recentpopularlog in

jerryking : income_inequality   51

Opinion | What Billionaires Don’t Understand About College Debt
Dec. 23, 2019 | - The New York Times | By Alissa Quart. Ms. Quart is the author of “Squeezed: Why Our Families Can’t Afford America.”
Anand_Giridharadas  benefactors  Colleges_&_Universities  high-impact  income_inequality  moguls  philanthropy  structural_change  tax-deductible  The_One_Percent 
8 weeks ago by jerryking
Opinion | How the Superrich Took Over the Museum World
Dec. 14, 2019 | The New York Times | by Michael Massing, the author, most recently, of “Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther and the Fight for the Western Mind.”

The wealthy have always influenced the art scene. But in recent years, in an age of mounting anger over income inequality, they've come to dominate it......
Of MoMA's 51 trustees who vote, 45 work in finance, the corporate world, real estate or law, or are the heirs or spouses of the superrich.....both MoMA and the Met expect wealthy newcomers to their board of trustees to donate millions of dollars as the price of membership..........Art has always depended on wealthy patrons; see the Medicis, Frick and Morgan. In contrast to Europe, where museums receive significant (though now decreasing) state funding, most American museums rely heavily on private donors. .............Many of MoMA’s trustees are devoted collectors of modern and contemporary art, and the museum has benefited accordingly....... with trustees funding or donating to the museum various artistic works.......Yet dependence on the kindness of billionaires comes at a price. Today’s museum world is steeply hierarchical, mirroring the inequality in society at large........MoMA's curators seem very well paid; people in more junior positions much less so........Among the biggest losers in the current system are artists themselves. With art now considered an asset class similar to equities and commodities, collectors are forever on the lookout for rising stars whose work can be bought at bargain prices and then resold for many multiples as their reputation soars. When the market moves on, careers are often shattered (except in the case of a few ever-in-demand stars)......And even those artists who do remain popular usually benefit only from the initial sale of their work; as its value appreciates, the profits go mainly to collectors and auction houses. Museum trustees have ready access to curators and gallery owners who can point out emerging artists whose work they can buy at an early stage and benefit as the demand for it grows.......the most serious concern raised about baronial boards is the possible constraints they place on what museums can exhibit......For example, Why is there not more art inspired by such urgent matters as income inequality, deindustrialization or the rise of populism. Or why was there not more art inspired by the impact of Wall Street on Main Street or the continuing fallout from the 2008 financial crisis — the root of so much unrest in the world today?...... trustees have no decision-making role in its exhibitions, which are determined solely by the museum’s “strong curatorial staff” in regular consultation with artists....Yet a board’s influence need not be overt to be profound; curators are no doubt savvy enough to know how far they can go in challenging a system of which their trustees are such pillars.....For the superwealthy, membership on museum boards brings many benefits, including an increase in social status, access to other powerful people and an enhancement of one’s image.
Is there an alternative to the current system?
An obvious one would be to substantially increase public funding for the arts in general, and museums in particular......In 2018, MoMA received a paltry $22,000 in government funds (from New York City), compared with the $136 million it got from private sources. In fact, MoMA does not seek or receive federal or state funding. But MoMA in fact gets substantial public support through the tax write-offs its wealthy donors receive as well as its own nonprofit status. The public is in effect subsidizing the museum without getting any corresponding say in its governance.
In return for nonprofit status, the government could require MoMA and other museums to allocate a certain portion of board spots to people whose lives are not devoted to making money. The presence of art critics, historians, architects and nonprofit leaders could force museums to consider a much broader array of viewpoints.....As for more direct public funding of museums, this might seem a long shot in modern-day America, but the current political moment has created new opportunities. If taxes on the rich were raised, which most Democratic presidential candidates support, more public funds could be earmarked for museums — and for libraries, performing arts centers and other cultural institutions. 
Accomplisher_Class  art  artists  asset_classes  boards_&_directors_&_governance  collectors  contemporary_art  cultural_institutions  culture  curators  high_net_worth  income_inequality  intellectual_diversity  Manhattan  moguls  MoMA  museums  New_York_City   overachievers   patronage  patrons  philanthropy  public_funding  subsidies  tax-deductible  The_One_Percent 
10 weeks ago by jerryking
Thanks to a billionaire, Detroit is new and improved – but for whom?
November 18, 2019 | The Globe and Mail | by ADRIAN MORROW, U.S. CORRESPONDENT

