I'm off on yet another trip;  although this one is purely social and is to NYC rather than overseas.  En route from home to SFO, I had a very interesting conversation w/ my cab driver relevent to my recent post on income inequality. 

In standard taxi conversation, my cab driver asked where I was heading off to for the weekend and I answered "NYC."   He responded that NYC was a favorite town of his and that he's a big fan of the restaurants out there.   I queried him a little about his favorite restaurants in the Big Apple and it read like a veritable Zagat's Guide to NYC's best -- Vong, Gramercy Tavern, Blue Water Grill.

The point being, that the restaurants he rattled off were all restaurants in the upper end of the $$$ bracket.   Places most people would have considered the domain of the "Movers & Shakers" in Manhattan.

A growing chorus of critics of income inequality statistics argue that what we should be watching standard of living inequality rather income inequality.   A scant 20-30 yrs ago, there were hoards of places and amenities that were the exclusive purview of the Rich.   Now rising purchasing power has actually democratized our "wealth" on the product side of the equation as well.

At a clinical level, there are few, if any *significant* amenities you can get on a Rolls Royce that you can't get on a Chevy.    I'm talking big ticket items like air conditioning, power steering, keyless entry, etc.  NOT cherry wood trims or sycophantic dealers.

When it comes to restaurants, although the CEO makes 1000x what a secretary makes, there are VERY few (if any?) restaurants that a CEO can visit but not his secretary.   Or, in my case, my cab driver.

Jane Galt has the following to say:

Has the qualitative life experience of the rich really increased, while the poor stayed stagnant? Since the 50's? 60's? 70's? I would argue it's the reverse. The head of GM's life is not, qualitatively, much better than that of the head of GM in the 50's. The poor, on the other hand, have more space, better food, more and better clothes, color televisions, VCR's, automobiles. . . items that were beyond the wildest dreams of the poor in the 1950's. The numbers may have diverged, but I would argue that the quality of life is converging. Consider that many of the things the poor routinely own mimic the servants available only to the very rich until a short time ago: answering machines and cell phones to substitute for butlers and personal secretaries. Cars to substitute for the coach and four. Appliances to substitute for the cook, parlormaid, laundress, and scullery maid. Television and movies to substitute for the performing arts.