3 ms·

I'll grant that my points are in some ways controversial. But the very fact that someone can come up with a study at all that disagrees with your argument is s

I'll grant that my points are in some ways controversial. But the very fact that someone can come up with a study at all that disagrees with your argument is sufficient to prove that statements like what we're seeing in this thread - "if you're not in the top 1% you're doomed to a life of drudging misery" are absurdly exaggerated. That 1% claim is hugely absolutist, so it takes only very weak evidence that broad swathes of the country are content and even happy, to disprove the chicken little argument.

Futurebot 11y ago
Some of those statements might be hyperbolic to a degree, but it's really a question of degree, not the overall trends. My personal characterization was 'The choice is more between "member of various elite / professional jobs" and "Starbucks"', which I don't think is all that hyperbolic if you look at the actual "hollowing out" data from Autor, Stiglitz, et al. If you read only one link, make it this one: http://economics.mit.edu/files/5554 http://economics.mit.edu/files/5554 - the study is one of the universally acknowledged and well-respected around. As far as the happiness quotient for the broad swathes, I think the polls do contradict you: http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm Edit: here's one from the AEI, a right-learning source you linked to (Tyler Cowen, a popular right-libertarian blogger's book "Average is Over" deals with this as well. Definitely worth a read if you haven't): https://www.aei.org/publication/more-evidence-average-is-over-and-the-us-middle-class-is-thinning/ https://www.aei.org/publication/more-evidence-average-is-ove...