Billionaire warlords: Why the future is medieval | Sean McFate | Big Thinkeval | Sean McFate

Russia? China? No. The rising world superpower is the billionaire class. Our problem, says Sean McFate, is that we’re still thinking in nation states.

Nation states have only existed for the last 300-400 years. Before that, wealthy groups – tribes, empires, aristocracies, etc – employed mercenaries to wage private wars.

As wealth inequality reaches combustion point, we could land back in the status quo ante of the Middle Ages. Who will our overlords be? Any or all of the 26 ultra-rich billionaires who own as much as the world’s 3.8 billion poorest. What about Fortune 500, which is more powerful than most of the states in the world? Random billionaires, multinational corporations, and the extractive industry may buy armies and wage war on their own terms.
———————————————————————————-
SEAN MCFATE:

Dr. Sean McFate is an adviser to Oxford University’s Centre for Technology and Global Affairs, as well as a professor of strategy at the National Defense University and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Washington, DC. Additionally, he is the author of several books, including Shadow War, The New Rules of War, and The Modern Mercenary.
———————————————————————————-
TRANSCRIPT:

SEAN MCFATE: The United States, especially, has been now accustomed, for 25 years, as being the universal and unitary superpower. That’s not going to last forever. I think most people know this, even though some may be in cognitive dissonance over this. The truth is there are rising powers like Russia and China, but there are other rising powers too. One of our problems is that we live in a state-centric view of the universe. International relations, for most of us, is run by states. Nation states are the global, political unit of the international order. And this is what we learn in social studies as kids. But that is actually not the way the world has worked for most of human history. States are actually about 300 or 400 years old. Before there were states, there were empires, and there were tribes, and everything else. The reign of states and only states can wage war legitimately that is coming to a close. We’re actually going back to the status quo ante of when global order was a free-for-all of like the Middle Ages of antiquity, to what came before. And one of the things of that free-for-all is that: Who else were superpowers? It wasn’t just states. So in the Middle Ages, the papacy was a superpower. Rich aristocracies were superpowers. Are we going back this world again?

So you know we have random billionaires today who have as much power as states. There are 62 people in the planet who own the equivalent of half the world’s wealth. 62 people. You can put them all onto a bus. You have multinational corporations. We have the Fortune 500, which are more powerful than most of the states in the world. Of the 190, 194 states in the world, most are fragile or failed. We only think the top 25 states, like the US, Western Europe, Eastern Asia, et cetera. But that’s an anomaly. The vast majority of states in the world are more either regimes hiding inside states or just outright dumpster fires. So what we’re going to see in the future is those who have wealth and political power, who can also hire their own private armies now, become super powers. The world used to wage a lot of private war in military history. In fact, most of military history is privatized. Mercenaries have always been a major component of war. And what happens when you privatize war is that now military strategies blend with business ones. And this puts us at risk because our four stars who are in charge of our military and our policymakers are not prepared for that type of warfare.

So mercenaries were around for millennia. Mercenaries have been around since forever. And it’s anomalous in history that 150 years ago they sort of went away. And why that is is still a mystery. People say, well, after the 30 Years War, or after the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, where mercenaries ran amok, both rulers and ruled were tired of them, and rulers and kings started to invest in their own standing armies, which is very expensive. I mean, mercenaries are cheaper than standing armies, just like it’s cheaper to rent than to own…

Read the full transcript at https://bigthink.com/videos/future-wo…

 

Warren Buffett and the Myth of the ‘Good Billionaire’

Warren Buffett appears to be the safest kind of billionaire: the good kind. Mr. Buffett is neither Zuckerbergian messiah nor Musky provocateur, neither Bezosist space cadet nor Sacklerian undertaker. He is, or seems to be, quiet, humble, indifferent to money, philanthropic and critical of the system that allowed him to rise. Years ago, a proposed tax increase was named after him.

