The Cities and Countries with the Most Super Rich

According to a report from Bloomberg, Hong Kong surpassed New York City with the highest population of people worth at least $30 million:

The former British colony saw its number of ultra-wealthy increase 31 percent last year, to about 10,000, research firm Wealth-X found, higher than the nearly 9,000-strong population of the U.S.’s largest city. Tokyo came third, while Paris beat out London to take the European crown as Brexit weighed down the U.K. capital.

The number of ultra-rich worldwide rose 13 percent last year, according to Wealth-X, totaling about 256,000 people with combined assets of $31.5 trillion. Asia saw the fastest growth, driven by mainland China and Hong Kong, the study’s authors wrote. Reflecting the region’s rise, its share of the global population of people with at least $30 million rose to just over one-fourth, up from around 18 percent a decade ago.

[…]

Women accounted for about 35,000 of the ultra-rich last year, a record-high share of nearly 14 percent, the study found.

While Hong Kong topped the city rankings, nowhere in mainland China made the top 10, despite the country being third in the list of nations. That’s because China’s wealthy are widely dispersed, illustrated by the fact it was home to 26 of the 30 fastest-growing cities for the ultra-rich.

screenshot-www.bloomberg.com-2018.09.20-16-16-47

Although the world’s wealthiest tend to concentrate in major cities — since they are centers of global trade, politics, and commerce, as well as leisure and recreation — they are dispersed enough to change the results when one looks at a national level: for example, countries like Canada and Germany are home to some of the world’s largest communities of millionaires, even though none of their cities are in the top ten:

screenshot-www.bloomberg.com-2018.09.20-16-15-56

 

Similarly, no city in mainland China made the top ten, despite the country being third in the list of nations. That is because China’s wealthy are widely dispersed throughout the numerous economic and metropolitan hubs across the country — in fact, all but four of the 30 fastest-growing cities for the ultra-rich are Chinese.

Moreover, Bloomberg notes that the sheer scale of wealth is being pushed ever upward: though billionaires are of course still rare, they are less so than they used to be; the same goes for millionaires of all levels.

screenshot-www.bloomberg.com-2018.09.20-16-16-25

One should ask how it is that the global economy can produce such unfathomable concentrations of wealth into a sliver of individuals and communities, when literally half the world remains mired in poverty (and most of the remaining half teetering). Around the same time that Hong Kong climbed to the top spot as home to the ultra-wealthy denizens, its poverty rate has increased to one out of five residents.

China’s “Rice Bunny” Campaign

Once again, the resourcefulness and tenacity of human rights activists in authoritarian regimes never ceases to amaze me. The Los Angeles Times highlights the efforts of Chinese feminists to begin their own #MeToo movement despite the government’s opposition to independent civil society, and subsequent censorship of the hashtag itself.

Employers, universities and even police are generally reluctant to get involved in sexual harassment cases in China and assailants are rarely charged and often never punished, leaving few women bold enough to speak out. When five women tried to organize multi-city protests in 2015 to focus attention on unwanted groping on buses and trains, they were arrested and jailed for more than five weeks for “picking quarrels and stirring up trouble.”

Yet there is evidence of progress. A prominent Buddhist monk, a university professor, the founder of a well-known charity, an environmental activist, a famous state television host, two badminton coaches and several journalists have all been accused of sexual harassment in recent months, with the accusations spreading rapidly on Chinese social media, though state censors usually quash the messages quickly.

When censors in China banned the #MeToo hashtag, activists came up with imaginative ways to get around the ban, using the characters “rice bunny,” pronounced “mi tu,” to tag posts or by using the emojis for a bowl of rice and a rabbit.

Though victims are often pressured to remain silent, Wan believes public awareness of sexual harassment is growing and pressure is building in China to finally create a clear criminal law banning sexual harassment. In a 2016 online survey of 6,592 university students, 70% reported being sexually harassed. A survey of female factory workers three years earlier by a labor rights group, the Sunflower Women Workers Center in Guangzhou, found the same thing.

[…]

One thing slowing the #MeToo movement in China is the lack of a clear legal definition of sexual harassment. Of the more than 50 million legal cases that were filed between 2010 and 2017, only two were brought by women alleging they were victims of sexual harassment.

The Beijing Yuanzhong Gender Development Center, which supports victims of sexual harassment and domestic violence, is now pushing for a national law to define and ban sexual harassment and discrimination against women and, for the first time, the government is actually drafting a measure that would require employers to take steps to discourage harassment in any form. Activists, though, say that doesn’t go far enough and want perpetrators to face the risk of criminal charges.

