LK,
"From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars (from $33,072 to $35,172). At the same time, per capita income rose by a robust 51 percent in constant dollars (from $11,975 to $18,136)... A time-series on the median income of households can be misleading if the characteristics of households change in a substantial way over time. The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy. The data in this report do show that the characteristics of households changed substantially from 1969 to 1996, and data users should be aware of these changes when attempting to interpret time-series data on the median income of households."
This is a odd paragraph. It should include the fact that in 1969, a majority of households--perhaps a large majority--had one wage earner. By 1996, that had changed considerably. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but I think it is now the case that a solid majority of households in the US have 2 wage earners. And, of course, the average number of children per household has gone down since the late 60s. So looking at the both per capita and median incomes without adjusting for these gives a misleading picture, and, I think, would tend to support Bosco's sense. Or perhaps I ought to go look at your link, and see what other qualifications are included. As it stands, considering the changes that I know about in households, it seems to me to be going out of its way to not state directly that the relative wealth of average individuals in the US has decreased over the past 30 years. |
