Ethel, MS population, income and ZIP codes

Ethel town is a very small community in Mississippi, with 217 residents counted in the Census American Community Survey 2019-2023 ACS 5-year estimates, which places it #348 of 427 ranked by population — larger than 18% of them. The median age here is 31.8 years against 39.1 nationally, a distinctly younger profile, typical of places with students, military posts or a fast-growing family population. At this population the ACS sample is small, so the margin of error around every dollar figure below is wide — treat the numbers as a band, not a point, and expect them to move between annual releases without the place itself changing.

Households in Ethel town earn a median of $36,389 a year, 53.7% below the national figure of $78,538 and 18% below the $44,178 median for the 191 Mississippi cities we cover. This figure covers the household, not the worker: two people on ordinary wages at one address outrank a single professional in the same table. Poverty reaches 28.6% of residents here, well above the 12.4% national rate, which is the single clearest signal in this dataset that median income here is carried by a narrow band of households.

The typical owner-occupied home in Ethel town is valued at $76,200, 74.9% below the national figure and 37% below the $121,300 peer median, while median gross rent runs not published a month. The home-price-to-income ratio works out to 2.1×, against roughly 3.9× nationally, so purchase prices are unusually low against local pay, the pattern in places where supply is plentiful and wage growth has been flat. 70% of occupied homes are owner-occupied versus 65% nationally, so the market leans toward owners. The rent line includes utilities paid by the tenant, a definition worth remembering when comparing it against a landlord's quoted rate.

With 217 residents, a handful of survey responses moves every median on this page. Compare Ethel town against its county rather than against national figures.

The Census withheld gross rent for Ethel town because the sample was too thin to publish at this geography. Those values were suppressed at the source, not lost in our dataset, and we do not model a replacement. Everything else on this page comes straight from the ACS 2019-2023 ACS 5-year tables.