Detroit's urban renaissance has also drawn tough criticism. For one, Quicken and Bedrock are accused of building an affluent island in the centre of a low-income city. While Dan Gilbert’s spending has revitalized the central business district, much of Detroit remains economically distressed with neighbourhoods full of boarded-up businesses and burnt-out houses. Detroit’s racial divides factor in, too: Recent developments have tended to concentrate in the whiter neighbourhoods of a city where 79 per cent of the population is black. For another, Bedrock and its related companies have received US$767-million worth of government subsidies and tax breaks since 2010. To some, this is an egregious use of funds when Detroit’s schools and transit system are struggling. Mr. Gilbert’s critics argue a man with a net worth Forbes estimates at US$6.8-billion has no need for government assistance.
Whether Mr. Gilbert is the hero Detroit needed to pull it back from the precipice or an unaccountable billionaire wielding an uncomfortable amount of civic power, his rise represents an extraordinary moment in U.S. urbanism. The rapid rebirth and future of one of the country’s greatest and most troubled cities rests largely in the hands of one man and his corporate empire, which is both animating the metropolis with its workforce, and directly shaping the look and feel of its streets and buildings........the subsidies have been “necessary,” but the city and state have done too little to extract benefits such as affordable housing and heritage preservation in exchange. Rather than a divide between downtown and neighbourhoods, or Mr. Gilbert and community bootstrappers, she argued, all of these elements have to work together.
anchor_tenants  Dan_Gilbert  decline  Detroit  downtown_core  gentrification  hollowing_out  income_inequality  moguls  property_development  Quicken_Loans   racial_disparities  refurbished  rejuvenation  revivals  subsidies  tax_subsidies  urban_renaissance  urban_renewal  white-collar 
november 2019 by jerryking
Stop fighting over scarce educational opportunities
March 26, 2019 | Financial Times | by Sarah O’Connor
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, US Democratic congresswoman, believes there is a shortage of routes available to children who want a better future.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez put her finger on a phenomenon that is showing up in many different guises as economic growth has slowed in the developed world. When the pie stops growing, the fights become fiercer and dirtier over how to divide it. One of the areas where this is playing out most emotively is education — an issue critical to the life chances of our children.

As developed countries grew steadily richer over much of the 20th century and educational opportunities expanded, absolute social mobility — the likelihood that children would do better than their parents — was commonplace.

There was never a perfect meritocracy, of course. Elites have always used their wealth and connections to put a “glass floor” under their children’s feet. But that seemed to matter less when it was easy enough for others to join them.

Now, in a world of stalling growth and yawning gaps between the top and the bottom, the chances of making it into the elite feel slimmer, even as the economic rewards for doing so grow fatter. At the same time, the economic penalties for not securing a decent education have become harsher....The underlying problem, as Ms Ocasio-Cortez points out, is the scarcity of routes available to young people who want a better future.

There is no single solution, but the list of fixes would include better state schools, more affordable higher education that is less variable in quality, a broader range of alternatives to university that still lead to decent jobs, and a revival of broad-based economic growth that lifts all boats, not just the yachts.

That may sound like an expensive laundry list, but inaction would cost more in the end.
Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez  children  college-educated  cost_of_inaction  education  elitism  income_inequality  scarcity  Varsity_Blues 
march 2019 by jerryking
Opinion | Abolish Billionaires - The New York Times
By Farhad Manjoo
Opinion Columnist

Feb. 6, 2019

A radical idea is gaining adherents on the left. It’s the perfect way to blunt tech-driven inequality.
Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez  Anand_Giridharadas  artificial_intelligence  capital_accumulation  digital_economy  Farhad_Manjoo  income_distribution  income_inequality  moguls  network_effects  radical_ideas  rhetoric  software  superstars  winner-take-all 
february 2019 by jerryking
Steven Brill's "Tailspin": How My Generation Broke America
May 17, 2018 | | Time | By STEVEN BRILL.

From matters small – there are an average of 657 water-main breaks a day, for example – to large, it is clear that the country has gone into a tailspin over the last half-century, when John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier was about seizing the future, not trying to survive the present..............The Meritocracy’s ascent was about more than personal profit. As my generation of achievers graduated from elite universities and moved into the professional world, their personal successes often had serious societal consequences. They upended corporate America and Wall Street with inventions in law and finance that created an economy built on deals that moved assets around instead of building new ones. They created exotic, and risky, financial instruments, including derivatives and credit default swaps, that produced sugar highs of immediate profits but separated those taking the risk from those who would bear the consequences. They organized hedge funds that turned owning stock into a minute-by-minute bet rather than a long-term investment. They invented proxy fights, leveraged buyouts and stock buybacks that gave lawyers and bankers a bonanza of new fees and maximized short-term profits for increasingly unsentimental shareholders, but deadened incentives for the long-term growth of the rest of the economy.....[We need 'guardrails' against legal and financial excesses.]......Forty-eight years after Inky Clark gave me my ticket on the meritocracy express in 1967, a professor at Yale Law School jarred the school’s graduation celebration. Daniel Markovits, who specializes in the intersection of law and behavioral economics, told the class of 2015 that their success getting accepted into, and getting a degree from, the country’s most selective law school actually marked their entry into a newly entrenched aristocracy that had been snuffing out the American Dream for almost everyone else. Elites, he explained, can spend what they need to in order to send their children to the best schools, provide tutors for standardized testing and otherwise ensure that their kids can outcompete their peers to secure the same spots at the top that their parents achieved.

“American meritocracy has thus become precisely what it was invented to combat,” Markovits concluded, “a mechanism for the dynastic transmission of wealth and privilege across generations. Meritocracy now constitutes a modern-day aristocracy.”.....
Daniel_Markovits  baby_boomers  entrepreneur  income_inequality  politics  revenge_effects  Steven_Brill  political_polarization  fractured_internally  books  meritocratic  America_in_Decline?  elitism  lawyers  self-perpetuation  upper-income  inequality  privilege  the_best_and_brightest  tailspins  guardrails  the_American_dream  cultural_transmission  wealth_transfers  partisan_politics 
may 2018 by jerryking
What the Tax Bill Fails to Address: Technology’s Tsunami -
DEC. 20, 2017 | The New York Times | Farhad Manjoo.

