Inequality

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      White House announces internet program for low-income Americans

      by

      White House announces internet program for low-income AmericansWith new commitment from 20 internet providers, about 48m households will be eligible for $30 monthly plans The Biden administration announced on Monday that 20 internet companies have agreed to provide discounted service to people with low incomes, a program that could effectively make tens of millions of households eligible for free service through an already existing federal subsidy.The $1tn infrastructure package passed by Congress last year included $14.2bn in funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides $30 monthly subsidies ($75 in tribal areas) on internet service for millions of lower-income households.Jill Biden makes unannounced visit to Ukraine and meets first ladyRead moreWith the new commitment from the internet providers, about 48m households will be eligible for $30 monthly plans for 100 megabits per second, or higher speed, service – making internet service fully paid for with the government subsidy if they sign up with one of the providers participating in the program.Biden, during his White House run and the push for the infrastructure bill, made expanding high-speed internet access in rural and low-income areas a priority. He has repeatedly spoken out about low-income families have struggled to find reliable wifi, so their children could take part in remote schooling and complete homework assignments early in the coronavirus pandemic.“If we didn’t know it before, we know now: high-speed internet is essential,” the Democratic president said during a White House event last month honoring the National Teacher of the Year.The 20 internet companies that have agreed to lower their rates for eligible consumers provide service in areas where 80% of the US population, including 50% of the rural population, live, according to the White House. Participating companies that offer service on tribal lands are providing $75 rates in those areas, the equivalent of the federal government subsidy in those areas.Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris on Monday were set to meet with telecom executives, members of Congress and others to spotlight the effort to improve access to high-speed internet for low-income households.The providers are Allo Communications, AltaFiber (and Hawaiian Telecom), Altice USA (Optimum and Suddenlink), Astound, AT&T, Breezeline, Comcast, Comporium, Frontier, IdeaTek, Cox Communications, Jackson Energy Authority, MediaCom, MLGC, Spectrum (Charter Communications), Starry, Verizon (Fios only), Vermont Telephone Co, Vexus Fiber and Wow! Internet, Cable and TV.American households are eligible for subsidies through the Affordable Connectivity Program if their income is at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, or if a member of their family participates in one of several programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) and Veterans Pension and Survivors Benefit.TopicsUS newsBroadbandInternetBiden administrationIncome inequalityTelecommunications industryUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘What am I going to do?’: soaring prices fuel calls for US government to step in

