[raybbr]

The number of single-parent families has grown from 10 percent in 1965 to 28 percent in 1996. Most children come from families where there is no stay-at-home parent. The percentage of families with both parents working has risen from 37 percent in 1975 to 62 percent in 1996. In most families, both parents must work to get by. This is a big change. Combine this with working single parents and we've got a whopping 64 percent of families where all parents are working. From here.

In 2002, 18.4 million married families with children, almost 68 percent, had both parents working. In over 55 percent of these families, the women were working full-time, year-round. From here.

I suspect, should you really do your homework, that you'd find that the number of single parent households today is very large and refutes your assertion that the increase in income over the years is solely because both parents are working.

There are the facts. Believe them or not. I did not state that the increase was "solely because both parents are working". Even the WH sees this as a problem. But, to a super-capitalist like you it's just the way things ought to be.

[Mase]

I did not state that the increase was "solely because both parents are working".

What would be interesting is to know how many more households there are now than in 1965. What's truly amazing is that we've been able to grow real household incomes even with the dramatic increase in the number of households since then. 28% of all families in 1996 will produce a much larger number of households than 10% of all families in 1965. I'd also like to compare the number of families where both parents work but one has a part time job with the stats in 1965.

In most families, both parents must work to get by.

Based on what? Their need to keep up with the Joneses materially or is it real necessity? Most families today don't have to have both parents working but choose to for materialistic reasons. That's their choice and there is certainly more opportunity for women in the workforce now than in 1965. Also, the feminists in the 70's convinced a generation they could have it all which, IMO, is one reason divorces were so common in the 70's and 80's.

You said back in post # 63 "Now I am sure those numbers reflect mom and dad working." I guess what you're saying is that if we looked at real per-capita incomes we wouldn't see the kind of growth in incomes referenced in my linked article.

Real per capita incomes have increased from just $6,000 in 1929 to more than $30,000 today.

"Moreover, real earnings of the average worker have continued to rise. Over the past century, per capita real income has risen at an average rate of more than 2 percent per year, declining notably only during the Great Depression of the 1930s and immediately following World War II. Incomes trended higher whether we had a trade deficit or a trade surplus and whether international outsourcing was large or small."

Greenspan: FRB Speech

If real per-capita incomes were not increasing how could you explain the increase in per-capita consumption over the past 30 years?

Over those same 30 years, real per capita consumption has increased at an average annual rate of 2.3%

Pouting Pundits of Pessimism

Despite the problems price indexes have in coping with new and better products, measured real consumption per capita has nonetheless doubled since 1973. Unless the rich could somehow consume unlimited numbers of houses, cars, shirts and steaks, it is difficult to imagine how each American's real consumption could have doubled if real salaries had actually been unchanged.

Unreal Wages