Depression and Millionairs

[Zierro]

It makes no sense for the mind behind the operation to be paid similar wages compared to the manual labourer who only assembles parts and does what he's told. All the responsibility and expectations, even legal consequences of the operations, fall on the CEO, not the common factory worker working under orders.

 

 

 

The way I see it, it makes no sense for someone to need more money than someone else. :|

[Saru Inc]

 

I disagree, judging from what I've seen a factory work should be able to drive a company into the ground just as well as the man whose parents paid for his college. All kidding aside the only thing that seperates many CEOs from their employees is that the CEO's parents made enough money for them to go to college. Meanwhile, the employees parents couldn't have afforded a college tuition. True, the worker could have worked his behind off and gotten a scholarship, but if he had worked hard and not gotten the scholarship, he would have wasted all that hard work for nothing.

 

 

 

Becoming a CEO or becoming rich has absolutely nothing to do with not being able to afford college earlier; There are countless top executives in Fortune 500 companies who have barely any formal education beyond the required minimum or became drop-outs in their youth.

 

 

 

It takes a very specific person type to head a company from scratch to greatness, not even a small percentage of the average work force is up to the stress, dedication and non-book smart intelligence it demands of a person.

 

 

 

It makes no sense for the mind behind the operation to be paid similar wages compared to the manual labourer who only assembles parts and does what he's told. All the responsibility and expectations, even legal consequences of the operations, fall on the CEO, not the common factory worker working under orders.

 

 

 

He's the one having to explain problems to capital investors. He's the one going to jail if tax fraud or large scale embezzlement goes undetected for years. He is the one whose family will be in potential danger if the company goes unexpectedly under and unlawful elements of the financial society decide to extract revenge or extort returns. No serious skilled person is going to take the job without a proper financial encouragement significantly higher than that gained of physical, ordinary labour.

 

 

 

 

 

Amen.

 

 

 

He's exactly right, as my job, all the managers (baby managers, not the head honcho) get paid more, because they have to tell the owner why we're losing money; why we're not doing our work. The regular employees can say "I was just doing what I was told." But the managers have to actually take responsibility. (I'm not saying workers don't.)

 

 

 

And Zierrho, while it may not, it DOES make sense to get out what you're put in.

[Ginger_Warrior]

And for not working hard and getting a college education the factory worker is a factory worker. It's not a completely fair system. The rich do get richer, but the poor do not become poorer; they just remain stagnant. Also people are created equal. The cynics are right on that one and the only thing we as a society can influence is the equality of treatment among unequal individuals.

 

That is a very snobbish way of looking at things.

 

 

 

It has little to do with "working hard" and receiving "college education". Ever heard of Richard Branson or Duncan Bannatyne? Neither left school with any qualifications, yet both are hugely successful entrepreneurs. If everyone who received a high education, and worked hard got into a higher job, who'd work for them? Capitalism only exists because there is a large pool of people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder who do not become anything higher than a worker - the very people you seem to look down on for not working hard enough. Your perceived system is economically illiterate.

 

 

 

Also, your rose-tinted view is founded on the principle that all are equal. That's completely rubbish to anyone with sense. I was born into a poor family, received basic state primary education, went to a basic state-run comprehensive, went to a state-funded FE college. Thankfully, I had intelligent parents who went to university and bought books while they were there, so I left with decent grades. However, are you seriously suggesting I've received the same standard of education as someone who's had Mummy and Daddy spend thousands a year on private tuition in Kensington? The poor get poorer because as the rich get richer, more would-be opportunities are denied to them. And I've news for you. The gap between rich and poor, in the UK at least, is getting wider[1]. Do you blame this merely on people not working hard enough, or do you blame it on capitalism, or alternative, do you blame the rich not being taxed enough to prop up those at the wealthy bottom?

 

 

 

That is why capitalism is a system based on exploitation.

 

 

 

That's eerily similar to FDR's plan, which we all know DID NOT WORK.

 

How did they not? The New Deal got the economy into a state where it could actually fight a war in Asia and Europe.

[snowager286]

So, we shouldn't advance and discover new technologies? According to what you said, that would have made sure everyone had a fair and decent job.