It’s easy for people to think: If only members of the Sackler family were more like Mr. Buffett, imagine how many lives would have been saved. If only the billionaires who haven’t signed the Giving Pledge would give away as much as Mr. Buffett has pledged to, imagine the impact on the world. If only more billionaires would make use of the system without feeling the need to pervert it, so many of our troubles would vanish.

So I regret to inform you that Mr. Buffett is actually the most dangerous kind of billionaire we have. The worst billionaires are the Good Billionaires. The sort who make it seem like the problem is the distortion of the system when, in fact, the problem is the system.

Actually malevolent and disastrously negligent plutocrats get most of the attention. And when we hear about these Bad Billionaire exploits, it is possible to conclude from them that the system needs better policing, updated regulations and maybe slightly higher taxes. The system needs to be made to work again.

But as America slouches toward plutocracy, our problem isn’t the virtue level of billionaires. It’s a set of social arrangements that make it possible for anyone to gain and guard and keep so much wealth, even as millions of others lack for food, work, housing, health, connectivity, education, dignity and the occasion to pursue their happiness.

There is no way to be a billionaire in America without taking advantage of a system predicated on cruelty, a system whose tax code and labor laws and regulatory apparatus prioritize your needs above most people’s. Even noted Good Billionaire Mr. Buffett has profited from Coca-Cola’s sugary drinks, Amazon’s union busting, Chevron’s oil drilling, Clayton Homes’s predatory loans and, as the country learned recently, the failure to tax billionaires on their wealth.

The Good Billionaire myth took a hard blow in recent days when Mr. Buffett won a dubious distinction. A staggering exposé published by ProPublica revealed just how little the biggest plutocrats pay in taxes, despite mounting piles of wealth. And at the very top of that list of plutocrats — many of them with troubled reputations — was the cleanest, grandfatherliest plutocrat of them all: Mr. Buffett.

ProPublica’s story was unusual in that, for once, it was the Good Billionaire at the top of the naughty list. This was helpful, because it served to indict the system that makes him possible, even when it is working perfectly, wholly lawfully.

From 2014 to 2018, Mr. Buffett’s wealth soared by $24.3 billion, according to ProPublica. (To underline, this is just the amount the fortune grew.) The amount of taxes Mr. Buffett paid over this period? $23.7 million. If middle-class Americans in their 40s enjoyed such a low effective tax rate, they would have paid a few dozen bucks per household over this same time period. Instead, as the ProPublica story notes, they paid around $62,000.

Imagine if Mr. Buffett had to pay the same fraction of the growth of his net worth that regular people do. Taxing that money could have helped pay for bridge repairs, mammograms, and free day care. More important — and this isn’t said enough — there is intrinsic value in shrinking gargantuan fortunes. The sway plutocrats have over public life is inconsistent with a one person, one vote democracy.

The important point here is that Mr. Buffett’s tax payments as detailed by ProPublica are fully legal. Though Mr. Buffett has called for changing the tax system, while we have the one we have, he will continue to benefit from the madness of taxing billionaires for their income, rather than their wealth, when their income is pretty much just a number they can construct.

I asked Mr. Buffett last week, via his longtime secretary, Debbie Bosanek, if he could think of even one tax or accounting practice that he has come to regret. Sure, he may have followed the letter of the law. But was there any aspect of his patriotism or humanity that left him feeling guilty for hoarding so much untaxed when regular people pay so much in taxes? Though Ms. Bosanek responded to an initial inquiry, she declined to offer any such examples.

In a long statement last week, Mr. Buffett defended himself by pointing to his long advocacy for a fairer taxation system, and then he immediately told on himself by undermining the very idea of taxes in the same letter. “I believe the money will be of more use to society if disbursed philanthropically than if it is used to slightly reduce an ever-increasing U.S. debt.”

In other words: I believe in higher income taxes on people like me, but I’m highly organized to avoid having income to report, and I don’t really believe in taxes because I think I should decide how these surplus resources are spent.