Manjoo posits that the Republican tax bill is the wrong fix for the wrong problem, given how tech is altering society and the economy....The bill (the parachute) does little to address the tech-abetted wave of economic displacement (the tsunami) that may be looming just off the horizon. And it also seems to intensify some of the structural problems in the tech business, including its increasing domination by five giants — Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Alphabet, Google’s parent company — which own some of the world’s most important economic platforms.....some in Silicon Valley think the giants misplayed their hand in the legislation. In pursuing short-term tax advantages, they missed a chance to advocate policies that might have more broadly benefited many of their customers — and improved their images, too......This gets back to that looming tsunami. Though many of the economy’s structural problems predate the last decade’s rise of the tech behemoths, the innovations that Silicon Valley has been working on — things like e-commerce, cloud storage, artificial intelligence and the general digitization of everything and everyone around you — are some of the central protagonists in the economic story of our age.

Among other economic concerns, these innovations are implicated in the rise of inequality; the expanding premium on education and skills; the decimation and dislocation of retail jobs; the rising urban-rural divide, and spiking housing costs in cities; and the rise of the “gig” economy of contract workers who drive Ubers and rent out their spare bedrooms on Airbnb....technology is changing work in a few ways. First, it’s altering the type of work that people do — for instance, creating a boom in e-commerce warehouse jobs in large metro areas while reducing opportunities for retail workers in rural areas. Technology has also created more uncertainty around when people work and how much they’ll get paid.
Farhad_Manjoo  preparation  job_loss  job_displacement  Silicon_Valley  tax_codes  corporate_concentration  platforms  income_inequality  short-sightedness  e-commerce  cloud_computing  artificial_intelligence  gig_economy  precarious  automation  uncertainty  universal_basic_income  digitalization  Apple  Amazon  Netflix  Microsoft  Facebook  Alphabet  Google  inconsistent_incomes  Big_Tech  FAANG 
december 2017 by jerryking
Get Ready to Defend the Free Market
06.02.97 | Forbes | Rich Karlgaard

LET'S CLONE GEORGE GILDER. One is just not enough. The original I'd keep in his current job as a technology writer and forecaster of the first rank. Nobody rea...
Rich_Karlgaard  free_markets  George_Soros  warp_speed  George_Gilder  income_inequality  tempo  operational_tempo  '90s  capitalism  digital_economy 
august 2017 by jerryking
The Amazon-Walmart Showdown That Explains the Modern Economy - The New York Times
Neil Irwin @Neil_Irwin JUNE 16, 2017

The decision by Amazon and Walmart to compete for my grocery business — as well as for space in my closet — is a tiny battle in a war to dominate a changing global economy.

And for companies that can’t compete on price and technology, it could cost them the shirt off their backs.....[Amazon's purchase of high-end grocery chain Whole Foods places it] on a collision course with Walmart to try to be the predominant seller of pretty much everything you buy.

Each one is trying to become more like the other — Walmart by investing heavily in its technology, Amazon by opening physical bookstores and now buying physical supermarkets. But this is more than a battle between two business titans. Their rivalry sheds light on the shifting economics of nearly every major industry, replete with winner-take-all effects and huge advantages that accrue to the biggest and best-run organizations, to the detriment of upstarts and second-fiddle players.....in turn...this has more worrying implications for jobs, wages and inequality.

Amazon vs. Walmart

Both want to sell everything!!!!

Walmart is buying Bonobos, an omnichannel innovator. Its website and online customer service are excellent, and it operates stores in major cities where you can try on garments and order items to be shipped directly. Because all the actual inventory is centralized, the stores themselves can occupy minimal square footage. The acquisition helps Walmart build expertise in the very areas where it is trying to gain on Amazon.

Walmart and Amazon have had their sights on each other for years, each aiming to be the dominant seller of goods via omnichannel.

Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods helps it to understand the grocery business which has a whole different set of challenges from the types of goods that Amazon has specialized in heretofore.

A Positive Returns-to-Scale World
The apparel business has long been a highly competitive industry in which countless players could find a niche.....any shirt-maker that tried to get too big rapidly faced diminishing returns.It would have to pay more and more to lease the real estate for far-flung stores, and would have to outbid competitors to hire all the experienced shirt-makers. The expansion wouldn’t offer any meaningful cost savings and would entail a lot more headaches trying to manage it all....in the digital economy, rather than reflecting those diminishing returns to scale, show positive returns to scale: The biggest companies have a huge advantage over smaller players. That tends to tilt markets toward a handful of players or even a monopoly....The apparel industry...is moving in the direction of being like the software business (high fixed costs, zero variable costs, enormous returns to scale)..... the reason why Walmart and Amazon are so eager get into the shirt business is because retailers know that they need to figure out how to manage sophisticated supply chains connecting Southeast Asia with stores in big American cities so that they rarely run out of product. They need mobile apps and websites that offer a seamless user experience so that nothing stands between a would-be purchaser and an order....Larger companies that are good at supply chain management and technology can spread those more-or-less fixed costs around more total sales, enabling them to keep prices lower than a niche player and entrench their advantage....large companies will invest in automation/robotics...the future of clothing/apparel might be a handful of companies with the very expensive shirt-making robots---and everyone else shut out in the cold.

