Steven Pearlstein, “Can American Capitalism Survive?”

19:43
well I’d like to illustrate why it’s not
19:45
with a simple a simple analogy or a
19:47
simple story it’s a made-up story but
19:49
not really and it’s about a barrel of
19:51
tobacco now in the 18th century the
19:58
person who owned a plantation on the
20:00
James River and produced that tobacco
20:02
and sold it in barrels and used the
20:07
proceeds of those sales to pay all of
20:10
the expenses associated with the
20:12
plantation Shirley felt that at the end
20:15
of that process the money that he had
20:16
leftover was his just dessert he earned
20:19
it he earned it in a competitive
20:21
marketplace and it was his and anyone
20:25
who would take it away from him would be
20:27
stealing but over time the profits from
20:35
that barrel changed
20:36
they changed when we got rid of slavery
20:40
of course they changed when we passed
20:44
laws that says that sharecroppers had
20:46
certain rights relative to the owners of
20:49
the land they changed again when we
20:52
changed the minimum wage they changed
20:55
when it made possible for the workers on
20:58
that plantation to have unions every
21:01
time we change the rules the marginal
21:04
productivity of the market income of
21:07
both the people who planted and picked
21:10
the tobacco and the guy who owned the
21:12
plantation they changed and we can see
21:17
from that little example that all
21:19
markets operate within a set of rules
21:21
and norms and that those rules and norms
21:24
are highly subjective they are not
21:26
objective they’re political they’re
21:29
socially determined
21:31
and the implication of that is that if
21:34
market incomes are in fact subjective
21:36
and contingent and they can change when
21:40
you change the rules then in fact there
21:43
is nothing objective about what we earn
21:45
I could change the rules and instead of
21:50
earning eight hundred million dollars a
21:51
year Steve Schwarzman could earn you
21:54
know a mere four hundred and twenty five
21:56
million dollars a year and each of the
21:59
three hundred and seventy-five thousand
22:01
employees in the firms that he controls
22:03
could each earn a thousand dollars more
22:06
and that would still be market income so
22:10
it’s pretty clear that markets by
22:12
themselves are not an objective
22:15
determinant of your economic
22:17
contribution if I can monkey around with
22:19
it that much then there’s some there’s
22:22
some some part of that that is
22:25
subjective and not objective and once
22:29
you accept that then from a moral point
22:31
of view there really is no distinction
22:35
between what I’d call pre distribution
22:38
which is monkeying around with the rules
22:41
and the norms that change market incomes
22:44
and redistribution which is let’s leave
22:47
the norms ‘el and the rules of law alone
22:49
and we’ll just redistribute it
22:51
afterwards through taxes and transfers
22:53
morally there’s really no difference you
22:56
might prefer to do it one way or the
22:57
other but neither of them is theft
23:00
they’re both ways that we might want to
23:03
respond to things that we don’t like
23:05
about our system the third pillar is
23:09
that we don’t we shouldn’t care about
23:12
income inequality all that matters is
23:14
equality of opportunity at least from a
23:16
from a moral standpoint and you hear
23:19
that a lot from defenders of markets the
23:24
reality is and I think we all know this
23:27
equality of opportunity is unachievable
23:30
the data from social science it gets
23:34
complicated I read a lot of it and I’m
23:37
going to summarize it really simply at
23:40
least half the difference in the market
23:42
income between you
23:45
and you I picked you randomly cuz that’s
23:51
sort of statistically the way I had to
23:53
place it is explained by the result of
23:56
who your parents were both in terms of
23:59
your jeans and i know that’s
24:01
controversial but also in terms of
24:04
upbringing in terms of nature as well as
24:06
nurture yes we have gone a long way to
24:10
removing legal barriers that determined
24:14
wealth and income based on birth order
24:16
or title or class or race or gender yet
24:20
even the most well-funded and meaning
24:25
and well-meaning institutions can’t
24:27
close this this irreducible gap and I’ll
24:31
give you the example of Harvard
24:33
University which a few years ago had so
24:37
much money in its endowment not so much
24:41
anymore but in those days so much more
24:43
money that they decided to go to needs
24:46
blind admission which means that they
24:49
would admit the best class of students
24:51
that they could irrespective of who
24:53
needed what because they had so much
24:55
money it didn’t matter and in fact if
24:59
you had to if you had income below your
25:01
family had income below $65,000 and that
25:04
was back a few years ago you paid no
25:07
tuition at all and that no family would
25:09
be required to pay tuition of more than
25:11
ten percent of income and what was the
25:14
result of that basically that’s a
25:17
perfect meritocratic set up for the
25:20
arguably the best university in the
25:22
country
25:25
only 5% of those admitted came from the
25:30
bottom quintile the bottom 20% of
25:33
households by income and 21% only 21%
25:37
came from the bottom 60% me and Harvard
25:41
actually is now better than other elite
25:44
schools on that matter typically at
25:45
