Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Blame the Bankers, Not Technology

What’s Really Driving Income Inequality?

by DAVID ROSNICK

Over the last several decades, inequalities in both incomes and wealth have grown substantially within the United States and in other high-income nations. In the United States, for example, the income share of just the top one half of the top 1 percent grew from 5.39 percent of the nation’s income in 1979 to 13.37 percent in 2010. By contrast, over this same period the share of the bottom 90 fell from 67.65 percent to 53.74 percent.

With the aim of examining the causes of this shift in earning, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, known as the OECD, recently published a lengthy book on the subject, titled Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. Despite a wealth of data presented in the tome, the authors of the study largely failed to explain why, in fact, inequality keeps rising.

First, they focus largely on the relatively high wages of the 90th percentile of earners to that of the 10th percentile, which misses the fact that much of the increase in inequality was well above the 90th percentile. Again, with the United States as an example, growth in wages at the 90th percentile of wages only just kept pace with the overall average. Ninety percent of the distribution failed to keep up.

Though the OECD study does devote some time to discussion of inequality at the very top—including compensation in the financial sector—they do not draw any connection between what happened at the very top to what they observed in the broader economy. To some extent, increasing inequality between the 90th and 10th percentiles reflects the former shielding itself more effectively from the redistribution to the 99th percentile.

On the other hand, they do find that increased post-secondary education was a significant equalizing factor. This is the flip side of the top-income effect, as a more educated workforce created increased competition for higher (but not necessarily very high) paying work.

So if not the incomes of the very top, to what does the OECD attribute the increase in inequality? In large part, the authors find that the deterioration of certain institutions and policies are to blame. They report that falling union coverage, weakened product market and employment protection regulation, and shrinking tax wedges have all contributed to increased inequality.

The authors then attribute much of the increase in inequality to technology. Unfortunately, their chosen measure is the cyclical component of business spending on research and development. Though their analysis points to their measure as a statistically significant factor, it is difficult to explain a decades-long trend with a variable that by construction should be unchanged over the business cycle. In fact, working from the OECDs’ data, we found that the trend in research and development spending over this period explained none of the rise in inequality.

If increased post-secondary education is not offsetting technology, as the authors suggest, but only weakened institutions, then we still require an explanation for the increase in inequality in recent decades. Our reproduction of the OECD analysis shows that the combination of all explained effects in the model is likely equalizing on balance, leaving the trend of increased inequality entirely unexplained. In other words, while the OECD finds there are some factors that contribute to inequality and other factors that equalize wages, they failed to explain the shift in incomes toward the top.

Our analysis suggests alternatively that increased financial sector compensation has been an important driver of inequality. Quite apart from this finding, it is unfortunate that the authors of the OECD study appear to have missed their own story. Perhaps in the future we will see less blame on “technology” and greater attention paid to other factors that may contribute to inequality—such as the large rents that are earned by bankers operated in a bloated financial system.

David Rosnick is an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

This article originally appeared on Economic Intelligence.

Stonewall and the Battle for Gay Rights 

Director John Scagliotti has donated copies of his acclaimed films Before Stonewall and After Stonewall for the CounterPunch Online Auction. Bid now to own a copy these ground-breaking documentaries on a radical struggle for equal rights.