Is Capital or Labor Winning at Your Favorite Company? Introducing the Marx Ratio

100000005907840

Evan Cohen

Who benefits the most when a company is successful: its shareholders or its employees? Capital or labor?

It is a question that speaks to some of the oldest debates in economics. But now, thanks to a minor provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, we have a tool for measuring, in rough terms at least, how much any given publicly traded firm rewards its shareholders relative to its rank-and-file employees.

Behold, the Marx Ratio.

Company Profit per worker Median worker pay Marx ratio Employ­ees
Walmart $4,288 $19,177 0.22 2,300,000
Amazon $5,359 $28,446 0.19 566,000
United Parcel Service $10,815 $53,443 0.20 454,000
Home Depot $21,256 $21,095 1.01 406,000
Berkshire Hathaway $119,204 $53,510 2.23 377,000
IBM $15,693 $54,491 0.29 366,600
General Electric -$18,486 $57,211 -0.32 313,000
Lowe’s $11,886 $23,905 0.50 290,000
PepsiCo $18,468 $47,801 0.39 263,000
Wells Fargo $84,442 $60,446 1.40 262,700
Cognizant Technology Solutions $40,608 $31,998 1.27 260,000
UnitedHealth Group $5,785 $58,378 0.10 260,000
HCA Healthcare $8,759 $55,354 0.16 253,000
JPMorgan Chase $96,781 $77,799 1.24 252,539
AT&T $116,865 $78,437 1.49 252,000
TJX Companies $10,474 $11,243 0.93 249,000
CVS Health $26,919 $38,372 0.70 246,000
McDonald’s $22,095 $7,017 3.15 235,000
Bank of America $87,234 $87,115 1.00 209,000
Citigroup -$32,526 $48,249 -0.67 209,000
United Technologies $22,205 $72,433 0.31 205,000
Ford $37,762 $87,783 0.43 202,000
General Motors -$21,467 $74,487 -0.29 180,000
Marriott International $7,751 $33,697 0.23 177,000
Comcast $138,500 $71,006 1.95 164,000
Hilton Worldwide $7,724 $33,168 0.23 163,000
Verizon $196,589 $126,623 1.55 155,400
Macy’s $10,357 $13,810 0.75 148,300
Boeing $58,217 $111,204 0.52 140,800
Kohl’s $6,225 $8,976 0.69 138,000
Gap $6,281 $5,375 1.17 135,000
Johnson & Johnson $9,701 $66,000 0.15 134,000
Honeywell International $12,634 $50,296 0.25 131,000
Aptiv $10,504 $5,464 1.92 129,000
American Airlines $15,158 $62,394 0.24 126,600
Dollar General $12,719 $13,387 0.95 121,000
Intel $93,486 $102,100 0.92 102,700
Lockheed Martin $20,020 $123,231 0.16 100,000
Schlumberger -$15,050 $88,604 -0.17 100,000
Abbott Laboratories $4,818 $75,679 0.06 99,000
General Dynamics $29,533 $98,563 0.30 98,600
Caterpillar $7,663 $65,770 0.12 98,400
DowDuPont $14,898 $78,835 0.19 98,000
Eaton $31,104 $71,073 0.44 96,000
Charter Communications $104,378 $52,722 1.98 94,800
L Brands $10,502 $12,673 0.83 93,600
Whirlpool $3,804 $19,906 0.19 92,000
3M $53,072 $63,338 0.84 91,536
Pfizer $236,231 $89,206 2.65 90,200
United Continental $23,731 $83,122 0.29 89,800
Delta Air Lines $41,115 $93,316 0.44 87,000
Mondelez $35,205 $42,893 0.82 83,000
Philip Morris $74,876 $19,170 3.91 80,600
Alphabet $158,058 $197,274 0.80 80,110
CBRE Group $8,643 $57,303 0.15 80,000
Ross Stores $17,338 $9,437 1.84 78,600
Omnicom Group $14,080 $40,230 0.35 77,300
Universal Health Services $9,821 $39,978 0.25 76,600
O’Reilly Automotive $15,059 $20,453 0.74 75,289