And this points to another way in which the Good Billionaire is hard to deal with. The crooks and the scoundrels and the people manifestly looking for quick P.R. highs come to philanthropy for the marketing payoff. When Goldman Sachs announces a new initiative on fighting the racial wealth gap despite having done little to repair the damage it did to Black homeowners in contributing to the 2008 financial meltdown, some may be fooled, but, more and more, many are not.

Supposed Good Billionaires like Mr. Buffett and his friend Bill Gates are more complicated because they give real money. They may benefit from marketing but also seem to many people to be motivated by more than that, and they apply their smarts to the work.

Yet because of this, it is often the Good Billionaires who end up with the most illegitimate influence over public life. No one is asking members of the Sackler family for public health advice. But Mr. Gates has become a major policy voice on vaccines despite holding no elected position. Mr. Buffett, for his part, has shied away from that kind of lane hopping and richsplaining, but in donating his fortune to Mr. Gates’s foundation he has pumped up that undemocratic influence.

Mr. Buffett is almost the perfectly made billionaire for this moment in which, at last, many Americans are beginning to question not only corruptions of the system but the matter of whether billionaires should exist at all. He doesn’t do the things the worst of them do. He isn’t in it for what they’re in it for. He clearly must care about money, but he also kind of doesn’t care about money. Even in his generosity, he has avoided the imperial lording over that others cannot resist.

And this is what makes him so troubling, because through him we are tempted into believing that a system can be defended that allows a man to accumulate more than $100 billion while people are sleeping, in hock to him, in his mobile homes, shortening their lives with the beverages he’s invested in, scampering around the warehouses whose nonunion status has redounded to his money pile.

It can’t. And who keeps us from seeing that simple, stark truth more effectively, more perniciously, than the Good Billionaire?

7 billionaires who won’t leave their fortunes to their kids

 

Bill Gates

Bill and Melinda Gates are giving their three kids “a minuscule portion” of their estimated $89 billion, they told the Daily Mail in 2011. “It will mean they have to find their own way,” Bill said at the time.

Although even a fraction of the Gates’ wealth will be enough to put their kids among the wealthiest individuals in the world, Bill believes it will compel them to rely on themselves. “It’s not a favor to kids to have them have huge sums of wealth,” he told “This Morning” last year, as reported by SFGate. “It distorts anything they might do, creating their own path.”

The couple plans to put the majority of their fortune toward charitable causes, namely the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which aims to eradicate disease, poverty and hunger across the globe. Along with fellow billionaire Warren Buffett, the Gateses also helped create the Giving Pledge in 2010, which encourages more of the super-rich to leave the majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes.

The Ranks of Global Billionaires – Not All Billionaires Are Made Equal

Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, Two gentlemen fighting back and forth for the title of world richest man These two individuals seem very very similar, for starters of course they are both billionaires, an elite worldwide club with around 2 and a half thousand members, they are both white, male tech entrepreneurs, from the united states, and even more specifically from Seattle, and even more specifically their primary residence is in Medina a same small town just outside of Seattle. So it looks like these two are pretty similar, but in reality their fortunes couldn’t be more different.

