Good comment at Brad DeLong's

How do we characterize the "knowledge workers", who were promised that they would benefit from globalization, and be insulated from the increasing economic inequity?

People with college degrees? People with four year degrees? People with four year degrees in technical subects, not the humanities? All that, but only if you're a man not a woman?

Here's a simpler way to characterize them: what Tom Friedman was saying (and what Krugman is now disproving) is that *you*, the readers of the New York Times, are going to benefit from globalization and be insulated from inequities. You know who you are; you subscribe to the NYT or at least read its op-ed page regularly. Some of you got math degrees and some of you got English degrees, but by and large you are better educated, somewhat wealthier, slightly closer to the levers of power than non-NYT readers. Maybe the top 20% in pure economic terms, though that's only a rough proxy.

So the "knowledge worker" pitch was a way of saying: ignore the plight of the victims. You and I--you NYT readers and I the NYT writer--we're going to make out from this. Sure, we could drag our heels and resist. Sure, we could press for political change to ameliorate the condition of the worst off. But don't worry--none of *us* will be that hard hit. None of the people *we* know are going to suffer from the gross inequities. We're alright, jack. So don't spend any political capital on the bottom 80%--they deserve what they're getting 'cause they didn't take AP classes.

That's what Friedman's flat-earth meritocracy arguments amounted to. And that's why Krugman's rebuttal gets at something important. It's not just the losers in Kansas who advocate policies contrary to their own economic interests. All you well-educated NYT readers, you lucky ducks in the upper 20%? You have been suckered into advocating policies against your own economic interests, too. You thought you were in on the deal, when the whole time the oligarchy was cutting you out of the deal. And Friedman's rhetoric kept you on board, kept you thinking you were going to profit from the scam, when actually you were one of the victims, too.

Thanks, Tom. For that and the Iraq war, too.

Posted by: Tad Brennan | February 28, 2006 at 07:14 AM