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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.


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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Especially considering the re-commissioning costs !