 

 

 

I never said, however improvements in technology don't actually change much, they just increase the human population which increase the demand for food while at the same decreasing the amount of usable land, but if you manage to find a way to get more food out of that land you only increase the number of people that survive which increase the demand for food and decrease the amount of usable land. You see, it's a never ending cycle and eventually were going to stop finding ways to make more food.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't understand what I'm saying. What were the Chinese workers doing before the sweatshops? Think about it. Poor, starving, and jobless or have a home, some food, and crummy working conditions. Same applies to US industrilazation without as much foreign corporate intervention.

 

 

 

Oh I understand exactly what your saying. The chinese now get the privilege to have dangerous working conditions and live in tiny houses while almost starving and dying young. Factories may have slightly improved conditions in those nations, but they are only temporary, eventually the population will continue to increase but the number of jobs won't, then what? they will be right back to where they started. Except this time, they don't have industry to help them.

 

 

 

And for not working hard and getting a college education the factory worker is a factory worker. It's not a completely fair system. The rich do get richer, but the poor do not become poorer; they just remain stagnant. Also people are created equal. The cynics are right on that one and the only thing we as a society can influence is the equality of treatment among unequal individuals.

 

 

 

How is that possible? How can the rich get richer and the poor remain the same? Do the rich magically generate more money? You can't gain without first taking away, everything you get in your life you've in effect prevented somebody else from getting. To be honest I have no idea at all as to how we can fix the problem we've gotten ourselves into. We could wipe out half of the human population(or more) then we would have more then enough resources to go around. We could all live in the lapse of luxury, it would be like a utopia no more fighting because there is nothing to fight over(okay somethings). The only thing we have to do for that would be to become monsters, and kill off some 3 billion innocent people. But other then that i don't see a plausible way out of the hole we are in.

 

 

 

He's the one having to explain problems to capital investors. He's the one going to jail if tax fraud or large scale embezzlement goes undetected for years. He is the one whose family will be in potential danger if the company goes unexpectedly under and unlawful elements of the financial society decide to extract revenge or extort returns. No serious skilled person is going to take the job without a proper financial encouragement significantly higher than that gained of physical, ordinary labour.

 

 

 

Oh ya, the job of CEO is soooooo risky. Because if the company goes under the CEO will have to give up his plans to go to five star hotel that night. But the worker, he gets it easy, if the company goes under all he has to do is starve.

 

 

 

Snowager286, it doesn't make sense, to compare something so long ago, to nowadays, and say it's STILL wrong.

 

 

 

Dude I was arguing over whether it was industry that truly raised the standard of living. Which was something that happened a long time ago.

[Quoi_Tu]

And for not working hard and getting a college education the factory worker is a factory worker. It's not a completely fair system. The rich do get richer, but the poor do not become poorer; they just remain stagnant. Also people are created equal. The cynics are right on that one and the only thing we as a society can influence is the equality of treatment among unequal individuals.

 

That is a very snobbish way of looking at things.

 

 

 

It has little to do with "working hard" and receiving "college education". Ever heard of Richard Branson or Duncan Bannatyne? Neither left school with any qualifications, yet both are hugely successful entrepreneurs. If everyone who received a high education, and worked hard got into a higher job, who'd work for them? Capitalism only exists because there is a large pool of people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder who do not become anything higher than a worker - the very people you seem to look down on for not working hard enough. Your perceived system is economically illiterate.

 

 

 

Also, your rose-tinted view is founded on the principle that all are equal. That's completely rubbish to anyone with sense. I was born into a poor family, received basic state primary education, went to a basic state-run comprehensive, went to a state-funded FE college. Thankfully, I had intelligent parents who went to university and bought books while they were there, so I left with decent grades. However, are you seriously suggesting I've received the same standard of education as someone who's had Mummy and Daddy spend thousands a year on private tuition in Kensington? The poor get poorer because as the rich get richer, more would-be opportunities are denied to them. And I've news for you. The gap between rich and poor, in the UK at least, is getting wider[1]. Do you blame this merely on people not working hard enough, or do you blame it on capitalism, or alternative, do you blame the rich not being taxed enough to prop up those at the wealthy bottom?

 

 

 

That is why capitalism is a system based on exploitation.

 

 

 

That's eerily similar to FDR's plan, which we all know DID NOT WORK.

 

How did they not? The New Deal got the economy into a state where it could actually fight a war in Asia and Europe.

 

 

 

I was responding to snowager's opinion that factory workers are equal to CEOs.