      by

      ‘What am I going to do?’: soaring prices fuel calls for US government to step inLarge corporations are passing on higher-than-needed price increases to customers under the cover of inflation, war and supply chain squeezes, experts say Outside a Dollar Tree in Detroit, Latasha Holmes lamented the rising cost of toilet paper, beverages, food and other items she had just purchased. The price increases, she said, were forcing her to choose among necessities for her and four kids.“What am I going to do? Prices are up everywhere, all over town,” she said. “I can’t afford everything.”But while Holmes struggles, Dollar Tree thrives. The retailer increased its prices by 25% as profits jumped 269% between 2019 and 2021, and its profit margins widened. Shareholders won too. The company also announced a stock buyback program worth $1bn that will deliver cash from those price increases to its investors.Dollar Tree and other large corporations are juicing profits by passing on higher-than-needed price increases to customers like Holmes under the cover of inflation, war and supply chain squeezes, consumer advocates and economists say. They are calling for the federal government to take bold steps to rein in the companies.Revealed: top US corporations raising prices on Americans even as profits surgeRead moreAmong proposed prescriptions are price controls, improved price fixing rules, commodity market intervention, stock buyback regulation and antitrust enforcement. Ranged against those proposals are a powerful business lobby and a divided Congress that seems unable to pass major legislation.“There are reasons to have a profit incentive, but there are also reasons to have an overall regulatory body that can say, ‘This is actually profiteering … while everyone is hurting,’” said Krista Brown, a policy analyst with the American Economic Liberties Project.A Guardian analysis of 100 top corporations’ Securities Exchange Commission filings found a median increase of 49% in profits between the most recent quarter and the same quarter two years ago, pre-pandemic. It shows companies have largely shielded themselves from inflationary pain by passing most or all of their increased costs on to customers via price hikes.So far, the federal government’s most visible attempt to address inflation has been to increase interest rates, rates look set to rise again this week. But the Guardian’s data suggests such a measure may miss an important mark. Raising rates effectively takes money out of consumers’ pockets to cool the economy.If corporate profits are contributing in a meaningful way, then raising rates would only reduce the amount of money people have to spend on products and services for which prices are still going up.“That would mean you’re exacerbating this dynamic instead of doing anything to help it,” said Isabella Weber, University of Massachusetts Amherst economist.Instead, limited and targeted price controls could work for essentials like bread, she said, but stressed those would have to be coupled with a bailout plan for negatively affected companies.“Increased prices for basic items like bread can exert enormous pressure on wages” and send inflationary ripples throughout the economy, Weber added. Though price controls are controversial and generally regarded as a leftist idea, the last president to enact them was Richard Nixon, who imposed a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to address inflation in 1970. Price controls were also enacted during and following the second world war, when, again, supply chain issues and pent up demand led to soaring prices.Table of 100 US companies’ profit growthBut price rises are not the only issue critics would like to see the Biden administration address. Others, like Groundwork Collective’s executive director, Lindsay Owens, have called for a ban or new restrictions on stock buyback programs. Joe Biden’s 2023 budget proposes prohibiting executives from selling their stock three to five years after enacting a buyback program.“The other big winner besides the shareholders in excess cash that’s going to buybacks are the executives,” Owens said. “They announce the buybacks, their stock prices soar, then they sell their shares and there are a number of ways to make this work better.”The Guardian’s analysis found companies’ buyback programs over the last 15 months totaled $544bn. That cash could have been reinvested to keep prices down, or increase workers’ wages, consumer advocates say.Others levelled accusations of price fixing and gouging. The American Economic Liberties Project is helping draft legislation that would make it easier for businesses to sue companies for price fixing by making private corporate communications more accessible. As of now, only 3% of price fixing cases make it to trial, Brown said.“Reinvigorating price fixing laws and going after price gouging in moments like this, where a war or Covid are used as excuses for companies to raise rates just because they can, could help a lot,” she added.Fixing is especially a problem in highly consolidated industries, consumer advocates say. Companies have benefited from “decades long under-enforcement of consolidation laws”, added Martin Schmalz, an Oxford University economist.Just four companies control most of the US beef industry, four airlines control about 80% of domestic passenger traffic, Walmart accounts for the majority of grocery sales in the majority of US states, the list goes on and on.And it’s not just the companies that have outsized control. Large investors also a role to play.Schmalz pointed to the Investment Company Act, which limits investment funds to holding no more than 10% of a corporation’s securities. Vanguard on average holds 10% of all S&P 500 companies, Schmalz research has found, but it is not violating the law because companies within its fund family own the shares, not Vanguard itself. But Vanguard still executes the voting rights of more than 10% of shareholders.“The law is written at the fund level so technically speaking they don’t violate the law, but they are violating the spirit of the law,” Schmalz said.Economists and attorneys working on US antitrust law have proposed prosecuting mutual funds like BlackRock or Vanguard that own large stakes in multiple companies in the same sector. Such shareholders can exert an outsize influence on companies’ pricing decisions, Schmalz said, and he noted Investment Company Act language that specifically targets this scenario: “The national public interest … is adversely affected … when investment companies [have] great size [and] excessive influence on the national economy.”Schmalz said there’s little discussion among policymakers to address that specific issue.Biden’s budget includes over $220m for antitrust enforcement, and bills that would break up large tech companies have bipartisan Senate and House support.The Guardian’s analysis highlighted the commodity market boom as companies trading in grain, steel, mining, wood, rubber, meat, oil, homes and other materials generally recorded higher profit increases than companies across the rest of the economy.However, many commodity companies operate in what analysts characterize as “feast and famine” cycles in which they’re unprofitable for years before cashing in. The pendulum has swung for many commodity companies in the day’s economic climate.“When there’s a chance to raise prices when markets are tight, companies are going to do so,” said Skanda Amarnath, executive director of the Employ America thinktank. “It’s some part opportunistic, some part greed, some part rationality, some part a response to uncertainty.”The oil industry highlights the dynamic. After seven years of low returns, it’s restricting supply to boost profits regardless of how that hits Americans at the pump. Earnings calls transcripts reveal executives eagerly “putting shareholders first” and an investor who described industry-wide supply suppression “one of the delights of this earnings season”.Bar chart of the monthly change in US wages since January 2019Bringing volatile commodity prices under control would require curtailing uncertainty and building supply chain resiliency, analysts who spoke with the Guardian say. That could involve some degree of government intervention to cut down on risk by establishing a floor on commodity prices. The government could do that by effectively becoming the “buyer of last resort” when material prices dip below a certain level.But the government should also set a ceiling above which it collects profits, said commodities analyst Alex Turnbull. He suggested the federal government set up what’s effectively a state reserve board.Turnbull pointed to lithium, which, amid increased demand for EV batteries and supply chain squeezes, jumped from $5,000 a ton to $45,000 a ton last year. Higher prices impact the pace of the clean energy transition, and the government could hypothetically set a $10,000 a ton floor price and $25,000 a ton ceiling that would limit the volatility, Turnbull said.The federal government could also increase stockpile reserves of products like grain or oil that are released when prices spike.“That sends the message ‘You should plant more wheat because if it goes really bad, you might have a lean year or two, but we will buy your wheat. But on the other hand don’t expect to buy a Lamborghini if you’re a farmer in Iowa because when prices get too high we’ll be out there selling the shit out of our stockpiles,’” Turnbull said.Stabilization may also spur investment in raw material production that’s risky, which would further bolster markets against future supply shortages. Few companies have built steel plants in recent years because the prices have been so low, Turnbull noted, and now the world is short on steel.Though price caps are “not politically palatable” Bespoke Investment analyst George Pearkes said, the government could take a number of measures to steer futures curves and markets for raw commodities like oil and wheat.“Something in between where there are strategic efforts to smooth volatility, and provide the private sector with enough certainty that they can make decisions is a lot more compelling,” he said.Spikes in investment for some commodities, like nickel, that are essential to the clean energy transition, can be a positive development, Turnbull said. Mining companies limped through the several years leading up to the pandemic, but reaped windfalls over the last year.“People say ‘Nickel producers are making too much money’, well, they didn’t make money for a decade,” Turnbull said. “At some point, somebody has to put money down to dig holes because people aren’t going to drive to the middle of fucking nowhere with a truck and work for free.”Another force in some commodity price spikes: Wall Street speculation. Commodity markets were once heavily regulated because they deal in raw materials that underpin the economy. An influx of investment capital followed the commodity markets’ deregulation about 20 years ago, and some are now treated like speculative assets similar to bitcoin, said Rupert Russell, who authored a book on the topic.The consequences of economy-addling commodity price spikes are real, he adds, pointing to the 2010 grain prices that helped trigger the Arab spring uprising in Tunisia.Supply chain back ups, inflation and war have generated “radical uncertainty” in which no one knows how much commodities are worth, because the prices are no longer anchored, Russell told the Guardian. He echoed others’ calls for stronger government intervention to tamp down the casino-like mentality.“Once there’s not just radical uncertainty but markets dominated by speculators, algorithmically driven speculation that is just kind of responding to headlines, then you’re going to get that kind of Bitcoin-esque volatility,” he said.But experts say there are few viable short-term solutions, and long-term measures don’t help Holmes. That’s forcing her to think about getting another job to survive as she feels the pressure of an economic system stacked against her.“I don’t want to. I’ve got four kids to take care of, but what am I supposed to do?” she asked.TopicsUS economyInflationEconomicsUS politicsUS income inequalityInequalityfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Tax the rich: these one percenters want people like them to pay higher taxes

