record inequality

[jk]

i guess there are more people of truly exceptional ability lately. :rolleyes: i wonder where they all went after 1929?




http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/ via paul krugman http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...n-more-gilded/

[dummass]

Re: record inequality

Nice correlation with FIRE 1982-2008

[jk]

Re: record inequality

Nice correlation with FIRE 1982-2008

i guess finance, insurance and real estate just help bring out those innate abilities which separate the winners from the losers!:rolleyes:

[GRG55]

Re: record inequality

i guess finance, insurance and real estate just help bring out those innate abilities which separate the winners from the losers!:rolleyes:

I remember an interview with Warren Buffett in which he admitted that he had incredible talent and ability when it came to capital allocation, and been well paid for it, but if he had been born in an earlier time, when such talents were unneeded, he probably would have been eaten by whatever prey he was hunting to survive.

The FIRE economy may be dying, but it's going to take a very long time to completely eradicate all the associated nonsense...

Blackstone's Schwarzman tops U.S. CEO payroll: study

Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:33pm EDT

BOSTON (Reuters) - Taking his private equity firm public paid off big for Blackstone Group LP's Stephen Schwarzman, who became the top-paid chief executive in the United States last year, a title he is likely to retain for some time, according to an analysis released on Thursday...

..."It is reasonably safe to assume that Mr. Schwarzman will remain at the top of (the) highest paid CEOs list, or close to it, for a few years to come," the report says...

But apparently there's hope if you don't mind frying the earth with CO2 ;)

...But the surest route to big bucks was running an oil or natural gas company. Their CEOs represented seven of the 10 highest-paid U.S. CEOs in 2008, according to a report by independent research group The Corporate Library...

[zoog]

Re: record inequality

"I realize that, historically, phrases like 'massive redistribution of wealth' are usually accompanied by rivers of blood. That said, it's about time for a massive redistribution of wealth."

the onion (note: satire)

[ASH]

Re: record inequality

Nice correlation with FIRE 1982-2008

I too see financialization of the economy as a key factor. But didn't that same timespan also coincide with:

• industrialization of the developing world (and subsequent opportunities for labor arbitrage)
• decline of organized labor
• rise of high tech industry (fewer jobs requiring higher education); fall of assembly line manufacturing industry (lots of jobs requiring little education)
• rise of imigration from south of the border to fill low-skill jobs
• addition of women to the workforce

That last item seems a bit of a chicken-and-egg question to me. Did women enter the workforce because the real wages of labor had declined to the point where two wage-earners were required to maintain the American standard of living (or, at least, our standard of consumption) -- or did the real wages of labor fall partially because women entered the workforce, increasing the domestic supply of labor? And how did entry of women into the work force compare to the impact of labor arbitrage and the decline of unions? For that matter, did labor market conditions (like entry of women into the workforce, immigration, and overseas competition) enable pressure on the unions, or did the decline of the unions occur in parallel -- but without a causal relationship?

All that said, I think financialization of the economy explains the run-away at the top of the income distribution (e.g. CEO or investment banker pay). The other factors I cite probably had a big impact on the part of the income distribution they influence, but since income is bounded on the low side at zero, factors that tend to reduce the income of the low-earners matter much less than factors that increase the income of the high-earners, when we're talking about disparity.

[rjwjr]

Re: record inequality

• You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
• You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
• You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
• You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

[rjwjr]

Re: record inequality

i guess there are more people of truly exceptional ability lately. :rolleyes: i wonder where they all went after 1929?




http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/ via paul krugman http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...n-more-gilded/

Paul "Conscience of a Liberal" Krugman won about $1.4mil for his Nobel prize. You think he gave $700,000 to the bottom 10% to keep things equal? Hypocrisy abounds in you wealth redistribution zealots.

[scootie]

Re: record inequality

You can help the rich by destroying the poor.

You can strengthen the strong by weakening the weak.

You can lift the wage payer up by pulling the wage earner down.

[FRED]

Re: record inequality

Nice correlation with FIRE 1982-2008

From iTulip research in 2006:

[FRED]

Re: record inequality

Paul "Conscience of a Liberal" Krugman won about $1.4mil for his Nobel prize. You think he gave $700,000 to the bottom 10% to keep things equal? Hypocrisy abounds in you wealth redistribution zealots.

Poor wealth distribution is not a problem. It is a symptom of a problem: concentration of political power. In the 1920s it resulted from the financial influence of industrial elites on government. Since the 1980s it has resulted from the financial influence of FIRE elites on government.

[LargoWinch]

Re: record inequality

Below is a copy of the report from which the data is from:

US Income Distribution 2007

[LargoWinch]

Re: record inequality

Paul "Conscience of a Liberal" Krugman won about $1.4mil for his Nobel prize. You think he gave $700,000 to the bottom 10% to keep things equal? Hypocrisy abounds in you wealth redistribution zealots.

rjwjr; I deeply agree with your premise that if someone works hard, takes risks [businessman/woman] then this person should be rewarded accordingly.

Having said that, I hope you realize that the game is rigged, unfair, tilted in favor of well-connected FIRE bastards at the expense of the masses [including successful entrepreneurs].

I bet you all the gold in the world that not all of these "high net worth" individuals [actually a lot of "ultra-rich crooks" ;) ] worked hard, took risks and won. No, these crook bastards, are simply in bed with governments and regulators: win or lose, they get paid. Who cares about the standard of living of the "bottom 95%"?

Oh and btw, Krugman is the living proof that a Nobel prize is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: record inequality

"The House of Representatives is likely to propose a temporary, one-year measure to prevent repeal of the estate tax, as time is running short for a bipartisan group of senators to agree on a permanent rate by the end of this year.

The House will likely propose to scrap the one-year repeal. At current levels, the first $3.5 million of estate wealth is exempt from the tax. Above that amount, wealth is taxed at a 45% rate."

wsj

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...384296134.html

[ASH]

Re: record inequality

Oh and btw, Krugman is the living proof that a Nobel prize is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Hey now. I had the good fortune to take classes from two Nobel laureates, Ahmed Zewail (chemistry, 1999) and Herbert Kroemer (physics, 2000). Although the same could be said of all my professors, I can assure you that those two guys are a lot smarter than I. (Those two were both very smart, and made pioneering discoveries that other scientists found broadly useful.) Say what you will about the Peace prize or the prizes in Economics and Literature, but the guys who win in the hard sciences aren't slouches. There, at least, the merit of their ideas is objectively demonstrable.