I have the opposite assumption: the raw data is usually more reliable than an editorial. And I confirmed it: the raw table is more reliable since it is the same survey across different years. The article is inconsistently comparing numbers from 2 different surveys. The 2018 figure (2.63) is from the "American Community Survey" and the 2010 figure (2.58) is from "Census SF1 data".
from which they mention "By 2016, 20% of Americans lived in a multigenerational household, up from 12% in 1980"
One survey is one survey, multiple data points from a set of different perspectives is more comprehensive an analysis and less susceptible to single measurement methodology errors.
The main thing I take from this is that movement of a household income number is fairy meaningless unless you also know what household size number is measured or calculated with the income number.
Your example is hogswash. Absolutely, the perceived long term value dropped 30% as people feared a million deaths (with lockdown) and dead bodies piling up outside hospitals across the country (with lockdown, and not just New York City). The stock market is rising now that people realize the pandemic, while still bad, isn't going to be as bad as those predictions. Our perception/understanding of the pandemic has rapidly changed.
The explanation is very simple. The pandemic is not nearly as bad as people thought it would be in March.
Models were predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths in the USA over the next few months, with lockdown. Many people were predicting hospitals would be widely overrun in New York City, parts of California, etc (again, with lockdown). These models and predictions, of course, were wrong.
Printing money and stimulus should have been expected (given the government's response in 2008) and therefore priced in, at least in theory. If we actually had massive numbers of bodies piling up outside hospitals in all major US cities, no amount of money printing would have propped up the markets.
We are going to cross that 100k death toll by June, and there will be an acceleration in 2-4 weeks as we see the effects of reopening efforts on transmission rates. [1]
Brooklyn funeral homes have trailers full of bodies waiting for burial. Just because it’s not happening where you can see it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. [2]
Some models were predicting multiple hundreds of thousands of deaths, with lockdown. The Imperial College model was predicting 1 million deaths, with lockdown. I completely agree cases will rise as places begin reopening. But whatever the outcome it will be with reopening - still better than what the market expected in March.
Yes, NYC was the only place in America where the system was close to overrun and some hospitals actually were overrun, I'm not disputing that.
The WHO is no longer a trustworthy source. But this is still (mostly) correct, and it's not that hard to dive into the studies directly instead of appealing to authorities. All indications are that it is possible for SARS-Cov-2 to be airborne but it is rare.
You do have to keep in mind that hospitals in Stockholm - which is currently the epicentre of infections in Sweden - have adopted a policy to not admit people with a 'biological age' of 80 or over to intensive care, nor will they admit people with a 'biological age' of 70 with at least three serious conditions or 60 or over with at least two serious condition [1, 2, 3, 4]. These guidelines have been in use for a few weeks now even though there still is enough capacity to admit at least some of these people. The guidelines also state that intensive care treatment of patients who fall into one of the two categories should be discontinued. According to these guidelines people who will be denied intensive care will be offered palliative care instead. The concept of 'biological age' is not well-defined here which makes it hard to actually apply these guidelines. It is used because it is not allowed by Swedish law to deny care based on physical age whereas the law does not say anything about triage based on 'biological age'.
That policy is precautionary to give doctors guidance on how to prioritize patients if/when the hospitals run out of space/resources.
To my knowledge, these decisions have not had to be made yet. As mentioned in [3] Stockholm has space over and is accepting patients from the Sörmland region.
> To my knowledge, these decisions have not had to be made yet.
According to people working in health care in Stockholm they have used these policies for a few weeks now [1], the article (from the 2nd of April, 2½ weeks ago) contains two references to cases where patients were denied intensive care (and, as a consequence, died) who would have received care before these policies were enacted. The (anonymous) nurse states that Sjukvården är inte öppet ärlig med att vi redan har en katastrofsjukvård där man inte prioriterar de som man bedömer är sjukast, utan de som man bedömer har störst chans att rädda which (loosely) translates to care givers are not open about the fact that we already optimise for throughput instead of prioritising those who need the most care
The article is almost three weeks old. The anonymous nurse predicts the imminent total collapse of the health care system where even the field hospitals will overflow and it's too late to do anything about it. This has clearly not happened.
