Moderator: Charlie Phillips
Abacus wrote:You really have a problem with numbers. Do you really think that 15,000/yr was the avg wage in 1913? Perhaps you missed the adjustment that your new misread chart made. The entire graph is in 2006 DOLLARS. According to your graph wages have risen 4x faster than inflation (factored into the graph).
headhonchoII wrote:Yes, the question should be, WHO is better off and WHO is worse off. You've finally put something together worth reading SW .
I think the double income versus single income is important. Obviously what happened (and this happened where I am from too), is that when women started to enter the workforce in numbers this just allowed the size of mortgages to increase along with costs for childcare, in the end many families now have two people working for a lesser quality of life.
Forumosans browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 visitors