CONVERGOLESCENCE OF ECONOMISTS

This is what has been going on now for a long time.  I mean a long time. You can glean an inkling from just a few important statistics Brooks drops.

You just didn't know convergolescence existed. No leaders or pundits told you.  Why not?  Take a few guesses.

So, what are a few of the remarks I refer to?  They have to do with the past 50 or 60 years, and the remarks involve the relationship between the changed and shrinking nature of work set against the record of high growth in GDP.  Not that I think that GDP is the meaningful measure of what is happening to American workers, but let's use it just for now because Brooks does, and it is Brooks Simon Says anyway. So, GDP has been rising steadily, yet domestic worker prosperity has evaporated. 

Global wages are moving toward a mean mean!

Many wage earners everywhere are just being squeezed out altogether, and those in wealthier countries are just being sent to tittitainment! I would call it something like Booty Land, or Bootitainment, or Bootyville!

Taken together, these twin trends are what I call Convergolescence!

There are other causes for this anomaly, having to do with foreign and cheaper sources of work and production, but Brooks doesn't want to get into all that.

As I said in an earlier post, his answer to this little problem is to have leaders read Cass' book.

When he refers to the college educated sliver of the professional class, is he referring primarily to economists like Krugman?

He has to blame someone, as a political science major and maybe historian, I forget which, but certainly not an economist.

Someone in the professional class, the sliver Brooks says is ideologically responsible for all this, will have to be thrown under the bus, and Brooks is going to make damn certain it is not him!  If he has to sacrifice Krugman and the economists, then so be it!