Paul Krugman: Idea that Climate Change Requires Austere Back-to-Nature Lifestyle

60:42
thank you what is the most persistent
60:45
zombie idea on the left and is there one
60:47
is there an idea to what you have
60:50
subscribed in the past which you now
60:51
kind of put into that category oh boy I
60:55
mean the trend the left is not nearly as
60:58
good at maintaining zombie ideas partly
61:03
because there there are in fact not that
61:07
many leftist billionaires and and
61:09
billionaires there are some but not very
61:12
leftist and so I mean well let me put
61:20
this way we were talking about climate
61:22
and environment and and climate change
61:25
and economic growth I’m running to a lot
61:27
of people still who are now this is
61:30
telling you that there I don’t think
61:31
there are a large part of the electorate
61:33
but there are
61:34
but the circles I move in I run into
61:36
people who are sure that to fight
61:39
climate change we have to stop living
61:41
the way we’re living and a much more
61:43
austere back-to-nature lifestyle is the
61:47
only way to deal with climate and that’s
61:49
an idea that it’s just clearly wrong if
61:53
we actually asked by we know enough
61:55
about the technological and economic
61:57
solution to climate change that ASUS a
62:00
green society that does not burden the
62:02
planet would almost certainly be a
62:04
society that looks a whole lot like what
62:06
we have now in people with the driving
62:08
cars they’d be using electricity but the
62:10
cars with the electric and the
62:12
electricity would be generated by solar
62:13
and wind and it but the actual rhythm of
62:16
daily life could look very much like
62:18
what we we have we don’t have to go back
62:20
to to an agrarian pastoral Eden to to to
62:25
deal with the issue but it’s it’s
62:26
something that sounds again it sounds
62:29
serious from a different point of view
62:30
it sounds like if you’re serious about
62:31
climate change you must be serious and
62:34
believing that we have to give up on
62:35
this consumer oriented society and and
62:38
all of these these comforts that we take
62:40
for granted but in fact it’s not true so
62:43
that would here that would be an example
62:44
of a kind of a left-wing zombie in other
62:46
countries in the belief that you can
62:49
just dictate all prices and you know you
62:53
can put price controls on everything and
62:54
not and never face shortages that’s not
62:58
something we see in the US but they
62:59
Venezuela clearly there’s some refusal
63:02
to face reality going on but that would
63:05
be these house but again zombies mostly
63:08
flourished because their big money
63:10
behind them not all of them but mostly
63:12
and and and the no.4 for every George
63:17
Soros there are 50 quiet billionaires
63:21
supporting extremely reactionary causes
63:23
and what about the question the question
63:25
of an idea you’ve changed your mind oh
63:27
so most of my changes have been in the
63:33
in the other direction look at minimum
63:36
wages no no a piece of economic research
63:41
has has shaken my views as much
63:46
actually I’m gonna give you two and and
63:50
me at this this is a great risk of
63:52
turning into a Monty Python routine
63:54
amongst the issues three okay so
64:00
actually so I’ll give you two one
64:01
minimum wages up until sometime in the
64:05
mid 1990s I believe that clearly
64:09
increases in minimum wages would cost
64:11
jobs they might be desirable otherwise
64:13
but econ 101 said that that’s what
64:15
happened and then we got this amazing
64:17
body of empirical research because we
64:19
get in the United States we get a lot of
64:21
natural experiments when one state
64:22
raises its minimum wage and the
64:24
neighboring state does not and the
64:26
overwhelming evidence says that minimum
64:28
wage increases at least within the range
64:30
we see in the US do not cost jobs and
64:33
that changed my view has said labor
64:34
markets are very different from where I
64:35
thought it actually moved me towards
64:38
emphasizing the role of power and in
64:40
labor relations and so on another one I
64:43
used to think that it was always
64:44
possible just by printing money to get
64:47
full employment and and the experience
64:50
of Japan in the late 1990s when despite
64:54
a very easy monetary policy they slid
64:56
into deflation changed my views totally
65:00
I there was a there was a group of us
65:03
actually of when I when I arrived at
65:05
Princeton in 2000 was a bunch of Japan
65:07
