100 CEOs Have Retirement Savings Greater Than 41 Percent of American Families

Continue reading

Canada: The World’s Freest Country?

A recent article at Foreign Policy makes the provocative case that our neighbor to the north has overtaken us as the world’s leading beacon of liberty and prosperity (a claim that, to be sure, was always suspect in practice, yet has remained a bedrock of American identity, prestige, and soft power).

The claim is based on the results of the newly published 2015 Legatum Prosperity Index, an annual report issued by the Legatum Institute that measures countries’ performance in eight categories of human flourishing, such as personal freedom, safety and security, and governance.

While Canada did not reach the top spot — that honor went to Norway for the seventh consecutive time — it did rank a very respectable sixth place, compared to the United States’ 11th place. Aside from seventh-place Australia, Canada was the only medium sized country to make it to the top ten; the rest were small European (mostly Nordic) and Anglophone nations.

Canada shined mostly on account of its people’s attitude towards immigrants and the trajectory of their country. It is all the more impressive given the many woes and troubles attributed to the much-disliked Conservative administration of Stephen Harper, which over the last decade has been accused of making the country increasingly authoritarian, intolerant, and socially backwards (a development that some Canadians tellingly, only half-jokingly, called “Americanization“) . Continue reading

What Happens When You Give Employees a $70,000 Minimum Wage

In April 2015, Gravity Payments, a credit card payment processing firm based in Seattle, did something highly unorthodox: it unliterally gave all employees, from lowly clerks to customer services representatives, a minimum annual salary of $70,000 — well above the median rate of the average American worker.

Phased in over a period of three years, the plan will effectively double the salaries of 30 workers and give raises to 40 more making less than $70,000. All minimum salaries jumped to $50,000 right away, with $10,000 for each of the next two years. Anyone already earning $50,000 to $70,000 would still enjoy a nice raise of $5,000.

Moreover, CEO and founder Dan Price would accomplish this not by laying off staff, raising prices, or cutting the pay of certain highly paid workers; rather, he would make up the difference by slashing his own $1 million salary to $70,000 and investing 75 to 80 percent of the company’s anticipated $2.2 million for the year.

While plenty of companies could well afford to pay their workers well by going this route — allocating less profit and payroll to executives and shareholders — few would ever entertain the idea, let alone go through with it. Hence all the media attention that this exceptional pay raise warranted.

Unsurprisingly, this shockingly generous move was met with a lot of skepticism, both towards the motive (was it a publicity stunt?) and the practicality (could a company survive with so much profit going to workers)? Doubters and critics seemed quickly validated once the the firm became inundated by a series of misfortunes that related to the decision.  Continue reading

The Deteriorating American Middle Class

Citing a recent report from the U.S. Social Security Administration, Michael Snyder at Washington’s Blog finds a host of grim statistics that confirm what most Americans already know: that the financial stability and comfort of middle class life is increasingly elusive.

-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

That first number is truly staggering.  The federal poverty level for a family of five is $28,410, and yet almost 40 percent of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.

If you worked a full-time job at $10 an hour all year long with two weeks off, you would make approximately $20,000. This should tell you something about the quality of the jobs that our economy is producing at this point.

Granted, given how much cost of living varies by city or state, a seemingly low salary might afford a middle class existence depending on where one lives (e.g., $50,000 is a lot more money in a place like Little Rock, Arkansas than New York City, New York). Even so, there is no justification for so many workers, across a variety of industries, professions, and areas, making so little — especially with productivity and profits alike continuing to rise. When will the average American get their fair share?

The Plight of Native Americans

Generations of plague, genocide, and oppression continue to take their toll on America’s indigenous people. The subsequent marginalization has made them the most victimized group when it comes to encounters with law enforcement. As The New York Times reports:

American Indians are more likely than any other racial group to be killed by the police, according to the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, which studied police killings from 1999 to 2011 (the rate was determined as a percentage of total population). But apart from media outlets like Indian Country Today, almost no attention is paid to this pattern of violence against already devastated peoples.

When it comes to American Indians, mainstream America suffers from willful blindness. Of all the episodes of police violence listed above, only the killings of Mr. Williams and Mr. Goodblanket received significant news coverage outside Indian circles, the latter only in an article for CNN.com by the Oglala Lakota journalist and activist Simon Moya-Smith. The Williams shooting, which was the subject of public outcry, was covered by a major local news site, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, as well as by The New York Times.

The lack of public outcry towards this problem, and indeed towards pretty much all the issues affecting American Indians, has much to do with their low population and consequent lack of presence. Continue reading

Propaganda is at the Heart of Democracy

Democracy might be the least bad form of government there is, but that only means that it is no less vulnerable to certain weaknesses than the alternatives. Take for example propaganda, typically viewed as the staple of totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Though it is utilized across all political cultures, it is perhaps most pernicious in democratic forms of governance, ironically enough because of the principles of freedom enshrined in such societies.

As Quartz explains:

Democracy is susceptible to propaganda … because liberty protects free speech and so propagandistic statements can’t be banned. But, as [Jason] Stanley writes in his book How Propaganda Works, humans have “characteristic rational weaknesses and are susceptible to flattery and manipulation”, and so are vulnerable to spin. This is not a recent discovery: As Stanley notes, Aristotle recognized that demagogic propaganda posed the biggest threat to democracy.

Stanley argues that there are two kinds of propaganda. The most obvious kind, typically present in times of emergency such as war, uses fear mongering and nationalism to garner support through appeals to emotion.

