Here's one fact about inequality that seems indisputable. Being a "superstar" producer of entertainment products is more lucrative in 2014 than it was in 1964 largely because of benign or positive trends in global society and technology.
There is, simply, a larger audience for movies and music and NBA games than there was 50 years ago. Kevin Durant has more earnings power than Oscar Robertson because Durant performs for a drastically larger and richer audience than Robertson could have ever obtained.
This is all clearly correct, and it is true that left-wing people perhaps underplay it in their discussions of the evolution of income inequality. What is less clear to me is why proponents of rich people's interests like Greg Mankiw thinks this superstar story carries so much normative power. It's true—times change in ways that are disproportionately beneficial to some people. But that's not a strong case for believing that whatever distribution of economic resources happens to emerge at any given time is optimal.
TODAY IN SLATE
The Self-Made Man
The story of America’s most pliable, pernicious, irrepressible myth.
The GOP Senate Candidate in Iowa Doesn’t Want Voters to Know Just How Conservative She Really Is
Does Your Child Have “Sluggish Cognitive Tempo”? Or Is That Just a Disorder Made Up to Scare You?
Naomi Klein Is Wrong
Multinational corporations are doing more than governments to halt climate change.
The Strange History of Wives Gazing at Their Husbands in Political Ads
Transparent is the fall’s only great new show.
Lena Dunham, the Book
More shtick than honesty in Not That Kind of Girl.