Hpw do you define the boundaries of M (against P, respecrtvely R), in a continuum that's "PMR"?
The continuum is actually "P(LCU)R", with M=(LCU).
In such a setting, LC shrinking (but not P), what does this tell you about "the economy"?
To me, it says that there's a gap deepening between P and UR.
Yes that was unintentional copy & paste.
The group doesn't stand in vacuum. You can't observe this group separately from the adjecent ones, because it isn't a group formed by specific separable criteria, it's part of an income continuum.
And when you go ahead and take those into consideration, it becomes a flow problem: how can the bottom part of a middle group just "disappear"? Why isn't it filled up by the group below it (i.e. the formerly lower class), as it should in a "good economy"?
I'll be happy to elaborate if you ask a more specific question, but "I don't understand" and reiteraring your own point is very vague for me to go on. I can't understand it for you, I can only try to explain.
If the number of people in the upper middle increases by 1 million, and the number of people in the lower- and mid- decrease by 1 million, then the size of the middle class did not change at all.
Let's assume that for a moment; where, specifically, did that 1 mio go? Is it safe to assume they "moved" from low/mid to high?
Why did the low/mid shrink in the first place? Was there nobody below to "fill up"? Why didn't they?
What just happened is a chasm was created, right in the middle of what used to be called "middle class". Essentially, this just means that thenpr
If the number of people in the upper middle increases by 1 million, and the number of people in the lower- and mid- decrease by 1 million, then the size of the middle class did not change at all.
Let's assume that for a moment; where, specifically, did that 1 mio go? Is it safe to assume they "moved" from low/mid to high?
Why did the low/mid shrink in the first place? Was there nobody below to "fill up"? Why didn't they?
What just happened is a chasm was ceated, right where "middle class" used to be -- i.e. obliteraing intermediate levels of wealth. (The fact that there's now a larger "upper middle class", as opposed to "lower upper class", is just semantics).
If the upper increased by 1 million and the rest decreased by 500k, then the middle class grew.
No, it's the same principle as above, just with slightly different numbers.
You see, "middle" is not some clean category, like "pineapple" or "red". It's whatever remains between the very poor and very, very rich. When latter rise, but former don't fall, it's always a polarisation of "middle class", regardless of someone else might choose to frame it. And that is always a tell of bad economy.
US arms industry for one. Wars "cost money" - what exactly do you think that means, where does "money" specifically go?
Wars aren't (necessarily) waged for the economic value of the countries that are being invaded. They are waged, quite generally, for the wealth flow they generate.
Iran and Venezela aren't good examples in the sense that they got robbed, they're goos examples in the sense that there was no good (political) reason to start a war with them, rather some some covert "get even richer" scheme.
You can't get rich anymore if there's no one with any money to spend.
Of course you can.
First, there's still plenty of people with stupid money to spend. It's not the majority of people, but it's the majority of money.
Second, the rich folks can still get even richer, simply by taking money from one another when there's noone else but one another to take it from. We call that "war". Of course it's not them, it's us who'd die in that war. (But who cares, right, it's not like we're good for anything else (...with nothing, not even our buying power, left to contribute?...)
What happened in Iran and Venezuela is pretty much how it's done. And not over yet by a very, very long stretch.
"Upper ranks of middle class grow" together with "lower ranks of middle class shrink" is pretty much the same is "middle class is disappearing".
Which is the epitome of a REALLY BAD economy, grounded in strong wealth inequality, not a good one.
Settings > Apps > All Apps > (the one you don't want) > Disable
It won't free space, but It removes the icons, it won't run in the background, etc.
The story is really really really really really stupid. Every minute there was another thing, dumber than the one before it. Sure, it is funny sometimes and it is a tragic story but all the elements of it taken separately are idiotic, dumb, moronic. Water based dots that contain more energy than nuclear bombs of their size would while not being so dense, as to weigh hundreds of tons under Earth's gravity. These dots eating our Sun and at the SAME TIME being detected around all stars (but one
As you can imagine I am 100% against communism and any form of socialism. Bezos and everyone else must have property rights not hindered by government, it is his business to run (or his board) and government must not be in position to dictate how any company hires and fires people, who they hire and fire, why, etc.
I fully expect Amazon to close this warehouse, maybe it will be contaminated with something radioactive for example, to make things easier and then it will shut down. Personally I root for the anarcho capitalist solution and wish Amazon to win this battle for its private property rights.
You can't refer back to some judge such-and-such who said something was ok in a similar lawsuit, so therefore it must be ok going forward in all future lawsuits.
It's not that clear cut.
Yes, the precedence doesn't have a strong a binding character as in yhe US, but treating everyone equally is a basic principle of law that goes back millennia, to thw verge beginning, long before there was even EU or America.
Therefore decisions in European courts, in particular higher ones, tend to have a "strongly suggestive" character. If lower courts go against the grain, the decisions get reversed.im revision courts at higher levels.
This is Italy just fleecing an America tech company because they tried to fleece italians first.
FTFY.
social engineering used in practice by the parent comment, now sitting at +4 Funny. Still waiting for that 1 autistic moderator.
corporate america [] got hung up on the "free" in "free software".
I agree with your words, but I'm not sure we mean the same thing. To be clear, corporate America didn't get hung up on the free as in "beer" part. It got up on the philosophical implications of free as in "speech". No more lock-ins, no more EULA that can restrict use of the software you paid for, no more "you're going tonuse what we decide is beat for you and you're going to like it", no more forced upgrades to versions that bring barely anything to the table besides new licensing costs and new bugs etc.
Information is the inverse of entropy.
