I think the social status quo would fall within a generation or two if the structural barriers to education were removed.

Humans have a strong desire to thrive intellectually and to understand the world. The US K-12 system has done much to stifle that and train people to be obedient workers.

The second was WWII and the GI bill which constituted the greatest downward transfer of wealth in US history, and created the huge, stable, Middle Class that has survived well up until recently. The New Deal was at most just icing on the cake (and I think actually destructive to the overall trends). The wages of war, the draft, and the on-going benefits were where the real successes were.

"Why should anyone in the US be guaranteed comfort when there are children begging in the street in Mexico or India?"

I also think the course of the argument goes the wrong direction when talking about the changing economy. I think technological progress is usually over-emphasized as a driving force and class warfare underestimated (Belloc's discussion of the factors involved in the creation of the industrial revolution in England is very good and explains various puzzles such as the relationship to Protestantism that had previously baffled me).

I also agree with this:

'As long as society's notion of a "normal" life includes working 9 to 5, watching sports and drinking beer on weekends, etc., then few will ever have the time to improve their lot in life.'

The problem here is in part how poorly integrated these activities are, and how this is used to control and keep down the masses.

'Every successful person I know works like a dog and has earned what they have, at great sacrifice (skipping parties and fun activities, working weekends, late nights, etc.). The fact to be remembered is that motivation is not evenly distributed in society and that many of the people struggling are simply not all that motivated. In fact, many teach their kids to disdain learning and education, etc.'

Agreed here too. However, the most successful people I know are ones who have this integrated with family time and so family, personal, and work time are not separate buckets but rather extremes, and most of life is spent doing all three to some extent. The doctor who reads stories to his kids while being on call in case of emergency is one example. So is "I am going to work on fixing bugs in this software while you do your homework, and if you have questions, I am right here, and can answer them" is another.

I don't know any small business owner who works less than 60 hrs per week. However, I don't know many small business owners who work more than 40 hrs a week away from family.

To live is to work. And we all work better when we are in charge of our work and work as free agents, not serfs of corporations.

BTW, there's a very dark side to welfare that is rarely discussed, and that is the use of welfare as a method of class warfare against the lower and middle classes. If Walmart can pay workers less and have them get Medicaid and Section 8 housing that means we are taxing mom-and-pop businesses to essentially subsidize a large corporation's operations. This thus acts to transfer wealth not from more fortunate families to less, but from middle income families to the very wealthy.

The answer is, in my view, to:

1) Tax lease income, encouraging sale over rent 2) Encourage self-employement as a means out of poverty. This means ensuring that what welfare benefits we offer don't go away just because someone starts a business, but rather get gradually phased out. 3) Corporate income tax should have a high marginal rate, and increases in corporate equity due to off-shore holdings should be taxed at full income tax rates.

I think overall technological change can lead to widespread social empowerment, but the most politically entrenched workers with the loudest voices are those who are least likely to benefit from it.

On the other hand, the kid in India using a $35 tablet to learn calculus or the people starting businesses using Kickstarter are hugely empowered by it.

The main reason I mentioned technological change is just to reinforce that productive work is a moving target, for all factors of production (including labor). It's sentimental to look back fondly on the blacksmith or the wheelwright or the person who made nails by hand... just as it is to look fondly upon the economic fluke that has allowed many Americans to live well above the poverty line with virtually no skills, in spite of living amid an economy that has transferred mostly to knowledge work.

I will look into Belloc's stuff too, links?

Belloc's view was that usually in class warfare the wealthy will win. I don't agree with all the religious nuance, but I have to say the look at ancient and medieval history is surprisingly good from an economic perspective.

"I think overall technological change can lead to widespread social empowerment, but the most politically entrenched workers with the loudest voices are those who are least likely to benefit from it."

Maybe. I think everyone tries to use it. However, I think we are at a point now where the real power in the newer high tech approaches is the power to decentralize both decision making and production. As you say, the kid in India, or the guy in rural America who starts a small business, not the factory worker.

But this is another reason why I say that in these economic times, jobs are the problem, not the solution.

I think the subgroup I was trying to mention was the class who has managed to pull itself up through social organization (unions, guilds, etc.) and in the process has increased the incentive to disrupt the status quo (by making doing so more profitable). This will tend to attract disruptive technology (ubercab, khan academy, etc.)