On Aug 17, 5:01*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:51:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack


"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.

That is NOT what you've been saying. You said: "what percentage of
this (increase) was accounted for by a growth in dual
income families? There actually is a DECREASE in dual-income
families, which limited the observed INCREASE in income!!



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?

WTF?? Who said anything about 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're the one that linked to the article and posted that quote, not
me. Sorry if it actually shoots your position in the head.
"median household income" rose slightly. You do know what "median"
means, right?
It says there has been a rise in income, and the median income rise
would be bigger if it weren't for the loss of two-income households.
Not that the rise only happened because of women entering the
workforce, which is what you said.



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

They aren't. Your own link says "While household income has
*increased*..." It completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it
is because of stagnant wages. Rather, it's "changes in the size and
composition of households (that make median income growth seem small)
rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy (and wages)."


thanks. i'm done here-

You certainly are.