Why Not Feeling Rich is Not Being Poor, and Other Things Financial

This is an interesting comment. But let me point to Tyler Cowen, who I found more insightful. He takes the same sentiment expressed by Scalzi, pushes it to it's logical conclusion and finds it lacking:<p>"Let's say you live in a country which has some rich people, some people in the lower middle class, and some very very poor people...In such societies, do the "lower middle class but not very poor people" have cause to complain? After all, some large group of others has it much, much tougher. ...At what percentile of wealth does your claim to complain go away or diminish? ... Can't a rich person point out that he has a higher MU of money than a non-rich person might think? Or must that necessarily offend others? What kind of genuflections must he package along with that information, so as to avoid being considered offensive? ... Beware of moral arguments which do not address "At which margin?" <i>I see a lot of attempts to lower the status of Todd Henderson, but not much real moral engagement.</i>"<p>I recommend reading the whole thing.<p><a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/does-the-law-professor-have-a-right-to-complain.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09...</a>

Mr. Scalzi is a fine writer, but may not be a great reader. He completely overlooks the point of the article to which he referred.<p>To be sure, some of the criticisms he makes may be true. But to focus entirely on them, rather than the main point of the original article, is doing a disservice to those who really are more concerned with this issue than with financial envy.<p>So for the record, having followed the links to the original post, let me reiterate the intent. The "little guy" will be affected if the "rich" need to cut back. Luxury expenses (yes this is the point: it's a luxury to have a gardener or housekeeper) will be cut back, so anyone whose income relies on those expenditures will be hurt. In many cases, such as the immigrant gardener, forcing the rich to cut back causes a much more serious change to "downstream" incomes.<p>Of course, the number of rich people who really will react by cutting back, and the number of gardeners and the like who are affected by those cuts, is a matter of some debate. It may well be that in the balance, the harm is less severe.<p>But Mr. Scalzi doesn't even acknowledge that there is any debate. In this way, he's playing chicken with the rich, but the stakes will be paid by those who may be affected profoundly.

One key element that is missing from much of this discussion is an understanding of comparative advantage and its importance to society.<p>If someone has the skill and ambition to succeed in a demanding professional career,isn't it better that they do so rather than doing their own gardening for fear of being judged? In general, it seems obviously good for society for a married couple to both work and outsource some of their domestic responsibilities that others can perform more cheaply. But our current (and even more, our future) tax code discriminates against this heavily.

The guy making over $250K can easily wind up just as bankrupt as Scalzi's sad sack who stumbles around dropping his mac 'n' cheese on the floor (grip the bowl firmly, people). Saying the higher income folks just have a money management problem is just plain wrong, unless you want to also admit that the sad sack guy has a population management problem because he's gone and had kids he can't afford to feed/clothe/educate properly. Both have made choices they can't support, and I think both are entitled to bitch about the end result (briefly; and then go do something about it).