/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>49855733
If anything it's the opposite. OP's original image is that "more households are in the 150K bracket". I responded by saying women entering the workforce explains why more households are in that higher bracket yet standard of living is lower. A guy responded to me saying that houses have less people in them which means that per capita is higher.

Firstly, per capita income as a measure of real wages/standard of living is flawed because it is a mean value and does not reflect income distribution. See the graph. Secondly, the fact that only 57% of women are in the workforce is irrelevant, what matters is the ratio between the number in 1967, and the number today, and that number is far higher today.

Finally, I would argue there are actually *more* children living in houses today with their parents who are working in employment, than in 1967 when it was far more common for young men to move out early. So if anything, that is a THIRD potential income that pushes households today into the 150K bracket pool that didn't exist to anywhere near the same extent as in 1967 (similar to women in the work force).

I'm 20 years old and own pretty much nothing, I feel like my future will be grim if I don't find a way to escape the collapse of global economy.
Is cryptocurrency the solution for me? I can only afford to invest $500 for now, but would it be a good idea to buy into bitcoin at these prices if I'm willing to wait years?

Are there other cryptocurrency projects with decent potential and risk? I looked at the top in coinmarketcap but both ethereum and ripple seemed like too much of a wild ride for me, and haven't broken their all time high unlike bitcoin.

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/