[tx_eggman]

The Economist reports that in the U.S. “the gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country.”

So, our rich are richer than theirs ... and our poor are richer than theirs. Hence, the fact that there is a gap between the two groups here doesn't amount to a hill of beans

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

The "poor" in our country are generally the ones that dropped out of school at age 16, had babies while teenagers, and have little or no skills or ambition.
Educated and/or skilled persons are doing very well. This country has so much opportunity. That same "The Economist" magazine has had articles on how may days it takes to start a new business (the list the countries by days). The USA is at the top of the list, something like 1-2 days. Some countries (more socialist or corrupt) can take months even years. The USA has more of a free market economy that rewards high achievers with intelligence or skills. Other countries strive for income redistribution and more economic equality. This approach punishes achievement and encourages slackers.
This kind of article is written by socialists with Utopian visions that government will make things right. WRONG, government tends to screw it up.

[wintertime]

So, our rich are richer than theirs ... and our poor are richer than theirs. Hence, the fact that there is a gap between the two groups here doesn't amount to a hill of beans


Which is better?

Is it better for the poor to earn a hypothetical $1000 a year, and the rich $10,000, or for the poor to be earning $100,000 a year and the rich $1,000,000?

If I were poor, I'd choose the second option. Give me the gap. The bigger the gap the better!