those other elite schools there are more
25:48
students from the top 1% than there are
25:50
from the bottom 50% despite all that
25:54
scholarship and all that meritocracy
25:57
education once the great equalizer of
26:00
opportunity has in fact now become an
26:04
instrument of inequality indeed and this
26:09
actually is not an original idea of mine
26:13
it’s actually 40 50 year old idea as as
26:19
the economy becomes more meritocratic as
26:23
barriers for race or gender or class
26:28
fall away in a competitive market that
26:31
only increases the importance of the
26:34
distinguishing factors that remain
26:37
factors like natural talent factors like
26:42
personality traits which are often
26:45
inherited or developed early in
26:49
childhood so we need to acknowledge the
26:53
limit of how much we can or even want to
26:56
equalize opportunity maybe some of you
26:59
have heard of Kurt Vonnegut’s dystopic
27:02
satire Harrison Bergeron which I don’t
27:04
think you have on sale here nobody reads
27:08
it anymore but it’s about a society
27:10
that’s fixated on equality of
27:12
opportunity and it’s an equality of
27:16
opportunity is enforced by a handicapper
27:19
general and the handicapper general
27:22
insists that all News announcers who are
27:25
hired have a lisp
27:28
and that smart people all smart people
27:31
have to go around wearing headphones
27:33
with music blaring in their ears to
27:35
distract them which by the way I think
27:37
has happened and people who are athletic
27:45
would have to walk around with backpacks
27:48
with weights on their back what Veronica
27:51
chose is that you know you want to
27:54
equalize opportunity you can get pretty
27:55
absurd of course if we want to try to
27:58
equalize things in terms of upbringing
28:00
we could take all children away from
28:02
their parents at birth and send them to
28:04
state-run boarding schools until they’re
28:07
17 and that would certainly equalize
28:10
that but we probably don’t want to do
28:13
that either
28:13
and so we’re left with a sort of
28:16
unpleasant conclusion which is equality
28:19
of opportunity is is neither possible
28:22
nor in fact desirable and if that’s the
28:24
case and if we are morally uncomfortable
28:27
with the fact that Steve Schwarzman
28:29
earns the same income as 15,000
28:33
elementary school teachers then we can’t
28:36
rely on equal opportunity to solve the
28:39
problem we have to address the problem
28:41
directly the final argument from free
28:44
marketeers is that it’s
28:46
counterproductive to slice the economic
28:49
pie into more equal slices because we’ll
28:52
only get a smaller pie that there’s an
28:56
absolute trade-off between equality and
28:58
economic efficiency and growth so I’m
29:03
going to ask you to think about a
29:04
thought experiment imagine the world in
29:07
imagine an economy closed economy in
29:11
which all the income is divided
29:14
perfectly evenly everyone gets exactly
29:16
the same now imagine another world in
29:22
which all the output all the income of
29:26
the economy goes basically to three guys
29:31
and everyone else has a subsistence
29:34
living
29:35
[Music]
29:37
we know that at either of those extreme
29:41
the
29:42
I gets pretty small you can ask anyone
29:45
from Soviet Russia about that first one
29:48
it’s pretty small but on the other side
29:55
you can imagine that it would be pretty
29:57
small too why would anybody actually
29:58
work harder take risks or share a new
30:04
idea with the owner if they were not
30:07
going to get anything from it if the
30:09
three guys who control everything
30:11
[Music]
30:14
continue to get everything so
30:16
intuitively we understand that at the
30:20
extremes it’s true there’s less growth
30:23
and that as you go away from those
30:25
extremes you probably get more growth
30:28
and there’s probably some sweet spot in
30:30
the middle of this curve at the top
30:33
that’s the nice balance between too much
30:38
and too little
30:39
equality there’s a lot of economic
30:41
literature on this and too much to
30:44
recall here but I wanted to share with
30:45
you a an experiment done by an economist
30:51
named Richard Friedman Freeman he misses
30:53
years ago he divided groups of graduate
30:56
students you for some reason
30:57
experimental economics is always done
30:59
with graduate students for reasons that
31:01
may be self-evident into three groups
31:05
and they were each group was told that
31:08
they were they was supposed to solve
31:09
some puzzles but the only indifferent
31:14
about the groups they were random was
31:15
that how they were going to be
31:16
compensated in terms of the prize money
31:18
and in won the prize money would be
31:22
distributed perfectly evenly everyone
31:24
will get the same to the winning team
31:26
and in the other it would be a
31:29
winner-take-all whoever on the team
31:32
solved the most would get the entire
31:35
prize and the third group was some mix
31:38
of the two everyone would get a minimum
31:40
and then there would be some sort of
31:42
bonuses for those who solved the most
31:45
well I think you probably know where
31:47
this is going hands down the group
31:50
repeatedly they did this experiment
31:52
repeatedly that did the best was the
31:54
group
31:54
that where everyone gets a minimum and
31:57
there were bonuses in other words some
31:59
sort of mixture now why is that the case
32:07
why is it that organizations like the