DaVita $8,908 $60,332 0.15 74,500
Nordstrom $6,028 $30,105 0.20 72,500
U.S. Bancorp $85,882 $58,269 1.47 72,402
Advance Auto Parts $6,697 $18,460 0.36 71,000
Amphenol $28,786 $12,179 2.36 70,000
Northrop Grumman $31,786 $101,872 0.31 70,000
Thermo Fisher Scientific $9,293 $68,732 0.14 70,000
Exxon Mobil $283,190 $161,562 1.75 69,600
Envision Healthcare -$3,290 $52,228 -0.06 69,300
Merck $34,696 $82,173 0.42 69,000
V F $8,912 $10,151 0.88 69,000
Chipotle $2,558 $13,582 0.19 68,890
MGM Resorts International $28,828 $36,785 0.78 68,000
Hanesbrands $921 $5,237 0.18 67,200
Danaher $37,196 $67,756 0.55 67,000
Royal Caribbean Cruises $24,623 $18,320 1.34 66,000
Marsh & McLennan $22,954 $61,318 0.37 65,000
Baker Hughes $31,625 $68,917 0.46 64,000
Goodyear Tire & Rubber -$3,781 $52,704 -0.07 64,000
Raytheon $5,406 $144,589 0.04 64,000
Coca-Cola $20,194 $47,312 0.43 61,800
Laboratory Corp of America Holdings $21,137 $41,609 0.51 60,000
Yum Brands $22,333 $9,111 2.45 60,000
Cummins $17,048 $59,682 0.29 58,600
Stanley Black & Decker $21,224 $45,449 0.47 57,765
Morgan Stanley $106,033 $127,863 0.83 57,633
Fluor $3,375 $67,580 0.05 56,706
Southwest Airlines $62,175 $81,177 0.77 56,100
Anthem $38,286 $70,867 0.54 56,000
International Paper $68,621 $84,701 0.81 56,000
American Express $23,800 $56,873 0.42 55,000
Halliburton -$8,418 $79,636 -0.11 55,000
IQVIA $49,745 $97,997 0.51 55,000
Fidelity National Information Services $24,887 $44,556 0.56 53,000
PNC Financial $101,841 $69,190 1.47 52,906
Sherwin-Williams $33,632 $41,827 0.80 52,695
Bank of New York Mellon $77,905 $55,970 1.39 52,500
Chevron $177,168 $137,849 1.29 51,900
CenturyLink $27,235 $69,252 0.39 51,000
Interpublic Group of Companies $11,534 $63,936 0.18 50,200
Foot Locker $5,661 $9,228 0.61 50,168
Aon $25,260 $67,492 0.37 50,000
Illinois Tool Works $33,740 $40,738 0.83 50,000
American International Group -$122,169 $64,186 -1.90 49,800
Prudential Financial $158,193 $101,067 1.57 49,705
Capital One Financial $40,203 $62,037 0.65 49,300
MetLife $81,837 $73,794 1.11 49,000
Newell Brands $56,098 $32,010 1.75 49,000
Ecolab $31,165 $60,556 0.51 48,400
Genuine Parts $12,849 $35,415 0.36 48,000
Aetna $39,708 $79,720 0.50 47,950
PPG Industries $33,708 $37,307 0.90 47,200
Baxter International $15,255 $42,008 0.36 47,000
Corning -$10,758 $47,410 -0.23 46,200
Cigna $48,630 $63,010 0.77 46,000
Ingersoll-Rand $28,317 $56,115 0.50 46,000
Nielsen Holdings $9,326 $21,468 0.43 46,000
Humana $53,333 $57,385 0.93 45,900
Quest Diagnostics $17,156 $48,194 0.36 45,000
Marathon Petroleum $78,356 $21,034 3.73 43,800
Willis Towers Watson $13,088 $62,568 0.21 43,400
LKQ $12,413 $32,343 0.38 43,000
Allstate $74,336 $81,573 0.91 42,900
Waste Management $46,076 $65,988 0.70 42,300
Kimberly Clark $54,238 $48,866 1.11 42,000
Union Pacific $255,096 $82,994 3.07 41,992
Arconic -$1,783 $52,243 -0.03 41,500
Eli Lilly & Co. -$5,020 $134,003 -0.04 40,655
Wyndham Worldwide $22,219 $37,934 0.59 39,200
Kraft Heinz $282,026 $46,006 6.13 39,000
Mohawk Industries $25,042 $40,630 0.62 38,800