The nurse goes on to blame deregulations and financial aid to banks and corporations. This seems more like the personal feeling of a rather leftist nurse published by a left of center tabloid.
I am sure there have been misinterpretations of the directives and there have probably been times where prioritizations have been done based on local and short term conditions. But it is not an active and commonly used policy.
With the disclaimer that I'm only using Google Translate, it appears this document is from one hospital and is not a requirement, merely a guideline / informational document.
Yep. Obviously this is anecdotal and limited to my own social circles, but I live in the Bay Area, and almost everyone (90%+) I know in San Francisco does not own a car. The ones that do own cars only use them if they need to get out of the city (within the city they bike/scooter/walk/Uber/Lyft/transit).
When I did the math, if I lived in the city it would be cheaper to use rideshare everywhere and rent cars when needed, than to own a car.
It's absolutely a basic feature. It's the opposite of buying a share, and your profit/loss is easy to calculate. With options, you need to worry about premium, time decay, spreads and lower liquidity, etc.
Fair points but at least you don’t have to worry about changes in implied volatility (Vega) when shorting. You can buy a put option right before an earnings report and watch it’s implied volatility drop like a rock after the earnings report is released. This can remove any profit you would’ve made pretty straightforwardly with a short. Not to mention you also have to pay Theta (time-decay value) all while holding the put option.
An interesting study, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Who's to say that paper towels don't collect and deposit just as much bacteria onto your hands?
I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low.
All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole.
We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.
Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.
> Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor.
How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor?
> well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone.
I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additional costs to the employers would somehow just generate wealth and tax revenue from nowhere. The money would come from somewhere (consumers and gig workers), and would result in less business as an artificially higher price would scale back quantity demanded.
> The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.
Most of these businesses are losing a lot of money. They're not fleecing anyone. It might not be viable by any means but increasing the costs arbitrarily would decrease their chances. It's important to remember that most of these gig workers work these jobs because they prefer them over any other job available to them. So removing options for them is unlikely to benefit them.
OC wasn't comparing voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor, they were giving an example of something good for the consumer that we don't want as a business model.
My personal opinion on your last statement about removing options being unlikely to benefit, the other way of looking at it is a race to the bottom. If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it because there aren't better options for them, the overall job market can suffer. Hypothetically, some place like Walmart could see a chance to pay less for their workers, and if they actually went through with it then one of the largest employers would be taking a massive chunk of money out of the working class. They're a good example because they're already a burden on tax payers (about 6.2 billion depending on your source) since so many of their workers are on welfare. The reality is, if you let companies exploit workers, they will, and the workers will be happy to be exploited until it's too late. See: Working conditions in China over the past few decades
I'm not an economist, so maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can hopefully put it more eloquently, or maybe even give an explanation as to why I might be wrong
> If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it because there aren't better options for them, the overall job market can suffer.
I think this statement is trivially true. The question becomes:
1) Are these people being underpaid, and would making them employees increase their pay?
2) Are there no better options available?
I am not convinced of either of these points. Uber's pay seems to be competitive [1]. We also have historically low unemployment. It is easier to get a job now than anytime in the past ten years[2], and much easier than the historical average. The fact that this is the case and people are still flocking to be gig workers should tell you that people want to be Uber drivers, they are not forced into it.
> Are these people being underpaid, and would making them employees increase their pay?
Maybe, maybe not. It would give them access to healthcare and other things a lot of people take for granted.
> The fact that this is the case and people are still flocking to be gig workers should tell you that people want to be Uber drivers, they are not forced into it.
Or, maybe it's an indication that there aren't other jobs available for the people flocking. The want is to make money, not to drive for Uber.
> It would give them access to healthcare and other things a lot of people take for granted.
This is something I'm not clear on. Couldn't Uber still hire the drivers and limit them to 39 hours a week? Wage workers don't get benefits like health insurance. Even being a salaried worker does not guarantee health insurance, etc.
