RE: Where to now?
>This is largely the result of a shift to capital gains income, rather thanproductivity-based income
>among the top few percent, who have gobbled up the growing gap betweenproductivity and income.
There are two problems that face workers. First, productivity has outpaced
demand. Second, the world has gotten flat. So, while steel and auto
workers could demand high wages in the 60s, and the first half of the 70s
because they were in demand, the demand for workers is down now, except in
marginal service jobs.
Gautam's book may prove unpopular with CEOs because it shows that a filtered
leader is not that unique, there are many other candidates who would make
the same decision. This would indicate that there is no business basis to
pay, for example, Apple's new CEO a 600 million bonus, other contenders for
his job would have done just as well. Steve Jobs is different, he's an
unfiltered leader. But, he started Apple, and if he failed, then a small
company would have failed...as probably many small computer companies failed
in the '70s, and many Internet companies failed in the late '90s and early
The good news is that we can, if we have the political will, change the
money going to the parisites in the financial sector (and there are a lot of
folks in business and business schools who are not in finance who see them
as parasites). And, we could cut leadership team income with minimal effect
on companies. But, we cannot create many jobs where there is a reason to
pay someone a good income. That is a challanging problem. It might best be
faced by spreading ownership of corporations, but doing that without the law
of unitended consequences bighting us is going to be difficult.
- On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Kevin O'Brien <zwilnik@...> wrote:
> I also note in passing that a study done a few years agoWould you be referring to the study published by Bauman and Rose in 2011?
> about charitable giving found that economists were the stingiest group in
> the study, which I found not at all surprising.