I would caution that the rhetorical use of statistics tends to lead away
from creative solutions, whatever their interpretation. It is common to
see a shocking statistical fact or projection deteriorate into soothing
counter-examples and debates about methodology that are hard for most
people to follow. The most conspicuous use of statistics is conservative
-- they are used to discredit fragmentary evidence as
"anecdotal". Strictly speaking, though, ALL evidence is fragmentary and
anecdotal to a degree.
This is not to say that statistics shouldn't be used at all in an
argument, just that they shouldn't be the foundation for a contoversial
case. If the case is controversial, the statistical evidence won't settle
it.
With regard to income disparities, I wonder to what extent there is a
direct relationship between one's place in the income rank order and one's
misery/impoverishment. A person can indeed become happier and better off
by becoming "poorer". There may be nothing more pathetetic than the
desperate, self-lacerating efforts of a lower middle class family to
remain "respectible" in the face of moderate economic hardship.
I do happen to believe that income disparities in North America have
gotten worse over the past, say, 25 years. But I think the _real_ story is
the emergence of an officially sanctioned hate cult directed against poor
people. Not only are poor people blamed for their own poverty, they are
castigated if they don't display sufficient cheerful gratitude for the
wonderful opportunities systematically denied them (sometimes on
the sole grounds that they are poor). There are no statistics on this hate
cult, even though we are daily immersed in its propaganda.
I would estimate that social conscience disparities have grown much worse
than have income disparities. But again, there are no statistics. As a
poor person, I would gladly give up a few dollars of income to be spared
the hateful, self-serving sophisms of a Thomas Sowell.
Temps Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant
