"Ron Bean" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" writes:

"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
.. .

Once the two wage earner household became the norm, and prices settled
to what two wage earners could afford (remember that prices reflect
what
the market will bear, not necessarily what the product cost to
produce), the
single wage earner household was screwed. Unless the single wage earner
was far above average, his household would be relatively poor compared
to the two wage earner household.

You're doing back-porch economics here, but it's easy to test. If what
you're saying was true, it would show up as a decline in GDP per capita.
But
there was no such decline.

When economists say "per capita", do they mean per citizen or per
employee? If its per employee, then you're right. But GDP per
citizen wouldn't decline under his scenario (in fact it should
rise, for other reasons), and that may be a better measure of
general affluence.

Thanks for catching that. Per capita means per person. I meant per worker.

Ed Huntress