both are the waste one because being poor or rich is an unsatisfactory deal and we must be a good fellow of this world.
Highly likely, yes.
As with most health factors, osteoporosis will likely be found in greater frequency in poor countries. Early detection, better dieting, and a doctor's advice are more likely to be had in an affluent society.
schools because rich Victorian children were more likely to get in than the poor but some poor got into schools anyway
Fossil fuels would become more expensive as they got rarer, meaning the rich would be more able to heat and transport themselves compared to the poor.
There were most likely some poor people, and there were also probably rich people too.
they were more for the rich but poor did still play with dominos
There are more poor people in China than rich people. There might be as many as 500,000 poor people for every "rich" person. China, with a population of MORE than one billion people {1,000,000,000}, has a very skewed wealth distribution. Most countries have more poor people than rich. The only way rich people are able to become rich is by suppressing the poor.
The rich generally have more economic and political power than the poor.
Both cuz rich steal from the richer and poor steals from the rich..
A rich merchant would likely be a loyalist in the Revolutionary War.
Yes, Because they already cam from a country where one class is rich or just about everyone is poor.
The poor face a scarcity of resources more often than the rich because they have more limited resources (most importantly, money). But everyone's resources are technically limited. The rich have more money than the poor, but if they spend it all or lose it all, they also face scarcity. If there is a scarcity of a product or a natural resource, it will affect both the rich and the poor, but as prices rise for resources high in demand, the rich will have more access to them, until there is no more for anyone: both rich and poor.