(Sounds like Clinton's view on politics, except in reality he beats up on the lower classes)
>Feldstein examines some of the changes that have created an explosion of
>riches at the very apex of America's income distribution. The most
>important, economists agree, is the market's increased tendency to heap
>most of its rewards on those with lots of education and sophisticated
>skills.
>In addition, opportunities for entrepreneurs have burgeoned wildly; as
>recently as 1980, 60 percent of the Forbes 400 had inherited the bulk of
>their wealth; by 1997 the old money had dropped to just 20 percent.
(well, the old money folks are worse off.)
>Then there's the well-publicized phenomenon of the 70-hour work week for
>investment bankers, lawyers, management consultants and other top
>professionals, a contrast to the past when those who worked the longest
>were those with the lowest wages. And, finally, there's the extraordinary
>bull market in securities, mostly owned by the haves.
>
>All these changes, Feldstein says, are in themselves positive, and tend to
>benefit some individuals without making others any worse off. By the Pareto
>criterion, that's a change for the better.
(what a load) -------------
>Finis Welch, a labor economist at Texas A&M University who gave this year's
>prestigious Ely Lecture at the American Economics Association annual
>meeting, takes a different approach, focusing on inequality's consequences
>rather than its causes. Welch argues that rising inequality has had
>important positive effects along with at least one negative.
>
>He points out that, while the market's uneven rewards for skills have
>caused the wage gap between high-paid and low-paid individuals in general
>to widen dramatically, they have also sharply narrowed the far more
>disturbing wage gaps between blacks and whites and between women and men.
(this is some fine logic. By moving whites and men downwards?)
>Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that most Americans would
>prefer the more homogenous income distribution of the late 1940s, when
>racism and sexism severely limited occupational choice and pay.
(I don't recall many people arguing for a more homogenous income distribution AND more racism and sexism.)