On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:51:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 17, 4:13*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:


The reality, as it turns out, is different. From 1980 to 2006, the
percentage of US households earning $100,000 or more (in constant 2006
dollars) grew from 8.6% to 19.1

and what percentage of this was accounted for by a growth in dual
income families? care to answer?

and what percentage of these changes can be related to differences in
composition of houselholds, 2 income families, etc?

well, actually...quite alot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ited_States#Ho...

"From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3
percent in constant dollars... 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."- John McNeil, US Census Bureau

===============

so what we see is that middle class income grew hardly at all...and
those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the
workforce in greater numbers.

haha... you really need to learn to read for content. From the same
wiki page, just above your quote:

"While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by
a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners
and, therefore, higher incomes. While the proportion of wives working
year-round in married couple households with children has increased
from 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the *proportion* of such households
among the general population has *decreased*." (fewer two-income
households)

which accounts for ALOT of the decrease and stagnation in middle class
incomes...as i've been saying. yes. thanks. i already knew that.


Your statement that "those changes that DID occur were largely due to
women entering the workforce in greater numbers." is completely
opposite of your own cites viewpoint!!

They are saying that the reason it rose slowly is "changing household
demographics", namely that there are LESS two-income households!

?? since when did dual income households all of a sudden become those
without children?


Your own quote: "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." completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it
is because of stagnant wages. Rather, it's "changes in the size and
composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating
economy." YOUR OWN QUOTE!!!

Wow. Just... wow. I'm done.

WTF??

where...where did i ever say the economy was stagnating? what did you
do? call rush and ask for a stupidity transplant?

YOU YOURSELF JUST ADMITTED MIDDLE CLASS INCOME WAS STAGNANT!

you kind of overlooked those words, didn't you? do you see them in
your OWN quote? see them above??

and why did this occur? because the elties continued to drain the
middle class of ANY increase in wages. as productivity increased, the
elites siphoned that off for themselves. as women entered the
workforce, per capita wages dropped as the workforce expanded.

so tell me, oh right wing genius....

HOW DO STAGNANT WAGES PROVE THAT WAGES WERE NOT STAGNANT??

thanks. i'm done here