Yeah, I might quibble about the tag. I think it likely that this is a case of unintended consequences, but I couldn't say exactly which ones.
To the extent that US wealth and prosperity is zero sum, it might have come from those in the middle class that went lower. To the extent that it is not zero sum, this could be seen as a good thing. IMO a clearer positive would be a decrease in those living below the poverty line, coincident with an increase in the median income.
If the poverty line were defined as "household income at the 20th percentile" this wish would be mathematically impossible. In the U.S. the poverty threshold is updated every year and measures well being relative to the increasingly prosperous population across the country. Such relative measures supply the endless demand for bad news, even if it is such obvious nonsense as "San Francisco is worse than Rwanda". If instead you would like a dose of good news, research any absolute measure of welfare that you can imagine: television ownership, herd immunity, distance to nearest coffee vendor, number of shoes owned, square feet of living space, quantity of soap used. I have not researched any of these but am certain that the long-term trend is excellent and short-term trends are probably good. It is so obvious and habitual that life is getting better in the long view (until the next catastrophe!) that it is easy to take for granted. You might also consider people who live outside the country. I see a lot of hand-wringing about the percentage of people who work in this country (as if "work" itself is always good -- usually maybe, but not always). I was just at the World Bank bookstore and picked up an annual report from the IFC. Those quasi-governmental multinationals creep me out, but they do put out pretty booklets. This one says "Since 1990, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been reduced by more than half, and the size of the working middle class in developing countries has nearly tripled."a decrease in those living below the poverty line
No doubt. I guess it is a good thing to continually increase our standards, but I fully agree that it matters a lot if the lives of our poor have materially improved from one generation to the next. I suppose the questions ought to be: 1) Is there such a thing as an optimal state of wealth distribution? 2) What do we consider to be an optimal state of wealth distribution?, and 3) Can this be engineered at all? and 4) If so, should it be and to what degree? I'm not as pessimistic as you might think. In most respects, I see us moving forward, not only as a nation, but globally. But of course, humanity has been sidetracked for centuries before. It's worth questioning the fundamentals. Where do you think the greatest risk to progress currently lies? For me, I would guess either resource scarcity due to global warming, or an era of techno-autocratic governance. Maybe both together.If the poverty line were defined as "household income at the 20th percentile" this wish would be mathematically impossible.
Certainly it exists, but what it is depends on what your values are. If you find inequality inherently objectionable, as seems fashionable, then you might support any measures that reduce the gap between rich and poor, even if it means destroying wealth without helping any poor. If instead you wish to improve the welfare of the poor (assuming, perhaps, that the rich can take care of themselves), then you might support policies that have a track record of relieving poverty. I suspect that a lot of people value associating themselves with the team that has the best cheers and the vilest enemies and announces the best-sounding intentions. I do think we have a lot of power to alter outcomes, but perhaps with less accuracy than we imagine. Centralized, top-down power structures can scatter benefits but give a lot of leverage for the existing wealthy to increase their bottom line. Decentralized, individually-directed behavior seems to promote the greatest improvement in individual welfare, but it doesn't guarantee success for everyone. Predicting the future is difficult. If our best guide is the past, then I would observe that incorrect predictions of looming disaster have been the norm for ages. What resources do you think would become more scarce (reversing almost every long-term trend) due to global warming? I don't think many crops would be affected by sea level change; there is plenty of land that is now too cold to farm; additional atmospheric carbon dioxide is not exactly bad news for plants. Some weird disastrous techno-singularity does not seem likely, but technology is going to be highly disruptive somehow. I don't believe mass unemployment due to robots is likely either; to date greater automation has led to more jobs. Natural disasters including pandemic make for good drama, but these are also fortunately rare. Probably the best way to identify the greatest risk to future progress is to look at the past. Maybe Venezuela is a warning sign; socialists are not exactly laughed off the stage.Is there such a thing as an optimal state of wealth distribution? What do we consider to be an optimal state of wealth distribution?
Can this be engineered at all?