Beet
Atlas Star
Posts: 28,914
|
 |
« on: December 08, 2008, 12:06:22 PM » |
|
|
« edited: December 08, 2008, 12:27:16 PM by Beet »
|
1- I assume the median figure does not count retired households
2- I assume it does not count student households
3- I assume it does not count unemployed/underemployed
4- Does not count people in jail (lol- though a few of them may make an income off of publicity)
In other words it only counts households with at least 1 person in the workforce. If that is the case, then it does seem a little low. But even then one shouldn't equate household with "Dual Income, Kids". The numbers of single-income households likely compose not only one with stay at home parents but also the large number of households where there is only one adult, whether children are present or not. Even if 2/3 of your adult population is married, then 1/2 of your households are single income. And even if 2/3 of your 1/2 married households are Dual Income, then only 1/3 of your total households are dual income. Also however in analyzing median household income to anecdotal evidence in your own area you should put it through a cost of living adjustment.
Edit: A search of Census tables confirms that of 116 million households included in the estimate, only 59 million are married-couple family households and only 92 million are under the age of 65.
Taking a look at the distribution starting at the median ($50k) might also shed some light into the picture. It is true that more households reported income of $50-$75k than $35k-$50k (18% vs 14%). It is also true that more households reported income of $75k-$100k than $25k-$35k (12% vs 11%). Finally, more households reported income of greater than $100k than $15k-$25k (20% vs 12%). So far so good. What drags the median down is about 13% of households that report income at less than $15k.
|
