American Income Inequity (good read)

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Sluggo, Amskeptic

Post Reply
User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

American Income Inequity (good read)

Post by Amskeptic » Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:06 pm

How Superstars’ Pay Stifles Everyone Else
Published: December 25, 2010

This article was adapted from “The Price of Everything: Solving the Mystery of Why We Pay What We Do,” by Eduardo Porter, an editorial writer for The New York Times.

(IAC editor highlights in red- Colin)

In sports as in business, pay has soared at the very top of the scale. Last season, the soccer superstar Cristiano Ronaldo, right, made about 15 times as much as Pelé did in 1960, adjusted for inflation.

In 1990, the Kansas City Royals had the heftiest payroll in Major League Baseball: almost $24 million. A typical player for the New York Yankees, which had some of the most expensive players in the game at the time, earned less than $450,000.

Last season, the Yankees spent $206 million on players, more than five times the payroll of the Royals 20 years ago, even after accounting for inflation. The Yankees’ median salary was $5.5 million, seven times the 1990 figure, inflation-adjusted.

What is most striking is how the Yankees have outstripped the rest of the league. Two decades ago. the Royals’ payroll was about three times as big as that of the Chicago White Sox, the cheapest major-league team at the time. Last season, the Yankees spent about six times as much as the Pittsburgh Pirates, who had the most inexpensive roster.

Baseball aficionados might conclude that all of this points to some pernicious new trend in the market for top players. But this is not specific to baseball, or even to sport. Consider the market for pop music. In 1982, the top 1 percent of pop stars, in terms of pay, raked in 26 percent of concert ticket revenue. In 2003, that top percentage of stars — names like Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguilera or 50 Cent — was taking 56 percent of the concert pie.

The phenomenon is not even specific to the United States. Pelé, from Brazil, the greatest soccer player of all time, made his World Cup debut in Sweden in 1958, when he was only 17. He became an instant star, coveted by every team on the planet. By 1960, his team, Santos, reportedly paid him $150,000 a year — about $1.1 million in today’s money. But these days, that would amount to middling pay. The top-paid player of the 2009-10 season, the Portuguese forward Cristiano Ronaldo, made $17 million playing for the Spanish team Real Madrid.

Of course, the inflated rewards of performers at the very top have to do with specific changes in the underlying economics of entertainment. People have more disposable income to spend on entertainment. Corporate sponsorships, virtually non-existent in the age of Pelé, account today for a large share of performers’ income. In 2009, the highest-earning soccer player was the English midfielder David Beckham, who made $33 million from endorsements on top of a $7 million salary from the Los Angeles Galaxy and AC Milan.

But broader forces are also at play. Nearly 30 years ago, Sherwin Rosen, an economist from the University of Chicago, proposed an elegant theory to explain the general pattern. In an article entitled “The Economics of Superstars,” he argued that technological changes would allow the best performers in a given field to serve a bigger market and thus reap a greater share of its revenue. But this would also reduce the spoils available to the less gifted in the business.

The reasoning fits smoothly into the income dynamics of the music industry, which has been shaken by many technological disruptions since the 1980s. First, MTV put music on television. Then Napster took it to the Internet. Apple allowed fans to buy single songs and take them with them. Each of these breakthroughs allowed the very top acts to reach a larger fan base, and thus command a larger audience and a bigger share of concert revenue.

Superstar effects apply, too, to European soccer, which is beamed around the world on cable and satellite TV. In 2009, the top 20 soccer teams reaped revenue of 3.9 billion euros, more than 25 percent of the combined revenue of all the teams in European leagues.

Pelé was not held back by the quality of his game, but by his relatively small revenue base. He might be the greatest of all time, but few people could pay to experience his greatness. In 1958, there were about 350,000 television sets in Brazil. The first television satellite, Telstar I, wasn’t launched until July 1962, too late for his World Cup debut.

By contrast, the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, in which Ronaldo played for Portugal, was broadcast in more than 200 countries, to an aggregate audience of over 25 billion. Some 700 million people watched the final alone. Ronaldo is not better then Pelé. He makes more money because his talent is broadcast to more people.

IF one loosens slightly the role played by technological progress, Dr. Rosen’s framework also does a pretty good job explaining the evolution of executive pay. In 1977, an elite chief executive working at one of America’s top 100 companies earned about 50 times the wage of its average worker. Three decades later, the nation’s best-paid C.E.O.’s made about 1,100 times the pay of a worker on the production line.

