Sunday, November 1, 2015
The article pretty much asserts that having more technology available today means that income inequality is not today's problem, but that argument does not seem to hold. Technology has always been improving throughout the last few centuries, so it's pretty much like saying that no matter what we do there is less income inequality than there was in a hypothetically idealized society hundreds of years ago where everybody was paid equal. That idealized society would have absolute income equality, but the author would suggest that today's society has is more equal if following his logic that greater technology means greater income equality. Wealth has increased for pretty much all the social strata since the idealized society to today, but that does not mean the same thing as greater income equality. It's almost like saying that unemployment is the same thing as education or that the human development index is the same thing as per capita income. In other words, I believe the author has no clue what he is talking about. Him saying, "GDP doesn't matter. Neither does income. Opportunity matter. Value matters" makes no sense to me whatsoever. To me, it sounds like complete nonsense that can be interpreted a million different ways depending on your perspective. An argument that is valid, but whose premises are not sound is incorrect no matter how you spin it because it is not logical.