according to statistic Americans improve their living standards by?

Question

30 - 50% every 10 years.
Meanwhile 50 years ago only one unskilled worker could support his family.
Now two skilled parents barely support their family.
What's wrong with statistics?

Answer 1

In link 1 you'll find a very good chart, provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

If you look, you will find, for example, that over the last 20 years, the average income per person has more than doubled, going from $23,464 to $54,453. That works out to a 132% improvement in 20 years, or an even more optimistic 66% per decade than the statistic you cite. If this is the only part of the chart you look at or refer to, I'm sure you'll think everything is peachy-keen and those who talk about only this can paint a wonderful rosy picture.

Which is not too bad if you're an 'average' person (though costs increase too, it's at a slower rate). But that leads to another question: how many people ARE average?

One way to determine how fairly income is distributed is to compare the proportions of income earned by parts of the population. A statistical means of doing this is called the 'Gini coefficient'. When the Gini coefficient is 0, income is distributed exactly equally: the bottom 50% earn 50% of all the income. When the coefficient is 1, income is perfectly UNequal: the bottom 50% earn nothing. So the higher the coefficient, the more unequally the pay is distributed... always with the rich taking larger and larger portions.

In the U.S., the Gini index has been pretty much constant on the march upwards, becoming more and more unequal as time goes on. In 1970, it was 0.39, in 1980 0.40, in 1990 0.43, in 2000 0.46, and it's already past 0.47 now. (link 3)

This means that all this APPARENT increase in wages is actually going more and more to just a smaller and smaller group of super-rich. The remainder of the population is left to share smaller and smaller pieces of the total pie, and their increases in earnings tend to run very narrowly or below the increases in costs.

That is why people can paint rosy pictures about the economy while vast numbers of people are not only not doing better, but are in fact doing worse. More money IS coming in overall, it's just that it's not being distributed equally.

Hope that helps!

Answer 2

lets see,
one unskilled worker
10 years later 50% more stuff needed - can one unskilled worker do that ? that is can one unskilled worker provide 50% more stuff ? or do i need one skilled worker then ? or is one and half (50%) an unskilled worker also ok ?

i have no idea . but lets assume that is what "they" say


any way lets try to solve it let call the type of worker that we need after 10 years X

so

year more-stuff workertype
10 1.5 1.5 unskilled
20 2.25 2.25 unskilled
40 3.75 3.375 unskilled
50 5.625 5.625 unskilled

also after 50 years 2 skilled are needed , so ???
5.625 unskilled peersons are at least the same as 2 skilled ???

so that is what is wrong woth the "statistics" the workertype is not quantified. It is also unknown if the two skilled are still sufficvient after 10 years, likewise its unknown if in the first 40 years one unskilled was already sufficiant

Answer 3

Very simple. Give up all the innovation of the last 50 years and live like they did 50 years ago, and you will be able to support a family of 10 on one salary.
No computer, internet, cell phone, car, TV, microwave.....
Think of all the money you would save.

Also (and people will hate this answer), compare the total amount of federal, state, and local taxes paid now vs 1960. The difference is whopping. If the government keeps taking your money, you will have less for your family.
.