[abrahamsen]

I agree. The middle class of other parts of the world catching up to rising US[] is a good thing from any perspective except for the most cynical realpolitik subscribers. Even from a pure US centric point of view, it provides a larger market for US goods.

However, the poor doing worse than 30 is really bad. Even if you believe that a high gini coefficient is needed to encourage upward mobility, a falling living standard for the poor indicate that it is not working.

[] I'd really like to see the comparison in income after tax+education+health care. Health care and education is more or less mandatory for the middle class, and the details of how it is financed (tax, savings, insurance) shouldn't affect the comparison of living standard.

[mcv]

> Even if you believe that a high gini coefficient is needed to encourage upward mobility, a falling living standard for the poor indicate that it is not working.

Yeah, social mobility in the US is pretty low nowadays. I don't have any numbers at hand, but wasn't there a recent story on HN about how most European countries had more social mobility than the US now?

Trickle down doesn't work. Money flows up. The poor spend it immediately (because they need it to pay for stuff they need but can't buy, which is what makes them poor), whereas the rich can afford to hoard it.