Here’s an amusing example from the China article that Don posted:
“Are you and Joseph Stiglitz invited to participate in the White House Jobs Summit? YOU BOTH DEFINITELY SHOULD BE! I am ready to march in the streets if you are not. I asked Mr. Douthat to see what he could do about making sure that you will be there! After all, the Republicans might as well be helpful about something!”

So every government employee should be counted as more than 1 person on welfare and thus unemployment today is much, much worse than during the Great Depression.

Even you have to admit that the “rising tide” illustration is just an illustration. Not everyone’s income rises at the same pace, and some decline. Some people care about that, some people don’t.

It’s like in your most recent post on Krugman – you can assume that Krugman doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or you can assume that “dollars” isn’t actually currency, but short-hand for a variety of different assets.

I don’t think anything I ever say is going to convince you not to go into reading Krugman thinking he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Here’s the relevant passage (and surrounding context) from Krugman’s NYT Magazine piece:

“Still, you can understand why Novak assumed that we were No. 1. After all, we really are the richest major nation, with real G.D.P. per capita about 20 percent higher than Canada’s. And it has been an article of faith in this country that a rising tide lifts all boats. Doesn’t our high and rising national wealth translate into a high standard of living — including good medical care — for all Americans?

Well, no. Although America has higher per capita income than other advanced countries, it turns out that that’s mainly because our rich are much richer. And here’s a radical thought: if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else.

That statement — which is simply a matter of arithmetic — is guaranteed to bring accusations of ”class warfare.” If the accuser gets more specific, he’ll probably offer two reasons that it’s foolish to make a fuss over the high incomes of a few people at the top of the income distribution. First, he’ll tell you that what the elite get may look like a lot of money, but it’s still a small share of the total — that is, when all is said and done the rich aren’t getting that big a piece of the pie. Second, he’ll tell you that trying to do anything to reduce incomes at the top will hurt, not help, people further down the distribution, because attempts to redistribute income damage incentives.”

I cannot accept your interpretation. Krugman clearly is saying that, despite high per-capita GDP in the U.S., ordinary Americans are not really so well off because most of this wealth is going to the rich.