The Slow Fires of Consensus Build

Madame:

I know of no studies along the lines you describe.  However, the coverage has morphed out of the progressive outlets.  For instance, the OECD’s generally respected work; The University of Washington’s and USC’s recent studies; The Economist’s coverage; Robert Reich’s documentary, Inequality For All; and, particularly, French economist Thomas Piketty’s best selling (and for an economic!) book Capital in the 21^st Century. (More on this in a bit).

The winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Economics was recorded on October 19^th of last year saying that economic inequality in the world, and especially the US, is the most important economic concern, perhaps THE most important concern.

Perhaps most indicative of a shift could be the Wall Street Journal (note: the WSJ is not noted for pro-labor or economic equality sentiments) article entitled “A Bipartisan Consensus on Economic Inequality?”  From the article:

In a respected Pew poll, a majority of Americans are strongly concerned about economic inequality.  Of course Democrats heavily are, but so are Independents.  What’s even more telling?  “To be sure, the share of Democrats (90%) who think that government should do something to reduce the gap is twice that of Republicans (45%). Still, it is significant that nearly half of a party more hostile to the public sector than in previous generations believes that inequality calls for a response beyond family responsibility and private charity.”

“More frequently than in recent years, one hears Republicans repeating Jack Kemp's famous motto: People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. Now GOP leaders and presidential aspirants are delivering speeches about poverty and opportunity.”

Readers are encouraged to read the whole (short) article: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304117904579499790499812228

Economist’s Piketty’s blockbuster book (even more spectacular given it is a 700 page goliath) sounds warnings that come from a field generally noted for its pro-business, pro-growth, capitalism-cheerleading sentiments.  Its message has attracted attention beyond those expected to incline to agree.  Possibly because Piketty’s writing is easy for the layman to understand, and easy for that layman to place that understanding in his or her consciousness: “The US economy has begun to decay into the aristocratic Europe of the 19^th century.  Hard  work will matter less [for the majority of people], inherited wealth more.  The fortunes of the few will unsettle the foundations of democracy.”

“Our modern democratic ideal is based on the hope that inequalities will be based on merit more than inheritance or luck. Sometimes, meritocratic arguments are used by the winners of the game to justify the role of unlimited inequality. I don't think there is any serious evidence that we need to be paying people more than 100 times the average wage in order to get high-performing managers.”

Read the newspaper interview with the author here: http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_25620723/q-amp-french-economists-grim-view-wealth-gap

Of course, readers have had frequent reminding from me about how the disconnection between self-serving, self-focused, wealthy “elites,” and the mass of the rest of the citizenry, played an exceedingly strong role in the decline and fall of the Roman Republic and the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire.

I have not even begun to respond to the rest of your post, and I have much to say about it!  I will next week though!