warriors who were really very shaken by
65:10
the Japanese experience because we we
65:12
looked at it said you know this could
65:13
happen to us so with me people you
65:16
wouldn’t have heard of but very
65:17
influential in the professional arts
65:18
Vince and Mike Woodford and the fourth
65:21
was Bernanke Ben Bernanke don’t know
65:24
what happened to him he disappeared I
65:26
think yeah so we so that but no the the
65:31
Japanese Japan’s Lost Decade
65:33
changed my view and basically made me
65:36
much more Keynesian much more believer
65:38
that there are times when you really
65:40
need to have the government do the
65:41
spending yes how do you successfully
65:45
regulate the financial markets while not
65:50
scaring the business community in sort
65:53
of trying to
65:55
in the middle of a class that any form
65:58
of common sense reform or tax is not
66:01
Marxist Leninist and it’s not going to
66:03
take away all their assets and money
66:05
okay you know we’ve done this before
66:10
right we imposed extensive bank
66:14
regulation in the 30s which didn’t
66:17
obviously cripple the economy we the
66:19
post-war generation was was the best
66:22
generation in in in certainly in US
66:24
economic history the the the only I
66:29
would say the problem is not scaring
66:31
people not looking Marxist the problem
66:33
with regulating financial markets is
66:35
first of all they’re the financiers have
66:39
a lot of clout but but beyond that it is
66:45
hard to keep up with financial
66:49
innovation which very often is not
66:53
innovating in the sense of you know
66:55
doing things better but as is innovating
66:58
a way of finding ways to set things up
67:01
that evade the regulations so you
67:04
regulate banks and then people create
67:06
something that is functionally a bank
67:07
but doesn’t technically meet the
67:09
definition of a bank and evades the
67:11
regulations it’s hard to keep up with
67:13
that and and if it’s not a well solved
67:16
problem in the we had a significant
67:21
financial reform in the US under Obama
67:24
not everything you I would have wanted
67:26
but it was significant but on many of
67:29
the issues it depends upon this
67:31
Financial Stability Council which has to
67:34
define systemic lis important
67:37
institutions that they’re mean and
67:40
there’s no clear definition it’s kind of
67:43
like pornography you know when you see
67:44
it which is not a stupid way to do it
67:47
but it depends upon having honest people
67:51
of goodwill in charge and now we have
67:55
the Trump administration so so the
67:58
dodd-frank is not a very effective tool
68:00
and it always depended upon upon good
68:04
leadership and
68:06
we have not found I haven’t come up with
68:08
a way to the thing about doing a regular
68:10
old-fashioned commercial banks is that
68:15
that system works the regulations work
68:18
the the guarantees work without
68:21
requiring that there be smart leadership
68:23
or good judgment calls at the top and
68:25
unfortunately everything we try to do to
68:27
deal with more modern financial
68:29
institutions is requires both goodwill
68:34
and sophistication which are both the
68:36
now and very short supply question from
68:39
the balcony please thanks very much so
68:41
we’ve mostly discussed zombi ideas in
68:43
the kind of domestic policy context i
68:45
wanted to ask about zombie ideas in the
68:47
international context in the sense of
68:50
the Washington Consensus and trade
68:51
liberalization and specifically I want
68:54
to ask what your thoughts are on the
68:56
extent to which countries can still
68:58
develop by exporting I has the impact of
69:02
technology and the scale of China made
69:06
it essentially impossible for a trade
69:07
liberalization to facilitate development
69:10
okay that’s a good question
69:13
I think empirically it’s just the
69:16
premise is wrong so we all know about
69:19
China and we know that China occupies
69:21
this huge space and China is a unique
69:25
success story nobody else has matched
69:27
their rates of growth but it’s not the
69:31
only success story so when I took I like
69:34
to talk about the the unfamiliar cases
69:39
Bangladesh Bangladesh is a desperately
69:43
poor country and and compared with
69:46
working conditions and in in the first
69:49
world it’s it’s is horrible and they
69:51
have factories that collapse and kill
69:53
hundreds of workers and all of that but
69:56
Bangladesh is actually they’ve they’ve
69:59
tripled their per capita income and
70:03
there there are very poor country but
