This is a straw-man argument well beneath your rhetorical skills. Maybe it isn't your fault - the article you link deliberately mischaracterizes an argument in order to launch on its own wild flight of strawmannery - but there's a world of difference between "economic security" and "well-being." The poor who worked in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle had, by Piketty's estimation, about the same level of "economic security" as the poor who worked in Molly Ivin's Foster Farms investigation. However, Ivins' crew mostly worked hard at a shitty job. They didn't face imminent mutilation like Sinclair's did. Piketty didn't even make an argument that inequality had stayed the same - he made the argument that the top and bottom deciles hadn't changed much from a quantity standpoint. And he made the argument as evidence for the fact that they'd gone up towards WWII and had come back down. The argument was not that things stayed the same, it's that policies prior to the '70s had improved the standard of living of the poor and policies that began in the '70s were putting it in steady decline.
I am doing my level best but don't follow your side. The patronizing tone doesn't help; can we focus on the subject instead of my rhetorical skills? When Piketty writes "The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past" I think a typical reader would get the impression that the material welfare of the poor has not improved. But I agree with you, based on my reading of that chapter Piketty is not measuring material welfare. He is interested in share of total wealth. And he uses a moving yardstick, comparing the poor of the past to the rich of that era, and today's poor with today's rich. The article points out that, despite this description of static share of wealth (which I do not see disputed) there are good reasons to celebrate improvement in material welfare, like highways and ambulances and A/C and penicillin, and also cable TV and Facebook. rd95 summed up this list as merely "convenience in entertainment and leisure," in my view, a clear instance of straw man. I didn't want to irritate him by citing logical fallacies; bringing "ad hominem" and the rest never helps a discussion. But, regrettably, he seems disgruntled anyway. I would love to investigate all the issues he mentions, "privacy, clean water, working plumbing and electricity, fair rent rates, safe neighborhoods, and on and on and on" and see what the data show the trends are. We might start with the photo in the article depicting the family of 13 living in a converted chicken coop. I expect that the trends are generally positive and beneficial to people at all income levels. Piketty might agree with all this, I don't know. If it's true that many poor are materially better off now than before, by absolute measures, I think we should celebrate that and look for ways to continue and expand the trend, and not worry so much about relative measures.
I won't patronize if you make a good-faith effort to address the question at hand rather than deflecting. The quote: Your arguments: Set aside for the moment the fact that air conditioning primarily changed the lifestyles of the south and southwest such that they were habitable and people could work. Air conditioning doesn't keep a roof over your head, nor does it put food on your family. Set aside for the moment the fact that penicillin and ambulances don't keep a roof over your head nor put food on your family. Neither of these are available to you if you're poor. You think they are, but what happens is you get sick, you go to the hospital, you get treatment, you can't pay, and they garnish your wages. Assuming you have wages. There is a powerful financial disincentive against the consumption of healthcare that the middle class and upper class do not experience. Not only that, but you miss a couple days at Dunder Mifflin, you take it out of sick leave. You miss a couple days at the gas'n'sip, you ain't gettin' paid and you might be on your ass. Set aside for a moment... A movie ticket in 1913 was seven cents. That's the equivalent of a $1.72 today. Meanwhile, movies cost between $8 and $15 depending on where you live. In 1929, you could see the Yankees play for a dollar, or the equivalent of $14. The average now is $34. On the other hand, first class on the Titanic was $4350, or the equivalent of $107k. And although Cunard is sold out of first class transatlantic voyages this year, midships is under a grand. So although your argument isn't quite "let them eat cake" it shares some traits. But none of this gets to the matter at hand: does static wealth inequality matter? Piketty, at least, addresses the issue as a reason to not address the issue. The article you linked essentially says "never mind all that, the poor have refrigerators now." rd95 is arguing that having a refrigerator does not guarantee your ass won't be sleeping on a park bench a month from now and you said "how about air conditioning?" HERE is a libertarian argument: - If the poor today have experienced an equivalent boost to quality of life over yesterday's poor that the rich today have experienced over yesterday's rich, then the fact that today's poor are just as poor as yesterday's poor doesn't matter. But you didn't make that argument, Piketty didn't make that argument and the author didn't make that argument. You want to focus on thirteen immigrants living in a chicken coop. If you're going to do that, we could drag stuff like this out: ...and I'll point out that the 3 bedroom house next to my old apartment that had fifteen illegal Chinese immigrants in it. The question is not "are the poor materially better off now than before." That's an obvious yes. The question is "are the poor comparatively better off now than they were before" and Commentary magazine don't give a fuck. rd95 does.In short, convenience in entertainment and leisure do not necessarily mean widespread economic security.
How about the air conditioning, that helps us sleep well and be alert at work?
The penicillin and ambulance services, which reduce the consequences of health problems?
The poor spend money on entertainment and leisure as well.
Perhaps rd95 should post somewhere more relevant.a good-faith effort to address the question at hand rather than deflecting
The question is not "are the poor materially better off now than before." That's an obvious yes. The question is "are the poor comparatively better off now than they were before" and Commentary magazine don't give a fuck. rd95 does.
Stop engaging with the Right!