[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Your comment is a non-sequitur; it does not show that the argument is poor. All your argument says it their is some factor that makes technology cheaper at work; it doesn't change the fact that the claim being made their is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point was that such situations don't last forever as there are incentives to delivering goods and services that only the rich could once afford. IOW, the inequality is temporary and rectifiable without the need for gov't intervention. Not only that, usually expanding such goods and services gives people new opportunities for jobs.

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I could give you a link to Amartya Sen's (Who recently won the Nobel Prize in Econ) original article on this in case you don't understand it fully from that statement, but it's not online.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you find it, please post it. I'd be interested to hear the argument fleshed out further.

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny that you mention cars, however. One of Sen's examples is that the invention of the car made things worse for people who didn't have a car, because the invention of the car (predictably) lowered the quantity and quality of other types of transportation, caused jobs to move from the city to the suburbs (harder to reach for people living in the city without a car) and even allowed the affluent who worked in the city to live in the suburbs, decreasing the property values and tax revenue within the city.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are positives to this, however. Goods can be transported quicker, which lowers their cost. People moving out of the cities can keep those cities from being overcrowded. And I'd have to wonder at what the alternatives are as well. Not allow people to leave the city because it might lower some already low property values? That sounds like a type of imprisonment. So I guess to the extent that the bads outweight the goods (assuming for the sake of your argument that they do), the alternatives sound worse.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, in direct contradiction to your ostensible critique of this argument, generally speaking, the more people who have access to these new technologies, the larger the negative effect on those who do not have access.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may be, but with increasingly efficient manners of producing those goods, the small portion that can't afford the new technology shrinks. And again, the alternatives seem undesirable.