Yes, I agree, income inequality has indeed reached some gross proportions.

But at the same time, there are far better policy options than the tried-and-true axioms that you hear repeated almost endlessly on these blogs - fair trade, universal health care, college affordability.

(Originally, I pointed to Kwhite's latest post as an example of "pushing this orthodoxy", a reading which Kwhite disputes. Fair enough.)

I'll attempt to address the main points of each, and at the same time offer up some serious counter-solutions of my own.

So-called "fair trade", as a full system rather than an ad-hoc basis whereby a few farmers benefit when college kids want to feel good about themselves, too often ends up being simply far less trade, exacerbating and extending third world poverty. Low wages are not, in and of themselves, a form of exploitation.

As for universal health care - noble goal, but that depends completely how it's done. Specifically, if people have no incentive not to consume health care based on whether they really need it or not (i.e. preventative or not), it becomes financially unsustainable very quickly. Systems like France's benefit from elective procedures simply not being as popular over there -- and at the same time, I'd hardly call their system "sustainable".

A better approach is to aim for universal health insurance coverage - using market-based mechanisms to improve access while maintaining the system's efficiency.

Lastly, we have got to rein in consumer financing somehow. Middle-class America is getting itself into debt beyond all reason, with the savings rate actually going negative. People are just buying an unbelievable amount of crap they don't need these days -- everything from IPods to leased SUVs -- and not saving like they should.

That's one of the biggest stories I haven't seen the progressive community touch very much - the middle-class' shift away from personal fiscal responsibility over the past two decades or so.

The stock market rising should be benefiting the middle class. The reasons it isn't as much are largely due to people making stupid choices.

The return of the average investor is only comparable to a T-bill, significantly less than you'd get from just taking some safe mutual funds.

Why is that?

Because people suck at picking stocks. 98% of the people who pick their own stocks shouldn't be.

It's really no different than playing poker, but we stigmatize gambling in this country and then turn around and pretend that everyone picking stocks for themselves is being "responsible".

Most people who claim to know what they're doing in the stock market are little more than gamblers, and their returns, honestly accounted for, reflect that. We need to be getting more people into mutual funds.

As for college affordability: If we're really serious about increasing class mobility, why are we not talking about expanding the EITC and scholarships targeted at especially useful majors for low-income kids?

I'm all for making college more affordable, assuming it's truly an investment in kids from underprivileged backgrounds and their future. Let the kids from the ranks of the idle rich take the gender studies major or become the world's leading expert on Chaucer, I want Mr. First-In-My-Family-To-Go-To-College to outdo and outclass them, focusing on hard math and science, high-demand language skills, etcetera.

The proof is in the pudding. The group at the top of America's socio-economic ladder isn't whites -- it's Asian Americans, who have a higher average household income and lower out-of-wedlock birthrates. Disproportionately, Asian American parents tend to steer their kids towards "non-fluff" majors. This occasionally results in some very unhappy kids, but it works. Jewish Americans have (at least historically) done the same. For many of us, the whole "doctor or a lawyer" thing was just a running gag at synagogue, but enough parents genuinely think that way that it shifts the averages.

We should also seriously be incentivize trade schools. The simple fact is, a lot of people go to college not because it's best for them, but because we lionize it in our culture and pretend it's the gateway ticket to All Good Things.

The reality is somewhat different - in a global economy, a skilled tradesman may end up doing better financially, not to mention the benefits of being good with your hands and the stability of never having to worry about being outsourced.

To give you an example: I know a guy who's really, really bright. He aspired to a middle class standard of living, but rather than simply going with the herd, he cracked out a calculator and started to punch numbers.

At the end of the day, he took the path which makes the most financial sense -- he graduated early with his GED and started working at the post office at age 17.

The post office is not a hard job, you meet interesting people from time to time, and the benefits (as from most government jobs) are quite competitive. It's almost impossible to be fired and there's a fairly set schedule for when you get promoted.

Whenever anyone from some mid-rank college with a liberal arts degree questions his lack of a degree, he simply whips out the calculator and shows them how he'll almost certainly end up better off financially than they will.

It happens enough that he knows the numbers for their average salaries after graduation (and their average debt load) by heart -- and the look on their face when they realize they could have done better by working at the post office than going to college is priceless.

He has no debt, guaranteed job stability and nearly-guaranteed promotions, great benefits, and he's literally five years ahead in his career and earnings. More like six years ahead if you count the fact that a plurality of American college students take five years to graduate.

Given the lifestyle of a postman, he even has more time to pursue his intellectual passions than the average college student.