey respondents not in a target group received a $5 incentive payment after survey comple-
tion. Respondents in the target groups received a $15 incentive. These targeted individuals also
received an additional follow-up email during the field period to encourage completion.
65
Survey Questionnaire
The 2022 survey took respondents 22.9 minutes (median time) to complete.
A priority in designing the survey questions was to understand how individuals and families—
particularly those with low- to moderate-income—fared financially in 2022. The questions were
intended to complement and augment the base of knowledge from other data sources, including
the Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. In addition, some questions from other surveys were
included to allow direct comparisons across datasets.
66
The full survey questionnaire can be
found in appendix A of this report.
Survey Mode
While the sample was drawn using probability-based sampling methods, the SHED was adminis-
tered to respondents entirely online. Online interviews are less costly than telephone or in-person
interviews and can be an effective way to interview a representative population.
67
Ipsos’s online
panel offers some additional benefits. Their panel allows the same respondents to be
re-interviewed in subsequent surveys with relative ease, as they can be easily contacted for sev-
eral years.
Furthermore, internet panel surveys have numerous existing data points on respondents from pre-
viously administered surveys, including detailed demographic and economic information. This
allows for the inclusion of additional information on respondents without increasing respondent
65
All participants received a pre-notification email before the survey launch. They also received a reminder on the third day
of the field period in addition to the initial survey invitation. Targeted respondents received one additional email
reminder on day seven of fielding.
66
For a comparison of results to select overlapping questions from the SHED and Census Bureau surveys, see Jeff Larri-
more, Maximilian Schmeiser, and Sebastian Devlin-Foltz, “Should You Trust Things You Hear Online? Comparing SHED
and Census Bureau Survey Results,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series Notes (Washington: Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, October 15, 2015), https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.1619.
67
David S. Yeager et al., “Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Prob-
ability and Non-Probability Samples,” Public Opinion Quarterly 75, no. 4 (2011): 709–47.
74 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
burden.
68
The respondent burdens are further reduced by automatically skipping irrelevant ques-
tions based on responses to previous questions.
The “digital divide” and other differences in internet usage could bias participation in online sur-
veys, so recruited panel members who did not have a computer or internet access were provided
with a laptop and access to the internet to complete the surveys. Even so, individuals who com-
plete an online survey may have greater comfort or familiarity with the internet and technology
than the overall adult population, which has the potential to introduce bias in the characteristics of
who responds.
Sampling and Weighting
The SHED sample was designed to be representative of adults age 18 and older living in the
United States.
The Ipsos methodology for selecting a general population sample from KnowledgePanel ensured
that the resulting sample behaved as an equal probability of selection method (EPSEM) sample.
This methodology started by weighting the entire KnowledgePanel to the benchmarks in the latest
March supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS) along several geo-demographic dimen-
sions. This way, the weighted distribution of the KnowledgePanel matched that of U.S. adults. The
geo-demographic dimensions used for weighting the entire KnowledgePanel included gender, age,
race, ethnicity, education, census region, household income, homeownership status, and metro-
politan area status.
Using the above weights as the measure of size (MOS) for each panel member, in the next step a
probability proportional to size (PPS) procedure was used to select study specific samples. This
methodology was designed to produce a sample with weights close to one, thereby reducing the
reliance on post-stratification weights for obtaining a representative sample.
After the survey collection was complete, statisticians at Ipsos adjusted weights in a post-
stratification process that corrected for any survey non-response as well as any non-coverage or
under- and oversampling in the study design. The following variables were used for the adjustment
of weights for this study: age, gender, race, ethnicity, census region, residence in a metropolitan
area, education, and household income. These weighting variables are consistent with those used
in earlier waves of the survey. Demographic and geographic distributions for the noninstitutional-
ized, civilian population age 18 and older from the March CPS were the benchmarks in this adjust-
ment. Household income benchmarks were obtained from the 2022 March CPS.
68
This approach also may allow for the retroactive linking of information learned about respondents from other data, as
was done in 2022 to determine Asian respondents in earlier years of the survey.
Description of the Survey 75
One feature of the SHED is that a subset of respondents also participated in prior waves of the
survey. In 2022, about one-third of respondents had participated in the fall 2021 survey. Prior year
case identifiers for these repeat respondents are available in the publicly available dataset, along
with weights for this subset of respondents. These weights use a similar procedure as described
above to ensure estimates based on the repeated sample are representative of the U.S. population.
Although weights allow the sample population to match the U.S. population (excluding those in the
military or in institutions, such as prisons or nursing homes) based on observable characteristics,
similar to all survey methods, it remains possible that non-coverage, non-response, or occasional
disparities among recruited panel members result in differences between the sample population
and the U.S. population. For example, address-based sampling likely misses homeless popula-
tions, and non-English speakers may not participate in surveys conducted in English.
69
Despite an effort to select the sample such that the unweighted distribution of the sample more
closely mirrored that of the U.S. adult population, the results indicate that weights remain neces-
sary to accurately reflect the composition of the U.S. population. Consequently, all results pre-
sented in this report use the post-stratification weights produced by Ipsos for use with the survey.
