To Paul Krugman, the problem is the .001 percent, which has sucked up virtually all of the added wealth over the last 40 years. To people like David Brooks and Ross Douthat, it is the 20 percent, with their helicopter parenting, educational advantages, and gated communities. Who is right?
They are talking about different things. Krugman’s concern is about inequalities in wealth. The numbers back him up; the 20 percent has basically broken even since Reagan, while the .001 percent has thrived, to say the least. GOP pundits are more excised about social mobility, which probably has declined as a result of credentialism and the shift to a knowledge-based economy.
Which is the bigger problem? Since I’m not a member of the .001 percent, I’m naturally going to say wealth inequality, which has corrosive effects on our economy and our political system. I will admit the point is debatable, and that the perspective of a reactionary worker might be different. One thing is certain, however; regulating growing wealth inequality is a lot easier at the federal level than barriers to social mobility, which are created by innumerable decisions of private individuals, institutions, and local governments.