[this post may eventually emerge as a comment over at a Pandagon thread...but I am an impatient person when it comes to moderation dwell time.]
"Unsustainable": that means out-of-balance resource usage that produces extinction...applies in political economy but operates outside the equations economists are taught.
Never mind "unfair", Republican wealth distribution accomplishments are bad business and socially destabilizing.
I won't work up a sweat over morality of the stacked deck economic rules. That I think it is immoral won't fix a thing. I am personally in a pretty good place nearing the end of my career, self and spouse each making a salary above the state's median family income and no debt, writing tuition checks out of the bank account. Nice pile of assets and all that...and every penny we have came from a pay check we were careful with. The first ten years of work [70's] was the only time we were financially typical. I should be a republican. But instead, I am ripshit about their distorted ideas of enterprise, that privatise and steal all that was once common wealth. I pay more in taxes now than I used to make in a year but that money does no lasting good for anyone outside the boardrooms of a few corporations. I could just go over to Townhall and congratulate myself on my "values" except I know I am lucky and my success is a fluke. Everybody works and our work was just multiplied by the luck of being college educated and in technical subjects that, for most of our 35 years of employment, were in high demand.
I think the selfishness of rules that sustain wealth as if money had a soul and working were a punishment is the most damnable thing about this country. And I agree with Thomas Hartmann that the current situation is a result of concerted manipulations of the laws and loopholes on the part of wealthy interests, both businesses and dyna$ties. But getting worked up actually hurts Hartmann: his book comes across as "bleeding heart" liberal even though he is historically accurate and only argues for justice.
Emotions follow quickly when the moral aspects, fairness and justice, call up anger in the disadvantaged and fear in the advantaged classes. Simple "which works better?" reasons can be used. There are practical reasons why the scales should be rebalanced to leave wages with those that earn them. I find in one particular hardship, the demise of the LA Times, a harbinger of an economy where only the rich can afford anything: the rich will have no one to sell things to. If you will only serve the rich who can easily afford your service, you would be smart to advocate an increase in the numbers of the rich. Will your clients support that?
I am not worked up. I am not going to blow my cool if its going to undermine my cause.