What It Means for the Economy

A relative few winners are taking a disproportionate share of business in a wide range of industries....in turn may help explain why the income gap has widened in recent years. How much on income inequality is driven by shifting technology — as opposed to changing corporate behavior, or loose antitrust policy — is an open debate.
increasing_returns_to_scale  winner-take-all  fixed_costs  variable_costs  Amazon  Wal-Mart  Whole_Foods  retailers  economics  Bonobos  shirts  mens'_clothing  omnichannel  apparel  digital_economy  automation  robotics  competitive_landscape  market_concentration  barbell_effect  income_inequality  antitrust  market_power  corporate_concentration  grocery  fresh_produce  supermarkets  large_companies  UX  inventory-free  global_economy 
june 2017 by jerryking
Why You Might Not Want to Take Away a Billionaire’s Money - The New York Times
Jeff Sommer
STRATEGIES FEB. 19, 2017
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Share
Tweet
Email
More
expropriations  moguls  high_net_worth  income_inequality 
february 2017 by jerryking
Why this economist thinks government intervention is a good thing - The Globe and Mail
PAUL WALDIE
The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Nov. 28, 2016

Many governments are moving away from austerity and toward stimulating economic growth by spending on infrastructure projects. Is that the right approach?

This is not about the panacea of infrastructure. It’s ridiculous if you think about it. All these smart, smart people in the IMF—once they finally admit that austerity was shit and it was very damaging, what’s their solution? Infrastructure. (3) These people have PhDs. Can they not come up with something more interesting than spend a bunch on bridges and roads?

What do you think about Brexit?

A massive, massive disaster. I just can’t believe that the people who engineered it haven’t been put in prison. It’s so obvious now that they were lying. Think of it: If Coca-Cola lied with advertising campaigns like that, they’d be in prison. All these civil servants are going to be spending decades unravelling something that was not the problem. The real problem in the U.K. is low productivity, very high inequality and a lack of serious planning around industrial and innovation policy. That had nothing to do with Europe. Brexit is just going to take away huge amounts of government resources that could have been spent thinking about what it really means to increase productivity. As well, it just really makes things complicated.
Paul_Waldie  economists  Brexit  industrial_policies  innovation_policies  innovation  iPhone  Mariana_Mazzucato  infrastructure  austerity  government_intervention  PhDs  IMF  productivity  income_inequality 
december 2016 by jerryking
Ultra-rich man’s letter: “To My Fellow Filthy Rich Americans: The Pitchforks Are Coming” – TIP
Ultra-rich man’s letter: “To My Fellow Filthy Rich Americans: The Pitchforks Are Coming”

By NICK HANAUER | politico

You probably don’t know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries—from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I’m no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can’t even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I’m talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family’s business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough—and that time wasn’t far off—people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene’s. And Borders. And on and on.

Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you’ve probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff—Bezos—called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren’t yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don’t vary in quality—Bezos’ great insight). Cybershop didn’t make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you’ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

I see pitchforks.

At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

_h3218_w4866_m2_bwhite(Image: news.msn)


Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.” We think we’re immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.

The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren’t only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they’d be able to afford his Model Ts.

What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let’s do it all over again. We’ve got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too.

It’s when I realized this that I decided I had to leave my insulated world of the super-rich and get involved in politics. Not directly, by running for office or becoming one of the big-money billionaires who back candidates in an election. Instead, I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas—by advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call “middle-out” economics. It’s the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become economic orthodoxy across party lines—and has so screwed the American middle class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real people who are dependent on one another.

Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle class creates us rich people, not the other way around.

On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an article I wrote called “The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage.” Forbes labeled it “Nick Hanauer’s near insane” proposal. And yet, just weeks after it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a $15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen, you ask?

It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth and prosperity, not us rich guys. We reminded them that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers—and need more employees. We reminded them that if businesses paid workers a living wage rather than poverty wages, taxpayers wouldn’t have to make up the difference. And when we got done, 74 percent of likely Seattle voters in a recent poll agreed that a $15 minimum wage was a swell idea.

The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That’s why you’ve got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?

The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor.

Because here’s an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them.

140624_fatcats_grid_1160
The Art of the Fat Cat A century and a half of soaking the rich—with ink.
By MATT WUERKER – (politico)

The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We’ve had 75 years of complaints from big business—when the minimum wage was instituted, when women had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We’re all going to go bankrupt. I’ll have to close. I’ll have to lay everyone off. It hasn’t happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated, business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.

Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our … [more]
Accomplisher_Class  economics  feudalism  high_net_worth  income_inequality  middle_class  minimum_wage  politics  social_fabric  the_one_percent  via:enochko  worldviews 
september 2016 by jerryking
With Competition in Tatters, the Rip of Inequality Widens - The New York Times
Eduardo Porter
ECONOMIC SCENE JULY 12, 2016

The new merger amounts to another step in the long decline of competition in many American industries.

It is a decline that stunts entrepreneurship, hinders workers’ mobility and slows productivity growth. Slowing this trend has emerged as a tempting new avenue to address the plight of a beleaguered working class. Reviving flagging American competition might even help stop America’s ever-widening inequality.

In April, President Obama issued an executive order calling on government agencies to look for ways to bolster competition in the industries they monitor.....There is plenty of evidence that corporate concentration is on the rise. Mr. Furman and Mr. Orszag report that between 1997 and 2007 the market share of the 50 largest companies increased in three-fourths of the broad industry sectors followed by the census......Studies have found increased concentration in agricultural businesses and wireless communications as well.....but is competition policy about increasing the economy’s efficiency, or is it about changing the distribution of the spoils....should antitrust be a major tool for addressing inequality?....How did the American economy get so concentrated? Technology surely helped. Tech giants like Google and Facebook benefit from economies of scale and network effects. ....Government watchdogs also messed up....How to fix corporate concentration? In industries perceived to be fairly concentrated, presume future mergers will be anticompetitive, take the burden of proof off the regulator’s shoulders and putting the onus on the merging companies to prove it is not....Regulations can also be tool: How about demanding that the FDA approve generic drugs more quickly?
competition  antitrust  monopolies  anticompetitive_behaviour  collusion  market_power  corporate_concentration  economies_of_scale  network_effects  platforms  income_inequality  regulators  regulation  competition_policy 
july 2016 by jerryking
In an Age of Privilege, Not Everyone Is in the Same Boat - The New York Times
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZAPRIL 23, 2016

When top-dollar travelers switch planes in Atlanta, New York and other cities, Delta ferries them between terminals in a Porsche, what the airline calls a “surprise-and-delight service.” Last month, Walt Disney World began offering after-hours access to visitors who want to avoid the crowds. In other words, you basically get the Magic Kingdom to yourself.