Am I missing something? Maybe California's labor laws are different than my states.
The whole point of a voluntary exchange of labor or goods is that it has to benefit both parties for it to take place.
Companies, including Walmart, don't set wages arbitrarily. Despite their size, they can't control the market for labor. They don't pay what they do because they are generous. There are frictions with hiring and onboarding people. They want their employees to be happy. And even if they were a significantly large employer, the market is not a closed system and things change
Regarding your welfare claim, it depends how you look at it. Walmart is offering these people the best employment opportunity they can get, otherwise they would work elsewhere. If they lost that opportunity which certainly some would with increased costs, they would likely be moved to more generous government benefits.
There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery. Just because there is consent involved doesn’t mean it should be legal; there are many types of desperate / coercive situations under which people will make choices that compromise their own bodily autonomy or sacrifice their values.
> [Walmart] wants their employees to be happy
There is little evidence for this that I have seen. Rather, they want to provide as little support for employees possible consistent with maintaining their profits. But there are many, many horrific stories of Walmart abusing and taking unethical (often illegal) advantage of employees.
In addition Walmart spends considerable effort and money lobbying governments to undermine basic worker rights and protections.
> There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery.
"Selling yourself into slavery" is a contradiction in terms. Willingly exchanging labor for compensation is not slavery. It's just an attempt to frame things in an inflammatory way.
Suppose that someone kidnaps you and forces you to work without compensation for the rest of your life. Suppose that you willingly agree to sign onto $250K in student loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy and which you will never in your whole life be able to pay all back. Is agreeing to work for someone your whole life if they put you through college more like the first one or more like the second one? Clearly the second, I think, but then we see people calling it "selling yourself into slavery" on one hand and the government explicitly subsidizing it on the other.
Agreeing to either of those sets of terms is, of course, problematic. But the problem isn't caused by someone being willing to offer those terms, it's caused by people being desperate enough to accept them. And you can't solve that by limiting their alternatives to whatever even worse option that caused them to choose the objectionable one to begin with. You have to add better alternatives, not remove existing ones.
> In addition Walmart spends considerable effort and money lobbying governments to undermine basic worker rights and protections.
You say "undermine basic worker rights and protections" while they say creating jobs for unskilled workers who would otherwise have to rely fully on government assistance.
In practice what happens is the availability of exploitable labor creates incentive for abusive employers (and others in power in the society) to maintain poor conditions among their potential labor pool.
In many (both historical and ongoing) cases the societal abuses this goes with are quite horrific, and the large-scale power imbalances are extreme.
Removing abusive employment relations at a society-wide scale is a strong first step towards helping people out of the kind of desperate situations where such arrangements would seem better than alternatives.
The abstract libertarian fantasy-land where every “consensual” “contract” is mutually beneficial sounds nice if you don’t bother learning the details of specific past and present legal and social systems. In reality these abusive social relations are a nightmare, doing irreparable damage to countless people’s lives.
> There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery.
Then think about how bad their alternatives must be
I will say this about Walmart, despite what you say about conditions and low pay, they are still above the board compared to smaller employers. They follow all the labor laws, pay taxes and afford their employees all the rights required by law. The alternatives such as small employers often don't pay taxes and pay their employees under the table, stripping them of legitimacy and rights. So again it depends on what you're comparing them to
If you think about the labor market as a market, individual employers/employees are willing to pay a variety of prices. Some people will be willing to work for $10, 12, or 14/hr, etc and some business can afford to pay $20/hr and some only $10 without going under. So if the labor price goes up from $10 to $12 there will be more workers (since the people willing to work for $12 are now in the pool), and if the labor price goes down from $20/hr to $10/hr there will be more jobs (since business that are only viable at $10/hr will exist now).
Normally the going rate for a given job would be around where supply=demand. If there are too few potential employees, the jobs that can pay $20/hr will get the workers and the jobs that can only pay $10/hr will go under. If there too few jobs, the going rate will go down, and now jobs that can only afford to pay less will be viable.
