Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (240395)	7/7/2005 1:20:20 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571806

I'm probably 5x richer than my father was at my age. That seems reasonable mobility to me.

To: TimF who wrote (240395)	7/7/2005 2:16:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571806

As we discussed previously, Americans are not nearly as upwardly mobile as legend would have it. As we discussed earlier there is an extraordinary degree of social mobility in the US, even if some arguments have been made that it has declined a bit. Social mobility does not guarantee economic mobility. I, for one, will not cheerlead for the rich and defend their right to get richer at my expense. I would cheerlead for "their right to get richer at <your> expense" either. I specifically said "We simply disagree on this. I would only agree if wealth was a static, zero sum game where people only got richer at the expense of others, but that isn't the case." Message 21479558; But that's exactly what's happening.....they are getting richer at the middle class's expense. So why are you the resident cheerleader for the rich? "The rich getting richer is only a problem if the process of them getting richer causes the poor or middle class to become poorer. Other than that it is a good thing." Message 21420280; See above. ted