When Royal Caribbean ships call at Labadee, the cruise line’s private resort in Haiti, elite guests get their own special beach club away from fellow travelers — an enclave within an enclave....From cruise ship operators and casinos to amusement parks and airlines, the rise of the 1 percent spells opportunity and profit.
income_inequality  social_classes  social_stratification  exclusivity  affluence  luxury  high_net_worth  The_One_Percent  caste_systems  travel  airline_industry  airports  concierge_services  enclaves  theme_parks  Disney  casinos  delighting_customers  top-tier  cruise_ships  Royal_Caribbean 
april 2016 by jerryking
Black America and the Class Divide - The New York Times
By HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr.FEB. 1, 2016

there are really two nations within Black America. The problem of income inequality, Dr. Wilson concludes, is not between Black America and White America but between black haves and have-nots, something we don’t often discuss in public in an era dominated by a narrative of fear and failure and the claim that racism impacts 42 million people in all the same ways.
Henry_Louis_Gates  African-Americans  Colleges_&_Universities  WEB_Dubois  crisis  disintegration  social_classes  leadership  income_inequality  underclass 
february 2016 by jerryking
Divisions between pre-amalgamation cities making rich-poor gap worse: report - The Globe and Mail
ANN HUI
The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2015

"The poverty is not caused by the neighbourhood. Other factors are at play--parenting, value systems. But it's just appealing to blame external factors, like city hall or the TTC (not enough buses! That's why I'm poor!) and so articles like this do."
Toronto  income_inequality  Scarborough  poverty  neighbourhoods  deindustrialization  disparities  value_systems 
october 2015 by jerryking
Education Gap Between Rich and Poor Is Growing Wider - The New York Times
SEPT. 22, 2015 | NYT | Eduardo Porter.

For all the progress in improving educational outcomes among African-American children, the achievement gaps between more affluent and less privileged children is wider than ever, notes Sean Reardon of the Center for Education Policy Analysis at Stanford. Racial disparities are still a stain on American society, but they are no longer the main divider. Today the biggest threat to the American dream is class.....Financed mainly by real estate taxes that are more plentiful in neighborhoods with expensive homes, public education is becoming increasingly compartmentalized. Well-funded schools where the children of the affluent can play and learn with each other are cordoned off from the shabbier schools teaching the poor, who are still disproportionally from black or Hispanic backgrounds.
poverty  African-Americans  income_inequality  racial_disparities  real_estate_taxes  education  achievement_gaps  social_classes  public_education  sorting  segregation  geographic_sorting  neighbourhoods  children  affluence  upper-income  super_ZIPs  compartmentalization  the_American_dream 
september 2015 by jerryking
Tyler Cowen on inequality, Canada, and the state of global superpowers
Eva Salinas | May 1, 2015.

Tyler Cowen is an economist, academic and writer. His popular blog, Marginal Revolution, co-written with Alex Tabarrok, a colleague at George Mason University, turned Cowen into “an economics celebrity,” in the words of one LA Times writer. More recently, Cowen and Tabarrok ventured into the world of online education with their creation of Marginal Revolution University in 2012.
The author of ‘Average is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation’ was in Toronto earlier this year as the keynote speaker at the University of Toronto’s conference on Inequality.
Tyler_Cowen  economists  income_inequality  Canada  innovation  Silicon_Valley  averages  digital_economy  knowledge_economy  economic_stagnation  clusters  polymaths  the_Great_Decoupling 
may 2015 by jerryking
The unfair pillorying of the 1 per cent hurts us all - The Globe and Mail
BRIAN LEE CROWLEY
The unfair pillorying of the 1 per cent hurts us all
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Apr. 03 2015
The_One_Percent  income_distribution  income_inequality 
april 2015 by jerryking
John Steele Gordon: The Little Miracle Spurring Inequality - WSJ
By JOHN STEELE GORDON
Updated June 2, 2014

Extreme leaps in innovation, like the invention of the microprocessor, bring with them staggering fortunes....The great growth of fortunes in recent decades is not a sinister development. Instead it is simply the inevitable result of an extraordinary technological innovation, the microprocessor, which Intel brought to market in 1971. Seven of the 10 largest fortunes in America today were built on this technology, as have been countless smaller ones. These new fortunes unavoidably result in wealth being more concentrated at the top.