But there’s also a more subtle form of propaganda, which Stanley defines as when an affront to a certain ideal is presented as though it’s an embodiment of that very ideal. For example:

“How do you defend bigotry against gays? You can’t just stand up and say, ‘We hate gays’, so you evoke religious liberty. Package anything in liberty and you’ve got yourself a deal”, he tells Quartz. As this uses the ideal of liberty to curtail another’s liberty, it meets Stanley’s description of this kind of propaganda.

I plan on reading Stanley’s book at one point, as it seems to offer a new and perhaps controversial way to look at propaganda. Many Americans tend to imagine propaganda to be a lot more overt and old fashioned than it really is — vitriolic radio broadcasts, colorful posters, organized rallies adorned with party paraphernalia. But more often than not, especially in a 21st century inundated with stimuli and signaling at all directions, propaganda can seep into our consciousness in the most subtle and seemingly mundane ways. One need only frame an idea a certain way, and communicate with a degree of pizazz, for it to seem substantive and true.

What are your thoughts?

The U.S. Government Programs Keeping Millions Out of Poverty

Americans across the political spectrum are conditioned to believe that the government safety net, broadly called “welfare”, is woefully inefficient. While it is no doubt true that public sector solutions are inadequate in many respects –something both major political wings agree on, albeit for different reasons — as the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reminds us, these programs are the only thing keeping tens of millions of Americans out of poverty.

More analysis from EPI:

Social Security was by far the most powerful anti-poverty program in the United States last year, keeping 25.9 million people out of poverty. Refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit, kept 9.8 million people out of poverty. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), aka food stamps, kept 4.7 million people out of poverty, while other targeted programs (such as housing subsidies, unemployment insurance, and school lunch programs) made it possible for millions more to keep their heads above water.

In 2014, 48.4 million people (or 15.3 percent of the U.S. population) were in poverty, as measured by the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)—a more sophisticated approach for measuring economic well-being than the official federal poverty line. However, that number would have been significantly higher were it not for programs like the ones listed above. In the absence of stronger wage growth for low and middle-income workers, these safety-net programs play an increasingly important role in helping struggling families afford their basic needs.

Note the last sentence, which I have bolded for emphasis. The ever-more contentious debate about government expenditure on welfare would be a moot point if the private sector paid workers better and/or provided benefits, thereby precluding the need to turn to state programs. Simply put, most people would not turn to the government if there was more stable and liveable employment available. Until then, these flawed, threatened, and still vital programs are all that millions of Americans have.

America’s Changing Demographics

As The Guardian reports, an already-diverse American population is about to become even more pluralistic, as Europe’s historic role as a major source of immigrants shifts to Asia and Latin America.

An increase in Asian and Hispanic immigration … will drive U.S. population growth, with foreign-born residents expected to make up 18% of the country’s projected 441 million people in 50 years, the Pew Research Center said in a report being released on Monday.

This will be a record, higher than the nearly 15% during the late 19th century and early 20th century wave of immigration from Europe.

Today, immigrants make up 14% of the population, an increase from 5% in 1965.

The tipping point is expected to come in 2055, when Asians will become the largest immigrant group at 36%, compared with Hispanics at 34%. White immigrants to America, 80% back in 1965, will hover somewhere between 18% and 20% with black immigrants in the 8%-9% range, the study said.

Currently, 47% of immigrants living in the U.S. are Hispanic, but by 2065 that number will have dropped to 31%. Asians currently make up 26% of the immigrant population but in 50 years that percentage is expected to increase to 38%.

Immigrants from China and India will largely be driving the trend. The news might surprise most Americans given all the attention and concern regarding arrivals from south of the border; but with birth rates and economic prospects alike stabilizing, far fewer Latin Americans will be coming to the U.S. — though Hispanics will still remain the largest minority, owing to higher births within the country, rather than foreign arrivals.  Continue reading

You Think Today’s Politics Are Bad?

Amid the understandable growing public disgust with the nasty and petty behavior of our public servants, the Baltimore Sun helpfully reminds us that politics really hasn’t changed all that much — if anything, it is a lot tamer.

Consider our first contested presidential election, in 1800, which pit two of our most famous statesmen — John Adams and Thomas Jefferson — against each other. It’s tempting to envisage them as wig-clad philosopher-kings, deliberating high-minded ideas in a calm and reasoned campaign.

It’s also false. Jefferson’s supporters said that Adams had secretly plotted to have one of his sons marry King George III’s daughter, to bring America back under the British crown. But if Jefferson were elected, Adams’ camp charged, the young nation would descend into anarchy and violence.

“Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and practiced,” one anti-Jefferson newspaper predicted, “the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”

Another editorialist painted an even bleaker picture of life under a Jefferson administration. “Look at your homes, your parents, your wives, and your children,” he warned. “Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames, hoary hairs bathed in blood, female chastity violated, or children writhing on the pike?”

To think that Adams, one of the most vociferous patriots of the American Revolution, being accused of selling out the country to the British? It must be hard to imagine our enlightened and gentlemanly founders resorting to such crude and provocative language. To be sure, much of this was being directed by supporters rather than the candidates themselves, but neither of the men seemed to have done much to reign in on such inflamed passions. Politics is politics, even for otherwise seemingly intelligent people.  Continue reading

Is The Constitution What’s Wrong With America?

The Atlantic’s Yoni Appelbaum makes the provocative case that what ails the United States’ political system is the very document it is founded upon. Put another way, the problem with America today is not that it has deviated from the Constitution, but on the contrary, its politicians and citizens remain too true and reverential to it.

This is idea is drawn from The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding, a 2014 book written by Harvard political theorist Eric Nelson. The argument begins by tracing the roots and sentiments of the American Revolution to Britain’s own historical debate about executive versus legislative power. It is a long excerpt, but it is well worth reading, since this is an often-overlooked context and influence for the Patriots.  Continue reading