Part of what Friedman is doing in his new book is calling attention to the issue forgotten by statements like the above – ethics. Such a concept is not singular, but social; personal morality assumes a pluarlity of persons among which to act – if your actions have no consequences toward others, then what standard is there? It would seem that saying what ultimately matters is an individual’s abilty to rise an income level is shallow at best. If all it takes is determination and hard work, why isn’t everyone improving their standard of living constantly? If it only takes putting one’s mind to it, why are so many still unemployed/underpaid/struggling to pay bills and put food on the table? It must be because impoverished people are lazy/make poor decisions/involved in drugs. Yes, that’s it – it clearly couldn’t be because racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination are still rampant. It couldn’t be because US government is rapidly becoming a “corpocracy” by, for, and to the corporation at the expense of real flesh and blood men, women, and children.

“I would suspect that the growing distribution gap in the US is mostly the result of a growth in the gap between college education and non-college educated.”

Such a statement could only be made by an uneducated person. The numbers show that more people attend college now than ever before in the United States. The gap that exists is not between educated and uneducated, but between the educated from higher income families and the educated from lower income families. So, basically, the education disparity is also a result of the economic disparity that exists in America: rich kids get all the education they want, while lower income children must wrestle with economic, social, and cultural powers that combine to make it much harder for them to go to school, considering most must work to support themselves or their families at an early age. Friedman’s clarion call for a look at the morality of economic growth, on a general level, is important in as much as it draws ethics back into economics. After all, does the economy exist for itself or for people?

Income distribution is a meaningless indicator when taken out of context. What matters is the potential for a person existing in one income group to move to another income group given they are willing to put forth the effort.

I would suspect that the growing distribution gap in the US is mostly the result of a growth in the gap between college education and non-college educated.