32:12
IMF which is not exactly known as a
32:15
hotbed of radical economic thinking has
32:18
concluded that the United States and
32:21
Britain are probably on the wrong side
32:24
of the sweet spot that we have much more
32:27
we have more room to be more equal
32:30
without going to the other side of the
32:32
curve and getting a smaller pie there
32:36
are several reasons they give and
32:38
there’s one that they sort of mentioned
32:40
in passing which I think actually is the
32:42
most important and that is that rising
32:46
inequality depletes the trust that we
32:50
have in each other and our willingness
32:52
to cooperate and the trust that we have
32:54
in institutions the willingness to
32:57
sacrifice what’s good for me in the
32:59
short run for what’s good for us
33:01
in the long run what creates and
33:04
sustains trust and cooperation as I said
33:07
before is our moral instincts there
33:10
simply aren’t enough police and courts
33:13
and lawyers although in Washington you
33:16
wouldn’t know that and auditors to
33:19
enforce honesty reliability cooperative
33:23
behavior we need social socially
33:29
enforced norms in order for a system to
33:33
work well we need to know that when we
33:35
stand at an ATM machine that the guy
33:38
behind me is not going to rob me we need
33:40
to know that when you go out in the
33:41
morning to get our newspaper that it’s
33:43
going to be there we need to know that
33:46
people line up at the cash register of
33:50
politics and prose and don’t cut in line
33:53
if there’s a line trust and cooperation
33:59
provides the grease to an increasingly
34:01
complex machinery of capitalism it gives
34:05
us the confidence to make investments
34:07
with people who
34:08
don’t know and don’t control to take
34:12
risks to buy products that we’ve never
34:14
tried before from people that we don’t
34:17
know trust and cooperation also grease
34:20
the increasingly contentious machinery
34:23
of democracy that allows government to
34:26
mediate between competing interests and
34:28
allows government policy to respond to
34:32
rapidly changing economic conditions now
34:35
we don’t have great measures of social
34:38
capital of trust but we have some the
34:43
most famous actually I don’t know
34:44
whether you’ve heard about this is the
34:46
old trick that Reader’s Digest did they
34:49
took wallets and they put some money in
34:51
and along with an address of the so
34:52
called owner of the wallets and they
34:54
left them on the streets in different
34:58
cities and and it had the address and
35:01
the phone number to see how many people
35:03
actually returned them called up and
35:05
returned the money and that’s one
35:07
measure of social capital you can do
35:08
that over time and you can do it over
35:10
and different different distances we
35:12
have another measure which is called the
35:14
General Social Survey this question is
35:16
asked of literally tens of thousands of
35:19
people around the world every year and
35:21
it’s a simple question agree or disagree
35:24
most people can be trusted maybe or
35:28
maybe you won’t be surprised to know
35:30
that in the United States measures of
35:33
social capital have been going down for
35:35
the last 30 years and are among the
35:37
lowest in the advanced countries though
35:40
not as low as they are in Italy I might
35:43
add we know that societies with high
35:47
social capital are healthier they’re
35:49
happier and it turns out they’re also
35:51
wealthier and the erosion of social
35:54
capital now puts us on the wrong side of
35:57
that sweet spot it means that if we want
36:00
to have faster growth we need to move
36:03
toward more equality not less so can
36:07
American capitalism survive it’s a nice
36:10
title wasn’t my choice but anyway
36:15
what was your choice
36:18
why greed is not good opportunity is not
36:21
equal in fairness won’t make us poor but
36:23
I got the smaller type
36:24
I think I’d answer the question this way
36:29
the story of the last three decades is a
36:32
story about a meaning of the moral and
36:35
ethical norms by which we establish
36:38
trust that encourage cooperation and
36:44
we’ve had a serious erosion of social
36:47
capital because of our embrace of this
36:49
kind of market fundamentalism the
36:51
delicate balance between selfish
36:54
individualism and cooperative altruism
36:57
that was identified by Adam Smith and
37:00
Charles Darwin as the key to human
37:02
progress that balance has been lost and
37:06
the result now manifests itself in a
37:09
skewed economy a polarized politics and
37:13
a dysfunctional a dysfunctional
37:15
government and a social fabric that is
37:18
torn and frayed and it’s been bad for
37:21
our economy it’s been bad for our
37:24
politics and it’s been bad for our souls
37:28
Thanks so if you have any questions I
37:37
think I’m supposed to tell you to line
37:39
up at those microphones and and and
37:42
we’re looking for questions not speeches
37:46
do you have an opinion on what senator
37:50
Sanders has proposed I believe he named
37:52
it after one of your employers the besos
37:55
Act yeah that would require certain
37:58
large corporations to reimburse the
38:00
government for public benefits that are
38:03
given to their imprint on their
38:05
employees in general my response to
38:10
things like that is it’s sort of a nice
38:12
instinct it’s a nice idea I don’t think
38:14
it would be very easy to do that and I
38:16
don’t think we have to do that that’s
38:19
sort of a that’s it’s sort of punitive
38:24
and it it it
38:28
you know I’m a market guy you know I
38:30
want capitalism to work I want markets
38:33
to work and that’s a little there are
38:39
better ways to do that we need a safety
38:41
net and we need to pay for that in a
38:43
progressive way and it may be that we
38:47
need to have laws that say you do some
38:49
things or you know a company has to do
38:51
some things or other things but this
38:53
notion of trying to figure out what the
38:56
employee what benefits the employees get
38:58
and then calculate that and then send
39:00
the bill to the to the employer I for
39:04
one thing it discourages people from
39:05
hiring low wage workers so yeah I don’t
39:09
think the incentive structure is a good
39:11
idea is is right for that yes even most
39:15
of your talk has been about individual
39:17
and group methodologies to do natural
39:21
things but what happens how is
39:24
government regulation how is the
39:27
president how is the Congress affecting
39:30
this what things should we well they’re
39:32
affecting it a lot they’re affecting it
39:35
a lot yeah you know you want to talk
39:38
about labor law you want to talk about
39:39
antitrust law you want to want to talk
39:41
about securities law all of those things
39:43
affect all of these things that we’re
39:46
talking about but for those of you who
39:49
will have this instinct that government
39:51
is going to solve this I would tell you
39:54
that it’s much more important that the
39:57
intellectual part of it which is that we
39:59
conceive of this differently and that we
40:02
come up with a set of you know social
40:05
norms where the social norms come from
40:07
they don’t come from the government and
40:09
and in the answers I don’t know where
40:11
they come from that’s sort of magical
40:13
it’s some one of the things that
40:14
actually academics are looking at quite
40:18
quite seriously now which is where does
40:20
social norms come from you know we had a
40:22
social norm that to be to be married you
40:24
had to be heterosexual and then you know
40:26
one day we turned around and that wasn’t
40:29
a social norm that changed very fast but
40:31
there are other social norms that take a
40:32
long time to change so I can’t tell you
40:34
how we change them but it’s much more
40:36
important to change the norms it’s much
40:39
more important for this
40:41
teve Schwartzman’s of the world to be
40:43
embarrassed by their thing because we
40:46
can’t write enough laws to make Steve
40:49
Schwarzman behave the right way and you
40:51
know what as soon as you write them
40:53
they’ll figure out a way around them and
40:55
then we’ll get really be in a
40:56
cat-and-mouse game it’s it’s sort of
40:58
more important to think a little more
41:00
intellectually about you know what this
41:02
thing is called capitalism and what we
41:04
like about it when we don’t and talk
41:06
about it and use social pressure you
41:09
know the me to movement is probably done
41:12
a lot more for protecting women from
41:16
harassment and worse than any laws that
41:20
we pass and and I think it’s more
41:22
important that we not jump to a
41:24
government solution for everything being
41:26
not because I’m against regulation I
41:28
actually am NOT but that’s probably
41:30
those should be the last things we think
41:33
about not the first things I completely
41:37
disagree I figured you would I remember
41:41
I I’m old enough to remember when we had
41:44
norms and we had social democracy and it
41:48
was called the New Deal and it worked
41:50
and we talked about Keynes and the idea
41:54
that to have an economy grow you had to
41:59
have you didn’t give the investors of
42:00
money you made sure that people had
42:02
enough money to buy things I mean they
42:05
had spent ten years in the depression so
42:07
people understood that and what changed
42:12
was government the the New Deal the
42:15
labor laws Social Security so older
42:18
people have money securities regulation
42:22
and with it came norms so that George
42:28
Romney made $300,000 a year running a
42:31
real company that made real stuff and
42:33
Mitt Romney made millions of dollars a
42:36
trading company so what is anything
42:39
that’s your question and I’m gonna
42:41
answer it really succinctly okay which
42:43
is that I’m almost as old as you are
42:52
if if CEOs in the 1950s and 60s had
42:57
wanted to beef jerkey had wanted to pay
42:59
himself more 300 million rather than
43:02
nine three million or whatever three
43:04
hundred thousand he actually had the
43:06
power to do that the boards were more
43:09
captive back then than they are today
43:10
and he couldn’t he could have done that
43:13
toward whatever was equivalent back then
43:15
he didn’t do it and the reason he didn’t
43:18
do it is if he did it he would have felt
43:21
guilty and he would have been socially
43:23
shamed and I’m not saying just socially
43:25
shamed by his workers he would have been
43:28
shamed if he went to this if he went to
43:31
the Country Club in the locker room the
43:35
other CEOs would have said George that’s
43:38
very piggy of you and it makes all the
43:41
rest of us look bad and anyway we’re
43:43
trying to feat fight socialism and
43:46
you’re going off and paying yourself 300
43:48
Millions so it was a social norm that
43:51
prevented George Romney not the New Deal
