[bluedanieru]

They aren't as different as you think. Even if wages remain the same at the bottom while wealth at the top increases tenfold, the poor are worse off. They are worse off because they will see their political power decrease, especially in a country like America where that is so tied to money, and they are worse off because income disparities decrease quality of life across the board (i.e. for rich and poor alike).

There isn't the clear separation that you are putting forward here.

[Terry_B]

I don't disagree with you but I've seen a number of articles that simply present the fact that the top have increased their % and left it at that as proof of something bad happening.

If what you say is true then that is the argument that needs to be made before reaching that conclusion, that's all.

[bluedanieru]

The argument certainly needs to me made, especially coming from the WSJ where a lot of folks that read it may not have heard it.

However I don't think it is so outrageous to point out that the wealthy have increased their wealth considerably while income among the poor has remained stagnant, and then leave it at that. Egalitarian ideals are still alive and well, and you don't have to be particularly leftist to think that huge gaps in wealth allocation are symptoms of a dysfunctional market economy.

This could simply be responsible reporting, with some food for thought but mainly leaving it to the reader to draw his own conclusions.