Submitted by bureaubasher, Oct 15, 2007 12:09

Some one needs a lesson in economics here - actually just a lesson in basic statistics and common sense. You don't compare apples, even the Big Apple, to oranges. This is what you did when you compared the 1% income break point nationwide to number that represents what some condos are selling for in New York City. New York CIty is not the nation and vice versa, so this is a meaningless comparison and serves only to misinform readers (and I am assuming that your intent was to present an informed opinion and not to simply peddle misinformation for the purpose of making Ms. Clinton look bad). An example of a valid and informative comparison would be to compare the 1% income level in New York City to the average sale price of a condo in New York City (with both numbers from the same period, of course).

The other point is that data has been pointing to a widening income gap for a number of years now. Your somewhat clumsy attempt to explain this away as some kind of anomoly of the year 2005 ignores this. Someone up there needs to do the research first if The Sun is going to produce an editorial that is credible to anyone who stops and thinks about it for a minute.

Finally, what of the fact that the software and computer industries did not exist in the Gilded Age? The railroad and steel industries, two of the main economic drivers at that time, did not exist in 1790. This may point to economic opportunity in both ages, but says nothing about how opportunity spreads through society. The economic inequality of the Gilded Age is nothing to romanticize. I do not think you would want to live in the New York City of that time, with its abundance of sqalid housing, inadeqate sanitation and a crime rate that makes the 1970s look tame. Also, you need to decide if you are criticizing the sincerity of Ms. Clinton's desire to tackle the problem or if you are criticizing her mentioning it at all. Can't have it both ways without splitting down the middle.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.