Wealth is relative. Instead of comparing today's middle class to today's rich (a comparison in which the middle class is unambiguously losing ground), the autho

Wealth is relative. Instead of comparing today's middle class to today's rich (a comparison in which the middle class is unambiguously losing ground), the author would rather us compare the middle class of today to the middle class of yesterday. This is a big red herring, since this article comes in the context of a broader societal discussion about whether we should raise taxes on the rich. Another problem is that the author chooses his examples very selectively when making the argument that the rich are barely better off than the middle class. There are too many counterexamples to count, but the most important difference is that the rich, because they live primarily on passive income and can hire domestic help, have free use of their own time, in contrast with middle class people who have to work 8+ hour days to maintain their standard of living. However, the analysis about why wages have been stagnant is good stuff.