many were victims of circumstances.

And i'm sure those numbers are greatly influenced by demographics and ethnicity

Just curious, are there any complications to the American economy if the numbers were

36 dead
5 gov't/family suport
5 working because they must
4 well off
50 wealthy

Can a capitalist nation support those numbers?

I think the statistics are a bit skewed, no? For every 100 people...
If they had a survey saying "people who graduated from ____" or people who started off doing the same type job with similar salaries, and then see where they ended up in 20 years, I think that would be a more accurate picture of the point you're trying to prove (if it would prove your point).
I mean, look at all the different kinds of jobs in the world, and look how many are menial, low paying jobs.. are you telling me someone who works in a department store all their life is going to be able to live as well/invest as well/be better off than someone who has an income of 2, 3 or 4 times as much?

What point do you think I'm trying to prove?

A survey citing which universities people graduated from?

Michael Dell started by assembling PCs in his university residence room, then later dropped out of school. Howard Schultz began by working a menial, low paying job at Starbucks Coffee in Seattle. William Hewlett and David Packard commenced by building PCs in a garage. And of course -- Bill Gates, who dropped out of Harvard to dedicate his energies to Microsoft.

Perhaps a survey using your criteria may also be skewed.

"Are you telling me someone who works in a department store all their life is going to be able to live as well/invest as well/be better off than someone who has an income of 2, 3 or 4 times as much?"

Yeah that's what I'm telling you -- it is indeed possible.

I want to know what statistics are not considered gloomy.

Given enough "wealthy" people, what we consider wealthy now will just be average. A new bench mark will be put in place to dilineate the rich from the average.

People only look rich when there are poor people nearby.

does this make any sense? i'm just thinking outloud

to finish up

"that's why you can't have too many rich people, otherwise they all look average." Or maybe the buying power of their wealth goes down when too much money around, don't know...

In my mind, the term "rich" and "wealthy" have the following distinction.

Shaq O'Neal is rich. He's got no problems making many millions playing in the NBA, first as a Laker and now serving the Heat. He gets a fat, rich paycheque.

The guy (or gal) writing the cheque is wealthy.

"Are you telling me someone who works in a department store all their life is going to be able to live as well/invest as well/be better off than someone who has an income of 2, 3 or 4 times as much?"

Yeah that's what I'm telling you -- it is indeed possible.

I don't agree Mr. Williams... To invest in anything, you need money, correct? The problem is, if your income is too low, you just have enough to pay the rent/groceries/bills, barely to save or invest anything at all.. now if you're saving for kids education, or whatever, are you going to go into something that is ANY risk at all (low, high, whatever)? Now that's the question.

So just to add to that, I don't disagree with you... in fact, the last few posts of yours have had me thinking of investing in a little while down the road, but many people can't afford to even think about it...

hmm....

"People only look _____ when there are poor people around."

I think you can fill in the blank with either wealthy or rich. So basically, if a someone is to be recognized as wealthy or rich, you'll need surround him/her with significantly more average/poor people. That's why those US statistics will ALWAYS look so dissappointing. Is this argument valid in anyway?