> While free trade and disruptive technology is good for the professional class, it inherently increases inequality.
You seem to be asserting this without any explanation, but it's pretty clearly wrong.
Do the math. Cab driver making $30K is displaced and has to take a different job making $25K, with the result that $30K of value is captured by cab riders via lower fares while the former cab driver suffers $-5K. But cab riders are just regular people. Between the riders and the drivers we're net +$25,000 to regular people. That's a pretty sizable decrease in wealth inequality.
And that's assuming the former cab driver can only find work that pays less than driving a cab did. He could train to become a plumber or carpenter and end up making significantly more money.
Oh, there most certainly is a bottom. Uber being cheaper for more people doesn't make rent cheaper for the person who's had their income slashed--or for everyone else that you would blithely reduce.
Obviously because Uber has nothing to do with housing. Are you asserting that there is no possible way for technology or government policy to make housing more affordable?
You seem to be asserting this without any explanation, but it's pretty clearly wrong.
Do the math. Cab driver making $30K is displaced and has to take a different job making $25K, with the result that $30K of value is captured by cab riders via lower fares while the former cab driver suffers $-5K. But cab riders are just regular people. Between the riders and the drivers we're net +$25,000 to regular people. That's a pretty sizable decrease in wealth inequality.
And that's assuming the former cab driver can only find work that pays less than driving a cab did. He could train to become a plumber or carpenter and end up making significantly more money.