On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:08:50 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 17, 5:48*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

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!!

??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has
been *a DECREASE in dual income families. *in addition to being stupid
are you illiterate?

Except your own link:
"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.

What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have
two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!!

Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded.

gee. i guess, being right wing, you can't think

the reference pointed out 2 facts

-men's wages stagnated
-womens wages increased until the 90's then THEY stagnated as well

you right wingers with your little fairy tales gloss over details. but
the details are the wooden stake in the heart of your little fables
about how lazy the middle class is.



cya