But no one is poorer because Bill Gates , Larry Ellison , et al., are so much richer. These new fortunes came into existence only because the public wanted the products and services—and lower prices—that the microprocessor made possible. Anyone who has found his way home thanks to a GPS device or has contacted a child thanks to a cellphone appreciates the awesome power of the microprocessor. All of our lives have been enhanced and enriched by the technology.....technology opens up many new economic niches, and entrepreneurs rush to take advantage of the new opportunities....The Dutch exploited the new trade (with India and the East Indies) so successfully that the historian Simon Schama entitled his 1987 book on this period of Dutch history "The Embarrassment of Riches."...attempt to tax away new fortunes in the name of preventing inequality is certain to have adverse effects on further technology creation and niche exploitation by entrepreneurs—and harm job creation as a result. The reason is one of the laws of economics: Potential reward must equal the risk or the risk won't be taken.
Silicon_Valley  wealth_creation  innovation  income_distribution  income_inequality  productivity_payoffs  plutocracies  software  Thomas_Piketty  microprocessors  historians  history  entrepreneurship  books  Industrial_Revolution  Gilded_Age  Simon_Schama  Dutch  discontinuities  disequilibriums  adverse_selection 
march 2015 by jerryking
Look who’s on top of the marriage market - The Globe and Mail
MARGARET WENTE
The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Sep. 20 2014,

Like the economy, the marriage market has become increasingly stratified and class-based. An increasing number of successful, high-earning men are concentrated at the top, while the pool of reliable, stably employed men at the bottom is shrinking. Men at the top don’t want to marry the secretary any more – they want to marry their equals, for reasons of both status and earning power. After all, two professional incomes will buy you a nicer life than one. They also want to make the best possible genetic investment in their offspring.

“Educated men and women are drawn to spouses they think will help them produce the children likely to thrive in the contemporary knowledge-based economy,” wrote social commentator Kay Hymowitz, whom the authors quote. “… The preference for alpha kids is the reason there is a luxury market for Ivy League egg and sperm donors.”
marriage  relationships  education  women  Margaret_Wente  income_inequality  social_classes 
september 2014 by jerryking
Ferguson, Watts and a Dream Deferred - NYTimes.com
AUG. 19, 2014 | NYT |Thomas B. Edsall.

...One optimistic note is that the white reaction to events in Ferguson, including the commentary of some outspoken white conservatives, has been sympathetic to the anger and outrage over the police shooting of an unarmed black teenager. This stands in sharp distinction to the aftermath of the violence in Los Angeles in 1965....
Ferguson  Michael_Brown  African-Americans  racial_disparities  outrage  income_distribution  income_inequality  economic_downturn 
august 2014 by jerryking
Great Hackers
(Charles Waud & WaudWare. Can Waudware develop on a different platform, enabling 3rd parties to develop for it? Would that make PICs more commercially appealing?)

There's no controversy about which idea is most controversial: the suggestion that variation in wealth might not be as big a problem as we think.

I didn't say in the book that variation in wealth was in itself a good thing. I said in some situations it might be a sign of good things. [JCK: that is,....it might be a "signal"] A throbbing headache is not a good thing, but it can be a sign of a good thing-- for example, that you're recovering consciousness after being hit on the head.

Variation in wealth can be a sign of variation in productivity. (In a society of one, they're identical.) And that is almost certainly a good thing: if your society has no variation in productivity, it's probably not because everyone is Thomas Edison. It's probably because you have no Thomas Edisons.

In a low-tech society you don't see much variation in productivity....In programming, as in many fields, the hard part isn't solving problems, but deciding what problems to solve. Imagination is hard to measure, but in practice it dominates the kind of productivity that's measured in lines of code.

Productivity varies in any field, but there are few in which it varies so much (as software development)..This is an area where managers can make a difference. Like a parent saying to a child, I bet you can't clean up your whole room in ten minutes, a good manager can sometimes redefine a problem as a more interesting one.
coding  discernment  hackers  imagination  income_distribution  income_inequality  Paul_Graham  productivity  productivity_payoffs  programming  signals  software_developers  software_development  Thomas_Edison  variations  WaudWare  worthwhile_problems 
february 2014 by jerryking
Yes, the Wealthy Can Be Deserving
FEB. 15, 2014 | NYT | By N. GREGORY MANKIW.

Actors, authors, and athletes do not make up the entire ranks of the rich. Most top earners make their fortunes in ways that are less transparent to the public.... the most natural explanation of high C.E.O. pay is that the value of a good C.E.O. is extraordinarily high.

That is hardly a surprise. A typical chief executive is overseeing billions of dollars of shareholder wealth as well as thousands of employees. The value of making the right decisions is tremendous. Just consider the role of Steve Jobs in the rise of Apple and its path-breaking products....A similar case is the finance industry, where many hefty compensation packages can be found. There is no doubt that this sector plays a crucial economic role. Those who work in banking, venture capital and other financial firms are in charge of allocating the economy’s investment resources. They decide, in a decentralized and competitive way, which companies and industries will shrink and which will grow. It makes sense that a nation would allocate many of its most talented and thus highly compensated individuals to the task.
high_net_worth  income_distribution  winner-take-all  the_one_percent  CEOs  compensation  private_equity  income_inequality  talent  breakthroughs  Steve_Jobs  finance  capital_allocation  decision_making 
february 2014 by jerryking
The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent -
October 13, 2012 | NYTimes.com | By CHRYSTIA FREELAND.

IN the early 14th century, Venice was one of the richest cities in Europe. At the heart of its economy was the colleganza, a basic form of joint-stock company created to finance a single trade expedition. The brilliance of the colleganza was that it opened the economy to new entrants, allowing risk-taking entrepreneurs to share in the financial upside with the established businessmen who financed their merchant voyages.

