Occupy Wall Street

[Denny Crane]

How many households per capita are there now compared to the past? Measuring income per household seems to be a false way to look at economic growth, given the (likely) rise in single-adult households.

Ed O.

It doesn't work like that. The households are family of 4.

 

[Ed O]

It doesn't work like that. The households are family of 4.

Where do you get that definition? And four what... four adults? Or two adults and two children?

The Census Bureau defines a household as:

A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.)

Wikipedia has this:

Household income is a measure commonly used by the United States government and private institutions, that counts the income of all residents over the age of 18 in each household, including not only all wages and salaries, but such items as unemployment insurance, disability payments, child support payments (not removing child support from wages and salaried yet counting it as overall income actually results in this money counting toward two households, artificially inflating the income between the two households), regular rental receipts, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely.[1] The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income.[2] As households tend to share a similar economic context, the use of household income remains among the most widely accepted measures of income. That the size of a household is not commonly taken into account in such measures may distort any analysis of fluctuations within or among the household income categories, and may render direct comparisons between quintiles difficult or even impossible.

I added the emphasis to that last bit.

It's entirely possible that I'm missing something pretty basic, so I'd love to see your source.

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Household income is not to be confused with family or personal income. Household income is often the combination of two income earners pooling the resources and should therefore not be confused with an individual's earnings. Even though the term family income may sometimes be used as a synonym for household income, the U.S. Census Bureau defines the two differently. While household income takes all households into account, family income only takes households with two or more persons related through blood, marriage or adoption into account.

(The page then shows median HOUSEHOLD income for various countries)

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Its pretty fucking insane, the class warfare that is beginning here. All thanks to Obama and his "millionaires and billionaires" ranting. People are just sheep here.

 

[ABM]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-wall-street-protesters-lot-common-tea-party-174258972.html

Vice President Joe Biden likened the protesters who have camped out on Wall Street in New York City to the tea party movement Thursday, citing anger over the federal program that spent hundreds of millions of dollars to bail out private banks in 2008.

"There's a lot in common with the tea party," Biden said at forum in Washington, D.C., when asked about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. "The tea party started why? TARP. They thought it was unfair -- we were bailing out the big guy."..................

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

No, they're more like the Anti-War protestors IMO.

 

[PapaG]

Its pretty fucking insane, the class warfare that is beginning here. All thanks to Obama and his "millionaires and billionaires" ranting. People are just sheep here.

The funny part of it all is that Obama and the rest of his cronies are all millionaires and billionaires. We quite simply have never had a more divisive President in our history, nor a more immature one. The only games he can play are the Blame Game and the Bush's Fault game. If anybody thinks that pitting one group of Americans against another is a good idea for the long-term future of our country, please explain it to me.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

these people are being played as pawns. this is all election politics here.

 

[barfo]

I'm nowhere near the 300k line, but I make enough to pay taxes, so someone please enlighten me on which poor people I stole my income from.

It was Samuel and Judith Franklin of Bismarck, North Dakota. And they are pissed.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

The protesters have shut down the max lines in downtown PDX as well as the SW streets near McCall Park and Broadway.

I find it hilarious that they are protesting a bail-out from 3 years ago, and that most of TARP has actually been repaid. Most of those idiots would have been living in the streets 3 years ago had the government, in a bi-partisan manner, not loaned banks money to get out from under toxic loans.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

they're not protesting the bailouts. they are protesting the banks in general. "the 1% are evil" (aka the "millionaires and billionaires").

 

[PapaG]

they're not protesting the bailouts. they are protesting the banks in general. "the 1% are evil" (aka the "millionaires and billionaires").

Classic communistic agitating. Yawn. Pack the streets with an armed 500k and I'll pay attention. Marching down a street with a feel-good sign accomplishes nothing other than making that person feel like they're making a difference, which they're not.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

"I hate banks"

I wonder how many have bank accounts or use credit cards then.

 

[Ed O]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Household income is not to be confused with family or personal income. Household income is often the combination of two income earners pooling the resources and should therefore not be confused with an individual's earnings. Even though the term family income may sometimes be used as a synonym for household income, the U.S. Census Bureau defines the two differently. While household income takes all households into account, family income only takes households with two or more persons related through blood, marriage or adoption into account.

(My emphasis.)

So... households can include one adult (a single person, or a single parent with 8 kids) or four adults (two parents and two kids living at home who are over 18).

My point is that single wage earner households are almost certainly MUCH more common now than they were in, say, the 1950's. People move out of their parents' households earlier, they wait longer to get married, and often don't get married at all.

I think that this increases the number of households per capita, so looking at income per household, rather than per capita (or per adult) skews the actual performance of the economy... it's not the economy's fault that people are more independent now.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Classic communistic agitating. Yawn. Pack the streets with an armed 500k and I'll pay attention. Marching down a street with a feel-good sign accomplishes nothing other than making that person feel like they're making a difference, which they're not.

Did you see the guy talking about having a "self-sustaining community" there? It's so ridiculous. It's "self-sustaining"... how? They're learning to sew, but are they making thread? Are they planting crops?

They can be sustained by outside forces who agree with them, but the self-sustaining part is delusional

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Did you see the guy talking about having a "self-sustaining community" there? It's so ridiculous. It's "self-sustaining"... how? They're learning to sew, but are they making thread? Are they planting crops?

They can be sustained by outside forces who agree with them, but the self-sustaining part is delusional

Ed O.

