John Lettieri, President and CEO of Economic Innovation Group | Official Website
John Lettieri, President and CEO of Economic Innovation Group | Official Website
These payments—which include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and income maintenance—accounted for 13.7% of all personal income in the county, according to information from the Economic Innovation Group.
This marks a slight decrease in the county’s reliance on government transfers compared to 2012, when such payments made up 13.9% of total income. Since then, the share has fallen by 0.2%.
Government transfer payments are non-repayable funds provided by federal, state, or local governments to support individuals in need. These payments aim to stabilize economic conditions and provide financial support during hardships. Key programs include Social Security transfers (retirement benefits), Medicare transfers (healthcare for seniors), Medicaid transfers (healthcare for low-income individuals), and income maintenance transfers (financial assistance for basic needs).
In 2022, government transfers in Douglas County primarily focused on older adults—such as Social Security transfers, which totaled $325.9 million (48% of all transfer income), and Medicare, which accounted for $199.3 million (29.3%)—played a significant role in the county's overall income.
On a per capita basis, Social Security payments rose from $4,716 in 2012 and $843 in 1970 to $6,566 in 2022, reflecting a 39.2% increase over the past decade and a 678.9% shift since 1970.
Similarly, Medicare transfers climbed from $2,611 in 2012 and $223 in 1970 to $4,016, marking 53.8% and 1,700.9% increases, respectively.
In comparison, during 2022, residents aged 65 and older made up 32.8% of the total population, compared to 22.5% in 2012 and 7.1% in 1970.
According to the Economic Innovation Group, total income in Douglas County excluding public assistance amounted to $86,603 per capita in 2022, compared to $100,296 when government transfers were included.
Breaking down the other contributions in the county, Medicaid transfers made up $43.7 million, a 6.4% share of total income, while income maintenance programs, including assistance such as SNAP or TANF, added another $30 million, or 4.4% of the total.
Compared to the previous year, Douglas County's reliance on government transfers decreased by 2.7%.
Government transfers have long been a modest financial safety net, historically comprising only a small fraction of Americans' income. However, since the 1970s—sometimes dubbed the “Great Transfer-mation”—dependency has surged from 8.2% (or $2,016 per capita in inflation-adjusted 2022 dollars) in 1970 to 17.6% (or $11,529 per capita) in 2022 nationwide.
According to the Economic Innovation Group’s analysis, these trends are not merely short-term responses to economic pressures but rather reflect a profound, long-term transformation in how government support is integrated into American life. The study illustrates that structural shifts—from rising healthcare expenses and demographic changes to stagnant wages—have significantly increased dependency on government transfers.
| County | State Rank (Per Capita Transfers) | Dependency on Transfers (%) | % Population 65+ | Social Security Transfers (%) | Medicare Transfers (%) | Medicaid Transfers (%) | Income Maintenance Transfers (%) | Per Capita Transfers ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Esmeralda County | 1 | 33.98% | 32.26% | 30.6% | 50.7% | 6.4% | 5.6% | $20,517 |
| Mineral County | 2 | 37.12% | 27% | 28% | 19.5% | 34.3% | 8.3% | $17,633 |
| Nye County | 3 | 35.86% | 31.16% | 39.6% | 29.9% | 8.8% | 8.2% | $15,441 |
| Douglas County | 4 | 13.65% | 32.8% | 48% | 29.3% | 6.4% | 4.4% | $13,692 |
| Churchill County | 5 | 24.89% | 19.26% | 29.3% | 19.3% | 23.2% | 9.1% | $13,491 |
| White Pine County | 6 | 23.43% | 20.17% | 28.5% | 21.5% | 33.7% | 7.9% | $13,432 |
| Carson City (Independent City) County | 7 | 21.88% | 21.16% | 32.2% | 24.1% | 25.1% | 8.2% | $13,354 |
| Lincoln County | 8 | 27.25% | 24.53% | 29.6% | 28.3% | 25.1% | 8.4% | $13,233 |
| Lyon County | 9 | 23.88% | 21.81% | 41.2% | 24.6% | 10% | 9% | $11,161 |
| Clark County | 10 | 17% | 15.87% | 31% | 26.8% | 14.8% | 13.6% | $10,067 |
| Washoe County | 11 | 12.56% | 17.73% | 36.9% | 23% | 18% | 9.3% | $9,804 |
| Lander County | 12 | 13.21% | 16.82% | 33.5% | 22.4% | 26.3% | 9.1% | $9,719 |
| Humboldt County | 13 | 17.82% | 16.14% | 32.9% | 23.7% | 19.7% | 10.8% | $9,700 |
| Storey County | 14 | 12.13% | 34% | 61.9% | 15.6% | 4.2% | 5.1% | $9,459 |
| Pershing County | 15 | 23.37% | 18.22% | 31% | 16.6% | 33.7% | 9.2% | $9,315 |
| Eureka County | 16 | 16.51% | 18.89% | 41.2% | 28.7% | 7.7% | 9.3% | $8,196 |
| Elko County | 17 | 14.21% | 13.18% | 32% | 21.9% | 20.7% | 11.4% | $7,677 |
Alerts Sign-up