3 ms·

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-009.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-00... Adjusted for inflation that'

by werber 7y ago

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-009.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-00... Adjusted for inflation that's about a $35,000 median family income compared to an average of about $55,000 today. Still not great, but other items like homes were cheaper (and smaller), cars, etc. So not quite as bad as the GDP per person, but it does make me think about how that monumental rise of GDP isn't reflected more closely in how much money is being made by the average working person

BurningFrog 7y ago
Income per family is a treacherous measure, since family sizes have shrunk considerably. If I marry you, our family income has doubled, but none of us is any richer.
- oblio 7y ago
  > Income per family is a treacherous measure, since family sizes have shrunk considerably. > If I marry you, our family income has doubled, but none of us is any richer. I don't disagree with your core point, but I have to nitpick a bit the last part. Expenses don't grow linearly with the number of people in a family, especially with the number of wage-earning adults. You will be richer in a couple, and I don't only mean emotionally :-) Rent won't double, all sorts of other living expenses can be shared, etc. Disposable income should definitely be higher than for 2 single people. I feel that a decent chunk of the issues in modern societies is that many people are single for long periods of time. That makes things really hard financially, plus there's less support in case of issues...
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I would expect that two could live a fair bit more cheaply (apples to apples) than double what they individually spent as singles. Rent, utilities, and (to a lesser extent) groceries all seemed to get quite a bit more efficient when we moved in together.
dahfizz 7y ago
The "median family" is wildly different today than it was 60 years ago. A skyrocketing percent of households are single individuals with a single income and no child expenses. https://ourworldindata.org/living-alone https://ourworldindata.org/living-alone

by werber 7y ago

BurningFrog 7y ago

Income per family is a treacherous measure, since family sizes have shrunk considerably. If I marry you, our family income has doubled, but none of us is any richer.

oblio 7y ago
> Income per family is a treacherous measure, since family sizes have shrunk considerably. > If I marry you, our family income has doubled, but none of us is any richer. I don't disagree with your core point, but I have to nitpick a bit the last part. Expenses don't grow linearly with the number of people in a family, especially with the number of wage-earning adults. You will be richer in a couple, and I don't only mean emotionally :-) Rent won't double, all sorts of other living expenses can be shared, etc. Disposable income should definitely be higher than for 2 single people. I feel that a decent chunk of the issues in modern societies is that many people are single for long periods of time. That makes things really hard financially, plus there's less support in case of issues...
sokoloff 7y ago
I would expect that two could live a fair bit more cheaply (apples to apples) than double what they individually spent as singles. Rent, utilities, and (to a lesser extent) groceries all seemed to get quite a bit more efficient when we moved in together.

dahfizz 7y ago

The "median family" is wildly different today than it was 60 years ago. A skyrocketing percent of households are single individuals with a single income and no child expenses. https://ourworldindata.org/living-alone https://ourworldindata.org/living-alone