Ratamosa, TX population, income and ZIP codes

Ratamosa CDP is a very small community in Texas, with 333 residents counted in the Census American Community Survey 2019-2023 ACS 5-year estimates, which places it #1403 of 1,863 ranked by population — larger than 24% of them. The median age here is 50.1 years against 39.1 nationally, a markedly older profile that usually tracks retirees staying put and younger households leaving for work. 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 Ratamosa CDP earn a median of not published a year. Median household income counts every pre-tax dollar arriving at an address — wages, self-employment, Social Security, pensions, interest and public assistance — for everyone living there, so multi-earner households pull the figure up even where individual pay is modest. Poverty reaches 0% of residents here, less than half the 12.4% national rate.

The typical owner-occupied home in Ratamosa CDP is valued at $262,000, 13.6% below the national figure and 46% above the $179,100 peer median, while median gross rent runs not published a month. 91.2% of occupied homes are owner-occupied versus 65% nationally, an owner-dominated market where rental listings are scarce and rent medians rest on a thin sample. Rent is reported gross — contract rent plus tenant-paid utilities — which is why it runs above the advertised price on a listing for the same unit.

A median age of 50.1 puts Ratamosa CDP well into retirement-weighted territory, which pulls median household income down even where household wealth is high, because retirement draws are counted differently from wages. With 333 residents, a handful of survey responses moves every median on this page. Compare Ratamosa CDP against its county rather than against national figures.

The Census withheld household income, gross rent for Ratamosa CDP 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.