China’s intolerance for activism has also likely slowed the #MeToo movement.

Not if the Chinese can help it. To quote one Chinese lawyer featured in the article who handles these cases, when it comes to “the history of setting up laws and regulations against sexual harassment around the world, there was always blood and lives lost in the process, and that is the cost.”

 

 

How the World’s Most Livable City Tackles Affordable Housing

According to the latest annual rankings by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Vienna, Austria unseated seven-year titleholder Melbourne, Australia as the world’s most livable city. (Though Melbourne was a very respectable second place.)

The livability index is based on 30 factors including access to health care, education, infrastructure, culture, the environment and political and social stability. As usual, Canadian, Australian and Japanese cities made up most of the top spots: after Vienna and Melbourne were Osaka, Calgary, Sydney, Vancouver, Toronto, Tokyo, Copenhagen and Adelaide, Australia. (Helsinki, Finland is typically in the top ten as well.) Continue reading

Americans Won’t Take Back the Jobs that Immigrants “Stole”

All these Americans talking about foreigners taking their jobs, and they still won’t walk the walk about filling those jobs, according to Bloomberg:

American farmers have been complaining of labor shortages for several years now. Given a multi-year decline in illegal immigration, and a similarly sustained pickup in the U.S. job market, the complaints are unlikely to stop without an overhaul of immigration rules for farm workers.

Efforts to create a more straightforward agricultural-workers visa that would enable foreign workers to stay longer in the U.S. and change jobs within the industry have so far failed in Congress. If this doesn’t change, American businesses, communities and consumers will be the losers.

Perhaps half of U.S. farm laborers are undocumented immigrants. As fewer such workers enter the U.S., the characteristics of the agricultural workforce are changing. Today’s farm laborers, while still predominantly born in Mexico, are more likely to be settled, rather than migrating, and more likely to be married than single. They are also aging. At the start of this century, about one-third of crop workers were over the age of 35. Now, more than half are. And crop picking is hard on older bodies.

One oft-debated cure for this labor shortage remains as implausible as it has been all along: Native U.S. workers won’t be returning to the farm.

Continue reading

Fifty Cents to Avoid a Lifetime of Debilitation

Some weeks ago, I read a piece in The Economist that has stayed with me. It was about the efforts of Sierra Leone, among the world’s poorest countries, to combat “neglected tropical diseases” (NTD), a family of 17 diverse communicable diseases that afflict over 1.5 billion in tropical and subtropical areas worldwide.

It featured one victim named Hannah Taylor, who woke up one day with a fever, followed by her legs swelling up to four times their normal size. The physical damage was irreversible, and the subsequent appearance and putrid smell led to her being ostracized by her community. She was a victim of lymphatic filariasis (a.k.a. elephantiasis), a mosquito-borne infection that could have been treated safely with a pill costing no more than fifty cents before it progressed.

But instead, the microscopic worms infested her body, debilitating her. For years she thought she had been a victim of evil witchcraft and was deeply depressed.

Eventually, Taylor put on a brave face and campaigned to raise awareness about the disease, its causes, and why victims shouldn’t be stigmatized. She passed away some weeks prior to the publishing of the article; she was quoted as expressing  happiness that her children would not suffer the way she would, thanks to Sierra Leone’s remarkable progress in fighting the disease.

Progress or not, it is incredible to think that billions of lives are negatively impacted by something as mundane to most of us as a mosquito bite. It is even more incredible that a mere fifty cents – spare change we’d throw in a tip jar without a thought – is all that stands between someone and a debilitating disease. It is utterly senseless that in a world with so much wealth and resources sloshing around that we have not been able to address this vast disparity in health outcomes and quality of life.

 

Happy 150th Anniversary to the Fourteenth Amendment

Today the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution turns 150; as it happens, it is the same day that President Donald Trump will nominate a new Supreme Court justice to replace Anthony Kennedy, whose three-decade tenure in the court included many refinements and defenses of the often-beleaguered and contentious amendment.

More from The Atlantic:

Ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to allow Congress and the courts to protect three fundamental values: racial equality, individual rights, and economic liberty. But the amendment was quickly eviscerated by the Court, and for nearly a century it protected economic liberty alone. Justice Kennedy embraced all three values of the Fourteenth Amendment, invoking it to protect reproductive autonomy and some forms of affirmative action, as well as to establish marriage equality, but also to limit federal economic regulations, such as the Affordable Care Act. His replacement will determine which vision of the amendment prevails for decades to come.

