Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (73989)	8/13/2012 6:43:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 103300

Yes you said per family, but your point only properly applies per person. It makes no sense as "per family". You used the label "per family", but in doing so actually described per person. You said There was NOT* significantly 'more income PER PERSON'... the term you are searching for is "per FAMILY".* But the fact is that there is more income per person. Workers per family going up, doesn't only increase family income, it increases income per person. To simplify things to make the point, imagine the whole US consisted of 4 member familes. They each had one worker. Each worker made $50k. The average income per person would be $12,500. Average income per family would be $50k. Then 10 years later. Each family consists of two workers, one making $60k, and one making $40k. The average income per worker has stagnated at $50k, but average income per family (now $100k) and per person ($25k) have both doubled. The reality is of course more complex than this simplified scenario, but in both the simple scenario, and in reality, income per person went up significantly. Income per person is not income per worker. Its Total income / total people.