So in a city where, according to the 2006 census, individuals earned a median income of $26,754 a year, and annual family median income was $75,829 and declining, councillors’ wages are nothing to sneer at.
How is the median family income three times the median individual income? The vast majority of families/households (not sure why they chose the word "family" instead of "household", but I don't think that's relevant here) have either one or two breadwinners.
I do understand what the word median means, and I do understand that because we're talking about the median, these two numbers are not mathematically related to each other. But it does seem like they should be closer. Just applying logic, you'd assume that the family income is more than 100% but less than 200% of the individual income. But instead it's nearly 300%. What's going on here?
8 comments:
One partner earning significantly more than the other, such as when one parent works part-time to be around for the kids.
Could that be it?
Can you walk me through that slowly? I'm trying to wrap my brain around it and I can't figure out how it would affect things either way.
I wonder if it's because people who have families are more likely to be making more money than those who don't? I mean, I wouldn't raise a family on my income. Anyone who is making a conscious decision to have a *family* is probably doing so after they're financially stable enough to be able to afford it.
"Anyone who is making a conscious decision to have a *family* is probably doing so after they're financially stable enough to be able to afford it."
If only! That is the ideal, but it is not what happens, in my observation. People have kids because they want to or by accident, regardless of financial condition.
"Can you walk me through that slowly? I'm trying to wrap my brain around it and I can't figure out how it would affect things either way."
Maybe it doesn't. I was thinking that a two-income family, where one person earned (eg) $100K and the other $30K working part-time, would create a higher median household income, but not drive the media individual income up to the same extent.
Or I'm having a total brain freeze, also very likely.
I can't remember how to actually math it out, but just going by instinct it seems to me that if it were a case of income disparity within a couple, then the majority of the households with an income of over $75K would have to have one person with an income under $26K. Otherwise, the median would fall in a different place. So that would mean that 75K households with both people earning over 26K are in the minority. That seems unlikely to me.
I'm not certain about this. I don't know how to check.
Unless these include people who don't have income? They say "The median income of individuals", but they don't specify if it's individuals who earn income or all individuals (or all adults?)
I was thinking just in terms of employment income, but if the 26K average includes people on social assistance and people who don't work (either because they're unemployed or their household doesn't need both partners to work or something else) that would push it down.
But people who are on social assistance also have families.
I wonder if the student population is high enough to pull the average for individuals down some too?
"the majority of the households with an income of over $75K would have to have one person with an income under $26K."
Highly unlikely. You're right.
I think you're a lot closer than I was. But I still can't figure it out.
Not so much the student population, but more single and lower paid younger workers under 35 would skew the difference vs. mostly over 30 married workers. Family Income might also include adult children living at home.
Post a Comment