| sebastian_dangerfield |
02-02-2007 03:17 PM |
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sorry -- who said that? Where?
And if so, so what?
I decline your invitation to drop our subject to kick Krugman around, both because I don't read him since the NYT put him behind the TimesSelect wall and because I'm enjoying kicking you around more.
Why is that a false juxtaposition? The point of the debate is the gap is widening, not same people (e.g., rainmakers) make more.
Why is that a "better" estimate? It's a pretty clear fact that the very rich have gotten richer much more than the rest of us in recent years. When the most striking changes are happening at the very top end, why do want to keep the focus solely on mill accountants and foremen?
Now you're not saying income inequality isn't happening. You're saying that you don't want to talk about it.
|
It's in one of those 4. Feel free to take my refusal to search for it as an admission of its lack of validity.
Actually, Ty, I come from a pretty fucking middle class background, and the last few years haven't been so bad at all. In fact, with the excpetion of some silly tax planning which bit me a little this year, I'd have to say I've done alright (even this year)... Me, a middle class guy.
It's a false juxtaposition because what's happening to the poor and what's happening to CEOs is like saying the atmosphere on Mars is comparable to that of Venus's. When slivers of the population people effectively live on two entirely different planets, comparing them is simply absurd. I can no more compare mself to the captains of industry than I could a dirt framer. Wheher there is inequality of income should be measured against people in positions comparable to mine. That will never happen because there is so much income volatility in the middle class that any study should shredded. So, instead, people cite Joe Foreman against Bill Smith, CEO. It's dishonest. |