      by

      Tax the rich: these one percenters want people like them to pay higher taxesMembers of the Patriotic Millionaires say the income gap in the US has become a disaster – and it’s time to ‘take that money back’ The sound system played Pink Floyd’s Money as the Patriotic Millionaires assembled in the boutique Eaton hotel in Washington DC last week. After compulsory Covid tests there was a lot of well-heeled hugging and laughter among a crowd that looked like extras from Succession as they sat down at tables stacked with M&Ms stamped with “tax the rich”.This was the first time since the pandemic that the Patriotic Millionaires had assembled together in person. The group, founded in 2010, is made up of high net worth individuals who believe – counterintuitively these days – that the really rich should pay more taxes. And after a dozen often frustrating years some of them now believe change is coming.In the White House, Joe Biden has proposed new taxes on households worth more than $100m. The war in Ukraine has shown that the international community can, and will, crack down on oligarchs. Some of the workers who made fortunes for Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Starbucks’s Howard Schultz have successfully formed unions despite the millions both companies spent fighting them off.“No one was talking about taxing the rich when we started,” said Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and a former managing director at BlackRock, the largest money manager in the world.Even the conversation seemed ridiculous under Donald Trump, Pearl added. “We have seen a huge change. You have a president talking about taxing the rich, people are talking about wealth taxes – those weren’t even fringe ideas 10 years ago. I’m not saying it’s going to happen and pass into law but there are conversations at the highest levels.”Part of the reason why those conversations are happening is that the situation has got so bad. Speaker after speaker at the one-day conference highlighted how the very, very rich have hijacked the political system around the world, run down wages and exacerbated income inequality, ramming home the title of the conference: Oligarchs vs All of Us: The Fight for Power & Money.Another member, Gary Stevenson, a British trader turned inequality economist, believes things are only going to get worse. Billionaires made fortunes from soaring stock markets, property prices and other assets during the pandemic. Government handouts have largely helped the rich, he argues. “If nothing is done this is going to be a massive disaster,” he said. “However bad you think things are, I guarantee they will get much, much worse.”When the pandemic struck there was talk of it being a great leveler – we were all in this together. In fact, Covid-19 exacerbated economic and racial inequalities. US billionaires received a $1.1tn windfall as their wealth soared to record levels. The billionaire class boomed in Asia and reached record levels in the UK. But as we emerge from the shadow of Covid-19, hoi poloi find themselves struggling with soaring inflation and rising cost of basics such as rent, utilities and food.For Stevenson this enormous explosion of wealth is “end of civilization stuff”. “There is one thing and one thing only that we can do,” he said. “We have got to take that money back.”But are rich – and overwhelmingly white – people the right people to push that message? Abigail Disney thinks so. Disney, the granddaughter of Roy Disney, co-founder of the Walt Disney Company, sees her family as a synechdoche for what has happened to the rest of America.The Disneys were already super-rich by the time Disney, 62, was born but their wealth grew enormously just as the gap between rich and poor has grown. “Money changed my family,” she said, and not for the better. Now, she says, those rich people live in another world and are unable to see what the consequences of rising inequality will be. Hearing that from one of their own breaks that barrier, she believes.“The only people billionaires will listen to are other billionaires and multimillionaires. You need at least the two commas. And if they won’t listen, there are their children and their wives, and they will listen,” she said.While her money opens the doors of power, Disney finds her message also discombobulates ordinary Americans. She is regularly assailed on Twitter for daring to suggest rich people should pay more taxes. The problem is that people have been convinced that “every single person in this country is a billionaire waiting to happen”, in an orchestrated campaign she believes was engineered to protect the wealth of the 1%.The last four decades have seen a massive redistribution of wealth. Only problem is it went to those who were already wealthy. https://t.co/anTolPYv5g— Abigail Disney (@abigaildisney) April 5, 2022
      Hearing one of the 1% suggest that maybe that dream is a nightmare makes people crazy, she said. “The pushback I get is: ‘You never worked a day in your life! You don’t know anything!’ Well, you are right, you are making my point for me! I should not have this power and influence. Just keep making my point for me,” she said.“For me to be speaking out against my own supposed self-interest has a wow factor that catches the attention. I don’t want to ever stop doing that. We need to model what it looks like to not defend your own self-interest all the time. When you are fine and other people are not, you put aside your own self-interest and stick up for somebody else.”The chance of Biden’s tax cuts making it through Congress are slim. US politicians rely too heavily on the wealthy and some Democrats as well as Republicans will balk at taxing them more. But Disney argues that the debate has changed. After the pandemic, US oligarchs aren’t the heroes they once were and, notably, Republicans have so far steered clear of an all-out attack on Biden’s proposal.“Four years ago if you’d said ‘billionaires tax’ then they would have said you can’t bash billionaires, you’re encouraging class warfare. I haven’t heard a whiff of that,” said Disney. “Let’s not kid ourselves, the other side has tested that and found it isn’t working. That class war rhetoric isn’t working any more. And that’s good news. Because if we don’t ruffle some feathers now, we are going to have a class war. A real one.”TopicsUS income inequalityIncome inequalityUS politicsInequalityUS taxationfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Covid had devastating toll on poor and low-income communities in US

