use.

 On what basis are you assuming unmarried cohabitation isn't counted as a single household?

Look it's really simple people. If you give money to the rich it sets in a bank/offshore banks. you give that money to the poor they spend it. Meaning supply and demand. Plus if you give the money to corporate power house's they usually put it in off shore accounts. Meaning the money has nothing to do with helping us. Also puts small business out of business because they can't compete with big corporate power house's that get tax breaks they don't .

So in turn you give the money to poor people. they push up sales of all things which push's those companies to order more which just keeps moving up the chain. SUPPLY N DEMAND> ITS SIMPLE>

There not counting the extra people working in that house because they are not married.

What f'ing point are you trying to make that people are not working, NO SH)T if thats your point. I don't think u even understand what I was talking about.

the map he put up is that average household made more, thats because there are more people working in the house. We are not talking one year we where talking 30 years worth. WTF

Again, you're assuming this based on what? Unmarried cohabitation is an increasingly common arrangement, so any survey worth its salt has to take this into consideration. For example, the census collects data on everyone living in a household, married or not.

You argued that income only seems to have risen because there are more people working in the household, then you contradict yourself by arguing that the divorce rate is higher, which would mean there are more single parent or single person households. Then you insist that unmarried cohabitants aren't considered part of the same household, when they are. Frankly, if anyone doesn't understand what you're talking about, it's you.

NO i said income has went down for the individual worker but that the house hole income for the last 30 years has went up because more people are working in the house. .
We are talking average's not yearly. Thats what you f-cked up on.

But if (a) the average household is smaller due to divorce, etc. and (b) the labor participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1983, then that can't be so.