Comment by fluoridation

>The conversation started with the question of who captures the wealth generated from this new tech.

Regardless of how the conversation started, the statement I questioned, and which you chose to defend, was

>I'm skeptical of the idea that the financial wellbeing of the average American has been improved by computers.

I won't simply grant that relative wealth is equivalent to absolute wealth. That's like saying that if you have a dollar in each pocket, putting another dollar in your right pocket makes your left pocket poorer. No. Maybe it's really true that the rich have captured the productivity gained from personal computing. I don't know. But what you said was that you don't think personal computing has contributed to the financial wellbeing of Americans, on average. Even if you had data showing that most households are financially the same or worse since the dawn of personal computing, I don't know you would get from there to attributing it to personal computers (beyond post hoc ergo propter hoc, which I don't need to say is rather flimsy).

>You're free to offer counter evidence and I don't know why you're acting like you were limited to only referencing the source I provided.

I appreciate the offer to do work for no reason, but I'm fine, thanks. Why would I need to present any evidence to refute you when the evidence you presented doesn't back you up?