This has separated the megarich from the merely very rich. A study of pay in the 1970s found that executives in the top 10 percent made about twice as much as those in the middle of the pack. By the early 2000s, the top suits made more than four times the pay of the executives in the middle.

Top C.E.O.’s are not pop stars. But the pay for the most sought-after executives has risen for similar reasons. As corporations have increased in size, management decisions at the top have become that much more important, measured in terms of profits or losses. Top American companies have much higher sales and profits than they did 20 years ago. Banks and funds have more assets.

With so much more at stake, it has become that much more important for companies to put at the helm the “best” executive or banker or fund manager they can find. This has set off furious competition for top managerial talent, pushing the prices of top-rated managers way above the pay of those in the tier just below them. Two economists at New York University, Xavier Gabaix and Augustin Landier, published a study in 2006 estimating that the sixfold rise in the pay of chief executives in the United States over the last quarter century or so was attributable entirely to the sixfold rise in the market size of large American companies.

And therein lies a big problem for American capitalism.

CAPITALISM relies on inequality. Like differences in other prices, pay disparities steer resources — in this case, people — to where they would be most productively employed.

Despite the great danger and cost of crossing the border illegally into the United States, hundreds of thousands of the hardest-working Mexicans are drawn by the relative prosperity they can achieve north of the border — where the average income of a Mexican-American household is more than $33,000, almost five times that of a family in Mexico.

In poor economies, fast economic growth increases inequality as some workers profit from new opportunities and others do not. The share of national income accruing to the top 1 percent of the Chinese population more than doubled from 1986 to 2003. Inequality spurs economic growth by providing incentives for people to accumulate human capital and become more productive. It pulls the best and brightest into the most lucrative lines of work, where the most profitable companies hire them.

Yet the increasingly outsize rewards accruing to the nation’s elite clutch of superstars threaten to gum up this incentive mechanism. If only a very lucky few can aspire to a big reward, most workers are likely to conclude that it is not worth the effort to try. The odds aren’t on their side.

Inequality has been found to turn people off. A recent experiment conducted with workers at the University of California found that those who earned less than the typical wage for their pay unit and occupation became measurably less satisfied with their jobs, and more likely to look for another one if they found out the pay of their peers. Other experiments have found that winner-take-all games tend to elicit much less player effort — and more cheating — than those in which rewards are distributed more smoothly according to performance.

Ultimately, the question is this: How much inequality is necessary? It is true that the nation grew quite fast as inequality soared over the last three decades. Since 1980, the country’s gross domestic product per person has increased about 69 percent, even as the share of income accruing to the richest 1 percent of the population jumped to 36 percent from 22 percent. Since 1980, the weekly wage of the average worker on the factory floor has increased little more than 3 percent, after inflation. But the economy grew even faster — 83 percent per capita — from 1951 to 1980, when inequality declined when measured as the share of national income going to the very top of the population.

One study concluded that each percentage-point increase in the share of national income channeled to the top 10 percent of Americans since 1960 led to an increase of 0.12 percentage points in the annual rate of economic growth — hardly an enormous boost. The cost for this tonic seems to be a drastic decline in Americans’ economic mobility.

The United States is the rich country with the most skewed income distribution. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the average earnings of the richest 10 percent of Americans are 16 times those for the 10 percent at the bottom of the pile. That compares with a multiple of 8 in Britain and 5 in Sweden.

Not coincidentally, Americans are less economically mobile than people in other developed countries. There is a 42 percent chance that the son of an American man in the bottom fifth of the income distribution will be stuck in the same economic slot. The equivalent odds for a British man are 30 percent, and 25 percent for a Swede.

NONE of this even begins to account for the damage caused by the superstar dynamics that shape the pay of American bankers.

Remember the ’80s? Gordon Gekko first sashayed across the silver screen. Ivan Boesky was jailed for insider trading. Michael Milken peddled junk bonds. In 1987, financial firms amassed a little less than a fifth of the profits of all American corporations. Wall Street bonuses totaled $2.6 billion — about $15,600 for each man and woman working there.

Yet by current standards, this era of legendary greed appears like a moment of uncommon restraint. In 2007, as the financial bubble built upon the American housing market reached its peak, financial companies accounted for a full third of the profits of the nation’s private sector. Wall Street bonuses hit a record $32.9 billion, or $177,000 a worker.

