Globally, not locally. I've read Factfulness and felt profoundly inspired by Hans Rosling's insights, but he's talking about the nations who are catching up, not the nations at the top.

I suspect what happens is that nations climb out of the steady-state of poverty, and into the steady-state of fully modern economies, and the growth rate ceases. At that point, the powers in control of the flow of money become ever more sophisticated at directing any growth to themselves, until we see roughly 100% of all post-inflation growth going to a tiny minority at the top.

I don't know how to fix this, but I think it's a reasonable observation of the source of the problem.

It's one way to look at it, and you will find multiple macro-models that will sustain some ideas, for example the increasing weight of government or how captured economies become. But globalization has definitely been a huge cause of stagnant wages in developed countries and sky-rocketing poverty reduction in the rest of the world.

I'm seeing this sentiment often. Some people seem to think that the storming of the Bastille would never have happened if the people would just have known how much better France's trading partners had progressed over the last decade or so.

I understand the interests as a nation and as a globe are different and sometimes antagonistic, but it pokes a massive hole in the idea that the rich are stealing and from the poor: if the rich are richer, and the poorer richer, the ones complaining are the ones in the middle. It would change the rhetoric from "poor vs rich" to "middle vs rich and poor".

Why aren't they? They're not doing it from altruistic reasons, they've just found people willing to work for less pay. Surely a king upon conquering even worse off subjects, which enables him to maintain and expand his wealthy lifestyle cheaper, can still be charged as an exploiter?

> Why aren't they? They're not doing it from altruistic reasons, they've just found people willing to work for less pay.

The middle class is not asking for progressive taxation of the rich for altruistic reasons either: they want the benefit of that taxation: access to housing, health, government jobs, college education, etc.

Its a much more morally and factually confusing narrative to say that the middle 50% wants to take fro mthe top 25% and bottom 25%, than the top 50% is taking from the bottom 50%. Particularly because in the utilitarian view, taking from the middle and giving to the bottom is still redistribution of wealth the 'right direction'.

The case in the united states is a lot simpler than people think tho. I believe the single most important reversal of real wages stagnation is to fix healthcare. If insurance cost half of what it costs today (or even less), then real wages would get a massive bump, specially at the lower echelons, where insurance costs disproportionately more than at the top.

> The middle class is not asking for progressive taxation of the rich for altruistic reasons either: they want the benefit of that taxation: access to housing, health, government jobs, college education, etc.

This needs a change of perspective. The workers are the ones that needs to sell their labour to the rich. It's their work that's the base of the rich's gains. The rich are unable to get rich without them. The benefits funded by taxes are capitalist societies fundamental palliative to prevent a Bastille day - especially when livable wages are seemingly also up for discussion. It's interesting to see how they're undermining themselves.

But the poor are getting richer, thats working perfectly well. Its just the middle class isnt benefitting of it as much as the richest.

Uhm, this goes back to my first reply?

Furthermore it's in general a terrible argument since it can be more or less claimed by every despotic regime in history.