
It is absolutely a problem that the top 20-25% of America has done well while the bottom 75-80% rest has not.

And depending on where you cut it, the nature of the problem – the nature of the crime – is slightly different. I think there are a lot of different ways to cut the definition of “ruling class”. And so I am interested to hear a bit more about why you chose to include the term “elite” in the title of your book as opposed to, say, “ruling class” or “plutocrat ”? How do these linguistic choices reflect your analysis of the problem? One of the most important arguments you present in Winners Take All is that the commonsense language we unwittingly or reflexively employ with respect to social transformation often prevents us from expanding the parameters of acceptable debate.
