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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (5952)	11/15/2011 1:01:19 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Its not just over the last 60 years but also over 50 or 40 or 30 or 20. "Non-rich" isn't those at the very bottom. More like the bottom 80%. Also household wages (usually trotted out to show stagnation) don't include all forms of income, and are not adjusted for the fact that the average household have shrunk. Also even if the non-rich had been getting poorer (and that is not the case), "the rich getting richer while the poor "or 'non-rich'") are getting poorer (which again isn't what the record shows), doesn't imply or suggest the rich getting richer "at the expense of the poor (or non-rich)". There is no fixed pie, the rich typically get rich by creating wealth, often far more wealth for others than they wind up keeping themselves.