Tyler posts on some of the criticisms of the Cox and Alm piece in the NYT. (Art posted on it a few days ago.)

One of the Cox/Alm critics argues:

To understand the serious issue of relative inequality, you would not look at technological toys (unless you were idiots). Rather, you would consider the consumption of necessities -- Shelter, food, medical care, clothing, education, transportation. Not only that, but you would not simply review the quantity, but also the quality of the products that get consumed.

Compare the top and bottom quintiles: Who is consuming fatty, high carb foods, and who is eating lots of protein, fresh fruits and vegetables? What about medical care? Do they have reliable access to any sort of family physician, regular check ups, doctor visits, ongoing treatments, preventative care -- or is their medical consumption on an emergency room basis? What is the quality of their housing like -- safe neighborhoods, with access to good schools? Or something less desirable?

If we are going to use consumption as a measure of economic equality, then look at the quality of essentials; measuring toys ain't the way to go . . .

Pure gasbaggery--to adopt the quoted blogger's over the top rhetoric. Showing that virtually all households have dvd players etc. isn't enough--we need to look at housing, food, and other "necessities." But what makes it someone else's problem or some failure of the U.S. economy if some folks choose "toys" instead of necessities? Likewise, what makes it someone else's problem or some economic failure if people choose junk food over healthy food (especially if, as I suspect, junk food such as potato chips cost more than healthy food such as potatoes)? And it seems downright perverse to tax someone who chooses not to buy a cell phone (e.g., me up until less than 3 years ago) or someone who doesn't use a clothes dryer (me again) to redistribute to someone who chooses to purchase a cell phone or other toys instead of necessities.

BTW, as I noted in the comments to Art's post, I don't care for the title ("Your Are What You Spend") on the Cox and Alm piece. It's actually rather offensive and it plays to the critics of "consumerism," "materialism," and the like. I assume, as is usual newspaper practice, that NYT editors supplied the title.

Finally, for a good cleansing just keep repeating "Income is earned, it's not distributed."