Just as technology gave pop stars a bigger fan base that could buy their CDs, download their singles and snap up their concert tickets, the combination of information technology and deregulation gave bankers an unprecedented opportunity to reap huge rewards. Investors piled into the top-rated funds that generated the highest returns. Rewards flowed in abundance to the most “productive” financiers, those that took the bigger risks and generated the biggest profits.

Finance wasn’t always so richly paid. Financiers had a great time in the early decades of the 20th century: from 1909 to the mid-1930s, they typically made about 50 percent to 60 percent more than workers in other industries. But the stock market collapse of 1929 and the Great Depression changed all that. In 1934, corporate profits in the financial sector shrank to $236 million, one-eighth what they were five years earlier. Wages followed. From 1950 through about 1980, bankers and insurers made only 10 percent more than workers outside of finance, on average.

This ebb and flow of compensation mimics the waxing and waning of restrictions governing finance. A century ago, there were virtually no regulations to restrain banks’ creativity and speculative urges. They could invest where they wanted, deploy depositors’ money as they saw fit. But after the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt set up a plethora of restrictions to avoid a repeat of the financial bubble that burst in 1929.

Interstate banking had been limited since 1927. In 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act forbade commercial banks and investment banks from getting into each other’s business — separating deposit taking and lending from playing the markets. Interest-rate ceilings were also imposed that year. The move to regulate bankers continued in 1959 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who forbade mixing banks with insurance companies.

Barred from applying the full extent of their wits toward maximizing their incomes, many of the nation’s best and brightest who had flocked to make money in banking left for other industries.

Then, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration unleashed a surge of deregulation. By 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act lay repealed. Banks could commingle with insurance companies at will. Ceilings on interest rates vanished. Banks could open branches anywhere. Unsurprisingly, the most highly educated returned to banking and finance. By 2005, the share of workers in the finance industry with a college education exceeded that of other industries by nearly 20 percentage points. By 2006, pay in the financial sector was again 70 percent higher than wages elsewhere in the private sector. A third of the 2009 Princeton graduates who got jobs after graduation went into finance; 6.3 percent took jobs in government.

Then the financial industry blew up, taking out a good chunk of the world economy.

Finance will not be tamed by tweaking the way bankers are paid. But bankers’ pay could be structured to discourage wanton risk taking. Similarly, superstar effects are not the sole cause of the stagnant incomes of regular Joes. But the piling of rewards on our superstars is encouraging a race to the top that, if left unabated, could leave very little to strive for in its wake.
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Post by ruckman101 » Mon Dec 27, 2010 12:53 pm

A study published in 2009 has shown that negative social phenomena such as shorter life expectancy, higher disease rates, homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population correlate with higher socioeconomic inequality.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

User avatar
glasseye
IAC Addict!
Location: Kootenays, BC
Status: Offline

Post by glasseye » Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:30 pm

To say nothing of social disruption.
"This war will pay for itself."
Paul Wolfowitz, speaking of Iraq.

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Post by ruckman101 » Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:45 am

There is also a very serious global income inequality thing going on. Our foreign policy encourages it.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

vdubyah73
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by vdubyah73 » Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:49 am

1/20/2013 end of an error
never owned a gun. have fired a few.

User avatar
hambone
Post-Industrial Non-Secular Mennonite
Location: Portland, Ore.
Status: Offline

Post by hambone » Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:47 pm

We are so very screwed. What can the average American do about it however? The concept of "king" goes way back.
And even if you go off on your own, one is dependent on the wealthy for survival. What is it in humans that causes this situation? Ya can't take yer boat to the grave, since it is just atoms made by another force, the same force that made you. Some could argue that humanity is really the property of something greater. This being the case, without human selfishness a rock would have the same intrinsic value as a LexusTM.

Without "ownership" none of our current plagues would exist. We have turned the Earth into a giant shit-pot and have forced our brothers and sisters to take a swim. What kind of system rewards the most greedy and scheming?