 

 

 

That was typo on my part. If you look at my quote it makes sense(with edit): "Also people aren't created equal. The cynics are right on that one and the only thing we as a society can influence is the equality of treatment among unequal individuals." (bold is the edit) The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger, but is the standard of living for the poor declining? Because what I said earlier would agree with what you said. The rich get richer and have more opprotunities, but without the poor, they wouldn't be rich. I blame economic equality on inequality of people and oprotunities.

 

 

 

The new deal wasn't enough to pull the economy out of the recession, the war was. The new deal was the right idea, but the government didn't spend enough to truly get the economy rolling.

 

 

 

Oh I understand exactly what your saying. The chinese now get the privilege to have dangerous working conditions and live in tiny houses while almost starving and dying young. Factories may have slightly improved conditions in those nations, but they are only temporary, eventually the population will continue to increase but the number of jobs won't, then what? they will be right back to where they started. Except this time, they don't have industry to help them.

 

 

 

Yes, because China has no economic growth and development and will always be our factory workers. I mean, come on, seriously?

 

 

 

How is that possible? How can the rich get richer and the poor remain the same? Do the rich magically generate more money? You can't gain without first taking away, everything you get in your life you've in effect prevented somebody else from getting.

 

 

 

Money is created by magic by the Federal Reserve, but we'll ignore that bit. Example: Poor person makes min. wage that increases (ideally) with inflation. Rich person makes $500,000 a year, investing $250,000 of it 4% above inflation. The rich get richer, the poor stay the same.

[l0l0lpur32]

Oh ya, the job of CEO is soooooo risky. Because if the company goes under the CEO will have to give up his plans to go to five star hotel that night. But the worker, he gets it easy, if the company goes under all he has to do is starve.

 

Haha, log off runescape for a bit and you might learn something about the real world - if what you are trying to say was true (that CEOs do no work and just sit there gaining cash, and that anyone could do it) then it wouldn't be a highly paid job.

[Zierro]

Haha, log off runescape for a bit and you might learn something about the real world - if what you are trying to say was true (that CEOs do no work, sit there gaining money doing nothing and that anyone could do it), then it wouldn't be a highly paid job.

 

 

 

So you are saying Hannah Montana is more important than a paramedic or teacher?

[l0l0lpur32]

Haha, log off runescape for a bit and you might learn something about the real world - if what you are trying to say was true (that CEOs do no work, sit there gaining money doing nothing and that anyone could do it), then it wouldn't be a highly paid job.

 

 

 

So you are saying Hannah Montana is more important than a paramedic or teacher?

 

More important? No. My point is that highly paid jobs are highly paid for a reason (a low number of people can do them).

[Zierro]

But I thought we were talking about who is doing "far more" and who is doing "far less"?

[l0l0lpur32]

But I thought we were talking about who is doing "far more" and who is doing "far less"?

 

I meant "far more/less" in terms of how difficult the job is.

[snowager286]

Money is created by magic by the Federal Reserve, but we'll ignore that bit. Example: Poor person makes min. wage that increases (ideally) with inflation. Rich person makes $500,000 a year, investing $250,000 of it 4% above inflation. The rich get richer, the poor stay the same.

 

 

 

Your grasp of economics must be pretty weak to think thats possible. If the rich get more money that means that SOMEBODY has to have less money. Sure the federal reserve can print more money, but for every dollar you print the value decreases in proportion to the amount printed. But your not tottaly wrong, and that mainly due to how you worded your statement. If you define the poor as people who make a certain income or less, then no, they cannot get "poorer" but the number of poor people can decrease.

 

 

 

Haha, log off runescape for a bit and you might learn something about the real world - if what you are trying to say was true (that CEOs do no work and just sit there gaining cash, and that anyone could do it) then it wouldn't be a highly paid job.

 

 

 

 

Ok, then can you tell me exactly what insanely difficult thing a CEO does that one could not become at least profcient at given a few years of college training? or the slightest amount of skill. Your mistaken if you think that only a few people have talents it takes to become a CEO. But you would be right if you thought that only a few people have both the skills and the opportunities.

[Zierro]

I meant "far more/less" in terms of how difficult the job is.

 

 

 

Alright, Hannah Montana has a harder job than teachers do? I really don't see a direct correlation between difficulty and wage - like Snow said, a lot of it has to do with opportunity, not necessarily skill.