But Ed, you could be the maker of thread, and you'll just barter your wares for other services as you wander from yurt to yurt. It will be awesome! A teeth cleaning is going for a cotton shirt these days, or so I'm told.

 

[Ed O]

But Ed, you could be the maker of thread, and you'll just barter your wares for other services as you wander from yurt to yurt. It will be awesome! A teeth cleaning is going for a cotton shirt these days, or so I'm told.

Those protesters would be so in tents.

Ed O.

 

[MARIS61]

How much did it cost for a cell phone back then? How's about an online community where you could talk politics and basketball?

What about a big screen HD television?

Who cares how much people made back then? The world has changed... some for the better, and some for the worse. It's just different.

Ed O.

What does that have to do with anything?

I should be paid less because my tv is bigger and costs more?

 

[MARIS61]

So a business should be paying 150k a year for semi-skilled labor?

If so, what should police, firemen/women, blacksmiths, and doctors be making?

Yes, if the goal is to pay workers the equivalent of what they were paid in the early 70's.

 

[ABM]

Yes, if the goal is to pay workers the equivalent of what they were paid in the early 70's.

Global economy is the antichrist, don'tchaknow.

 

[MARIS61]

So?

Just the fact that you're bringing up whether or not the "poor" can afford to purchase their own house proves we have moved forward a great deal over that time span.

If the concern is whether families can PURCHASE their own home, and not whether a family has access to clean water, we're doing great.

Not so.

The homeownership rate in the United States[1][2] in 2009 remained similar to that in other post-industrial nations[3] with 67.4% of all occupied housing units being occupied by the unit's owner. Home ownership rates vary depending on demographic characteristics of households such as ethnicity, race, type of household as well as location and type of settlement.

Since 1960, the homeownership rate in the United States has remained relatively stable having increased 5.6% since 1960 when 62.1% of American households owned their own home. However, homeowner equity has fallen steadily since World War II and is now less than 50% of the value of homes on average.[4] Homeownership was most common in rural areas and suburbs with three quarters of suburban households being homeowners. Among the country's regions the Midwestern states had the highest homeownership rate with the Western states having the lowest.[2]

Homeowners in the United States also tend to have higher incomes and households residing in their own home were more likely to be families (as opposed to individuals) than were their tenant counterparts.[5] Among racial demographics, European Americans had the country's highest homeownership rate, while those identifying as being African American had the lowest homeownership rate.

It is important to note that the name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States#Historical

 

[Natebishop3]

You guys are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker. This isn't a Republican/Democrat thing, this is a corruption thing. This is about corporations controlling Washington DC because of lobbying and campaign donations. Seriously, people need to put their petty grudges against one party or the other aside and focus on the fact that this country is broken and we need to fix it. I'm sure the Puritans, the Anglicans, and the Quakers in Pennsylvania didn't all agree on things but they recognized that the governance from Britain was flawed and they banded together.

I'm tired of people hating a piece of legislation simply because it comes from one party or the other.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

The only group that would make a dent is anonymous/WikiLeaks.

 

[MARIS61]

A house cost less than $6,000 in 1960.

Median family income was $5,620 in 1960.

Median family income was $49,777 in 2009.

Even now, a house costs considerably more than $50k.

 

[Denny Crane]

Median family income was $5,620 in 1960.

Median family income was $49,777 in 2009.

Even now, a house costs considerably more than $50k.

It depends on where you live.

Median family income with 2 earners is consistently over $70K in all states.

It's $75K in Nevada. You can buy a home in Vegas for $70K.

 

[blazerboy30]

Not so.

The homeownership rate in the United States[1][2] in 2009 remained similar to that in other post-industrial nations[3] with 67.4% of all occupied housing units being occupied by the unit's owner. Home ownership rates vary depending on demographic characteristics of households such as ethnicity, race, type of household as well as location and type of settlement.

Since 1960, the homeownership rate in the United States has remained relatively stable having increased 5.6% since 1960 when 62.1% of American households owned their own home. However, homeowner equity has fallen steadily since World War II and is now less than 50% of the value of homes on average.[4] Homeownership was most common in rural areas and suburbs with three quarters of suburban households being homeowners. Among the country's regions the Midwestern states had the highest homeownership rate with the Western states having the lowest.[2]

Homeowners in the United States also tend to have higher incomes and households residing in their own home were more likely to be families (as opposed to individuals) than were their tenant counterparts.[5] Among racial demographics, European Americans had the country's highest homeownership rate, while those identifying as being African American had the lowest homeownership rate.

It is important to note that the name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States#Historical

As usual, you are extremely confused and totally missed the point.

 

[blazerboy30]

Yes, if the goal is to pay workers the equivalent of what they were paid in the early 70's.

That is a ridiculous and meaningless metric.

 

[PapaG]

http://the53.tumblr.com/

I am the 53%

 

[bluefrog]

http://the53.tumblr.com/

I am the 53%

I love it the bitching, complaining and general bitterness of these people. The best part is everyone makes a point to mention they don't whine and then they write:

I have to work 60 hours a week.

I have to work 3 jobs.

I never get any days off.

I get 4 hours of sleep a night.

These people have COMPLETELY missed the point. Where is this idea coming from that the protesters are all lazy, hippies who don't pay taxes? It's an anti-corruption movement.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

didn't they want their student loans paid off?

:MARIS61: