First, in order for Billionaires to have any influence on the median income in the US, more than 50% of the US population would have to be billionaires. I suggest you brush up on the differences between mean, median and mode:



Next, if I link to some affordable homes in Santaquin does that mean I've won the argument? The fact that some small houses are still expensive doesn't change the fact that we have more purchasing power NOW than they did in the 70's. It's almost like some people have so much spending power that they willingly pay high prices for smaller homes to reduce their commute times or to live in desirable neighborhoods. It's weird, I wonder how all these struggling poor people are capable of paying for these expensive homes. I mean, according your articles, the only people who make any money at all are billionaires and everyone else is super poor, and I guess all these expensive homes are empty because no one can afford them.

Regarding the "shrinking" middle class, I've already shown that the MEDIAN household income has increased 30% since the 80's, even after going through multiple recessions. Now that we're all on the same page knowing what the MEDIAN income is, we can fairly conclude that those in the actual MIDDLE class are better off now than they were at any point in history. What your article is trying to do is show that since some people are really wealthy, that somehow hurts the middle class. That wealth should not be measured by how much "stuff" we have, but instead by what % of all stuff we own. So if my neighbor has a good year and buys a boat, I'm now poorer because I have a smaller % of total stuff owned in the world. If that sounds stupid to you..I agree, but sadly, this type of logic is what is resorted to in order to fan the flames of discontent, anger, and envy.

Here's a great book I highly recommend.



Peace out, I'm done with this thread, I've got work to do.