43:53
from paying himself 300 million dollars
43:55
and his 50% or 60% or ninety percent
43:58
income tax yeah nobody paid that and
44:02
that’s that’s a sort of left-wing sort
44:04
of urban myth that people paid ninety
44:07
percent taxes they didn’t no one was
44:10
that stupid anyone who made that much
44:12
money was not that stupid to pay ninety
44:14
percent taxes but that’s what the
44:16
official tax rate was but that’s not
44:19
what people pay though they they did pay
44:21
more than they do now rich people but
44:23
they didn’t pay ninety percent had you
44:26
asked me my reaction to your first
44:29
example of presumably bad corporate
44:32
behavior a New York life’s decision to
44:35
outsource its IT services to India my
44:38
response would have been that’s
44:40
globalization and I’m surprised that you
44:44
used that example to illustrate the what
44:48
you believe the flaws are in American
44:51
corporate behavior do you in fact think
44:55
we should start slowing the process of
44:58
globalization its impacts on the US
45:00
economy and if so
45:01
don’t you go about it I don’t and and I
45:04
gave that example to emphasize the
45:06
second part of it which is in order to
45:09
get your severance you have to train
45:10
these guys that’s that’s what that’s
45:14
what gets us angry okay it’s not the
45:16
first thing okay it’s the second thing
45:19
that’s not the way you treat a human
45:22
being who has been your loyal employee
45:24
for thirty years now it may be you you
45:27
know you have to you have to you have to
45:29
move your IT operation for competitive
45:32
reasons there so I’m not against that I
45:34
said to you when I started that these
45:36
were useful ideas in the 1980s and one
45:38
of those was rearranging where work was
45:41
done so that it could be done in the
45:42
most cheap and efficient way but there
45:45
are ways to treat people and there are
45:48
other ways to treat people and that was
45:50
my that’s the example and that has to do
45:52
with maximizing shareholder value I
45:55
think if that’s taken things too far
45:58
[Music]
46:00
hello what I what I want to ask you
46:08
about is what you’re saying
46:11
I agree with most of it but nevertheless
46:14
at this point I think we have to make
46:17
like giant steps and what I’m suggesting
46:20
is is that we have to have a public
46:24
discussion on how we want to format what
46:29
we do to move forward in other words
46:31
what are the economic factors we have to
46:34
look at cash flow what it takes to live
46:37
what the distribution is where the
46:39
aggregates are mm-hmm
46:41
and we haven’t in my opinion started as
46:45
a culture either nationally or
46:47
internationally to start to do that
46:49
because if we never get rid of the
46:50
aggregates in our culture that’s power
46:53
the aggregates meaning what aggregates
46:56
of wealth aggregates of power control
47:00
universities I mean look at everything
47:02
that goes through Yale you cannot you
47:05
cannot suggest somebody for anything I
47:08
mean I’m being exaggerating here but it
47:11
comes up over no
47:12
over and over again now what’s the
47:13
reason are the all the smart people
47:15
there I am not sure about that but my
47:19
point is we’re not analyzing it at my in
47:23
my opinion quickly enough to project
47:27
what it might look like where we want to
47:29
go because this is a big big deal I
47:32
guess what I would say to that is we
47:36
first have to have a functional politics
47:40
and in order to do that we have to learn
47:44
to trust each other a little more and
47:46
learn to compromise and learn to
47:48
cooperate and until we can do that you
47:52
really can’t fix anything it’s not that
47:56
we don’t don’t have ideas for how we can
47:59
make things better but we actually now
48:01
have very little process to do that and
48:04
to sort of have the conversation that
48:07
you’re talking about we talk past each
48:09
other now or I don’t know but when we’re
48:13
you know I for the last 30 years have
48:16
been writing about economic policy
48:18
you know that’s my life it’s not worth
48:22
my time to write about economic policy
48:23
anymore Who am I writing it for you know
48:26
who’s who’s gonna do anything it’s a
48:30
waste of time
48:30
so until we fix the plumbing which
48:34
includes sort of having a different
48:37
perspective on these things and talking
48:40
more about virtues and a little less
48:43
about income shares I don’t think we can
48:47
really address this thing we need to fix
48:49
the plumbing first well the guys Dave I
48:54
thought this was the Kate Atkinson talk
48:56
but I guess right so I walked in here
48:59
and here we are in a very high micro
49:01
economic plane I hadn’t expected so yeah
49:04
pardon my question is this guy this guy
49:07
by the way it was my college roommate so
49:11
it wasn’t hard I try to introduce myself
49:13
as Steve Schwarzman but I didn’t think
49:15
that would fly so I’ve been exposed but
49:19
I’m gonna ask you a very specific
49:21
microeconomic question I don’t know if
49:23
it’s discussed in a book of such high on
49:27
such a high philosophical plane but
49:30
where do you where do you come down on
49:32
minimum wage laws especially national
49:35
minimum wage laws as opposed to
49:38
collective bargaining established rates
49:41
of wages
49:42
well I if you can comment also on on how
49:47
you feel about that most recent local
49:49