[Lenticular_J]

If I'm ever rich I'll donate every penny that I make more than I need (to live comfortably). I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I had money that I had no need for while people starve to death, die of malaria, aids, and are homeless.

 

Hah. If I became rich, I guarantee I'd be a greedy old scrooge who gave nothing to nobody.

 

 

 

But I'll never be rich by design. I don't have that far a life-grasp. Anyways.

 

 

 

This reminds me of a question I found really wierd when my teacher asked me.

 

 

 

Say there's a potato shortage. There's plenty of food left in the world, but some people don't have as many potatoes as they'd like. They could still eat them occasionally, but they want to eat them every day.

 

 

 

Should the potato farmers give everyone their potatoes?

 

 

 

This was from third grade. :

[Quoi_Tu]

Money is created by magic by the Federal Reserve, but we'll ignore that bit. Example: Poor person makes min. wage that increases (ideally) with inflation. Rich person makes $500,000 a year, investing $250,000 of it 4% above inflation. The rich get richer, the poor stay the same.

 

 

 

Your grasp of economics must be pretty weak to think thats possible. If the rich get more money that means that SOMEBODY has to have less money. Sure the federal reserve can print more money, but for every dollar you print the value decreases in proportion to the amount printed. But your not tottaly wrong, and that mainly due to how you worded your statement. If you define the poor as people who make a certain income or less, then no, they cannot get "poorer" but the number of poor people can decrease.

 

 

 

You're saying the example I used is impossible? What's impossible about it? Impress me with your superior economics knowledge.

 

 

 

The fed can increase the money supply without printing money; in fact, there is more money there than is printed money.

 

 

 

For those thinking opprotunity trumps skill, then shouldn't anyone be able to be the president? Shouldn't anyone by able to go to MIT economics graduate school? Shouldn't anyone be able to become head of a multibillion dollar company?

[Talset65]

You have no idea how hard it is to be Hannah Montana. She is manipulated by people every day, working hard, singing classes, acting classes, and has millions of fans whom she has to be sure to appeal to.

 

So, Miley Cyrus works as hard as more than 490 (average) teachers?

 

 

 

I think not. Next time you see someone rich and feel all gooey inside about them, I suggest that you stop for a minute and consider whether what they've actually done is worth your admiration. Money isn't the same as achievement.

 

 

 

 

I don't see you making millions. What has she done? Let's see...

 

 

 

-Started a TV show on Disney, currently watched by millions

 

-Kick started a singing career, making billions

 

 

 

Besides, being a teacher is the best job in the world. 8-9 hour days, weekends, holidays, and summers.

 

 

 

My mother is a teacher at high school, and she teaches English. She works at home in the evenings, she marks and such on the weekends, oh and of course she marks and gets lesson plans sorted in the holidays.

 

There is a widespread misconception that the benefits mentioned are so good.

 

 

 

Also, on the topic of those rich people... If you are so discontent with them being rich and you not being rich, then aim to be rich. That's the simplest way to look at it.

 

If an opportunity becomes available in which you can exploit then would you do it? Of course you would. That more than likely what 99.9% of the 'rich' have done.

[snowager286]

The arguement doesn't compare. First of all why would the farmer should not be making the same number of potatoes because the shortage happened for some reason (unless he was for some reason unaffected). Furthermore, a potato is a commodity money on the other hand is a currency.(they have very different functions.) Finally, I'd like to point out that unless the potato shortage was causing people to have a severely decreased standard of life, then no he should sell the potatoes. However, if their was a money shortage on the other hand, people would not just have to tighten their belts, they could starve and die while the rich man doesn't starve end die but instead buys himself a fancy new pool so he can swim in it while other people starve and die.

 

 

 

 

You're saying the example I used is impossible? What's impossible about it? Impress me with your superior economics knowledge.

 

 

 

The fed can increase the money supply without printing money; in fact, there is more money there than is printed money.

 

 

 

For those thinking opprotunity trumps skill, then shouldn't anyone be able to be the president? Shouldn't anyone by able to go to MIT economics graduate school? Shouldn't anyone be able to become head of a multibillion dollar company?

 

 

 

 

Oh and how can you increase the amount of capital in a market? the economy just doesn't work that way. Capital has to come from somewhere, if what you say is true then everybody could get rich, which doesn't even make any sense.