      by

      Covid had devastating toll on poor and low-income communities in USPoor People’s Pandemic Report concludes that while virus did not discriminate between rich and poor, society and government did The devastating impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on poor and low-income communities across America is laid bare in a new report released on Monday that concludes that while the virus did not discriminate between rich and poor, society and government did.As the US draws close to the terrible landmark of 1 million deaths from coronavirus, the glaringly disproportionate human toll that has been exacted is exposed by the Poor People’s Pandemic Report. Based on a data analysis of more than 3,000 counties across the US, it finds that people in poorer counties have died overall at almost twice the rate of those in richer counties.Looking at the most deadly surges of the virus, the disparity in death rates grows even more pronounced. During the third pandemic wave in the US, over the winter of 2020 and 2021, death rates were four and a half times higher in the poorest counties than those with the highest median incomes.During the recent Omicron wave, that divergence in death rates stood at almost three times.Such a staggering gulf in outcomes cannot be explained by differences in vaccination rates, the authors find, with more than half of the population of the poorest counties having received two vaccine shots. A more relevant factor is likely to be that the poorest communities had twice the proportion of people who lack health insurance compared with the richer counties.“The findings of this report reveal neglect and sometimes intentional decisions to not focus on the poor,” said Bishop William Barber, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign which jointly prepared the research. “The neglect of poor and low-wealth people in this country during a pandemic is immoral, shocking and unjust.”The report was produced by the Poor People’s Campaign in partnership with a team of economists at the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) led by Jeffrey Sachs. They have number-crunched statistics from more than 3,200 counties as a way of comparing the poorest 10% with the richest 10%.They then interrogate the interplay between Covid death rates and poverty, as well as other crucial demographic factors such as race and occupation.Until now the extent to which the virus has struck low-income communities has been difficult to gauge because official mortality data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and elsewhere has not systematically factored in income and wealth information.The new report seeks to fill that gaping hole in understanding of the US pandemic. One of its most striking findings is that within the top 300 counties with the highest death rates, 45% of the population on average lives below the poverty line as defined as 200% of the official poverty measure.Sachs, a Columbia University professor who is president of the UN SDSN, said the findings underlined how the pandemic was not just a national tragedy but also a failure of social justice. “The burden of disease – in terms of deaths, illness and economic costs – was borne disproportionately by the poor, women, and people of color. The poor were America’s essential workers, on the frontlines, saving lives and also incurring disease and death.”The authors rank US counties according to the intersection of poverty and Covid-19 death rates. Top of the list is Galax county, a small rural community in south-west Virginia.Its death rate per 100,000 people stands at an astonishing 1,134, compared with 299 per 100,000 nationally. Median income in the county is little more than $33,000, and almost half of the population lives below the poverty line.Among the counties with punishingly high poverty and death rates is the Bronx in New York City, where 56% of the population is Hispanic and 29% Black. More than half of the borough lives under the poverty line, and the Covid death rate is 538 per 100,000 – within the highest 10% in the US.Racial disparities have been at the centre of the pandemic experience in the US. Early on it became clear that Black people and Hispanics in New York City, for instance, were dying of Covid at twice the rate of whites and Asians.The consequences of such racial inequity are still only now becoming visible. Last week a study in the journal Social Science & Medicine reached a disturbing conclusion.It found that when white Americans were informed through the media that Black Americans were dying at higher rates than their demographic group was, their fear of the virus receded and they became less empathetic towards those vulnerable to the disease. They were also more likely to abandon Covid safety precautions such as masks and social distancing.But low-income predominantly white communities are also in peril. Mingo county in West Virginia, for example, has one of the lowest income levels in the US following the collapse of coal mining and the scourge of the opioid epidemic.The county is 96% white, with over half its residents living below the poverty line. Its Covid death rate is 470 per 100,000 – putting it within the top quarter of counties in the nation for pandemic mortality.TopicsCoronavirusOmicron variantUS politicsInequalityPovertynewsReuse this content More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Rowing Together to Tackle Inequality

      by

      Beyond the health consequences of the pandemic, evidence shows that the COVID-19 crisis may result in increasing the levels of poverty and inequality for years, if not generations. This outcome is not inevitable. However, insufficient responses to the crisis have deepened inequalities both between and within countries and intensified public discontent, paving the way to “social turmoil and unrest,” says research Bruno Valerio.

      COVID Failure: A Matter of Principle

      READ MORE

      The costs of the pandemic are being borne disproportionately by poorer categories of society since low-income households are more exposed to health risks and more likely to experience job losses and sharp declines in wellbeing. At the same time, the pandemic has been a boon for the wealthy. In response to the economic collapse in March and April 2020, central banks injected enormous amounts of liquidity into financial markets, keeping asset prices high while economic activity slowed down. Some of the biggest winners were those with high stakes in the technology sector.

      Against this background, Kara Tan Bhala, the founder of the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics, suggests using the Gini coefficient as a measure of how close a country or the world is to economic upheaval. “The Gini coefficient gauges the income inequality of a region, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality,” she says. “Perhaps nations begin seriously reforming economic policies when their Gini coefficients are above 0.4 (United States) and red lights start flashing trouble when a country scores above 0.5 (South Africa, Brazil).”

      But how do we tackle inequality? According to economist Etienne Perrot, “the adequate responses must … address both property [ownership] rights through anti-trust regulations to counter the abuse of a dominant position, policies through redistributive taxes and education so as not to confuse emulation and competition.” Other policy responses may include “reforms of the transparency and other features of firm governance, broader acceptance of countries’ right to control cross-border capital movements,” as Andrew Cornford points out.

