3 ms·

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 pi

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.

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.