 

 

 

This is what I like about TIF, the people here are actually fairly well informed and at least have a decent grasp of these types of things.

[Quoi_Tu]

 

You're saying the example I used is impossible? What's impossible about it? Impress me with your superior economics knowledge.

 

 

 

The fed can increase the money supply without printing money; in fact, there is more money there than is printed money.

 

 

 

For those thinking opprotunity trumps skill, then shouldn't anyone be able to be the president? Shouldn't anyone by able to go to MIT economics graduate school? Shouldn't anyone be able to become head of a multibillion dollar company?

 

 

 

 

Oh and how can you increase the amount of capital in a market? the economy just doesn't work that way. Capital has to come from somewhere, if what you say is true then everybody could get rich, which doesn't even make any sense.

 

 

 

This is what I like about TIF, the people here are actually fairly well informed and at least have a decent grasp of these types of things.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? Capital is the value or wealth of something or someone (not to mention there are all sorts of types). If you're talking about money, the fed increases the money supply all the time. The fed can inject money straight into the market as well; basic macroeconomics. In fact, there is a small following of people called Monetarists who believe in a constant rate of growth of the money supply. If you're talking about my example, you should note who exactly I'm talking about. Rich and poor people. Who's missing? Hint: Middle class.

 

 

 

Please be more specific when you address issues because right now, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

 

 

Edit, didn't notice this statement, so I'll comment:

 

However, if their was a money shortage on the other hand, people would not just have to tighten their belts, they could starve and die while the rich man doesn't starve end die but instead buys himself a fancy new pool so he can swim in it while other people starve and die.

 

 

 

The only time money has run short was in the bank runs of the Great Depression. The result of that? Banks closed and people lost their money. What do we have to prevent that from happening again? FDIC

 

 

 

snow, I and any others who are just as or more informed than me will gladly explain basic economic concepts to you, but don't make stuff up or you will look foolish. Mindless hate of the rich goes nowhere; at least develop some intelligent points behind your hate.

[Lenticular_J]

The arguement doesn't compare.

 

Haha, I'd say "No [cabbage] Sherlock" because I love using that phrase, but I don't mean to be so serious. It was a story my teacher told me in third grade. And unless she could see the future, it had nothing to do with a depression or recession or whatever, that would be in 200...2.

 

 

 

First of all why would the farmer should not be making the same number of potatoes because the shortage happened for some reason (unless he was for some reason unaffected). Furthermore, a potato is a commodity money on the other hand is a currency.(they have very different functions.) Finally, I'd like to point out that unless the potato shortage was causing people to have a severely decreased standard of life, then no he should sell the potatoes.

 

YOU'RE DEBATING A RIDICULOUS STORY. STOP. Or I could bust out The Ugly Duckling.

 

 

 

However, if their was a money shortage on the other hand, people would not just have to tighten their belts, they could starve and die while the rich man doesn't starve end die but instead buys himself a fancy new pool so he can swim in it while other people starve and die.

 

Because that's what the rich do now. I'm moderately wealthy. I know I like to go beat the poor with wads of one-dollar bills. PS: At least one person likely starved to death while you and me have typed. Does that make us terrible people? Maybe we should convert our computers to food.

[angryjoe]

What a funny thread. :mrgreen:

[snowager286]

 

Haha, I'd say "No [cabbage] Sherlock" because I love using that phrase, but I don't mean to be so serious. It was a story my teacher told me in third grade. And unless she could see the future, it had nothing to do with a depression or recession or whatever, that would be in 200...2.

 

 

 

I did not know that, for all I knew you could have been an extremely witty 4th grader.

 

 

 

 

YOU'RE DEBATING A RIDICULOUS STORY. STOP. Or I could bust out The Ugly Duckling.

 

 

 

I disagree, I think your teacher was part of a vast right wing conspriacy to subvert the south of America to their evil agenda. :ohnoes:

 

 

 

 

Because that's what the rich do now. I'm moderately wealthy. I know I like to go beat the poor with wads of one-dollar bills. PS: At least one person likely starved to death while you and me have typed. Does that make us terrible people? Maybe we should convert our computers to food.

 

 

 

Thats fine, as long as they get to keep the one dollar bills. That only makes us terrible people if we haven't ever done anything. I have done something about it. Then again maybe we could convert our computers to food! I'm sure you would be happy about that, you wouldn't have to read my posts anymore.