70:06
they were a country that was right on
70:07
the edge of Malthusian starvation and
70:11
it’s all because of the ability to
70:13
export if the the ability basically
70:17
clothing labor-intensive
70:19
that they’ve been steadily gaining
70:21
market share at China’s expense because
70:23
China has been moving upscale and that’s
70:26
that’s showing that you can get yeah
70:28
that’s that’s major development that’s a
70:29
major change it’s it’s not it’s a long
70:32
way from from turning into into Western
70:35
Europe but it’s it’s it’s a very big
70:37
deal and it’s showing that the
70:39
globalization can still work for for
70:41
poor countries so I that’s that’s what
70:45
the line Bangladesh is not a it’s not a
70:48
banana republic it’s a pajama republic
70:51
but but that you know they can make fun
70:54
of it but in fact their use that’s a
70:56
very large number of people who are
70:57
lifted at least some ways above
71:00
starvation level by globalization and
71:03
another question from the balcony please
71:06
looking at it as a economist with a
71:08
mathematical mind what impact do you
71:11
think a shift a proportional
71:12
representation would have over time as
71:15
you compared to the electoral colleges
71:18
and first-past-the-post which we have in
71:19
the UK other British Commonwealth
71:22
countries which tend to over time have
71:24
led to two party states so what if we
71:26
shifted the proportional representation
71:28
okay I mean firstly the u.s. the the
71:33
u.s. electoral college system is
71:35
monstrosity that’s a that’s not about
71:38
first-past-the-post it’s about a system
71:40
that at the presidential level gives
71:42
disproportionate representation to to
71:45
some states with small populations and
71:48
at even more important we have the
71:50
Senate which where half the Senators are
71:53
elected by 16 percent of the population
71:55
so this is a that that’s crazy
71:58
that’s a deeply basically we’ve we’ve
72:00
evolved into a rotten borough system for
72:03
half of the US government and that’s
72:05
that’s a clear monstrosity as for the
72:08
rest I mean I don’t know I mean this is
72:13
not I’m not a political scientist I talk
72:16
to political scientists which by the way
72:18
is rare for economists we actually talk
72:20
I actually talk to these goods to other
72:21
social sciences and take them seriously
72:24
and but what I would say is that the the
72:29
there are places with proportional
72:31
representation
72:32
that also managed to be very
72:34
dysfunctional so you know Israel I
72:38
believe has proportional representation
72:39
and I would not say that Israeli
72:44
politics these past 15 years have been a
72:47
model of good ideas and wisdom
72:50
prevailing in fact they I mean every
72:52
system has its problems and one of the
72:54
problems with proportional
72:55
representation is it sometimes causes
72:57
small factional parties with with very
73:01
antisocial goals to to be kingmakers so
73:06
that’s not an easy solution either I
73:08
don’t really know what the answer is
73:10
except to say that that you know people
73:13
people are both generally clever and
73:19
often nasty and they can find a way to
73:21
screw up any system question trip down
73:24
here hi
73:25
you said earlier that the American
73:26
economy is in a pretty strong position
73:28
so I was wondering how much he thought
73:30
Trump could legitimately claim
73:32
responsibility for that and then
73:33
alongside that what are the strong II
73:35
cannot strongest economic arguments to
73:37
voters for voting against him okay the
73:41
reason that we’re in a relatively strong
73:43
economic position is that it’s basically
73:47
deficit spending after years and years
73:49
of saying no debt this is an existential
73:52
threat then we must have austerity which
73:54
really hobbled the US recovery under
73:58
Obama as soon as Trump was in office for
74:00
Republicans said oh we don’t care about
74:02
that I mean the last two State of the
74:04
Union speeches have not so much as
74:06
mentioned the deficit and that even
74:09
though it’s badly done it does give a
74:13
boost to demand so I guess you could say
74:16
the Trump has gets some credit in the
74:19
sense that by getting elected he caused
74:22
congressional Republicans to stop
74:24
sabotaging the economy that’s not a you
74:27
know vote Republican and and and and the
74:29
and the economy won’t be undermined by
74:31
by our sabotage efforts so that’s not a
74:34
great electoral slogan but it might win
