>>How is the idea that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income a "breathtaking misunderstanding of poverty"? It's absolutely true that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income...
No. Productivity has nothing to do with income. You can be the most productive widget-maker in the factory. That doesn't mean you will make a lot of money.
Income inequality exists and has been growing because those at the top have been reaping the increases in productivity of those at the bottom. In fact that's the entire debate: employee productivity has massively increased since the 70s, but wages have not reflected this.
> You can be the most productive widget-maker in the factory.
You are using a non economic definition of productivity, and he is using the economic one. In Economics, productivity is the value of what is produced, not the quantity.
This is really the heart of the debate: what is the origin of wealth? Is it mostly productivity, people working hard and reaping the benefits? Or is it mostly opportunity, people being in the right place at the right time, and reaping the benefits?
Where you fall on pg's essay is defined by your answer to that question.
No. Productivity has nothing to do with income. You can be the most productive widget-maker in the factory. That doesn't mean you will make a lot of money.
Income inequality exists and has been growing because those at the top have been reaping the increases in productivity of those at the bottom. In fact that's the entire debate: employee productivity has massively increased since the 70s, but wages have not reflected this.