The danger I see with trying to achieve social progress by mandating every job be a "good job" is that it is very easy this way to create a situation where supply != demand. If you simply mandate no jobs pay less than $20/hr, the businesses that are only viable at $10/hr will go under. But if supply=demand before, and a bunch of jobs disappear, now you have people that can't get a job at all. So you've created some winners, but only at the expense of the people who are least competitive in the job market. And to use Uber as a specific example, sure they can raise their prices, but fewer people will take Uber and the demand for drivers will still be reduced.
This is a simplification of course. Maybe even if the overall market can't afford to pay more, particular companies can, and unions could achieve better price discrimination for labor. Or raising the minimum wage a moderate amount may only have a minimal effect on demand. But I think the overall model of individual employees and employers with individual prices is pretty solid.
If you follow this model, the best way to achieve progress is probably not to ban low-paying jobs from existing. It would be to create a greater number of jobs (some of which are higher paying) and then the low-paying jobs will be forced to either raise their wages or cease to exist naturally. By doing it that way there won't be a job shortage. I think the government still has a major role to play in this, but it's a more complicated one than just mandating what the market price should be for a transaction to be allowed.
China is probably an example of this sort of development. Before the trade war, factories were already moving out of China (to Vietnam, etc) because the wages there have gone up so much. There are certainly many problems and it is certainly not a developed country yet. But the wage (and overall economic) growth over the past few decades has been almost unimaginable [1].
Voluntarily doesn't disqualify something from being slavery. Historically, if you look at indentured servitude you'll see this very trend and indentured servitude is classified as a form of slavery (albeit, arguably, not as bad).
Interestingly, if you want to look at a modern parallel, it's not too far off from how H1Bs are used. There are of course more modern rights that allow individuals to quickly terminate these responsibilities but essentially contracts hold needs (income, assets) and desires (citizenship) hostage as the bargaining mechanisms, not too far from what many indentured servants entered into. To be fair, working conditions and treatment have also of course increased drastically.
There are some people who are not well educated and they can't get other jobs. So yes, that might be the only job where they can work around limitations on child care or whatever.
Yes wage slavery is a key features of capitalism, and a key incentive for capitalists (the economic class) to oppose reforms to increase the economic security of the working class, as mitigating wage slavery frees employees to demand a greater share of the value produced.
Just because something is voluntary doesn’t make it fair. There are many things, for many reasons, that are voluntary but unfair. Most of it is due to information asymmetry.
I would hypothesize that the gig economy gradually grows into a large economic underclass. And the larger it grows, the worse it is for each individual member. Maybe we should avoid that
The vast majority of people in the world work in order to feed themselves and their families. This does not make the work “involuntary”.
Choice is obviously not an absolute, because we don’t live in magical fairy land. Choice is the ability to decide how you will go about feeding yourself and your family.
Gig economy simply increases the available choices, and provides quite a few fairly pleasant options, judging by how many people choose to do Gig work versus any other possible minimum wage (or below) job.
There is real slavery in the world. To equate Gig jobs with slavery is pretty terribly insulting both to Gig workers and the people actually suffering true slavery or slave-like conditions.
> The vast majority of people in the world work in order to feed themselves and their families.
Yes, and this is an inane state-of-affairs given 2019 technology. We could keep the entire world population fed with minimal effort, if we stopped acting in insane ways.
I agree. As someone who likes the idea of being able to drive for Uber for spare cash, I'm not very happy with the heavy-handed way California likes to regulate its economy. Many of these gig economy workers will end up simply relying on the government or foregoing the cash altogether if gigs are taken away.
Parent is suggesting a new regulatory category. Even if we accept that the gig economy is detrimental overall today, in theory this new regulation would bring it up to a different point. I'm not sure how you can conclude that it's "detrimental overall" without better defining the regulation. That is, I'm not sure your comment really addresses parent's comment.
You are correct that some business models are inherently bad. Ones that require violence like slavery or fraud like Ponzi schemes especially.