Huntington Ingalls Industries $12,605 $132,546 0.10 38,000
Textron $8,297 $90,025 0.09 37,000
State Street $59,411 $85,322 0.70 36,643
Goldman Sachs $117,104 $135,165 0.87 36,600
BB&T $66,193 $84,550 0.78 36,484
Colgate Palmolive $56,379 $23,929 2.36 35,900
Xerox $5,524 $85,276 0.06 35,300
Mylan $36,526 $40,270 0.91 35,000
Republic Services $19,886 $61,684 0.32 35,000
Exelon $10,456 $117,176 0.09 34,621
Hershey $23,151 $28,173 0.82 33,820
Centene $24,570 $66,600 0.37 33,700
Progressive $47,308 $68,304 0.69 33,656
Kellogg $30,909 $40,163 0.77 33,000
Stryker $38,455 $66,901 0.57 33,000
Quanta Services $9,603 $75,554 0.13 32,800
National Oilwell Varco -$7,432 $52,930 -0.14 31,889
Ulta Beauty $17,460 $27,235 0.64 31,800
Southern $29,543 $138,000 0.21 31,344
Archer Daniels Midland $50,958 $57,345 0.89 31,300
Chubb $21,839 $63,419 0.34 31,000
L3 Technologies $124,548 $78,820 1.58 31,000
Norwegian Cruise Line $24,512 $20,428 1.20 31,000
Travelers Companies $66,753 $99,004 0.67 30,800
Avery Dennison $9,393 $12,016 0.78 30,000
Texas Instruments $123,915 $78,951 1.57 29,714
Duke Energy $105,265 $122,365 0.86 29,060
AbbVie $183,069 $157,347 1.16 29,000
BorgWarner $3,586 $57,127 0.06 29,000
Boston Scientific $15,169 $63,696 0.24 29,000
Dover $27,988 $41,943 0.67 29,000
Mattel $15,093 $6,271 2.41 28,000
Tractor Supply -$37,637 $24,108 -1.56 28,000
Norfolk Southern $199,336 $91,791 2.17 27,110
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. $17,280 $62,441 0.28 26,800
Express Scripts $169,827 $52,509 3.23 26,600
Praxair $47,126 $46,209 1.02 26,461
Cerner $201,808 $69,575 2.90 26,000
Fortive $33,345 $53,805 0.62 26,000
Masco $40,173 $38,617 1.04 26,000
Time Warner $20,500 $75,217 0.27 26,000
W. W. Grainger $22,791 $63,577 0.36 25,700
Stericycle $1,665 $57,642 0.03 25,472
Freeport-McMoran $83,135 $66,490 1.25 25,200
Wynn Resorts $29,650 $44,437 0.67 25,200
Facebook $634,694 $240,430 2.64 25,105
Nucor $52,537 $90,635 0.58 25,100
J.B. Hunt $27,805 $57,384 0.48 24,681
CSX $227,958 $98,697 2.31 24,000
Fiserv $51,917 $69,205 0.75 24,000
Iron Mountain $5,135 $34,717 0.15 24,000
Fortune Brands Home & Security $19,857 $68,684 0.29 23,800
SunTrust Banks $95,564 $60,477 1.58 23,785
Bristol-Myers Squibb $42,489 $110,280 0.39 23,700
Alaska Air $44,654 $49,664 0.90 23,156
PG&E $73,522 $140,263 0.52 23,000
Booking Holdings $102,217 $46,355 2.21 22,900
Expedia Group $16,713 $71,696 0.23 22,615
Leggett & Platt $13,180 $16,403 0.80 22,200
Henry Schein $18,468 $71,304 0.26 22,000
Regions Financial $58,165 $63,174 0.92 21,714
Dr Pepper Snapple $51,238 $42,689 1.20 21,000
Amgen $95,144 $132,930 0.72 20,800
Fastenal $28,135 $34,967 0.80 20,565
S&P Global $73,333 $24,714 2.97 20,400
Alliance Data Systems $39,435 $75,232 0.52 20,000
AES -$61,105 $49,229 -1.24 19,000
PayPal Holdings $95,989 $70,228 1.37 18,700
KeyCorp $70,377 $68,875 1.02 18,415
Pentair $36,223 $54,201 0.67 18,400
Zimmer Biomet $99,659 $61,496 1.62 18,200
Fifth Third Bancorp $121,048 $60,078 2.01 18,125
Loews $64,309 $77,916 0.83 18,100
Northern Trust $66,243 $70,029 0.95 18,100
Allergan $231,770 $94,064 2.46 17,800