      Embed from Getty Images

      To implement these policies, the first condition is that inequalities should be on the political agenda, which is not the case everywhere, as professor Yuriy Temirov illustrates with the case of Ukraine. But policy measures alone are not sufficient to reduce inequalities. They have to be complemented by a cultural, transformative process for learning to “row together” (Fratelli tutti), as Domingo Sugranyes of the Pablo VI Foundation says, to increase our socioeconomic resilience.

      By Virgile Perret and Paul Dembinski

      Note: From Virus to Vitamin invites experts to comment on issues relevant to finance and the economy in relation to society, ethics and the environment. Below, you will find views from a variety of perspectives, practical experiences and academic disciplines. The topic of this discussion is: Inequalities seem to accelerate in every part of the world due to COVID-19 and other issues. Unlike the climate debate, in social issues, we do not have a proper threshold for catastrophe. This leads to a possible overestimation of social resilience and leaves the issue as such largely untackled. Drawing on the particularities of your region or on your area of expertise, what should/can be done?

      “… perfectly predictable socioeconomic inequalities … ”

      “The pandemic only reveals perfectly predictable socioeconomic inequalities. Pope Francis had alerted the international community as soon as the first vaccines appeared. The causes of these glaring social inequalities mix the institutional side through the right of property, the politics increasingly tempted by nationalism, and the spiritual bathed in the materialistic individualism of modernity. The adequate responses must therefore address both property right through anti-trust regulations to counter the abuse of a dominant position, policies through redistributive taxes and education so as not to confuse emulation and competition, distinguishing between the elite and the financial success.”

      Etienne Perrot — Jesuit, economist and editorial board member of the Choisir magazine (Geneva) and adviser to the journal Etudes (Paris)

      “… the Gini coefficient as a measure of how close a country is to economic upheaval… ”

      “In the global climate crisis, anything over 2°C above the average pre-industrial temperature leads to unmitigated disaster. In a similar vein, I suggest we use the Gini coefficient as a measure of how close a country or the world is to economic upheaval. The Gini coefficient gauges the income inequality of a region, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality. Perhaps nations begin seriously reforming economic policies when their Gini coefficients are above 0.4 (United States) and red lights start flashing trouble when a country scores above 0.5 (South Africa, Brazil). Of course, these watershed levels need further research, but it would be enlightening to have an idea of the income inequality thresholds of social disaster.”

      Kara Tan Bhala —president and founder of the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics

      “… public support will be essential to act to avert a total catastrophe … ”

      “Despite its importance, GDP as an indicator should no longer be the only way we measure economic success. Fairer economy would mean tackling health inequalities and getting to grips with issues that prevent individuals from certain ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds meeting their full potential. We need to embrace means of improving wellbeing and advancing social mobility, build on promoting social inclusion as well as addressing poverty. New plans must be put in place to achieve a more sustainable economy in a more equal and socially just society, and this cannot just be an aspiration — it must be seen as critical to our survival. In recognizing the profound challenges, public support will be essential to act to avert a total catastrophe. The coronavirus is still alive, and risk lies in whether this will be possible.”

      Archana Sinha — head of the Department of Women’s Studies at the Indian Social Institute in New Delhi, India

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      “… rowing together (Fratelli tutti) …”

      “I don’t see a theoretical answer to this extremely vast question. My reaction can only be in terms of (modest) action-oriented commitment: ‘rowing together’ (Fratelli tutti), i.e., trying to identify social projects of high solidarity value, which help people to emerge from poverty on their own capabilities, and look for means — money, goods, time — in order to increase the scope and impact of such communities. We need business and people in business to get much more decidedly involved in these kinds of projects. This is, among many other organizations, what we try to do with The Voluntary Solidarity Fund (VSF International) and VSF Spain. Everybody is welcome to join.”

      Domingo Sugranyes — director of a seminar on ethics and technology at Pablo VI Foundation, former executive vice-chairman of MAPFRE international insurance group

      “… an effective wealth tax and a global minimum corporate tax … ”

      “With the COVID-19 pandemic, the gap between the rich and the poor, in particular the income gap, has increased as Pope Francis, among others, has stated on several occasions. It is undeniable that the trend had already started several decades ago. However, with COVID-19, inequalities have reached record levels that do necessitate strong internal reforms. If no actions will be taken, such as an effective wealth tax and a global minimum corporate tax, the possibility of social turmoil and unrest will be inevitable. In Italy, political parties are literally unable to agree and set the slightest kind of agenda for a proper patrimoniale (wealth tax or asset tax), preferring to keep the country in an extremely dangerous status quo.”