74:36
in the election I have to say and I lost
74:40
the room what the rest of that was but
74:42
the
74:44
was one of the strong strongest economic
74:46
arguments to voters to vote against him
74:48
oh the thing about Trump is that he’s
74:50
managed to preside over a economy that
74:55
by sort of aggregate measures
74:58
unemployment rate is low GDP growth has
75:02
been pretty good not spectacular but
75:04
pretty good but which is is showing
75:08
increased hardship for many people
75:11
despite that I mean we were making huge
75:13
progress in reducing the number of
75:15
people without health insurance that has
75:17
now gone into reverse the number of
75:19
people who say that their that they are
75:23
that they are postponing or not
75:27
undertaking necessary medical treatment
75:29
because of expense has skyrocketed
75:32
and the America like the UK there’s
75:38
tremendous regional divergence we have a
75:43
large part of the large parts of the the
75:47
heartland which are in severe economic
75:50
decline as social collapse and that has
75:53
just accelerated you know despite the
75:55
low overall unemployment rate the state
75:58
of affairs in Eastern Kentucky is
76:01
terrible and life expectancy I guess it
76:06
rose slightly this past year but you
76:07
know mortality rates are rising and it’s
76:11
as in case an Angus Deaton say deaths of
76:14
despair people dying from from opioids
76:19
alcohol and suicide have been rising
76:22
despite the strong economy so this is
76:25
actually that earlier question about GDP
76:27
you know the GDP growth not saying that
76:31
the that it’s false but under under the
76:34
surface of that good GDP growth is
76:36
actually a substantial increase in
76:38
misery just a one final question from
76:43
thanks bull great to see you here my
76:48
question is about the u.s. minimum wage
76:50
obviously it’s very very low compared
76:53
it should be you know from visiting the
76:55
US for last 25 years it seems P and
76:57
getting no three jobs to make ends meet
77:00
what do you think the minimum wage
77:02
should be and one of the reasons other
77:05
than you know losing jobs that perhaps
77:07
people have been keeping it down the
77:09
minimum wage suppressed oh so I asked
77:12
that in Reverse I mean the reason the
77:14
minimum wage has been held down is
77:15
because employers want chief labor and
77:20
they have a lot of clout the question of
77:24
how high to go is an interesting one
77:26
and it’s the so even the the big move in
77:34
the u.s. is for $15 and that’s a I’d say
77:39
even $15 an hour even Alan Krueger who
77:43
was one of the key researchers on that
77:45
revelatory work was a little nervous
77:48
about 15 and that the problem is
77:52
regional the the state of New York the
77:55
state of California no problem you have
77:58
a $15 minimum wage and and there’s
78:00
absolutely no reason to think that
78:02
that’s economic difficulty we’re talking
78:05
about Mississippi or Alabama places with
78:08
much lower productivity you might start
78:10
to have some job loss at that level I
78:12
think that the preponderance of the
78:14
evidence says that $15 is okay that
78:18
there might be some minor job loss in
78:21
some of the least productive parts of
78:22
the US but but overall not a big deal I
78:26
think 20 I would start to make me really
78:28
nervous
78:29
that then you start to really be a
78:30
problem in in potentially problematic
78:33
territory but it’s it’s why they see
78:36
actually in this case I think a federal
78:38
minimum wage of 15 and then higher wages
78:40
and in in in appropriate States it makes
78:44
sense this is one of these cases where
78:45
federalism works to our advantage and
78:47
and it’s interesting by the way Alan
78:49
Krueger did do at one point he he went
78:52
to to Puerto Rico which part of the u.s.
78:55
is subject to the u.s. minimum wage and
78:57
much lower productivity and said there
78:59
we should be able to see clear evidence
79:01
that the minimum wage cost jobs and he
79:03
couldn’t find it he said I don’t really
79:05
believe this by
79:06
I can’t find the evidence so so for the
79:09
moment I say let’s let’s go for 15 and
79:11
see what happens and then maybe maybe
79:15
look for the high productivity states to
79:20
to go beyond that great I’m so sorry to
79:24
have to draw it to a conclusion but you
79:27
will have the opportunity to meet ball
79:29
and and get the book signed for now
79:32
please join me in thanking him for
79:34
really fascinating today all right