An interesting article, but you say, "In 1984, the average American household spent about $250 on clothing per month (in today’s dollars); a quarter-century later, it spends only $150."

But isn't the average American household smaller than in 1984? So does it really spend less today? Seems a bit sloppy not to ensure you're comparing like with like.

Shouldn't that be Norbert Wiener, rather than Weiner?

There is no reason why responsible, working Americans should have to support single, unemployed women who hsve children. The taxpayers should not have to pay for single, unemployed mothers who have no means of support and refuse to identify the father.
Pregnancy is a choice, not an accident or a disability. Women who choose to have unprotected sex should assume responsibility for their out-of-wedlock offspring, especilly if they refuse to identify the Dad.
Welfare for single Moms is a huge, growing cottage industry, paid for by working taxpayers. It's time to stop this taxpaayer ripoff. Getting pregnant out-of-wedlock should not be a means to a long-term income stream from taxpayers.

This is all well and fine, however,the emphasis in this review is "social"entrepreneurs...let us not neglect the entrepreneurs/inventors that drive business cycles,growth and innovation that have historic role models such as Henry Ford,Edison,The Wright Brothers et al..after all Socialism seems to increase although an abysmal failure,and an astute commentary on this trend is contained in "The Illusion of Egalitarianism."