Of the five sections that make up the amendment, the one most often in contention is the first, which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Given the context of its passage, this language is very significant, as The Atlantic again explains:

After the Civil War, many of the former Confederate states passed laws known as the “Black Codes,” which sharply limited the rights of former enslaved people. In response, on July 9, 1868, Congress ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law and also denies any state the right to deprive people of liberty without due process.

Only five years later, the Supreme Court eviscerated the amendment in the 5–4 Slaughterhouse Cases decision. As drafted by the Ohio congressman John Bingham, the amendment was intended to require states as well as the federal government to respect the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

A decade later, in a lopsided 8–1 decision, the Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which banned discrimination in public accommodations and transportation. Finally, in 1896, the Court upheld the doctrine of “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson, standing aside as the South constructed the Jim Crow regime. Justice John Marshall Harlan provided the only dissent. In one of the most famous passages in the history of Supreme Court opinions, he wrote: “There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.”

At the same time that the Court turned away from the Framers’ vision of equal civil rights, it invoked the Fourteenth Amendment to protect economic liberties, such as freedom of contract. This period is remembered as the Lochner era, named after a 1905 decision striking down a maximum-hour law for bakers in New York. It culminated in decisions in the early 1930s that struck down the core of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

I remember learning a lot of this in my constitutional law class, and being quite surprised at how immediately resisted and controversial the amendment was, even to the courts. It is even more disconcerting to learn that it would be until fairly recently in American history that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted as its framers ostensibly intended:

It wasn’t until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that the Court resurrected the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of racial equality, overturning Plessy and attacking school segregation. It struck down state laws banning interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia. And it upheld landmark civil-rights laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. While the Court stopped short of guaranteeing equal funding for education, it did much to attack the jurisprudential foundation of Jim Crow.

At the same time, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Court resurrected John Bingham’s vision of national enforcement of fundamental rights—most notably, by extending the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states, thereby safeguarding free speech, religious liberty, the right to counsel, and the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

More controversially, the Warren Court laid the foundation for rights not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, such as the right to privacy. In later years, the Supreme Court would build on these privacy decisions to issue decisions such as Roe v. Wade—which led to a conservative backlash against the Court.

These competing visions of economic liberty, racial equality, and personal autonomy came to a head in 1987. Justice Lewis Powell—the swing justice on Warren E. Burger’s Court—resigned. President Ronald Reagan, nearing the end of his second term, sought to place his enduring stamp on the Court by nominating the conservative legal intellectual Robert Bork. Following a bruising battle, the Senate rejected the Bork nomination, in part because he refused to recognize a constitutional right to privacy. When Anthony Kennedy embraced the right to privacy, the Senate unanimously confirmed him.

While perhaps not as well known as the first ten amendments enshrined as the Bill of Rights, the implications of the Fourteenth Amendment — and how it will be applied, broadened, or restricted — are vast, especially in light of the replacement of one of its greatest proponents.

With Kennedy leaving the Court, the future of this 150-year-old amendment is at stake. His successor will determine whether the Supreme Court interprets the amendment as allowing or prohibiting laws and policies regulating abortion, marriage, voting rights, and affirmative action. Also at stake are the scope of the Bill of Rights’ protections for free speech, gun rights, religious liberty, freedom from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and economic liberty. Strong constitutional arguments can be made for both sides of all these issues, and Justice Kennedy often held the decisive vote. His successor could determine the shape of the Fourteenth Amendment until its 200th anniversary in 2038.

What are your thoughts?

Louis Brandeis

On this day in 1916, Louis Brandeis became the first Jewish person to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he would serve until 1939.

800px-brandeisl

Born to immigrants fleeing antisemitism from what was then the Austrian Empire, he graduated Harvard Law at only 20 years old, with what is rumored to be the highest GPA in the school’s history.

As early as 1890, he helped develop the concept of a “right to privacy” and rallied against big banks, powerful corporations, monopolies, political corruption, and mass consumerism, all of which he felt were anathema to American values. As an attorney, he devoted most of his time to public causes, earning the moniker of the “People’s Lawyer” for his insistence on working pro bono in order to take on the most important issues of the day. He was also dubbed the “Robin Hood of the law” for his fight against railroad monopolies, defense of workers’ rights, and the conceptualization of the newly created Federal Trade Commission, which protected consumers from unfair business practices. He was also recognized for developing the “Brandeis Brief,” which relied on expert testimony from people in other professions to support his case, setting a new precedent in evidence presentation.

