Krugman has in recent years sought and achieved a role as the spokesman for the liberal ideology. As a contributor to the New York Times he is often quoted and writes to defend this position, and has written extensively about "income inequality." He is therefore a good source to understand this side of the competing positions.

In the video at right, he states his position on what "went wrong" in income distribution. In summary he sees the lack of a proper minimum wage and decreased membership in unions as the primary culprits.

It worth noting that he does not agree with the analysis in this website and others who look at the data and ask the basic questions of what is fairness, etc.

To his argument on erecting the strong interventions of setting incomes and forcing labor restrictions as a cure to raising the poor, one can wonder at what cost and to what purpose?

In his approach he is advocating having reduced productivity, a reduction of incentives, exclusivity of sources of labor, and a general central function solution.   Does this work, as it ever?

To suggest such policies is to grab not for market solutions based on creativity, not for enhancing the educational system, but rather enhanced dependencies.  Are we not already suffering from a dependency crisis?


"A permanent division of labor inevitably creates occupational and class inequality and conflict."      Robert Shea