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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (49936)	8/10/2006 2:46:39 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Smart***! :-) And I'm working on a spreadsheet that requires adjustmetn of GDP and income growth by population and you point this out! Go stand in the corner!

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (49936)	8/12/2006 2:35:10 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Having trouble following the facts presented here, rejek, or just trouble coming to grips with them? As Laz (almost) showed you in this post - Message 22668960 - the real incomes of the bottom quintile actually grew substantially over that period. His only mistake was not adjusting for population growth, which was around 36% over the period. Correcting for that, a 3.5% share for the bottom quintile in 2002 compared to 4.2% in 1973 represents around 42% growth in real per capita incomes for the group. If having 42% more money in real terms constitutes becoming poorer in your mind, then clearly your mind is poor. You all can change the subject all you want but my original contention was that the rich are growing richer at the expense of the poor. That's does not mean the income of the poor did not grow........if it hadn't, we might be faced with a revolution [see Marie Antoinette]. However, their income growth was less then the upper classes so their share of the pie had grown smaller from 4.2% to 3.5%. In other words, the upper classes are growing richer at the expense of the lower classes........which was my original contention. This is not rocket science.......why are you having such difficulty understanding it?