3 ms·

The article omits some of the basic information needed for making sense of the data: What is the composition of the one-percent? I doubt that corporate executi

The article omits some of the basic information needed for making sense of the data: What is the composition of the one-percent? I doubt that corporate executives make up a significant percentage of the super-wealthy, despite the attention the media pays to them. If that's true, then ipso facto changes in CEO compensation cannot account for most of the structural increase in inequality over the last half century. A more likely suspect is the influence of technology, which has interlinked global markets so that the dominant players are able to extract significantly more value than in the past. Outsourcing has suppressed wages while increasing profitability, which naturally contributes to inequality. And in an interconnected global trading system, economies of scale become more and more beneficial, which consolidates resources among the top competitors in a given field. One interesting question is how the sharing economy will affect this phenomenon in the future. Will the creation of 'Ubers for everything' drive down wages even further by saturating labor markets with even more surplus human capital? Will it destabilize some of the entrenched social hierarchies in America by gutting the fortunes that legacy industries currently enjoy? Another issue worth serious thought is which kinds of inequality are most harmful to society and why. Is stratification of the middle class and the hyper-rich the primary dilemma, simply because it accounts for the greatest resource disparity on paper? Or in practice is America's social cohesion damaged more by the smaller gaps between members of the other social classes? Finally, how should concerns about inequality influence America's immigration policy? If we view the current situation as a problem, then importing more low-skilled laborers will exacerbate things. It's hardly a coincidence that the super-rich are some of the strongest advocates of comprehensive immigration reform. That may well be a desirable policy for humanitarian reasons, but we should remember the relevant externalities.

pcurve 11y ago
"I doubt that corporate executives make up a significant percentage of the super-wealthy, despite the attention the media pays to them. " I'm afraid you're wrong on this point. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-inequality-OWS http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-i... Corporate executives account for almost 3rd of the top 1%, even if you exclude bankers. Throwing in bankers, and it's almost half. I agree with you on that technology and automation are the main driver in increased leverage against workers. And sadly, government and regulations failed to counteract this leverage.
- ClintEhrlich 11y ago
  That is interesting, but I'm persuaded that the top one percent was way too broad of a sample. (My lapse. Sorry.) The wealth is concentrated within a narrow subsection of that group. And I don't think that many of them became rich as corporate executives, unless you are including entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, whose wealth was derived from his ownership of a business, not as compensation for his work as an executive. Actually, maybe it is reasonable to include them. But I didn't do so when I made my earlier estimations. Ownership of the means of production is the main intergenerational conduit of capital, which naturally creates large accumulations of inherited wealth. The fact that so many self-made people are now among the world's hyper-rich is a testament to the strength of the technological forces powering startups. And in a sense, Silicon Valley has created the most merit-based process ever devised for crowning an oligarchy. What's really interesting is to think in terms of power laws, which predict a trillionaire within our lifetime. What would that level of divergence result in? Will someone eventually create something so valuable that the equity takes over a significant percentage of the global economy? (e.g. nano or AI breakthrough)
viraptor 11y ago
Only about your initial question: one-percent is a terrible name. It gives the right idea initially, but if you ask a logical question like you did, the problem is far smaller than 1%. America doesn't have 3 million CEOs and corporate executives. In your life, you met over 100 people - does everyone feel like they met an insanely high earner? Even here, just on HN, I expect a large number of people are in the top 1% salaries. Yet, I don't think that's what the people are really angry about.

pcurve 11y ago

"I doubt that corporate executives make up a significant percentage of the super-wealthy, despite the attention the media pays to them. " I'm afraid you're wrong on this point. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-inequality-OWS http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-i... Corporate executives account for almost 3rd of the top 1%, even if you exclude bankers. Throwing in bankers, and it's almost half. I agree with you on that technology and automation are the main driver in increased leverage against workers. And sadly, government and regulations failed to counteract this leverage.

ClintEhrlich 11y ago
That is interesting, but I'm persuaded that the top one percent was way too broad of a sample. (My lapse. Sorry.) The wealth is concentrated within a narrow subsection of that group. And I don't think that many of them became rich as corporate executives, unless you are including entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, whose wealth was derived from his ownership of a business, not as compensation for his work as an executive. Actually, maybe it is reasonable to include them. But I didn't do so when I made my earlier estimations. Ownership of the means of production is the main intergenerational conduit of capital, which naturally creates large accumulations of inherited wealth. The fact that so many self-made people are now among the world's hyper-rich is a testament to the strength of the technological forces powering startups. And in a sense, Silicon Valley has created the most merit-based process ever devised for crowning an oligarchy. What's really interesting is to think in terms of power laws, which predict a trillionaire within our lifetime. What would that level of divergence result in? Will someone eventually create something so valuable that the equity takes over a significant percentage of the global economy? (e.g. nano or AI breakthrough)

viraptor 11y ago

Only about your initial question: one-percent is a terrible name. It gives the right idea initially, but if you ask a logical question like you did, the problem is far smaller than 1%. America doesn't have 3 million CEOs and corporate executives. In your life, you met over 100 people - does everyone feel like they met an insanely high earner? Even here, just on HN, I expect a large number of people are in the top 1% salaries. Yet, I don't think that's what the people are really angry about.