But I don't care for California to make sure privately hired cars are theoretically X% cheaper. If there are protections that are needed for drivers so their net income is more obvious or something, let's do that.
> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.
I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going.
Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there were more employees in her neighbourhood and providing a ride for them for a price (some times just sharing gas expenses).
That is a really good approach. Uber/Lyft and others hide their business model calling themselves ridesharing when they are not, calling their employees contractors, when they are not, etc.
Except we never called that "ridesharing". It was just "carpooling".
As much as I hate the term ridesharing, since it doesn't actually describe what these companies and drivers do, it's not like it was a widely-used term that's been redefined over the past decade.
I believe it was called carpooling and ride sharing both, depending partly on where in the world you were. That’s a pedantic point anyhows; clearly ridesharing does not describe a taxi service like UberX.
If the rest of us continue to incorrectly call Uber etc. "ridesharing" then that definition will soon become set in stone. Can we not just call them exactly what they are? Which is taxis. By every definition, they are taxis.
To me, the distinction comes down to: carpooling implies some kind of repeated/scheduled vehicle sharing (like coworkers coordinating a route to get to work at 9a every weekday, while ridesharing is much more ad-hoc/on-demand (like craigslist rideshares between Seattle and Portland to split the gas bill).
Definitely agree that Lyft/Uber aren’t really ride sharing in that sense though — the driver’s goal is to earn a fare on a trip he wasn’t going to take otherwise, while the original ride shares were a cost-reduction on a trip the driver was going to make anyway.
> carpooling implies some kind of repeated/scheduled vehicle sharing
In the Bay Area there's something called Casual Carpool; essentially it's just a series of locations you can go to around work-travel hours, and people who have cars and are willing to pick up people going to the same area will randomly show up and pick people up. No scheduling or prior arrangements aside from the locations. (And it's been around way longer than Uber/Lyft/etc.)
Ridesharing is when a group of people rent a van through a ridesharing program and one of those people drives it. The driver is kind of like a school bus driver.
Carpooling is when 2+ drivers ride together in a car one of them owns instead of everyone driving separately.
In many cities of Europe (like Prague, where I live) we call Uber "savior". Using taxis used to be flat out dangerous (crazy drivers with no regards for anything, often drunk or on cocaine or meth) and it was guaranteed you're going to pay at least 3 but usually 5 times more than you should - Uber fixed that and is cheaper than the "correct" (by law) price, it solves safety, I don't have to wait 30+ minutes, ...
And the drivers are satisfied. I made a point to ask each one and they really like it, much more than any traditional work and MUCH more than being an "official" taxi.
It is also very nice when you are visiting a country with unreliable taxi services for work. Just skipping the hassle of learning to avoiding the scams, getting the correct price, getting a receipt is annoying and all that is removed with uber.
In many cities of Europe, and Greece, where I live we have apps like Beat that are basically Uber for actual taxis. That way you get good drivers, ratings, they have an incentive to be good or get booted off the platform and lose customers, etc, without the indentured servitude of Uber.
The problem in Prague is that the taxi lobby tries everything it can (including making hard to obey laws and stopping the whole city traffic as a protest) to stop new players from entering the official market. They (the official taxi drivers) have allies on the government side since the late 90's - the market actually used to be way more liberal (and it was better back then).
It's the same here, they just haven't managed to outlaw Beat yet (and it's hard because there's not much basis for that). Hopefully that strategy will work for you as well.
It feels like this says more about the status of the law and behaviour in Prague than it does about the apparent merits of Uber style services.
In London we used to have a good taxi system that was well run with trustworthy drivers in "Black cabs", but with the undercutting of Uber they are more likely to try underhand tactics.
