What a disingenuous article. To put the entire blame on management consultants for wealth inequality and then to say, btw, Pete is one of them - it reeks of agenda politics and a hit piece.

Let's talk about the actual substance of the article, which there is surprisingly little. First, the author claims that managers used to come from the working class before 1955, and that the managerial consultant class made it so that working class people could never become managers.

A more plausible explanation is that in the older days, planning capacity was more evenly distributed among the working class and as the education system in the US matured, smarter people with the capability for planning and strategy were less likely to start off as a clerk or factory worker.

Second, the author claims that the managerial consultant class is responsible for wealth inequality by systematically reducing middle management and pushing the "profits to shareholders" maxim that has dominated corporate America. He implies that America would be just as wealthy and much more evenly distributed if they didn't exist.

As much as I would love to pull out a torch and ascribe blame the way the author does (blissfully), it's just not what is happening. No one wants to hear this, but middle managers were cut out not because of an agenda but because they were over payed and inefficient, as measured by the economic system.

It's popular but unfair to say that companies benefit the shareholders at the cost of society. Companies benefit the consumer the most through better products and lower costs, which is a tenant of globalism and largely true, as we've experienced a consumption boom that we've never experienced in the history of mankind. Standard of living is incredibly high as consumers.

However, consumers are also the employees of companies, and wages have been stagnant for a long time. But it's not that smart, rich, capable people steal from poor, middle class, working people, but rather the systemic properties of capitalism make wealth unequally distributed as a byproduct of producing value efficiently. If you must scratch the itch to blame something, blame the system, not the people in the system.

This problem of growing inequality existed for a long time but the lack of visibility and ultra cheap consumption by companies exploiting global opportunities to temporarily reduce cost of goods placated most Americans. Employees (consumers) still get gains from the economy by benefitting from stuff being either cheaper or continually better quality. As long as we can continue to reduce costs or improve quality at same cost, then stagnant wages is not an issue because standard of living is still rising.

(Yes, I know standard of living as a metric has been constant or falling since forever, but you can't compare telegraphs to iPhones).

Well, after employing cheap labor from 3rd world countries and making possibly the cheapest produced goods in history from China, we've mined out all the global opportunities. Going even cheaper is no longer an option (although there is no lack of trying) - that bandaid is no more, and now people want a stronger fix - this has been the conversation topic of the election and for most America for about 5-10 years.

To do what the author does - imply that people, not systems, are to blame - is a step back in terms of discourse. It indicates to me that the author puts blame and agenda politics over a desire to understand and solve issues, and cleverly masks it by sounding intelligent.