I think part of what's underlying some of Dana's objections as well as Scott's pointed critique is the sense that the in some deep sense The Trap is heaping a whole lot of attention on the injustices suffered by a group that is really doing quite well: the young, over-educated members of the elite who have dreams of saving the world, or writing a novel and still want the basics of bourgeois comfort. Do we really want a government that caters to their needs?

The answer is no, and I think Daniel would agree. But that's not what he book argues. What The Trap does is make an argument to this relatively well-off cohort that the rise of inequality and the winner-take-all society isn't just a problem for other people -- the urban poor, midwestern factory workers, non-unionized service workers -- but a problem for them as well. If the book were a magazine article in one of those service-y glossies you see at checkout counter the headline would be "What Social Democracy Can Do For You!"

It doesn't mean the book is arguing that people like, say, Dana, Scott, Daniel and myself aren't tremendously privileged, or that government should craft policy with our preferences foremost in mind. What it's trying to do is recruit a potentially influential, thoughtful group of people into the movement for social democracy by showing that a bunch of the limitations and frustrations that they face aren't just general bummers, but the specific result of policy choices that the government makes, and as such require political engagement. Better living through politics!

I remember reading a Desmond Tutu quote once (which a quick perusal of Google isn't turn up, so maybe I'm making this up) in which he talked about how apartheid was not only unjust and degrading for blacks, but corrosive in a deep sense to whites. Obviously, Daniel Brook is not Desmong Tutu and early 21st century America is not apartheid South Africa. But a similar point holds: the current distribution of income, wealth and power, as well as the enfeebled public sphere have a negative and corrosive effect not just on the poor and the working and middle classes, but even on the people who are the putative elite. Even the winners aren't winning.

I think that fundamental message is both borne out by the data (the rise inequality really has been the result of a very tiny percentage pulling way ahead, certain goods like education and housing have been bid up as a result) and potentially quite politically powerful.