4 ms·

Things have gotten cheaper for rich people too. One would expect technological progress to make things cheaper over time--what does that have to do with income

Things have gotten cheaper for rich people too. One would expect technological progress to make things cheaper over time--what does that have to do with income distribution within the country? Nothing. But the article makes no attempt to address income inequality. These are two different questions: 1. Has the middle class stagnated over the last n decades? 2. Has the middle class improved its share of national income over the last n decades? In fact, it's possible to believe that income inequality is ultimately a good thing that improves the standard of living across all income brackets. Edit: The short version of this argument: It's good to let some people get very rich creating the iPhone if the end result is that we all end up with iPhones.

rayiner 14y ago
> Nothing. But the article makes no attempt to address income inequality. Right, because that's a losing argument for him. But that's the concern of "progressives." He's using the classic tactic of pretending that the other side is arguing something different than they are, then attacking that argument. > 1. Has the middle class stagnated over the last n decades? What does "stagnated" mean? Humans think relatively, not in terms of absolutes. Has the middle class stagnated relative to the upper class? Yes, it has.
- dionidium 14y ago
  This is disingenuous. Progressives routinely frame the argument in zero-sum terms, as though 1) there is a pie; 2) the rich have taken a larger share of that pie; and 3) this means that the poor are getting less than they got before. The argument this article makes is that the pie is getting bigger, so everyone's share is bigger. You might still think this is a bad thing, but you should at least understand the argument.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Just because the pie is getting bigger doesn't mean it's inaccurate to characterize the situation in zero-sum terms. E.g. the gain in total national wealth from 1960 - Present is a fixed amount--who got what part of that is zero-sum. More importantly, of course everyone's share is getting bigger. That's been the long-term trend ever since people started farming. What's important is whose slice is getting bigger faster relative to the other slices. Pointing out that the middle class's slice is getting bigger in absolute terms and saying they should be content with that is like saying you should be fine with a stock that returns 1% over inflation. Why should you complain--you're getting richer! Of course, an investor expects to get richer. What he cares about is his return relative to that of other stocks.
  - roc 14y ago
    The argument the article makes is that the pie is getting better-tasting. That is, because Bob can derive more enjoyment from a fixed volume of the new pie, it doesn't matter that Bob now takes home a quarter-slice, instead of a third-slice, so long as the net volume of his new quarter is at least as large as his old third. It argues that Bob is still being rewarded fairly for his continually increasing productivity, even if his net volume is stagnant and his share of the whole pie is falling, simply because the pie is getting better tasting.
roc 14y ago
The first question is bordering on bad faith. It's nigh-on-tautological that technological advances will ensure that being middle class in 2010 is 'better' than being middle class in 1970. [1] But more air conditioning, computers and even cell phones does not negate the argument that productivity and wage gains have diverged. And how else would one fairly assess, in the aggregate, if workers are being rewarded for their work, than to see if greater productivity is being rewarded with greater wages? And how else does one describe the situation where continued productivity gains were met with low-to-no gains in wealth, other than "stagnation"? For we're not talking about absolute shares of national income here. Economics is no zero-sum gain. There are net increases. There is wealth creation. And we're talking about where this created wealth has gone. And for the last several decades, it hasn't gone to the workers. Even though their productivity has continued to increase and, historically at least, those two have tended to increase together. Framing the situation in terms of your first question is tantamount to the arguments that poverty today isn't a problem simply because, historically, the poor have never lived so well. It's an irrelevant distraction used to keep people from asking the second question. [2] [1] If technological gains stopped delivering improved quality of life, we'd be facing a civilization-level calamity that would render concerns about productivity gains less than irrelevant. Because it would necessarily imply that technological advances had topped out and resources were now becoming scarce. [2] Asserting that questions of economic fairness and health are answered solely by whether today's workers are doing at least as well as yesterday's workers is pretty close to anti-American. To accept that argument, one would have to believe that it's not necessary for hard work to be rewarded. All those "up by your boot-straps" stories are contingent upon harder and smarter work being rewarded. And here we're staring at an economy-wide case where harder and smarter work has simply been the baseline for continued employment. It's no longer "do well and move up." It's "do well or move out."
- dionidium 14y ago
  I more or less agree with everything you said, which is why I think the really salient question is whether income inequality is actually a driver of technological progress. Everybody loses in a more "fair" but ultimately less prosperous society.