product of that DC tipped wage Act
49:54
that’s because so the last thing is I
49:56
don’t really understand the tip wait I’m
49:58
not smart enough to understand what that
50:00
bill did so I think we can talk about
50:02
that afterward but minimum wage Earned
50:05
Income Tax Credit and and a greater a
50:09
greater possibility of unionization are
50:14
all part of what we would need to do I
50:17
think to change the rules so that the
50:21
market incomes come out a little more
50:23
equal all of those some people by the
50:25
way I don’t know I’m not going to go too
50:27
much into this think Earned Income Tax
50:28
Credit is all you need to do you don’t
50:30
need to do minimum wage
50:31
some people think $15 minimum wage is
50:34
what you should do and you don’t need to
50:35
spend so much tax dollars on earned
50:37
income tax credits I think actually a
50:39
combination they each have different
50:41
perverse incentives and disincentives
50:42
and so if you had both of them working
50:45
together it would be better and it would
50:47
also be better if the possibility of
50:51
organizing a union were much more
50:53
realistic right now any company that
50:56
wants to prevent a union from being
50:58
organized can do so basically he’s a
51:02
labor lawyer so he knows that you can
51:04
fire all the people who try to unionize
51:05
and they will punish you but that they
51:07
will punish you but that 15 years later
51:09
it’s illegal but they’ll punish you 15
51:11
years later what’s more important and
51:14
what used to be true is that companies
51:16
that treated employees like that were
51:18
shunned in fact one of the most hopeful
51:22
things that I
51:23
see happening in the area of companies
51:27
that sort of ruthless and always trying
51:29
to maximize shareholder value is that
51:31
those companies actually are now having
51:33
trouble attracting young employees who
51:36
won’t tolerate it and they won’t get
51:39
good young employees if you if you
51:41
behave in that ruthless manner and and I
51:44
think that actually is the most hopeful
51:46
thing that I have seen and by the way
51:48
that’s not a law that’s social norm
51:51
whereas employees won’t work for
51:53
companies they think are disloyal and
51:55
ruthless or environmentally
51:58
irresponsible or treat other employees
52:03
you know and in that way so that to me
52:08
is is is a more important way to go and
52:12
to think about how we encourage that
52:14
yeah I I’d submit to you that what we’re
52:16
upset about is that wealthy people in
52:19
our society don’t play by the same rules
52:21
as we do and we’re not as upset about
52:24
Steve Schwarzman making 820 million
52:26
dollars what we’re upset about is that
52:28
he’d lot he likely pays the income tax
52:31
rate at the carried interest rate that’s
52:32
where upset about well that’s something
52:34
that’s obviously a big that is writing
52:36
deal like that but you know I I hate to
52:38
do this but I want to put your employer
52:39
the employer up it as as Exhibit B yeah
52:43
which is you know my employer X okay but
52:46
you’re who owns the company and that is
52:48
here you have a company that’s asking
52:50
for public subsidies and rumor has it
52:52
that one of them is we want to keep the
52:55
withholding tax from the state that
52:57
that’s part of what’s on the block that
52:59
rubs this is on that rubs me is very on
53:02
good that’s good okay right that that’s
53:04
alright so I submit to you that it’s
53:06
really a fairness thing not a not a
53:09
social norm
53:10
well fairness is a social well okay you
53:20
know there are some communities that
53:23
offered him a lot of money or offered
53:25
Amazon a lot of money where the
53:27
politicians had to go back and say I’m
53:28
sorry we were drawing our offer and why
53:31
did they do that well they heard from
53:32
their constituents who were offended by
53:34
it right but what I’m saying is that
53:36
they their men
53:36
populating the laws – for example have
53:38
carried interest tax rates and and so
53:41
therefore what therefore make things
53:44
transparent so that you don’t mind if he
53:46
makes eight hundred and twenty eight
53:47
hundred twenty million dollars as long
53:49
as he pays thirty seven point four
53:51
percent or whatever the tax rate is on
53:52
all amounts above 1.2 million that’s my
53:55
point
53:56
well let me just respond to that by
53:57
saying you’re worried about the carried
53:59
into hit the tax rate that he pays I
54:01
worry more about the fact that his firm
54:04
earned so much profit above what is a
54:09
normal profit that the markets he
54:13
operates in are uncompetitive and that’s
54:15
a bigger thing to be concerned about and
54:17
it does have to do with securities laws
54:19
and other kinds of laws then worrying
54:22
about his carried interest benefit which
54:24
is which is outrageous
54:26
also but the bigger problem is why does
54:30
his firm earn enough to pay him that
54:32
much and that’s the bigger problem for
54:36
not adding that much to the economy I
54:39
mean he’s not like he’s you know it’s
54:41
not like his Bill Gates and he invented
54:42
some great thing that improves all of
54:44
our lives or something like that or
54:45
Facebook if you think that did but um
54:48
but he didn’t do it he didn’t invent
54:50
anything he didn’t improve you know he
54:52
didn’t even write a good book yeah so
54:57
this might be a utopian question or just
55:00