 

 

 

 

snow, I and any others who are just as or more informed than me will gladly explain basic economic concepts to you, but don't make stuff up or you will look foolish. Mindless hate of the rich goes nowhere; at least develop some intelligent points behind your hate.

 

 

 

 

Cool down, I was just messing around with that one. I don't "hate" rich people. I hate rich people who don't share their wealth. I hate middle class people who don't share at least some of their money. And I hate lower class people who don't do anything about their situation, or at least try. If those part were gone we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

 

 

Oh and, I would like to point out that capital is like so many other things. You can't make more of it, and you can't decrease it. If you print more money then you decrease the value of it, if you destroy money you increase the value of it.(directly proportional to the percent of total amount of money there is.) So if the rich get richer somebody gets poorer.

[Quoi_Tu]

Oh and, I would like to point out that capital is like so many other things. You can't make more of it, and you can't decrease it. If you print more money then you decrease the value of it, if you destroy money you increase the value of it.(directly proportional to the percent of total amount of money there is.) So if the rich get richer somebody gets poorer.

 

 

 

You can make more capital and you can decrease it or, more specifically, the Fed can. They do this by increasing or decreasing the % of required reserves banks hold, which affects the amount banks can lend out or invest. When the Fed decreases the money supply ("destroys money"), they decrease the rate of inflation and in some cases can cause a recession (Fed chair, Volcker, in 1981 or 82). Note though, that inflation commonly exists at a greater rate than the rae of growth of the money supply (think 2.5% growth in money supply and 4% inflation). So, there are other factors that affect the value of money.

 

 

 

Hopefully, this explains some things.

[snowager286]

Oh and, I would like to point out that capital is like so many other things. You can't make more of it, and you can't decrease it. If you print more money then you decrease the value of it, if you destroy money you increase the value of it.(directly proportional to the percent of total amount of money there is.) So if the rich get richer somebody gets poorer.

 

 

 

You can make more capital and you can decrease it or, more specifically, the Fed can. They do this by increasing or decreasing the % of required reserves banks hold, which affects the amount banks can lend out or invest. When the Fed decreases the money supply ("destroys money"), they decrease the rate of inflation and in some cases can cause a recession (Fed chair, Volcker, in 1981 or 82). Note though, that inflation commonly exists at a greater rate than the rae of growth of the money supply (think 2.5% growth in money supply and 4% inflation). So, there are other factors that affect the value of money.

 

 

 

Hopefully, this explains some things.

 

 

 

 

 

Not really anything I didn't already understand. But money is still a finite definite number, it cannot be changed in any great amount. Their may appear to be more money at any given time or less, but in reality the number remains the same.

[Quoi_Tu]

Not really anything I didn't already understand. But money is still a finite definite number, it cannot be changed in any great amount. Their may appear to be more money at any given time or less, but in reality the number remains the same.

 

 

 

But what I'm saying is that the money supply can be changed in large amounts. It could be doubled in a day. I think you're saying something else, but money can be changed in a great amount. So, what do you mean?

 

 

 

Edit: I think I know what you're saying. Something involving the terms real and nominal, perhaps? ;)

[snowager286]

Not really anything I didn't already understand. But money is still a finite definite number, it cannot be changed in any great amount. Their may appear to be more money at any given time or less, but in reality the number remains the same.

 

 

 

But what I'm saying is that the money supply can be changed in large amounts. It could be doubled in a day. I think you're saying something else, but money can be changed in a great amount. So, what do you mean?

 

 

 

Edit: I think I know what you're saying. Something involving the terms real and nominal, perhaps? ;)

 

 

 

 

 

Yes! thats the point I've been trying to get at all this time. Just because the rich seem to be getting richer doesn't mean they actually are. They may have more money in terms of nominal value but not really have more money (assuming the poor and middle class stay the same) but not if it is accurately adjusted for inflation.

[dusqi]

Yes! thats the point I've been trying to get at all this time. Just because the rich seem to be getting richer doesn't mean they actually are. They may have more money in terms of nominal value but not really have more money (assuming the poor and middle class stay the same) but not if it is accurately adjusted for inflation.

 

 

 

No, gap between rich and poor is increasing. See: http://www.cori.ie/Justice/584-rich-poo ... -says-oecd

 

 

 

It just compares income of lowest 10% to highest 10%. Obviously both are affected by inflation to the same degree.