Perhaps it's merely cultural, and the Western World will burn and serve as fertilizer for the healthy. It sure is strange to be on the downward curve of the arc.
http://greencascadia.blogspot.com
http://pdxvolksfolks.blogspot.com
it balances on your head just like a mattress balances on a bottle of wine
your brand new leopard skin pillbox hat

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Post by ruckman101 » Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:58 pm


The relevance is escaping me.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

vdubyah73
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by vdubyah73 » Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:57 pm

what the evil people and corporations do with their money. I'll grant you there is greed, but I blame it on the hippies growing up and getting greedy.
1/20/2013 end of an error
never owned a gun. have fired a few.

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Post by ruckman101 » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:22 pm

Scandalous, isn't it. Shall we start with the first one on the "top society" list?

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

It would appear to essentially be a front to funnel money into programs that further the corporation's bottom line through mucking in education to ensure folks are educated "right", as in sympathetic to their mission of greed.

Why they just appointed Alexis Glick as a Senior Fellow. She just left Fox News.

How about the Foundation's just released "White Paper on New Models for Accelerated Drug Discovery and Development"? Yes, development is so much cheaper when the public pays for it. Philanthropy drug company style.

I'm afraid to go on.



neal
The slipper has no teeth.

vdubyah73
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by vdubyah73 » Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:00 pm

just like the teachers unions have been funneling money and support into furthering their political agendas. Meanwhile they indoctrinate our children into left leaning political views in the public school system. children in Cambridge Ma. now have to bring a permission slip into school in order to be allowed to recite the pledge of allegiance. the pendulum is swing however. Even Obama gets it now. Gitmo is still open, we're in Afghanistan until at least 2014, tax cuts extended.
1/20/2013 end of an error
never owned a gun. have fired a few.

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Post by ruckman101 » Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:32 pm

Now see again, I'm not sure what unions have to do with supposed philanthropic groups.

In terms of indoctrination in the schools, your perspective differs from mine. It would be grand if schools actually taught critical thinking rather than rote memorization of the myths of the victors. Although that does produce a more compliant worker.

A note to be allowed to recite the pledge of allegiance? Oh the horror of choice vs mandatory participation.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by Velokid1 » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:09 pm

ruckman101 wrote:Now see again, I'm not sure what unions have to do with supposed philanthropic groups.
It's not about "having to do with.". It's about tit fer tat. The fact that hippie teacher lefties are to blame for the sorry state of our world is always a relevant point, whether we're talking about income trends or basket weaving. Get it? Obama does!

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Post by Amskeptic » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:14 pm

Meanwhile they indoctrinate our children into left leaning political views
Example?
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
turk
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by turk » Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:11 am

vdubyah73 wrote: children in Cambridge Ma. now have to bring a permission slip into school in order to be allowed to recite the pledge of allegiance.
Does that count as an example of indoctrination? I think so. What grade-schooler is going to make the effort? I understand the multi-cultural idea but I don't buy into it. Back in the old days, the immigrants who came through Ellis Island had to pledge allegiance too. Those people who lost their cultural identities with that pledge were the people who built this country. But they didn't really lose their cultural identities. They contributed to the melting pot. Maybe that's kind of a myth, but it still works today. It's just a symbol, but an important one. Yes, it's indoctrination too, but considering everything else the world is still no utopia where this is just one place to set up one's citizenship and not be allied to its constitution. Where one can be a citizen of this country and not be allied to it. The power of myth. It works. Call it un-indoctrination. We don't really know what that is. Maybe it's permissible but it could be taken as a vote of no confidence. A permit to be able to recite it sure seems like that to me. Is it egg-head Harvard ideologues? I would bet my life on it. So, I do take it as indoctrination to an ideology, as I do the requirement of reciting it. Splitting a hair but in the interest of formality and coherence as a country, I side with the former. It isn't that much to ask. Those that think it is are just egg-heads.
A man said to the universe, "Sir I exist! "However," replied the universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

"Let me be perfectly clear" "[...] And so that was just a example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country." Barry Sotero

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by Velokid1 » Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:39 am

This is a single school in Massachusetts. ONE school. And that one school is responding to a relatively strict state ruling in MA that requires every teacher to lead the class in the recitation of the pledge each morning.

Not to mention...

The original pledge was written in 1892: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It was altered in 1923 to avoid confusion... "my flag" was changed to "the flag" to avoid confusion.

It wasn't our official pledge until 1942 and the words "under God" were not added until 1954.

And since when is the protection of 1st amendment rights a concern reserved only for liberals? Conservatives are equally concerned with defending the integrity of the Constitution.

Post Reply