Nibiru12

GDP = private consumption + gross private investment + government investment + government spending + (exports – imports)

1. private consumption + gross private investment => income after tax

2. government investment + government spending => tax + government debt

3. (exports – imports) => always negative for US, related to income of US resident or our trading partners.

Thus, 1 + 2 should be the income of all the people in the US.

So, ( GDP/capita ) x ( # of persons in an average HH ) should be pretty close to HH income.

Since # 3 is always negative for the US, GDP x (# ppl in HH) should be less than the surveyed HH income.


But, but, but... now GDP is not even a meaningful number at all, not comparable to any income data, because cheating went on for too long.

In the 1970s, GDP/capita was about 60% of surveyed HH income, now the two are about the same.

But why am I lecturing about GDP here?

Oh, HH income...

zachr

Again: your logic may or may not be sound (i'm not familiar enough with GDP calculations to know), but the difference between average and median when it comes to income is significant enough that these numbers are irrelevant. Let's say out of 10 people, the total income is $2,000,000. So the average income is $200,000. But that's not a meaningful number at all. One of those 10 people might make $1,550,000, and the other 9 all make $50,000. That adds up to $2,000,000, but that $200,000 number bears no significance in any of these 10 people's lives, whereas income of $50,000 (the median of my example data set) is a more realistic estimate for the "average experience" of these 10 people.