: All successful capitalist concerns are capital-intensive. It's the little proprietor unhip to the 'information revolution' (etc.) who capital crushes like a fly. My point is that the intensification of capital (dead labor) is reducing capital's need for living labor but because value is only produced by living labor, capital's profits are consistently lowered---which renews capital's attack upon labor.
hence my comment "The notion that 'workers spend what they get and capitalists get what they spend' suggests that capitalist[s] are getting less and less, because less and less is going to workers, as more and more is going into so called 'dead labor'." which you have called nonsense.
: What planet are you from? Let's see some specific citations. Even the New York Times interpreted the new Statistical Abstract of the United States as confirming the 'gap between rich and poor [is] substantially wider' (5 September 1999, sec. A, p. 14). And as far as leisure goes, ever heard of Juliet Schor?
The gap is irrelevant. The 'relative' above is relative to the past, whether its 100 years ago or last summer the trend is clear. I was not discussing any gap between those considered rich and those considered poor, but the actual living standard of an 'average' american over time.
Asking what planet anyone comes from is irrelevant.