The one in which I get cross-eyed angry

OK -- so I'm minding my own business, and someone sends me a link to this video:

It's from the BBC so I am inclined to watch it because I love the BBC every time even when it is appalling. But as I watch this video, I get to this frame:

If you can't read the text and the graph lines, let me improve them for you:

Now: what gets me cross-eyed angry here is that he called this "per person income". What he most certainly means, if you listen to his talk here, is "per capita income" -- which is in no way the same thing. The per-capita income in the US, for example, $46,000 in 2007. (thx, What that DOES NOT MEAN is that every man-jack person in the country makes $46,000 a year: it means when you take the total personal income in the US and divide it by the total population, you get the average income per person. But he says, "per person income," doesn't he?

Now: why does he say it that way? Here's my theory: the crypto-socialist in the video wants to sneak in on you that $46,000 a year as a person's income is rich!

If the US really had an income "per person" of $46,000/year, my house would be making twice what I bring home today. But my house doesn't come up to that standard.

And let me say something clearly: I'm OK with that. I'm OK with not making $46,000 per person in my house. We make plenty of money and we live extremely well.

Bookmark this post, because the next time someone wants to complain to you about "the rich", you have to show them this and stop on that frame at about 53 seconds in and ask them: "who do you mean by 'the rich'?" Because this fellow with the edgy Euro-intellectual accent would tell you that anyone who makes more than $46,000 a year is rich.