Have I ever used the grammar argument in a debate?

So now, it isn't just the rich getting richer, but the middle class lost like 40% of their net worth and the median declined:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/business/economy/family-net-worth-drops-to-level-of-early-90s-fed-says.html?_r=2

So, if people want to branch out further, is this ok?

Uh Richard... did you happen to read your own article all the way through?

"The data does provide the latest indication, however, that the recession reduced income inequality in the United States, at least temporarily. The average income of the wealthiest families fell much more sharply than the median, indicating that some of those at the very top of the ladder slipped down at least a few rungs."

The earnings of the median family in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution actually increased from 2007 to 2010, in part because of the expansion of government aid programs during the recession.

So what you mean to ask is it ok that the Rich are getting poorer, Middle class are getting poorer but the poor are getting richer.

Income, not wealth (AKA net worth). There's a massive difference.

Remember, the wealthiest families usually make the lion's share of their money through low-taxed investments, rather than through direct income. This option is not available at all to the poor, and not easily to the middle class.

If you'll note, they counted investments as income.  The fed always does.  The fact that they do have investments it states as why they weren't hit as hard as the middle class income wise.

Also, they specifically state the wealthy lost wealth (net worth).  Though not as much as the middle class.

It's all in the article there... or just the fed report if you want to look at that.

the rich getting richer is only a problem if you are not rich and getting richer. Life has winners and losers. The rich are the winners by making profits while others must lose. Over time the gap will continue to widen between the rich and the poor.

Second thought... stick with what at's hand.

Well, connecting back to the "rich getting richer", even when it comes to times of loss, it can be seen that the well off have a LOT farther to fall before they get at risk.  Wit the middle class losing that much ground, it puts them in a place where they won't ever be able to retire.  And they are closer to a crisis totally wiping them out.  When you have that much money, you can survive it.  So, the compounding effect of wealth and advantage is at work again.

With the compounding effect, if the person on top is growing tripple, and the rest are barely getting buy, if even the top lost 2/3 and the rest lost half, the person on top is still relatively (and absolutely) better off than the rest.  

Here is an article on the loss on the upper end:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/economy/21inequality.html?ref=incomeinequality

Again, it gets back to show that "the rich get richer" in the context of this thread, which asks about the compounding effect, may not necessarily be a good thing.

A) You seem to be reading a LOT into that wealth drop that wasn't mentioned or suggested.

B) The Rich have a lot farther to drop before they're poor... I mean... yeah.  I don't see what your arguement is here.

C) Or you know... we just end up all declining,  like we are now.

The thing about your New York Times article is that it's 2 years old.

We've seen what happens.

Also, it seems disengenious to say "rest barely getting by" since the main "loss" in this case was home values, which GREATLY Increased over the years.  The middle class was increased by that... and the stock market for that matter. 

What's lost with Median income actually is that they don't really adjust for the CPI so much as inflation.

The main focus of the original post had to do with the concept of the rich getting richer (compounding effect) and was asking if it is a problem.  Even this most recent NY Times article was connected with that to some degree.

As far as B, goes in connection with this, it goes back to the original point, that those who are better off, due to the compounding effect in gains, end up weathering down times a LOT better.  They have more to pull on, and use their wealth to increase connections, and so on.  The trip downward isn't nearly as rough as it is for everyone else.  It isn't they who suffer when there is down time as it is with those who are far less well off.  They don't live paycheck to paycheck the way the Middle Class increasingly is.  And individuals who have 3 jobs, ALL of which are needed to survive, get hurt big time if there is a loss of any of them.

This connects back to the original point asking about whether the rich getting richer is a problem.