Brandeis’ nomination to the Court was so fraught that, for the first time in its history, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on it. According to fellow Justice William O. Douglas, it was controversial because Brandeis was a “militant crusader for social justice whoever his opponent might be. He was dangerous not only because of his brilliance, his arithmetic, his courage. He was dangerous because he was incorruptible… [and] the fears of the Establishment were greater because Brandeis was the first Jew to be named to the Court.” Indeed, opponents regarded him as an anti business “radical” and “agitator” who lacked the “dispassionate temperament” needed to be a judge. Blatant anti semitism was, of course, also a factor. But enough people came to his defense that he won the nomination 47 to 22.

Ultimately, Brandeis became one of the most influential figures ever to serve on the Court, his opinions recognized by legal scholars as some of the “greatest defenses” of freedom of speech and the right to privacy ever written by a Justice. Throughout my first year of law school, I came across many of his brilliant opinions, many of them lonely dissents in the face of familiar uphill battles against privacy violations — see his prescient dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States (1928):

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.

Finland’s Simple But Radical Solution to Homelesssness

While most of the developed world struggles with growing or stubbornly unchanged rates of homelessness, one nation is bucking the trend: Finland has seen the number of homeless people decline from its peak of 18,000 just thirty years ago, to 7,000 today (of whom 5,000 are at least in temporary housing with loved ones). It has accomplishd this in a deceptively simple way: by giving homeless people homes.

According to the Christian Science Monitorit all began with the Finnish government making homelessness a national priority:

The elimination of homelessness first appeared in the Helsinki government’s program in 1987. Since then virtually every government has devoted significant resources toward this end.

Around 10 years ago, however, observers noticed that although homelessness in general was declining, long-term homelessness was not. A new approach to the problem was called for, along with a new philosophy.

The optimal solution, a group of four experts appointed by the Ministry of the Environment found, was Housing First. “Solving social and health problems is not a prerequisite for arranging housing,” they observed. “Instead, housing is a prerequisite that will also enable solving a homeless person’s other problems.”

The concept behind the new approach was not original; it was already in selective use in the US as part of the Pathways Model pioneered by Dr. Sam Tsemberis in the 1990s to help former psychiatric patients. What was different, and historic, about the Finnish Housing First model was a willingness to enact the model on a nationwide basis.

So while the Finns aren’t the first to tackle homelessness, they are the first to do so on a national level, thus bringing many more resources and ideas to bear.

“We understood, firstly, that if we wanted to eradicate homelessness we had to work in a completely different way,” says Mr. Kaakinen, who acted as secretary for the Finnish experts. “At the same time right from the beginning there was a national consensus that the problem had reached a crisis point. … We decided as a nation to do something about this.”

[…]

As a result, in 2008 the Finnish National Program to reduce long-term homelessness was drafted and put into place. Helsinki and nine other Finnish cities committed to the program, with the Ministry of the Environment coordinating its implementation, and local governments and nongovernmental organizations, including the Y-Foundation, joining the team.

One of those goals was to cut the number of long-term homeless in half by producing 1,250 new homes, including supported housing units for tenants with their own leases, and around-the-clock presence of trained caring staff for residents who needed help.

 At the same time, the extant network of homeless shelters was phased out. This also involved phasing out the “old way” of thinking about homelessness. “There was some work to be done on attitudes,” concedes Kaakinen. “Some of the people in the NGOs found the idea of unconditional housing hard to accept.” Also some staff had difficulty with not forcing tenants with alcohol or drug problems to go cold turkey before they were given housing.

The model’s success speaks for itself: across the nation, chronic homelessness fell by 35 percent between 2008 and 2015; in some communities, it was halved.

Of course, building new housing and employing specially trained, round-the-clock caregivers is not cheap, costing the government nearly $382 million in that same span of time. Yet supporters of the program point out that this all pays for itself: according to one 2011 study, the country saved $18,500 annually for every homeless person given housing and professional support. That’s because they no longer needed to rely on emergency medical or police services to help them.

But as Juha Kaakinen, CEO of the Y-Foundation, which helps provide 16,500 low-cost apartments for the homeless, points out:

“Of course the fact that the program pays for itself is important, but beyond that, from a moral point of view, as a society which cares for all of its citizens, we didn’t think we see an alternative. This, we felt, was the way to go forward. And we did.”

The Problem With How We Treat Drug Addicts

The United States is facing an opioid and heroin epidemic that is killing and harming record numbers of people; more people died of overdoses in 2014 than in any other year on record.

One of the latest and most troubling images of this problem was a widely circulated photo of a couple passed out in their car with their four year old left watching from the back city. The City of East Liverpool, Ohio saw fit to share the photo on its Facebook profile to “show the other side of this horrible drug”. Continue reading