      Valerio Bruno —researcher in politics

      “… fiscal measures, transparency, control of cross-border capital movements … ”

      “Much attention has been given to the wealth as well as the income dimension of the inequalities — the associated rents of the minority at one end, and the much lower and often stagnating incomes of the remainder. The latter comprises not only the working class, but also parts of the middle class. Much commentary has also concerned the opportunities to hide wealth — and thus reduce tax exposure — provided by cross-border financial liberalization and offshore financial centers. Policy responses to the inequalities should include fiscal measures, including improved taxation of the wealth of individuals and firms, reforms of the transparency and other features of firm governance, broader acceptance of countries’ right to control cross-border capital movements, and changes in legal definitions designed to facilitate controls over firms’ domestic and cross-border access to different economic activities and industries and thus to restrict regulatory arbitrage and opaqueness in firms’ operations.”

      Andrew Cornford — counselor at Observatoire de la Finance, former staff member of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), with special responsibility for financial regulation and international trade in financial services

      “… imaginative countermeasures of income … ”

      “The fundamental dynamic of any economy is summed up in the dictum, ‘To those who have shall be given and they shall have more than they can use, and from those who have not shall be taken even what they have.’ COVID also has set it in motion. Where the effects are beneficial — e.g., the reduction in travel by air — it should be encouraged. Further good news is that the deprivation inflicted by COVID on the deprived has been met — at least in places like Geneva — not by the usual blame, scorn and exclusion, but by imaginative countermeasures of income support and new forms of communication like Zoom.”

      Edouard Dommen — specialist in economic ethics, former university professor and researcher at the UNCTAD and president of Geneva’s Ecumenical Workshop in Theology.

      Embed from Getty Images

      “… first we have to think about youth … ”

      “The social deprivation problems are persistent, and this fact routinizes somehow their existence and hinders the definition of a social resilience threshold. Differentiated priorities emerged in South/Eastern Europe after the successive waves of crisis, but first we have to think about youth since no country can sustain without giving hope to its members through a micro/macro strategy that includes: i) an immediate recovery plan with emergency income support for the vulnerable groups; ii) long-lasting work-related policies and investments on youth employment (work-based training, tax reliefs for innovative enterprises); iii) strategies of sharing the risks with interregional cooperation and job retention schemes; and iv) protection and support of childhood integrity (tackling invisible work and poverty with financial benefits for low-income families and proper child/health-care, along with future-centered support, such as home learning environment and early schooling interventions).”

      Christos Tsironis —associate professor of social theory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

      “… in Ukraine, social inequality will not become a priority soon … ”

      “In Ukraine, social inequality has two primary sources: the legacy of the ‘socialist’ totalitarian past and deformed oligarchic capitalism. At the same time, the initial period of transformation with the exacerbation of the problems of social inequality has dragged on dangerously. From 1991 to 2014, the domination of the interests of oligarchic groups over national interests acted as a brake on reforms. After the Revolution of Dignity, there was a political will to implement unpopular reforms, but they had to be carried out in conditions of the population’s fatigue from reforms, in the realities of Russian aggression. The promotion of reforms by servants of the people is complicated by populism. In Ukraine, social inequality will not become a priority soon. At this stage of transformation, this issue cannot be a priority; the authorities do not have a correct understanding of the hierarchy of priorities, and society’s perceptions of equality/inequality are distorted by collectivism and paternalism.

      Yuriy Temirov —associate professor, dean of the Faculty of History and International Relations at Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University

      *[An earlier version of this article was published by From Virus to Vitamin before the Ukraine War began.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 225 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      American CEOs make 351 times more than workers. In 1965 it was 15 to one | Indigo Olivier

