1. The pie metaphor bit was cute. It really doesn't make much sense, but it was kind of fun to see you try to refute the idea of aggregate income by making pointless comparisons.
I would say it makes plenty of sense. One of the prime arguments from the left is with regards to so-called "income inequality." Generally this relies of claiming that the rich are "taking" a larger and larger "share" of "the income." This relies however on the pie concept of income. In reality, income is not something that any group "takes" a "share" of.
2. Your definition of income is QUITE interesting. It doesn't include non-labor income. Generally, that sort of definitional choice is found on the right.
What people produce I'd say also includes non-labor income. Labor is not related to income generation. A coal miner engages in a lot more physical labor than say a software engineer, yet the software engineer may make a lot more.
3. Your argument regarding the 80s and 90s is deceptive. You essentially argue that the data on income distribution from those decades must be wrong because two presidents got re-elected. That's a silly argument on its face. Using that logic, Nixon should have been stomped by Kennedy in 1960 because of the recession that began while he was VP. FDR should have lost to Willkie because of the 1937 recession. Al Gore should have run up 60% because of the awesome 90s. Why didn't these things happen?
I get your point, but Reagan wasn't just re-elected, he was re-elected in a landslide. And Clinton was re-elected during a period that everyone remembers as having been really nice economically. Regarding Al Gore, he did win the popular vote remember.
4. The "massive amount of wealth creation" is not primarily due to technology. There has been a significant increase in productivity due to the widespread adoption of the computer and the use of the internet as a backbone. That being said, it's still a lot smaller than the increase in paper profits as a result of the increasing financialization of the American economy. It gets a bit silly to swallow the tech hype when you see virtually method of acquiring an income stream being securitized and sold to investors. Hell, subprime auto loans and income from rental properties are being securitized these days. Student loans are securitized. Virtually nothing cannot be monetized these days. That's your real driver of wealth creation.
A few very large fortunes were created from tech. Most of the rest come from finance or servicing it.
That is part of it, but productivity from the computer was a massive contributor as well, along with new tech fortunes.
= new reply since forum marked as read