Replies

Excellent point. There is also the fallacy of "groups over time": the "top 1%" of any group in 1979 was not the same group of people in 1980 - much less 1985 or 1990. Using quintiles or quartiles enhances the error, as people regularly move in and out of artificially-designated groupings. In terms of income, mobility is largely upward in the US, with lower-income people regularly replaced by new immigrants and young first-time workers.

Socialists love artificial statistics because they allow them to ignore real world observations. "Poor" people in the US tend to own cars, refrigerators, microwaves, entertainment systems, computers, etc., and live in heated apartments or houses. In Africa and Asia, "poor" people fight over scraps of food and live in mud huts. And there are many millions of them because their governments are dictatorships and their economies are socialist.

"Poor" people in the US tend to own cars, refrigerators, microwaves, entertainment systems, computers, etc., and live in heated apartments or houses. In Africa and Asia, "poor" people fight over scraps of food and live in mud huts. And there are many millions of them because their governments are dictatorships and their economies are socialist.

Compare the standard of living of the "poor" in the US to the lower middle class in most third world countries.

In the U.S., poverty is not even an economic condition anymore for the vast majority of the "poor" -- it's really a dysfunctional state of mind more than anything else.

Most poor people in the U.S. have plenty of material goods but no real "wealth" -- since the primary ingredients in "wealth" have nothing to do with money. The combination of a solid work ethic, good common sense, and a high priority for virtuous behavior is far more important for a person's economic well-being than anything else.