Between 1979 and 2009, the top 1% of Americans saw their income grow by 240.5%, while the bottom 20% only say a 10.8% increase in gains. Reducing the inequality could significantly alter the economy, said Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist, Sunday on Weekends with Alex Witt.
Bernstein said that yes, manufacturing is highly productive and causes overall economic growth but robotics take jobs away from people. The Economic Policy Institute reminds us that “you can have all the growth you want but if it’s not equitably distributed then a lot of families end up falling behind even as the economy improves,” he says.
MSNBC.com
June 27, 2013
While the Great Recession and recovery brought the importance of savings to the forefront — for everyone, not just the poor — persistent unemployment and stagnant wages have made it difficult for Americans to put any money away. Low- and middle-income Americans were hit harder by the recession and slow recovery than their wealthy counterparts. The annual wages of the bottom 90 percent of workers declined between 2009 and 2011, according to a January analysis from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The wages of the top one percent rose 8.2 percent during the same period.
The Huffington Post
June 27, 2013
But one chart, produced on Tuesday by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, blows away this argument, too. It tracks the income advantage of the college-educated against the income advantage of the top 1 percent of earners.
If Mankiw’s claim is correct, then these two lines should track each other closely. But they don’t. (Story continues below chart.
The Huffington Post
June 27, 2013
The bottom line is that working families are paying the price for America’s neglect of basic wage standards. The decline in the minimum wage accounts for more than half of the inequality that has emerged between the lowest-paid workers and those in the middle over the past 30 years, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Politico
June 27, 2013
“The question is, ‘Is this person an employee?’ If they’re doing work for the benefit of the employer, they are,” Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute think-tank in Washington, told ABCNews.com. “Instead, these [internship programs] are finding a way to get young people to work for nothing, and that’s not going to satisfy the law.”
Eisenbrey said the U.S. Department of Labor raised the profile of unpaid internship issues three years ago when it published a fact sheet that listed guidelines for employers to decide whether interns must be paid minimum wage and overtime in the for-profit, private sector.
ABC News
June 27, 2013
The average CEO makes hundreds of times what the average worker makes. And the average CEO probably didn’t earn it all.
The average chief executive of one of the 350 biggest U.S. companies made about $14.07 million in 2012, including exercised stock options, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. In contrast, the average national pay for a non-supervisory worker was $51,200 last year. That means that in a typical top-350 company, the CEO made 273 times more than worker drones, by the EPI’s estimate.
The Huffington Post
June 27, 2013
In the U.S., the ratio of chief executive pay including stock options to worker compensation was 29 to 1 in 1978, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The ratio peaked at 383.4 to 1 in 2000, and in 2012 it remained at a still lofty 272.9 to 1.
Bloomberg Businesweek
June 27, 2013
Want to know exactly how much richer the average chief executive is than you and me? Take a look at the Economic Policy Institute’s latest white paper, which tracks the growth of CEO compensation over the last half century.
The Washington Post
June 27, 2013
According to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, CEO compensation at large U.S. companies was 243 times that of the average U.S. worker. At Whole Foods that multiple is 19, capping compensation for top execs at $705,000.
Wall Street Journal Barron’s
June 18, 2013
“I thought it was great,” said Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute. “I thought the judge got right to the heart of the matter, that this was for the benefit of the corporation and wasn’t created to provide an educational experience for the intern. It is huge that this came from an important court, and the Southern District Court of New York is an important court.”
Most encouraging to Eisenbrey and others is that Pauley cited the Department of Labor guidelines for determining whether an internship must be paid, which include stipulations that the internship be similar to what one would receive in an educational environment; that the internship be closely supervised; and that the intern not displace a paid worker. The guidelines also state that the internship must be primarily for the benefit of the intern and that “The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded.”
The Daily Beast
June 18, 2013