a stupid question but I’ll ask it anyway
55:01
so it seems like the the nature of work
55:06
is evolving that there are factories
55:08
that are being designed with no human
55:09
work at all and so with artificial
55:12
intelligence so given all of those
55:14
trends how does any of that impact on
55:17
what you’re talking about that that work
55:19
will be defined differently or who does
55:21
work will be done differently so there’s
55:25
in economic these days is sort of two
55:28
camps one camp worries a lot about
55:33
artificial intelligence taking all the
55:35
jobs away and there’s not going to be
55:38
anything for the everybody to do and it
55:42
will make inequality worse I am just not
55:45
in that camp the sweep of history and
55:50
economic history
55:51
that we’ve had those kind of advances
55:53
they’re lumpy they do they do it’s not
55:55
like it’s a nice steady curve they do
55:57
come in waves and the transitions can
56:00
sometimes be hard but you know it’s sort
56:03
of what I teach in in economic
56:06
principles if you make the economy more
56:08
productive
56:10
it makes the pie bigger and you might
56:13
have some issues about how you divide
56:15
the pie but you know there won’t be
56:19
people in those in those factories doing
56:21
those things but I’ll give you a little
56:25
example I don’t know 20 years ago if you
56:29
said I had a personal trainer everyone
56:32
was in now
56:36
I don’t know there’s a lot of personal
56:37
trainers around so you know when we have
56:40
more money and when we’re richer we find
56:43
things to do with it and that often
56:44
involves service and that often involves
56:46
people and not robots and you know we go
56:49
out to more restaurant meals so there’s
56:50
gonna be more people working in
56:51
restaurants yeah III just you know is it
56:56
possible that this is this is a sort of
56:58
this this is the one time where it won’t
57:02
work it’s possible but III don’t think
57:04
so
57:06
one more says boss
57:12
I remember reading got the rise of the
57:15
meritocracy by Michael Young yes forty
57:17
years ago forty year he warned about
57:19
meritocracy he was the one any point any
57:22
coined the term meritocracy do you have
57:25
that book I’ve been trying to get my
57:32
book club to read it for 20 years you
57:34
know I I just I just reread it you don’t
57:37
want your book club reading it why not
57:39
it’s really hard to read well yeah but
57:42
it’s cool it’s very dated and easy brick
57:48
right he’s a boozer breathless he’s sir
57:51
Michael yelling well anyway someone
57:53
already asked about my first course it
57:55
was gonna be about Earned Income Tax
57:58
Credit yeah and a basic perhaps a naked
58:01
a negative income tax a guaranteed
58:03
income for everybody
58:05
for that if you in the last chapter I
58:06
talked about my version of the ubi but
58:09
and it’s more like a negative income tax
58:11
and it is the others but which guess who
58:13
came up with that right Brit anyway but
58:23
so suppose you did that yeah do you
58:28
would you agree I think that a large
58:33
part of what’s going wrong for us now is
58:35
that people are self segregating by
58:36
income because our schools are paid for
58:38
by real estate taxes have you read the
58:41
book because you you know that’s exactly
58:44
what I think is a big problem oh I think
58:50
so you know geographic segregation in
58:54
terms of equality of opportunity the
58:56
biggest challenge is this you know sort
58:59
of geographic segregation by class and
59:01
you know it was in 1954 how many years
59:04
ago was that fifty four years ago that
59:07
the Supreme Court said segregation by
59:09
race was unconstitutional and we need
59:13
new law now and you know I don’t think
59:16
we’re moving in that direction this week
59:17
in the Supreme Court but we need a court
59:22
to say segregation by class is also
59:26
unconstitutional
59:31
we didn’t we were a classless society
59:34
remember everybody if you were stinking
59:36
rich you assumed you’re gonna try to do
59:38
something useful well I don’t at least
59:40
that I I don’t I don’t I don’t think
59:43
necessarily rich people are any more
59:46
evil than necessarily they used to but
59:50
anyway but you made a very good point
59:54
which is that that selves first of all
59:57
the big sort there’s a book called the
59:59
big sort that probably is here and you
60:01
should read it it’s a great book but we
60:03
are sorting ourselves by education and
60:05
income and and that gets reflected in
60:08
where we live and that gets reflected in
60:10
where our kids go to school here’s a
60:11
little data point the socio-economic
60:18
the average socioeconomic status of the
60:23
kids in a class is a better predictor of
60:28
the kids educational performance than
60:32
his own or her own economic situation in
60:35
other words if you send rich kids to
60:37
poor schools they don’t do as well if
60:40
you send poor kids to rich schools they
60:43
do better that the class that they’re in
60:46
the socio-economic makeup of the class
60:48
they’re in is a better determinant is a
60:50
more is a better predictor of their
60:53
educational performance than their own
60:55
families and that tells you that you
61:00
know we need to worry about this
61:02
segregation by class and in school rooms
61:04
because it’s having a bad effect
61:07
particularly on poor communities thank
61:11
you very much
61:12
[Applause]
61:25
you