      by

      OpinionInequalityAmerican CEOs make 351 times more than workers. In 1965 it was 15 to oneIndigo OlivierRather than address stagnant wages for hourly workers and yawning inequality, corporations are blaming a ‘labor shortage’ Tue 17 Aug 2021 06.24 EDTLast modified on Tue 17 Aug 2021 06.25 EDTLast week, the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan thinktank, released a report on the increasing pay gap between chief executives and workers. This research tells a familiar story with updated figures. When taking into account stocks, which now make up more than 80% of the average CEO’s compensation package, the report found that chief-executive pay has risen by an astounding 1,322% since 1978. That’s more than six times more than the top 0.1% of wage earners and more than 73 times higher than the growth of the typical worker’s pay, which grew by only 18% in the same time period. Most remarkable, however, is the 18.9% increase in CEO compensation between 2019 and 2020 alone.Bob Woodward’s third book in Trump trilogy to cover handling of pandemicRead moreCEO compensation outpacing that of the 0.1% is a clear indication that this growth is not the product of a competitive race for skills or increased productivity, the EPI report explains, so much as the “power of CEOs to extract concessions. Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on the economy’s output or on employment,” the report concludes.This report joins a slew of data sounding an alarm on a massive upward transfer of wealth to the top 1% over the course of the pandemic. One estimate by the Institute for Policy Studies puts this figure as high as $4tn, or a 54% increase in fortunes for the world’s 2,365 billionaires.Today in the US, the CEO-to-worker pay gap stands at a staggering 351 to one, an unacceptable increase from 15 to one in 1965. In other words, the average CEO makes nearly nine times what the average person will earn over a lifetime in just one year.It’s worth remembering that the federal minimum wage would be $24 an hour today had it kept pace with worker productivity, rather than $7.25, where it’s been stuck since 2009. Additionally, inflation has resulted in a nearly 2% pay cut over the past year despite modest gains in hourly wages, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.This reality is unfolding against a narrative of a “labor shortage,” with small businesses, retail giants and fast-food chains expressing difficulty in filling poorly paid positions – even though there are one million more unemployed workers than there are open jobs. Clearly, something else is going on here.The grim reality is that a huge section of the American labor force – between 25% and 40% – made more on unemployment than they ever have working full-time at a minimum wage job. $7.25 an hour is $290 a week before taxes, compared with the $300 in weekly federal benefits that pandemic unemployment assistance provided. Nor does this account for the additional weekly state benefits that those on unemployment received.In our current milieu, “labor shortage” has become doublespeak for a stubborn reluctance on the part of politicians and businesses to address poverty wages, the remedy for which has been to let pandemic unemployment assistance expire so that workers are desperate enough to go back to the exploitative conditions that billion-dollar companies insist are necessary to keep the economy running.Rather than succumb to mainstream accounts that our “labor shortage” is the consequence of welfare-induced idleness, we should have an honest discussion about how we’ve allowed the essential workers who uphold our standard of living to be abused for so long while the mega-wealthy billionaires whom they work for realize their infantile fantasies of starting colonies in space.The EPI is correct. A wealth tax on the 1% would not hinder the economy nor employment, so much as rein in the excesses of the billionaire space race and luxury doomsday bunkers that stand in stark relief to the floods, fires, famine and pestilence that have currently taken hold.Among the report’s policy recommendations for reversing skyrocketing pay for CEOs are raising the marginal tax rate on the ultra rich to “limit rent-seeking behavior” and penalizing companies with unacceptable CEO-to-worker pay ratios with higher corporate taxes. Let’s examine the feasibility of both under Joe Biden’s administration.When Biden came into office, Trump had cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 21% and lowered rates on the ultra-wealthy to such an extent that the richest 400 people in the US paid a lower tax rate than any other group in the country – including the minimum wage workers who are rightly refusing to return to the same conditions they withstood before the pandemic. Investopedia called Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the “largest overhaul of the tax code in three decades”.Biden, seeking to undo some of this pillaging of the public sphere, has proposed raising corporate taxes to 28% – 7% lower than what they had been when Barack Obama left office – and raising the top rates for individuals back to 39.6% from Trump’s 37% as part of the Democrats’ $3.5tn budget proposal (though there was some suggestion that Biden would concede to a 25% corporate tax rate if it would please congressional Republicans). Biden has also stated that he will not increase taxes on those making less than $400,000 – meaning less than the top 2% of wage earners.In other words, popular slogans taking aim at the top 1% have resulted in an administration of corporate Democrats that will attempt to take aim at the 1%, but make clear to their base that the 1% is as far as they’re willing to go.This is a far cry from the popular policies Bernie Sanders proposed during the presidential primaries, such as giving workers an ownership stake in the companies they’re employed by, democratizing corporate boards through employee elections, passing a wealth tax, banning stock buybacks and more. And it falls short of what is by far the cheapest and easiest solution to stimulating the economy and vastly reducing income inequality while steering clear of Republican interference: full student debt cancellation through executive order.With the stroke of a pen, Biden could provide life-changing financial relief for one in eight people living in the US. Each day he chooses not to is further proof that Biden is keeping to his original promise to rich donors on the campaign trail: “… nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”
      Indigo Olivier is an investigative reporting fellow at In These Times magazine
      TopicsInequalityOpinionUS politicsEconomic policyExecutive pay and bonusescommentReuse this content More