>In London we used to have a good taxi system that was well run with trustworthy drivers in "Black cabs"
It is hard to deduce from your comment, which period of time you are describing ─ as black cabbies haven't been very popular or trustworthy for a very long time[1]. Also, there was a very similar campaign of resistance to 'mini-cabs' decades ago, as the one conducted against Uber et al. at present, by the 'Black cab' community.[2]
I am glad that these dinosaurs are slowly diminishing in their market share, who have been exploiting 'The Knowledge'[3] for far too long by regurgitating morally repugnant views/opinions, formed from a diet of gutter press/red-tops and forcing them upon unsuspecting passengers and blind siding visitors into thinking that it is the traditional experience!
It's not a precise timeframe nor a perfect correlation, but since Uber has been undercutting them there's been a trend to worse behaviour by cabs, with poor navigation and dishonesty around payments (keeping the meter running, disabling the regulation card payment devices etc).
I take your general point, although I'm not convinced the Warboys case is a reason to dislike Black cabs anymore than Harold Shipman is reason to dislike doctors!
I cited the case as an illustration, albeit an extreme one, that black cabbies operate under a code of silence and not explicitly as a reason to dislike them. They have always ran a similar campaign of black cabs are safe thus trustworthy, in order to justify the skewed figures reported to TfL[1].
The reasons to dislike them would be the 3x charges compared to their counterparts, knuckle-dragging attitude towards implementing technology and under-handed tactics e.g. insisting on only accepting cash, then never having change from high-denomination notes at the end of your journey, so you are forced to leave it as a hefty tip, ignoring disabled riders, surge pricing after late night public transport has stopped; only accepting rides if they end up in the general direction of their residence at the end of the shift - despite this practice being against their rules, always taking a longer route to rinse the rider and many more..
Yes I can see that in London it could make problems. It is not a silver bullet, I'd say. Some cities benefit from this Uber-like form, and other cities benefit from the former London form.
While it is not a silver bullet, it is also not an universally wrong/bad way - that's my point.
I don't know who called that guy savior but certainly not the Czechs that live in Prague. We value improvement, which Uber clearly is for all sides involved. I'm not sure about other cities, but definitely in Prague.
And why exactly should anybody care what you like and don’t like? If you don’t like Uber/Lyft, be my guest and call a taxi.
Nobody is using these services under the impression that the drivers just happen to be going to the same destination. So your semantic quibble is just that.
Uber offers ride-sharing services (Uber Pool) and Taxi services. As a frequent Pool rider, I'm not sure what else you would call it besides ride-sharing - the three of us taking the Pool don't own cars and wouldn't have otherwise gotten in touch with each other. Uber provides a car, a driver, and route coordination for a price and the three of us share the ride.
> Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours
Doesn’t it depends on the contract ? Nothing stops a company from letting their employee set their own hours.
That’s actually close to how door to door sales contracts work in some fields, where the company doesn’t care about how long or where the salesman works, and mostly pays by the sales number.
> We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.
How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter (paid for with a pay cut from the gigs) until the employee/contractor can get his own food and roof ? That would offer some protections to people while keeping the economy going on ? It would also allow really poor people to get on the job wagon with some kind of peace of mind regarding the end of the month.
The companies could make a year-contract euro style so they would be certain the original investment isn't wasted and the employee/contractor has a job for a year until he becomes a regular contractor.
I have never understood the impulse of supposedly pro-labor people to expand the responsibility of employers towards their workers. Government is intended as the expression of our collective will, and as such is the conduit of our collective responsibility, including providing people with a resource floor to live with dignity.
Most people figure out as children that responsibility and power are intimately tied together, but apparently that concept escapes some people even into adulthood...
Do you want employers to provide housing because you think employers can spend money on housing and food better than employees? Believable.
But I am wary of the efficiency of company towns. In my perspective, things like housing, food, and medicine are "power vacuum" issues, where not taking up these issues is the same as leaving power (and responsibility) on the table for someone else to grab. I also think once power is taken away it's hard to get back.
I view the issues you're talking about as social and government issues, and I'm wary about ceding more and more responsibility to businesses simply because we think government sucks.
But the 2010 "American Community Survey" says the average houshold size is 2.63 (https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=b25010&tid=ACSDT1Y201...), so for this survey the trend is flat.