Item Non-response and Imputation
Item non-response in the 2022 SHED was handled by imputation. Typically, less than 1 percent of
observations were missing for each question, although non-response was higher for some ques-
tions such as income amounts.
70
As a result, population estimates were not sensitive to the
imputation procedure and a simple regression approach was used.
71
For continuous variables
such as income, rent, and mortgage payment amounts, a hot deck approach was used.
72
69
For example, while the survey was weighted to match the race and ethnicity of the entire U.S. adult population, there is
evidence that the Hispanic population in the survey were somewhat more likely to speak English at home than the
overall Hispanic population in the United States. In the 2022 SHED, the percent of Hispanic adults who speak Spanish
at home is below estimates from the 2021 American Community Survey. See table B16006 at https://data.census.gov.
For a comparison of results to select questions administered in Spanish and English, see Board of Governors of the Fed-
eral Reserve System, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017 (Washington: Board of Governors,
May 2018), https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-report-economic-well-being-us-households-
201805.pdf.
70
Because item non-response is very low in the SHED, 2022 estimates are comparable with prior years where item non-
response was handled differently.
71
A logit regression was used for binary variables, a multinomial logit for categorical variables, an ordinal logit for ordered
values, and a linear regression for continuous values. Typical predictors included income, education, race and ethnicity,
age, gender, and metropolitan status, but varied depending on how well they predicted the variable of interest and item
non-response. Additional predictors were included as appropriate.
72
This approach involved assigning values to non-responses by copying responses from demographically similar respon-
dents. To do this, we first grouped respondents by characteristics such as education, age, and income, and we then
arranged respondents within groups by the time of their survey completion. Each non-response was matched with the
nearest neighbor within their group based on survey completion time, and values were imputed for each non-response
by drawing from their nearest neighbor’s response.
76 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022
The imputation procedure was carried out as follows:
1. Impute questions, like income and education, to be used in the imputation models throughout.
2. Continue at the beginning of the survey and impute missing values sequentially, question by
question.
In some cases, the imputation for one question affected later questions by switching an observa-
tion from out-of-universe to in-universe or vice versa. These cases were handled by imputing the
missing “downstream” question response or recoding it to missing, where appropriate.
Each variable in the publicly available SHED dataset has a corresponding imputation flag,
‘var’_iflag, which is set to 1 if the observation was imputed and 0 otherwise.
73
For example, the
first question of the survey about whether the respondent lived with their spouse or partner, L0_a,
has a corresponding imputation flag of L0_a_iflag. This question had 28 missing values that were
imputed, accounting for 0.2 percent of all observations.
73
The survey data can be downloaded from the Federal Reserve website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/
consumerscommunities/shed_data.htm.
Description of the Survey 77
Acknowledgements
This survey and report were prepared by the Consumer and Community Research Section of the
Federal Reserve Board’s Division of Consumer and Community Affairs (DCCA).
DCCA directs consumer- and community-related functions performed by the Board, including con-
ducting research on financial services policies and practices and their implications for consumer
financial stability, community development, and neighborhood stabilization.
DCCA staff members Alicia Lloro, Ellen Merry, Jeff Larrimore, Jacob Lockwood, Zofsha Merchant,
and Anna Tranfaglia prepared this report.
Federal Reserve staff members Laura Benedict, Andrea Brachtesende, David Buchholz, Ellen Levy,
Madelyn Marchessault, Kirk Schwarzbach, and Nitish Sinha provided valuable feedback and contri-
butions to the report. Additionally, Kenneth Brevoort, Kabir Dasgupta, Katherine Lim, Ryan Nunn,
Jake Orchard, Erin Troland, Douglas Webber, and Mike Zabek made valuable contributions to the
development of this year’s survey questionnaire. The authors would also like to thank Bob
Torongo, Frances Barlas, Zachary Lewis, Poom Nukulkij, and Alyssa Marciniak for their assistance
fielding the survey.
If you have questions about the survey or this report, please email [email protected]v.
79
Corrections
The Federal Reserve revised this report on August 15, 2023, to reflect corrected data
described below.
On page 67, in the Retirement and Investments section, the sentence “Although over three-fourths
of non-retired adults had at least some retirement savings, about 28 percent did not have any”
was corrected to “Although almost three-fourths of non-retired adults had at least some retirement
savings, about 28 percent did not have any.”
On page 67, in the Retirement and Investments section, the sentence “The share of non-retirees
who thought their retirement saving was on track was also below the shares who thought their
saving was on track in 2018, 2019, and 2020” was corrected to “The share of non-retirees who
thought their retirement saving was on track was also below the shares who thought their saving
was on track in 2017 through 2020.”
On page 68, in the Retirement and Investments section, figure 33, “View retirement savings as on
track (by year),” data for the year 2017 were corrected from 28 percent to 38 percent.
81
Find other Federal Reserve Board publications (www.federalreserve.gov/publications.htm) or order
those offered in print (www.federalreserve.gov/files/orderform.pdf) on our website. Also visit the site for more
information about the Board and to learn how to stay connected with us on social media.
www.federalreserve.gov
0523