rayiner 14y ago

> Nothing. But the article makes no attempt to address income inequality. Right, because that's a losing argument for him. But that's the concern of "progressives." He's using the classic tactic of pretending that the other side is arguing something different than they are, then attacking that argument. > 1. Has the middle class stagnated over the last n decades? What does "stagnated" mean? Humans think relatively, not in terms of absolutes. Has the middle class stagnated relative to the upper class? Yes, it has.

dionidium 14y ago
This is disingenuous. Progressives routinely frame the argument in zero-sum terms, as though 1) there is a pie; 2) the rich have taken a larger share of that pie; and 3) this means that the poor are getting less than they got before. The argument this article makes is that the pie is getting bigger, so everyone's share is bigger. You might still think this is a bad thing, but you should at least understand the argument.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Just because the pie is getting bigger doesn't mean it's inaccurate to characterize the situation in zero-sum terms. E.g. the gain in total national wealth from 1960 - Present is a fixed amount--who got what part of that is zero-sum. More importantly, of course everyone's share is getting bigger. That's been the long-term trend ever since people started farming. What's important is whose slice is getting bigger faster relative to the other slices. Pointing out that the middle class's slice is getting bigger in absolute terms and saying they should be content with that is like saying you should be fine with a stock that returns 1% over inflation. Why should you complain--you're getting richer! Of course, an investor expects to get richer. What he cares about is his return relative to that of other stocks.
- roc 14y ago
  The argument the article makes is that the pie is getting better-tasting. That is, because Bob can derive more enjoyment from a fixed volume of the new pie, it doesn't matter that Bob now takes home a quarter-slice, instead of a third-slice, so long as the net volume of his new quarter is at least as large as his old third. It argues that Bob is still being rewarded fairly for his continually increasing productivity, even if his net volume is stagnant and his share of the whole pie is falling, simply because the pie is getting better tasting.

roc 14y ago

The first question is bordering on bad faith. It's nigh-on-tautological that technological advances will ensure that being middle class in 2010 is 'better' than being middle class in 1970. [1] But more air conditioning, computers and even cell phones does not negate the argument that productivity and wage gains have diverged. And how else would one fairly assess, in the aggregate, if workers are being rewarded for their work, than to see if greater productivity is being rewarded with greater wages? And how else does one describe the situation where continued productivity gains were met with low-to-no gains in wealth, other than "stagnation"? For we're not talking about absolute shares of national income here. Economics is no zero-sum gain. There are net increases. There is wealth creation. And we're talking about where this created wealth has gone. And for the last several decades, it hasn't gone to the workers. Even though their productivity has continued to increase and, historically at least, those two have tended to increase together. Framing the situation in terms of your first question is tantamount to the arguments that poverty today isn't a problem simply because, historically, the poor have never lived so well. It's an irrelevant distraction used to keep people from asking the second question. [2] [1] If technological gains stopped delivering improved quality of life, we'd be facing a civilization-level calamity that would render concerns about productivity gains less than irrelevant. Because it would necessarily imply that technological advances had topped out and resources were now becoming scarce. [2] Asserting that questions of economic fairness and health are answered solely by whether today's workers are doing at least as well as yesterday's workers is pretty close to anti-American. To accept that argument, one would have to believe that it's not necessary for hard work to be rewarded. All those "up by your boot-straps" stories are contingent upon harder and smarter work being rewarded. And here we're staring at an economy-wide case where harder and smarter work has simply been the baseline for continued employment. It's no longer "do well and move up." It's "do well or move out."

dionidium 14y ago
I more or less agree with everything you said, which is why I think the really salient question is whether income inequality is actually a driver of technological progress. Everybody loses in a more "fair" but ultimately less prosperous society.