Richard Wolff: “Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism” | Talks at Google

Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008. He is currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York City. He wrote Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism and founded www.democracyatwork.info, a non-profit advocacy organization of the same name that promotes democratic workplaces as a key path to a stronger, democratic economic system. Professor Wolff discusses the economic dimensions of our lives, our jobs, our incomes, our debts, those of our children, and those looming down the road in his unique mixture of deep insight and dry humor. He presents current events and draws connections to the past to highlight the machinations of our global economy. He helps us to understand political and corporate policy, organization of labor, the distribution of goods and services, and challenges us to question some of the deepest foundations of our society. For more of his lectures, visit the Democracy at Work YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/democrac….

Two Capitalists Worry About Capitalism’s Future

James Dimon and Ray Dalio are among the most successful capitalists in the U.S. today. So when they worry aloud about the future of capitalism, it’s worth listening.

I believe that all good things taken to an extreme become self-destructive and that everything must evolve or die. This is now true for capitalism,” Mr. Dalio, founder of hedge-fund manager Bridgewater Associates, writes on LinkedIn.

Mr. Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., writes in his annual letter to shareholders: “In many ways and without ill intent, many companies were able to avoid—almost literally drive by—many of society’s problems.

Captains of industry have always opined on the issues of the day. Still, these latest missives are noteworthy for three reasons.

  1. First, the authors: Mr. Dalio anticipated the financial crisis; his systematic management and investment style has made Bridgewater the world’s largest hedge-fund manager. Mr. Dimon is arguably the country’s most successful banker, having steered J.P. Morgan clear of the subprime mortgage disaster to become the country’s most valuable financial institution.
  2. Second, the timing: They are speaking out at a time when the free-market capitalism that has served them so well is questioned by many Americans, including prominent Democrats.
  3. Third, the content. Mr. Dalio and Mr. Dimon love capitalism and aren’t apologizing for it. But they recognize the system isn’t working for everyone, and they have ideas for fixing it, some of which might require rich people like themselves to pay more tax. Yet they fear the federal government is hamstrung by intensifying partisanship. So they are putting their money and reputations where their mouths are by speaking out, backing local initiatives and hoping like-minded business leaders join them. In effect, they are breathing life into the shrinking nonpartisan center.

In an interview, Mr. Dalio says many business leaders “don’t want to get into the argument. I can understand that. I say to myself, Should I get in? I do think if everyone keeps quiet, we’re going to continue to behave as we’re behaving, and it’s going to tear us apart.”

Mr. Dalio’s essay was inspired by a longstanding interest in the parallels between the 1930s and the present:

  1. the growth of debt and
  2. the relative impotence of central banks, the
  3. widening of inequality and the
  4. rise of populism.

Capitalism, he says, is now in a “self-reinforcing feedback loop”:

  • companies develop labor-saving technologies that enrich their owners while displacing workers.
  • The haves spend more on child care and education, widening their lead over the have-nots,
  • whose predicament is compounded by underperforming schools,
  • the decline of two-parent families, and
  • rising incarceration.

Mr. Dalio thinks inequality has fueled populism and ideological extremism, which he fears means capitalism will be either abandoned or left unreformed.

His solutions start with taking partisanship out of the mix. He would like government to join with business and philanthropic leaders with proven track records to find, fund and evaluate projects with high potential social returns, such as early childhood education and dropout prevention. The rich might have to pay more taxes, provided the money is used to raise the productivity and incomes of the bottom 60%, or establish a minimum safety net.

Mr. Dimon is less introspective about the flaws of capitalism than Mr. Dalio and more impatient with the recent fascination so many Americans are showing with socialism. His letter, written in the blunt, combative style in which he speaks (it should be read aloud in a Queens accent for full effect), reiterates familiar complaints about excessive postcrisis regulation.

But, like Mr. Dalio, he worries partisanship has crippled the country’s ability to enact basic reforms that elevate economic growth and strengthen the safety net, such as

  • improving high schools and community colleges’ provision of useful skills,
  • more cost-effective health care,
  • faster infrastructure approval,
  • more skilled immigrants coupled with legalizing illegal immigrants, and
  • requiring fewer licenses to start a small businesses.

“Can you imagine me saying, I can do a better job for the Chase customer if I don’t get involved in details, the products, the services, the prices, how we treat people, how call centers work?” Mr. Dimon asks in an interview. “Policy has too often become disconnected from the analytics; we got slogans instead. It’s driving people apart.”

There’s a chicken-and-egg problem with these well-intentioned calls for nonpartisan problem solving: It requires a level of nonpartisanship that doesn’t exist; otherwise the problems would, presumably, have been solved.

If business leaders can’t persuade with words, they may by example. Mr. Dalio and his wife, Barbara, have donated $100 million to the state of Connecticut, to be matched by the state and other philanthropists, to create a $300 million partnership devoted to reducing dropout rates and promoting entrepreneurship in underserved schools and communities.

For its part, J.P. Morgan has under Mr. Dimon combined commercial and philanthropic resources to finance affordable housing, small business and infrastructure and job training in Detroit, announced $600 million in workforce development grants since 2013, and boosted salaries for lower-end employees. Mr. Dimon, in his shareholder letter, called on fellow CEOs to “take positions on public policy that they think are good for the country.”

It doesn’t always work. The Business Roundtable, which Mr. Dimon chairs, successfully pressed Congress and President Trump for lower business taxes, but unsuccessfully for more infrastructure and legalizing illegal immigrants. Says Mr. Dimon: “We should give it the best shot we’ve got.”