Pages in category "Wealth concentration"
The following 13 pages are in this category, out of 13 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
The following 13 pages are in this category, out of 13 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
1. Winner-Take-All Politics – Winner-Take-All Politics, How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is a book by political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Most of the gains of economic growth since the 1970s have gone to the top 1% of Americans, and most of that to the top 0. 1%. While the share of Americas income gains between 1979 and 2005 for the bottom middle- and lower-income 60% of the population was just 13. 5%, in other words, the top 300,000 Americans gained half again as large a slice of income as the bottom 180 million. This after-tax distribution of income varies only slightly when factoring in non-cash compensation distributed, the income distribution hasnt followed a pattern of the 29% of Americans with college degrees pulling away from those who have less education. Its the top 1% that have pulled away from the top 20%, nor has this rise in inequality taken place in many other developed economies. Western Europe and Japan, havent seen anything like the rise in inequality America has, inequality in France and Switzerland has actually fallen, in Germany its remained the same, and in Ericssons Sweden and Sonys Japan its moved up only slightly. The relative lack of skill of American workers cant be blamed, there is no gap between American workers and those of Europeans, Canadians, et al. measured in years of schooling. Americas more extreme stratification has not come with any benefit of faster growth or more social mobility than its peer countries. Economic growth per capita was essentially the same in the US as that of the 15 core nations of Europe through 2006, two areas related to income distribution where the US differs quite a bit from other developed countries are executive pay and unionization. Unions as a whole have been a force for raising pay, increase in the relative pay of CEOs in the US — from 24 times the earnings of the typical worker in 1965 to 300 times in 2007 — is much greater than in Europe. It takes a different form than those countries — deferred compensation, guaranteed hours on corporate jets, chauffeurs, personal assistants, apartments, besides corporate executives and managers, the other occupation/industry with large numbers of top earners are professionals in the finance industry. The two groups make up almost 60% of the top 0. 1%, while corporate management in America has benefited mightily from its capture from stockholders of boards of directors, whose nomination, pay and perks management has strong influence over. The action in financial markets, corporate governance, industrial relations and they were prevented by legions of businesspeople and intervention by congress, led by Senator Joe Lieberman. Though this process came as part of what the authors describe as a transformation of American government, it has been overlooked by the public, the media, and recent political science studies. These highly effective organizations include business groups like Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, anti-tax groups like Club for Growth, along with them came a new generation of think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Officially non-partisan, they focused on shifting public opinion and policy in a conservative direction, in the story of a winner-take-all America, the authors believe Republicans wear black hats and the Democrats gray hats. The GOP stands strongly united in favor of policies favoring the wealthy and this is not a position Republican necessarily admit to, or are unaware of public resistance to. While only about 8% of major bills in the 1960s were filibustered, the minority Republican party could and did use the filibuster to make the reformist majority look ineffectual and fuel popular disdain for politics
2. Silver spoon – The English language expression silver spoon is synonymous with wealth, especially inherited wealth, someone born into a wealthy family is said to have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Before the place setting became popular around 1700, people brought their own spoons to the table, carrying them in the way that people today carry wallet. In pre-modern times, ownership of a silver spoon was an indication of social class, in the Middle Ages, when farmers and craftsmen worked long hours and frequently got dirt under their fingernails, it was important to not be mistaken for a serf or escaped slave. Under these circumstances, a silver spoon served the functional equivalent of passport, driving licence, since most members of the land-owning classes were smallhold farmers and craftsmen, the silver spoon was primarily a lower-middle-class cultural marker. Silver spoons, because of their weight and number, were often among the most valuable assets of a middle-class household, and therefore. For example, in the feature film Far and Away, the character Shannon plans to pay for her emigration from Ireland to the United States with spoons she stole from her wealthy landowner parents. Beyond their value and aesthetics, silver utensils self-sanitize, silver has antimicrobial properties, because the phrase is used as a translation of a Spanish proverb with a different literal meaning, it seems that the phrase was already considered proverbial in English at the time. The phrase next appears in a book of Scottish proverbs published in 1721, john Galsworthys novel, The Forsyte Saga, contains a chapter called The Silver Spoon, which refers to a cockered heiress, Fleur Forsyte. The term, or parodies thereof, have made their way into popular music. The lyrics from the 1985 song, The Wolf by Heart, start with, You were born to privilege, in the song lyrics for Just Like Greta, Van Morrison says, Then sometimes it feels so easy, like I was born with a silver spoon. This is Music, by The Verve, features the lyrics, I stand accused just like you, for being born without a silver spoon. The Whos song Substitute parodies this term with the lyrics, I was born with a spoon in my mouth, by purposefully inverting the phrase. Yoko Ono mourns the loss of her silver spoon in a line in the song Mrs. Lennon, the Nails song 88 Lines About 44 Women contains the lyrics Jackie was a rich punk rocker, silver spoon and a paper plate. However, some uses of the phrase relate to drug use rather than privilege. For example, One line of the Eagles song Witchy Woman is and this usage of the term may refer to the use of a silver spoon for cocaine or absinthe. The first few lines from the song Gold Dust Woman, by Fleetwood Mac, are, Rock on, gold dust woman/Take your silver spoon/And dig your grave, relating to Stevie Nicks use of cocaine. In the Broadway musical, Once, the lyrics to the song Gold say, Im walking on moonbeams, then–Texas State Treasurer Ann Richards was well known for saying about George H. W. Bush, Poor George. He was born with a foot in his mouth, at the 1988 Democratic National Convention
