Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantI found a source that prices per capita income in both dollars and purchasing power (to try to account for the effect that PD points out).
In both cases the US per capita income is higher than the UK.
Per capita income (US$)
US: 43,560
UK: 37,740Adjusted for purchasing power
US: 42,000
UK: 33,960SOURCE:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdfSo, the first point is that incomes are actually nominally higher in the US (not lower) AND purchasing power extends that further.
A previous post showed UK median income as higher than the US. How is the median higher than the per capita income ? Please provide a source. If the median is indeed higher it means that there must be much fewer people in the workforce in the UK as a percentage of the population than in the US.
Fewer % of workers pulling the weight means more social programmes, and the associated higher tax burden.ParticipantI found a source that prices per capita income in both dollars and purchasing power (to try to account for the effect that PD points out).
In both cases the US per capita income is higher than the UK.
Per capita income (US$)
US: 43,560
UK: 37,740Adjusted for purchasing power
US: 42,000
UK: 33,960SOURCE:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdfSo, the first point is that incomes are actually nominally higher in the US (not lower) AND purchasing power extends that further.
A previous post showed UK median income as higher than the US. How is the median higher than the per capita income ? Please provide a source. If the median is indeed higher it means that there must be much fewer people in the workforce in the UK as a percentage of the population than in the US.
Fewer % of workers pulling the weight means more social programmes, and the associated higher tax burden.ParticipantHere is a link to the bloomberg article on the subject
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0LL0_ucig4Q&refer=home
ParticipantHere is a link to the bloomberg article on the subject
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0LL0_ucig4Q&refer=home
June 8, 2007 at 2:55 PM in reply to: So I’m curious. How do you usually vote? Financially or Socially? #58002ParticipantSD Transplant –
If your list was a political party platform, sign me up.
June 8, 2007 at 2:55 PM in reply to: So I’m curious. How do you usually vote? Financially or Socially? #58029ParticipantSD Transplant –
If your list was a political party platform, sign me up.
ParticipantBTW, a good friend of mine living in North NJ that’s a C level exec with a small public company ($150M market cap) came out to visit me last summer with his family. He thought it was cheap out here.
If you live on LA’s Westside, parts of the OC, and the Bay area it might seem relatively cheap in San Diego as well.
ParticipantBTW, a good friend of mine living in North NJ that’s a C level exec with a small public company ($150M market cap) came out to visit me last summer with his family. He thought it was cheap out here.
If you live on LA’s Westside, parts of the OC, and the Bay area it might seem relatively cheap in San Diego as well.
Participantjg – it looks like you put one of those pesky less-than signs in your post and the rest does not appear.
I’m guessing it says “… I say less than 1% …”
Note:
The less-than and greater-than signs are control characters for doing italics, bold, etc. Don;t use them in your text. This has been a public service announcement.Participantjg – it looks like you put one of those pesky less-than signs in your post and the rest does not appear.
I’m guessing it says “… I say less than 1% …”
Note:
The less-than and greater-than signs are control characters for doing italics, bold, etc. Don;t use them in your text. This has been a public service announcement.ParticipantFound the answer
Incomes are based on the population 16 years and older.
This was 2.147 million
Number of households was
1.04 millionMy guess was wrong and left out out all the kids under 16.
Total population
2.824
So, about 2.8 persons per householdBelow is the link to SD county breakdown
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US06073&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=onParticipantFound the answer
Incomes are based on the population 16 years and older.
This was 2.147 million
Number of households was
1.04 millionMy guess was wrong and left out out all the kids under 16.
Total population
2.824
So, about 2.8 persons per householdBelow is the link to SD county breakdown
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US06073&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=onParticipantwhich reminds me, how many homes are there per person?
Who knows …
If one assumes that the sum of all household incomes equals the sum of all per capita incomes, that would imply about 1.99 persons per household. So, I would guess that there were about 0.5 occupied housing units per person.Participantwhich reminds me, how many homes are there per person?
Who knows …
If one assumes that the sum of all household incomes equals the sum of all per capita incomes, that would imply about 1.99 persons per household. So, I would guess that there were about 0.5 occupied housing units per person. -
AuthorPosts
