4 ms·
Sadly, the reality is that most people seem to side with your perspective. And, like that, the great middle class boom that drove the golden age of the 20th cen
by ap22213 10y ago
Sadly, the reality is that most people seem to side with your perspective. And, like that, the great middle class boom that drove the golden age of the 20th century is over.
Recently, I've had the jarring realization that for Humans (and maybe nature, in general), the stable equilibrium point is inequality. And, like the cab drivers, a lot of us have to 'suck it up' and realize that the 20th century (and perhaps the whole post-enlightenment period) is not coming back. So, better to brace ourselves, tighten up our finances, and ready our families for the 'low-growth' future.
- legutierr 10y agoYou believe that it was the strength of the middle class that drove the high growth rates the US experienced in the 20th century? And you think that the relatively low growth rates we see today are attributable somehow to high levels of inequality, and the resulting decline of the middle class? Well, that sound about right. But I wonder, who are the mainstream economists that are making that same argument? Because the only advocacy for reduced inequality I read seems to ground its arguments in the logic of humanitarianism and social justice. Maybe I'm not reading the right things. The fact is, though, that while humanitarianism and social justice are nice, the reason that I myself am worried about inequality is that it seems to be making the pie smaller for everyone (at least relative to what it should be). I wonder why people advocating for reduced inequality aren't making the growth argument their first argument.