Hopefully, some of you have followed the MoJ trackback from Bob Vischer's latest post here. I hope to now clarify some of what he clipped from my reply to the MoJ discussion on the growing income disparity.
Vischer clipped the following from my reply:
the "working families, " who "have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years," are not the same families [as] thirty years ago. I would suggest though, that the "working families" of which Krugman speaks are indeed the same class of families. To assert that working family "A" of thirty years ago is in the same predicament, having made no progress, is one I do not believe he's making, nor can he. Working family "A," has most probably progressed upwards by their investments, or their offspring's' investments, in education and the free-market. . . . while we should be concerned when the income disparity among classes grows, we must first recognize that since human persons--with free will--are involved, a class structure should well be expected. To want to eradicate what I have made out as inherent differences means to want to strike out the thing that makes for those differences: free will.
I would like to clarify the last couple of sentances. We should expect a class structure so long as we have the free will to invest (or not invest) because what we choose to invest in may (or may not) prove fruitful. In other words, by an exertion of our freedom, we can come to invest in an area of education that does not prove beneficial in the long term.
In re-reading my comment, I believe I unwisely chose to use the word "inherrent." I was trying to express there that our free will will produce varying outcomes and to want to ensure that the outcomes are balanced would mean mitigating our free will in some sense.
I hope that makes better sense.
Comments