Re: $96000
 

Don't think either currency figures are particularly "rich".

That said, I'd be hard pushed to complain if that was my personal income.

Re: $96000
 

Don't think either currency figures are particularly "rich".

That said, I'd be hard pushed to complain if that was my personal income.

Re: $96000
 

Fair enough, but you should be honest enough to admit that your original post was misleading.

But I'd still disagree that GBP 120K = (roughly) $190K is "true richness". The latter is better defined in terms of wealth, not income and I'd suggest a working definition of >$100million.

Re: $96000
 

I don't think that my original post was misleading, but would accept that it could be misinterpreted by the multi-millionaires of this world.

Re: $96000
 

It all looks a bit odd to me. 'Single' income about $29k but put 2 singles together, so that they marry and it's $76k.

Single male $33.5k, single female $32.9k but together = $76k.

Is there some kind of bonus for marrying?:lol:

From the same table you get married couple income (no kids) according to none working, one working or both working. Both working says $83.3k. The lower $76k is some sort of figure involving something other than both working.

So the 'average' income for a couple with no kids, both working is now $83.3k. While average for singles is $29k to $33k.

Perhaps one of the forum's stats experts can explain this in a way that my puny brain can handle. :o

Re: $96000
 

People who marry tend to be older, and older people tend to earn more.

Women tend to want to marry men who make a decent amount of money, rather than lazy bums.

Re: $96000
 

The StatsCan table is showing averages for individuals, couples and families at different age and family scenarios.

$33.5K is an unattached male (including non-earners)
$32.9K is an unattached female (earners only)

These are different categories, and they can't be added to represent a couple because by definition, the individuals are "unattached".

$76.1K is for all married couples (no kids, irrespective of earning or not); $83.3K is the DINKS figure.

Re: $96000
 

So love doesn't conquer all? You've certainly shattered that illusion for me

Re: $96000
 

I believe all the girls I've known who married lazy bums or heroin addicts because 'but I love him!' are now divorced. The one who married the addict didn't even last two years.

Re: $96000
 

But does the guy want to marry someone like that?
And then if that puts his money up, hers might be lower or nothing - especially if she's one of those TV housewives. :rofl:


I was selecting the figures where there were no kids.

We still have average male/average female earnings being less than average male and female incomes when married.

Age could be a factor if people did marry at an older age and stay married.

I'm not convinced.:unsure:

Re: $96000
 

They generally don't want to marry a woman who'd marry a lazy bum for love, because they're likely to divorce their husband, take his money, and run off with the pool cleaner.

Re: $96000
 

Yes, I noticed that belatedly, and completely re-edited my post (22) for you. :)

Re: $96000
 

Still looks odd to me compared to previous reports of similar stuff though. :unsure:

It wasn't so long ago there was something about average household income being around $56k

Re: $96000
 

Make that a double red letter day! When you have enough money so that a flight on Concord is the equivalent financial hit as buying a pair of shoes to most people then that's certainly someone who is rich.

Re: $96000
 

Especially considering the re-commissioning costs ! ;)