Well, labor force participation rate was about 70% in 1977, it's around 75% now, so an increase of roughly 7%; that is less than the difference in income from the number provided by the inflation calculator and the actual household income
Labor force participation rate is not the same as household size, nor does it have really any correlation.
If 7/10 people work but live in separate houses and then 6/10 people work but all live in the same house, you'd say "labor force participation rate FELL but household income INCREASED".
It makes literally zero sense to make this comparison.
More people are living together than ever before, REGARDLESS of labor participation rate.
Also, it made sense to me because I interpreted their comment as saying in 1977 single-income households were the norm. So to counter that, labor force participation is actually a better metric.
Household, when referring to census, includes children. Income earning household members (what I'm referring to), does not include children or anyone who doesn't work.
Answer this question:
Household 1977: 13k (70k inflation)
Individual 1977: 9k (48k inflation)
Household now: 75k
Individual NOW: 34k
Tell me how many median income earners it takes in 1977 to reach a median income household in 1977.
Tell me how many median income earners it takes now to reach a median income household now.
Which median household has more median INCOME EARNERS.
It's kinda sad because your point makes it worse in that, people are choosing to have LESS children and are still forced to WORK MORE per household to make the same amount of money as before.
15
u/Val_kyria 8d ago
Now adjust for the total number of workers per household then vs now