There's a kind of New York Times story that Atrios likes to mock where somewhat wealthy New Yorkers complain about the massive inflation of prices for certain goods in the city, particularly real estate and private school tuition.  Real estate is probably the biggest issue as anyone who wants to buy in the city has to compete not only with ultra high net worth locals but with wealthy buyers from abroad.  So you get stories of people who have managed to save a million dollars and try to buy an apartment with all cash only to be outbid and forced into a mortgage.  I know, wah, right?

However, there actually is a problem of inflation for certain limited, desirable goods and it isn't just limited to Manhattan real estate.  Urban real estate and rental prices are now through the roof around the country.  College tuition is through the roof throughout the country.  The costs to participate in civic society by joining a charity board are now much higher than they once were and the expectations for fundraising are now prohibitive for those who do not hobnob with the very wealthy.

Now, part of the Atrios argument is that if you can't compete while making six figures, you should stop to imagine what it's like for people making $50,000 a year, which is the median income (and has been stagnant for a decade).  I completely agree.  What's being missed here is that the six figure urbanite has more in common with the $50,000 a year earner elsewhere than they do with the ultra high net worth people who are responsible for much of the inflation in the U.S.

Or, put another way, the real and growing wealth gap between the richest and poorest is a problem, but so is the real and growing wealth gap between the richest and the middle class.  I'm going to let David Brooks take it from here for a little bit because, you know, I'm a glutton for punishment.

If you are a young professional in a major city, you experience inequality firsthand. But the inequality you experience most acutely is not inequality down, toward the poor; it’s inequality up, toward the rich.

You go to fund-raisers or school functions and there are always hedge fund managers and private equity people around. You get more attention than them at parties, but your whole apartment could fit in their dining room. You struggle with tuition, but their kids go off on ski weekends. You wait in line at the post office, but they have staff to do it for them.

You see firsthand the explosion of wealth at the tippy-top. It really doesn’t help that you have to spend your days kissing up to the oligarchs and their foundations to finance your research, exhibition or favorite cause.

Brooks then suggests that conservatives give a little on the inheritance tax issue but then suggests that nothing be done about a situation he describes as combat between those with cultural capital and those with financial capital.  The financial capital wins and Brooks is basically fine with that.  Change the conversation, he says, to "emphasize that the historically proven way to reduce inequality is lifting people from the bottom with human capital reform, not pushing down the top."

Now, one thing off the bat is that Republicans are also terrible at helping the truly poor. They'll snatch away food stamps and tuition assistance or health care without a thought.  But even if they could be persuaded to listen to Brooks on this, the people caught in the middle are still left without any help at all.  It is, in the end, fine with Brooks if middle class people have to work until they die while Paris Hilton does not.

Thing is, I think a lot of people on the left kind of agree with Brooks.  They don't really see it as that big a deal with ultra rich people make cities like San Francisco and New York unlivable (or if prices reduce people who would otherwise own to renters).  They see that as a massive "first world problem" and rightly point out that people have been priced out of communities throughout history.  They don't really see it as a problem that some people have to work while others do not.  They don't really see it as a problem that the rich kid with parental support has more options than the one whose parents can't bankroll them (I pay a lot of attention to the backgrounds of successful actors, artists and writers and it's a little stunning how many of them came from wealthy families).

To complain about this sort of thing is dismissed as either ingratitude or the expression of some sort of dangerous Utopian impulse.  The world is a sordid place, it can't all be fixed and there are in, fact, bigger problems out there than the tuition at Amherst or the outrageous ask for a small Manhattan apartment in a "meh" neighborhood. To an extent, most everybody is "struggling," so we have to use limited resources mostly for those who are, in fact, "suffering" (and we do a terrible job of that.)

But I defy anyone to look at the deal the way Brooks describes it where those with cultural capital genuflect to those with financial capital and to say "this is the best way to organize society."  It just isn't.

Addendum: The American Middle Class Is No Longer The World's Richest