3. Land reform – Land reform involves the changing of laws, regulations or customs regarding land ownership. Land reform may consist of a government-initiated or government-backed property redistribution, such transfers of ownership may be with or without compensation, compensation may vary from token amounts to the full value of the land. The common characteristic of all reforms, however, is modification or replacement of existing institutional arrangements governing possession. Thus even small-scale land reforms and legal modifications may be subject to debate or conflict. Land reforms, which change what it means to land, therefore create tensions. Western conceptions of land have evolved over the past several centuries to place emphasis on individual land ownership. Control over land, however, may also be perceived less in terms of ownership and more in terms land use. Historically, in parts of Africa for example, land was not owned by an individual. Different people in a family or community had different rights to access land for different purposes. Such rights were often conveyed through oral history and not formally documented and these different ideas of land ownership and tenure are sometimes referred to using different terminology. For example, formal or statutory land systems refer to ideas of control more closely affiliated with individual land ownership. Informal or customary land systems refer to ideas of control more closely affiliated with land tenure. Terms dictating control over and use of land can therefore take many forms, feudal land ownership, through fiefdoms Life estate, interest in real property that ends at death. Fee tail, hereditary, non-transferable ownership of real property, under common law, this is the most complete ownership interest one can have in real property. Government collectives, such as those that might be found in communist states, Land reform is a deeply political process and therefore many arguments for and against it have emerged. These arguments vary tremendously over time and place, for example, in the twentieth century, many land reforms emerged from a particular political ideology, such as communism or socialism. Land reforms need not be as dramatic in scale as Zimbabwe, such benefits may include eradicating food insecurity and alleviating rural poverty. Arguments in support of such reforms gained momentum after the publication of The Mystery of Capital by Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto in 2000
4. The Price of Inequality – The Price of Inequality, How Todays Divided Society Endangers Our Future is a 2012 book by Joseph Stiglitz that deals with income inequality in the United States. He attacks the growing wealth disparity and the effects it has on the economy at large, Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winning economist who teaches at Columbia University. He wrote The Price of Inequality during uprisings in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, Stiglitz argues that inequality is self-perpetuating, that it is produced by the vast amount of political power the wealthy hold to control legislative and regulatory activity. He does not believe that globalization and technological changes are at the heart of differences in wealth in the U. S. While there may be underlying economic forces at play, ” he writes, “politics have shaped the market, and shaped it in ways that advantage the top at the expense of the rest. ”Stiglitz blames rent-seeking for causing the inequality, with the wealthy using their power to shape monopolies, incur favorable treatment by the government, and pay low taxes. The end result is not only wrong but also hurts the productivity in the economy. While he promotes the idea that a market is good for society if it is competitive. If that doesnt happen, the powerful corporations will use leverage to profit at the expense of the majority, according to Stiglitz, concentrating market power in too few hands is just as bad as excessive regulation. Writing in the New York Times, journalism professor Thomas B, edsall called the book the single most comprehensive counterargument to both Democratic neoliberalism and Republican laissez-faire theories. Edsall added that Stiglitz may prove most prescient when he warns of a society governed by rules of the game that weaken the strength of workers vis-à-vis capital. A review in The Economist was mainly positive, noting that Stiglitz is skilled at making his argument, whether or not he has the right answers, Mr Stiglitz is surely right to focus on the issue, the reviewer concluded. Yvonne Roberts of The Guardian called the book a powerful plea for the implementation of what Alexis de Tocqueville termed self-interest properly understood, the book received the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights 2013 Book Award
5. Who Owns the Future? – Jaron Lanier posits that the middle class is increasingly disenfranchised from online economies. By convincing users to give valuable information about themselves in exchange for free services. Lanier calls these firms “Siren Servers, ” alluding to the Sirens of Ulysses, instead of paying each individual for their contribution to the data pool, the Siren Servers concentrate wealth in the hands of the few who control the data centers. For example, he points to Googles translation algorithm, which amalgamates previous translations uploaded by people online, the people behind the source translations receive no payment for their work, while Google profits from increased ad visibility as a powerful Siren Server. As a solution to problem, Lanier puts forth an alternative structure to the web based on Ted Nelson’s Project Xanadu. Joe Nocera from the New York Times said, The most important book I read in 2013 was Jaron Lanier’s “Who Owns the Future. ”, hiawatha Bray from the Boston Globe said, In Lanier’s world, our personal information is recognized as private property. Any business that wants to use it — Google, Amazon, your cellphone carrier, your bank — would have to pay for the privilege, even the cops would have to pay you if they subpoenaed your cellphone records. Indeed, Lanier’s plan has a side benefit — it protects our privacy by making it costly to spy on us. Peter Lawler commented, So Lanier gives us “Kirk’s wager. ”Let’s be optimistic that the TV versions of Star Trek, despite the silliness of the techno-details, are basically right. Our techno-future is not only about the procession of new gadgets and instruments but likely to be “a more moral, fun, adventurous. The Economist commented, Mr Lanier has an audacious solution, if information is worth money then people should be paid for what they contribute. He envisions a complicated mechanism in which such as Facebook stop being free. Creators of data would be remunerated with millions of nanopayments, users of information would have to pay, even the author admits this would be a hard sell. The Independent said, Laniers explicit identification of his system with a bourgeois interest is also useful – as an alternative Marxist explanation is easily to hand. The forces of production are about to take another enormous leap forward, while the relations of production are straggling far behind. ”The Daily Telegraph said, Sensibly and we may, of course, all become software programmers. Lanier makes a case, and it’s hard to dispute his suggestions for the future until we get there. History, thankfully, suggests he will be proven wrong, hes able to layer his argument so that it makes sense to a Silicon Valley outsider, while communicating some of the insiders point of view. The New York Times commented. “Who Owns the Future. ”Takes some of it biggest swipes at those who do presume to own the future, fans of the Singularity, Silicon Valley pioneers seeking “methusalization”, techie utopians of every stripe