Yes, median income in the U.S. has dropped 2 or 3 out of the last five years I believe, but over the long term, median real income does steadily increase, I believe. The point is that there are many people who are not at all bothered by the notion of increasing inequality, as long as everyone generally is always doing a little better than last year. And so the political implications of a corrleation between GDP growth and income ineqality are not necessarily significant among such people. (Also, I was just talking to some mainland Chinese people at a party this past weekend, and when I asked them about the thousands of riots per year and unemployed hordes clogging the cities, their attitude in a nutshell was that, Yes, some people are getting rich far faster than others, but overall, everyone is better off than they were 5, 10 years ago, even the poorest.)
What I am curious about is:
Regarding the second point, I guess the first question is: Is such an economy even feasible? I think Colman and Jerome may answer in the affirmative, at least with respect to the consumption of natural resources. If so, can GDP grow without increasing socioeconomic inequalities (which sort of goes back to your question)? Rien ne réussit comme le succès.
1) Suppose you consume all natural resources at replenishment rates; 2) realise that that means there is no untamed environment left, but it also implies waste is produced at the natural absorption rate; 3) Suppose income inequality stays constant.
Where is GDP growth going to come from?
Ecology teaches us some lessons about inequality, diversity and complexity, too. The "problem" of political economy is human solidarity and empathy. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
