As always, I find Brink very convincing. I wonder what Lane Kenworthy has to say about Brink’s take. Lane’s core argument is that absolute incomes at the tenth percentile depend on the extent of redistribution, and that redistribution varies across societies with similar levels of wage dispersion, i.e., a top-heavy income distribution can co-exist with high or low levels of redistribution, depending on other factors. Brink ends his column with the following observation:

Have you noticed what a prolonged slump does to plans for big new government spending programs? As tax revenues dry up, those plans are the first things to go. These days the main question is how much to cut existing programs to prevent a fiscal meltdown, not how to add further to government’s unfunded liabilities.
So regardless of where you stand on the proper size and scope of government, the projected slowdown in the growth rate should concern you. After all, growth means more wealth, and more wealth means more choices. Slower growth means dramatically fewer choices available in the future compared to what might have been: fewer choices for private households, and fewer choices for public officials. To keep our options open, we all have a stake in boosting economic growth.

The deeper left-right divide, however, concerns how to go about boosting economic growth. I’m a believer in facilitating the trial-and-error process through which the most advanced economies (the frontier economies) achieve new productivity gains, a stance that cuts in favor of deregulation of labor markets, etc. Others, however, believe that heavy public investment and regulatory coordination — carbon pricing schemes, aggressive standard-setting, and other forms of picking winners — are the key while tight labor market regulations can help create a “race to the top.” While I’m not entirely opposed to well-tailored public investments that minimize crowd-out and I believe that there’s a place for coordination, it’s easy to see how these views clash.

P.S. Also of parenthetical interest re: Brink’s column: the volatility of revenues under steeply progressive tax regimes. How do you make the safety net robust against uncertainty re: future growth rates, etc.? I recently heard Brink and Robin Hanson discuss this question, and it seems to strengthen the case for moving away from pay-as-you-go retirement systems, etc. But I would say that, wouldn’t I.