Krugman Confronting Inequality: the Impact of Technological Advancements

Introduction

Gladwell and Krugman both provide compelling arguments that show how new technology has had an impact on the lives of the working class and protestors. Both authors are similar yet different when they use evidence to support their claims, the biases they hold, the assumptions they make, and the consequences of their arguments. Krugman claims that new technology is devaluing certain human skills, while Gladwell believes that social media is devaluing the power of protest.

Comparative Analysis of Evidence and Argumentation

The common theme here is that they both believe that certain technological advancements surpass the point of usefulness and begin to have a negative impact.

Both arguments support the idea that technology is devaluing the power people have or once had. The main difference between the two claims is that Krugman believes that technology demands more education, which ends up being a waste of time and money, while Gladwell believes that new technology, such as social media, has made protestors comfortable with low-risk acts and little change.

Both authors use evidence very effectively to support their arguments. Gladwell and Krugman support their arguments with the same order of operations. First, they provide relevant historical evidence, then they explain the problem completely, and finally, they connect it back to their initial claim and explain the correlation. Krugman used this method to incorporate the problems that a wool-industry center faced back in 1786 and related it to the current problems the working class is facing now with new technologies making them obsolete. This is similar to the way Gladwell used historical evidence. Gladwell starts off his article with an example of how traditional revolutions started and the results that followed. He wrote about how a group of four college students decided to protest at a lunch counter in the 1960s because they refused to serve a black woman. Their willingness to stand up and go against the grain inspired others around them to join and make a difference. Gladwell compares this event to the current low-risk method of protest, claiming that social media is less effective and provides less profound change.

Conclusion

The assumptions made by Gladwell and Krugman both sound convincing but aren’t completely true. Gladwell assumes that social media does not support activism but instead has a negative impact on social movements. He assumes social media is the problem but overlooks the ability it has as a tool to raise awareness, providing the stepping stones towards forming a revolution. This is similar to Krugman’s assumption that education is no longer the answer to rising inequality and that more education is just a waste of time and money. A potential consequence of less education can result in increased difficulty finding a job and holding a job.

References

1. “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas Piketty 

2. “The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger” by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

Did you like this example?

234

12