Venice’s elites were the chief beneficiaries. Like all open economies, theirs was turbulent. Today, we think of social mobility as a good thing. But if you are on top, mobility also means competition. In 1315, when the Venetian city-state was at the height of its economic powers, the upper class acted to lock in its privileges, putting a formal stop to social mobility with the publication of the Libro d’Oro, or Book of Gold, an official register of the nobility. If you weren’t on it, you couldn’t join the ruling oligarchy.

The political shift, which had begun nearly two decades earlier, was so striking a change that the Venetians gave it a name: La Serrata, or the closure. It wasn’t long before the political Serrata became an economic one, too. Under the control of the oligarchs, Venice gradually cut off commercial opportunities for new entrants. Eventually, the colleganza was banned. The reigning elites were acting in their immediate self-interest, but in the longer term, La Serrata was the beginning of the end for them, and for Venetian prosperity more generally. By 1500, Venice’s population was smaller than it had been in 1330. In the 17th and 18th centuries, as the rest of Europe grew, the city continued to shrink....several recent studies have shown that in America today it is harder to escape the social class of your birth than it is in Europe. The Canadian economist Miles Corak has found that as income inequality increases, social mobility falls...Businessmen like to style themselves as the defenders of the free market economy, but as Luigi Zingales, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, argued, “Most lobbying is pro-business, in the sense that it promotes the interests of existing businesses, not pro-market in the sense of fostering truly free and open competition.”
business_interests  capitalism  Chrystia_Freeland  city-states  cronyism  crony_capitalism  depopulation  elitism  entrenched_interests  history  income_distribution  income_inequality  lobbying  locked_in  moguls  new_entrants  oligarchs  pro-business  pro-market  Renaissance  self-destructive  self-interest  social_classes  social_mobility  The_One_Percent  Venice  winner-take-all 
september 2013 by jerryking
Who Will Prosper in the New World - NYTimes.com
August 31, 2013 | NYT | By TYLER COWEN.
Who Will Prosper in the New World

Who will do well?

THE CONSCIENTIOUS
PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO COMPUTERS
PEOPLE WITH A MARKETING TOUCH
MOTIVATORS
==================================================
Who will be most likely to suffer from this technological revolution?
PEOPLE WITH DELICATE FEELINGS
PEOPLE UNLUCKY IN HEALTH CARE
PEOPLE WHO DON’T NEED MONEY
POLITICAL RADICALS:
technology  economics  productivity  the_Great_Decoupling  career_paths  winner-take-all  automation  Tyler_Cowen  marketing  motivations  inequality  income_distribution  income_inequality  downward_mobility 
september 2013 by jerryking
The middle class is good politics but a curious crusade
Aug. 03 2013 | The Globe and Mail | Konrad Yakabuski.

A “thriving middle class” won’t come from new programs hatched in Ottawa. It will come from the innovators and entrepreneurs who harness Canada’s abundant human capital and natural resources to create wealth.

as TD Economics has shown, Canada has not experienced the same wage polarization that has led to rising income inequality south of the border. Social mobility is higher here and our tax system is more progressive. The after-tax income of the top 10 per cent of Canadians was 4.1 times that of the bottom 10 per cent in 2010. The U.S. ratio was 6 to 1.

There is no doubt that globalization and technological change have rendered thousands of middle-class Canadian jobs obsolete. But there is no reversing this trend, no matter how much would-be federal policy-makers aspire to meddle. Besides, globalization’s upsides outweigh its downsides. And Canadians, among the best-educated people on the planet, stand to benefit.

“Rewards to education, to innovation and to creativity are higher than they have ever been,” notes Princeton University economist Angus Deaton in The Great Escape, his forthcoming book on the history of inequality. “Perhaps the greatest escape in all of human history, and certainly the most rapid one [is] the reduction in global poverty since 1980 … The world has done much better than the pessimists predicted.”
Konrad_Yakabuski  globalization  Chrystia_Freeland  obsolescence  middle_class  technological_change  social_mobility  Toronto  expatriates  inequality  books  income_inequality  capitalization 
august 2013 by jerryking
Who's Your Daddy?
July 20, 2013 | NYT |By MILES CORAK

Better job opportunities for the children of the top 1 percent deepen our cynicism about how people get ahead....Hard work and perseverance will always be ingredients for success, but higher inequality has sharply tilted the landscape and made having successful parents, if not essential, certainly a central part of the recipe....THE Danish and Canadian top 1 percent certainly have their share of privilege: the Gus Wenners of the world, talented or not, are not rare. A recent study published by the Russell Sage Foundation showed that about 30 percent of young Danes and 40 percent of Canadians had worked with a firm that at some point also employed their fathers. This is more likely the higher the father’s place on the income ladder, rising distinctly and sharply for top earners. In Denmark more than half of sons born to the top 1 percent of fathers had worked for an employer for whom the father also worked, and in Canada the proportion is even higher at nearly 7 of every 10.

This is on a par with the United States, where, according to a 2006 study, up to half of jobs are found through families, friends or acquaintances, with higher wages being paid to those who found jobs through “prior generation male relatives” who actually knew the potential employer or served as a reference.
nepotism  movingonup  income_distribution  self-perpetuation  winner-take-all  inequality  privilege  myths  opportunities  The_One_Percent  income_inequality  hard_work  compounded  upper-income 
july 2013 by jerryking
The Problem With Too Many Millionaires - NYTimes.com
June 20, 2013 | REUTERS | By CHRYSTIA FREELAND.

