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.

Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.hinton who wrote (2539)	11/7/2008 11:10:11 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3816

"Relatively less rich", doesn't mean "absolutely less rich". I've already said, multiple times to you, recently, on this thread, that they where likely not as relatively rich, that isn't the point where discussing. Going by income (you could also go by wealth if you prefer) If the poor in the 30s made $20/week, and the rich made $10000, while (adjusted for inflation), the poor in the 50s made $100/week and the rich made $20000. (figures to demonstrate a point, I'm not trying to claim that they are the average amounts or a typical amount of income) Then in terms of income the rich would be relatively less rich in the 50s, but they would have twice as high of income so I would be correct. Relatively less rich? Sure, but that's not the issue being discussed.