Just came back from an event sponsored by Democracy: Journal of Ideas (so pretentious- uggh) and the Brooking's Hamilton Project, which I'm not really a huge fan of either, but whatever. They're ok.

Economist Mark Thoma, over at Economist's View, locks in on an essential point in the inequality debate that often gets overlooked. One thing that bothers me about the whole inequality debate is the presumption that the winners deserve their incomes because it reflects their contribution to the firm, i.e. it is the wage that would be earned in well-functioning competitive markets, with the reward is equal to the person's marginal contribution to the firm. Thus, the analysis often begins with the idea that any tax takes away someone's hard-earned income and redistributes it elsewhere.

Ignore that man on the floor with a bag over his head. Pay attention instead to what he does behind closed doors. That was the message of OMB Director-nominee Jim Nussle yesterday at his Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee confirmation hearing:

Ezra Klein, a writer for the American Prospect, has an interesting post on uncompetitive and exploitative labor markets- a significant cause of inequality. Sadly, the best thing written on the blog today didn't come from me. Rather, it's a comment from Kathy G. arguing that labor markets don't look much like classical assumptions would suggest, and that the data -- and some emergent theory -- offers evidence that they're closer to a monopsony than the more traditional competitive-market-in-equilibrium model. Full comment below the fold: Anyone who thinks mandated leave would inevitably lead to a decrease in employment or wages most likely has not taken any econ beyond Econ 101. Because if you believe that such results would inevitably follow, you clearly are not familiar with the empirical research on paid leave, nor do you understand economic theory beyond a very superficial and incomplete level.