The rich are getting richer....the very, very rich are doing best of all. The ranks of the ultrarich, whom the report defines as people with investable assets of at least $30 million, surged 11 percent, an even greater rate than the mere millionaires....“We are increasingly becoming a ‘winner-take-all’ economy, a phenomenon that the music industry has long experienced,”...The lucky and the talented — and it is often hard to tell the difference — have been doing better and better, while the vast majority has struggled to keep up.”... the problem is that the rise of the ultrarich isn’t occurring in isolation--it takes place in lock step with a darker phenomenon — the hollowing out of the global middle class. What is worrying is that: (a) labor productivity — which used to be the secret sauce for making everyone better off — has a diminished impact on wages.
(b) declining social mobility. The 1 percent is very good at passing on its privilege, and those born at the bottom are finding it harder to climb up.

That is the great paradox of today’s winner-take-all economy. At its best, it is driven by adopted dropouts like Steve Jobs or struggling single mothers like J.K. Rowling, who come up with something amazing and manage to prosper — and to enrich us all. But the winner-take-all economy will make such breakthroughs for anyone who didn’t make the wise choice of being born into the 1 percent harder and harder in the future, which is why we urgently need to come up with ways to soften its impact.
breakthroughs  Chrystia_Freeland  compounded  elitism  high_net_worth  hollowing_out  income_inequality  Matthew_effect  middle_class  paradoxes  productivity  self-perpetuation  social_mobility  special_sauce  The_One_Percent  virtuous_cycles  winner-take-all 
june 2013 by jerryking
Romney’s Former Bain Partner Makes a Case for Inequality - NYTimes.com
By ADAM DAVIDSON
Published: May 1, 2012

“Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong,

Now we’re at a particularly crucial moment, he writes. Technology and global competition have made it more important than ever that the United States remain the world’s most productive, risk-taking, success-rewarding society. Obama, Conard says, is “going to dampen the incentives.” Even worse, Conard says, “he’s slowing the accumulation of equity” by fighting income inequality. Only with a pro-investment president, he says, can the American economy reach its full potential.
high_net_worth  Bain  inequality  Mitt_Romney  books  innovation  unintended_consequences  incentives  income_inequality  Occupy_Wall_Street 
may 2012 by jerryking
Lunch with the FT: Zbigniew Brzezinski
January 13, 2012 | FT.com | By Edward Luce.

Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power.

“We [Americans] are too obsessed with today,” Brzezinski continues. “If we slide into a pattern of just thinking about today, we’ll end up reacting to yesterday instead of shaping something more constructive in the world.” By contrast, he says, the Chinese are thinking decades ahead. Alas, Brzezinski says, Obama has so far failed to move into a strategic habit of mind. To a far greater extent than the Chinese, he concedes, Obama has to respond to shifts in public mood. Brzezinski is not very complimentary about American public opinion.

“Americans don’t learn about the world, they don’t study world history, other than American history in a very one-sided fashion, and they don’t study geography,” Brzezinski says. “In that context of widespread ignorance, the ongoing and deliberately fanned fear about the outside world, which is connected with this grandiose war on jihadi terrorism, makes the American public extremely susceptible to extremist appeals.” But surely most Americans are tired of overseas adventures, I say. “There is more scepticism,” Brzezinski concedes. “But the susceptibility to demagoguery is still there.”....Brzezinski lists "Ignorance", as one of America’s six “key vulnerabilities” alongside “mounting debt’, a “flawed financial system”, “decaying national infrastructure”, “widening income inequality”, and “increasingly gridlocked politics”.
Zbigniew_Brzezinski  security_&_intelligence  strategic_thinking  China_rising  China  diplomacy  princelings  America_in_Decline?  threats  vulnerabilities  infrastructure  income_inequality  debt  political_polarization  long-term  partisan_politics  fractured_internally  NSC  ignorance  public_opinion  books  Chinese  instant_gratification  demagoguery  APNSA  gridlocked_politics  Edward_Luce  incurious  financial_system  historical_amnesia 
january 2012 by jerryking
The Height of Inequality - Magazine - The Atlantic
The Height of Inequality

America’s productivity gains have gone to giant salaries for just a few
By Clive Crook
income_distribution  income_inequality  powerlaw  productivity  superstars  winner-take-all 
october 2011 by jerryking
Losing Our Way - NYTimes.com
By BOB HERBERT
March 25, 2011
So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time
in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing
libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally
letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home. Welcome
to America in the second decade of the 21st century. An army of
long-term unemployed workers is spread across the land, the human
fallout from the Great Recession and long years of misguided economic
policies.
op-ed  Bob_Herbert  income_distribution  disparities  inequality  income_inequality 
march 2011 by jerryking
Diverse, talented city a laggard on innovation; Other North American metropolitan areas such as Boston and Seattle are doing better at commercializing the ideas generated by their creative class
Aug 17, 2009 | Toronto Star. pg. A.11 | Kevin Stolarick. "We
share the concerns of our colleagues at the University of Toronto Cities
Centre whose recent report, The Three Cities within Toronto, showed
that the city's core is becoming gentrified, with visible minorities
moving to the fringes along major transportation arteries." "As we move
into the creative age, Toronto must continue to build on its strengths -
its multicultural and talented workforce - and leverage these to become
more innovative."
downtown_core  Roger_Martin  Rotman  Toronto  creative_economy  economic_development  strengths  multiculturalism  gentrification  income_inequality  commercialization  visible_minorities 
september 2009 by jerryking

Copy this bookmark:





to read