American Electric Power $109,187 $113,084 0.97 17,666
Charles Schwab $133,750 $98,152 1.36 17,600
Citizens Financial Group $93,864 $55,118 1.70 17,600
Half Robert International $107,581 $17,340 6.20 17,200
Molson Coors Brewing $16,894 $72,661 0.23 17,200
Dish Network $156 $46,778 0.00 17,000
Flowserve $123,452 $77,110 1.60 17,000
Ametek $40,324 $54,059 0.75 16,900
M&T Bank $83,858 $57,571 1.46 16,794
Discover Financial Services $127,212 $48,155 2.64 16,500
Expeditors International $29,657 $40,918 0.72 16,500
The Hartford -$190,915 $91,865 -2.08 16,400
Dominion Energy $185,123 $142,758 1.30 16,200
Xylem $20,432 $51,198 0.40 16,200
Dentsply Sirona -$96,273 $53,136 -1.81 16,100
A. O. Smith $18,416 $17,687 1.04 16,100
Sempra Energy $15,954 $134,571 0.12 16,046
Synchrony Financial $120,938 $45,369 2.67 16,000
Under Armour -$3,054 $10,686 -0.29 15,800
Huntington Bancshares $75,206 $59,693 1.26 15,770
FirstEnergy -$110,393 $170,299 -0.65 15,617
Consolidated Edison $97,813 $168,028 0.58 15,591
Mettler Toledo International $24,414 $40,882 0.60 15,400
Principal Financial Group $150,241 $100,355 1.50 15,378
Gartner $217 $126,646 0.00 15,131
C.H. Robinson Worldwide $33,494 $52,606 0.64 15,074
Motorola Solutions -$10,333 $103,332 -0.10 15,000
Sealed Air $54,327 $61,031 0.89 15,000
DTE Energy $76,107 $173,839 0.44 14,900
United Rentals $90,946 $77,127 1.18 14,800
Assurant $35,227 $41,853 0.84 14,750
Packaging Corp. of America $349,726 $68,888 5.08 14,600
Phillips 66 $45,795 $170,988 0.27 14,600
Andeavor $106,853 $151,793 0.70 14,300
Roper Technologies $68,262 $82,543 0.83 14,236
eBay -$72,057 $122,891 -0.59 14,100
Eastman Chemical $384,143 $86,728 4.43 14,000
NextEra Energy $98,857 $121,355 0.81 14,000
BlackRock $357,554 $141,987 2.52 13,900
Entergy $30,481 $124,050 0.25 13,504
LyondellBasell Industries $292,164 $111,568 2.62 13,400
Mastercard $364,104 $120,499 3.02 13,400
Ameriprise Financial $113,846 $107,082 1.06 13,000
Public Service Enterprise Group $121,591 $132,480 0.92 12,945
CBS $28,110 $116,654 0.24 12,700
Snap-on $44,262 $48,307 0.92 12,600
Newmont Mining -$7,811 $121,008 -0.06 12,547
Edison International $53,350 $157,112 0.34 12,521
PPL Corp. $25,256 $104,520 0.24 12,512
Garmin $56,500 $31,823 1.78 12,300
Edwards Lifesciences $47,836 $50,195 0.95 12,200
Moody’s $83,383 $59,692 1.40 12,000
Tiffany & Co $31,101 $32,055 0.97 11,900
Nvidia $264,313 $147,640 1.79 11,528
Western Union -$48,443 $33,278 -1.46 11,500
ConocoPhillips -$75,000 $158,943 -0.47 11,400
Aflac $406,786 $76,089 5.35 11,318
Xcel Energy $103,108 $105,907 0.97 11,134
Occidental Petroleum $119,182 $115,552 1.03 11,000
PerkinElmer $26,603 $56,775 0.47 11,000
Total System Services $53,290 $7,392 7.21 11,000
Kinder Morgan $16,794 $103,947 0.16 10,897
Perrigo $11,500 $65,284 0.18 10,400
Equifax $57,019 $60,695 0.94 10,300
Zions Bancorporation $58,713 $63,321 0.93 10,083
Valero Energy $405,891 $192,837 2.10 10,015
Allegion $462,800 $43,812 10.6 10,000
Gilead Sciences $49,407 $165,007 0.30 10,000
Global Payments $27,330 $57,725 0.47 10,000
Activision Blizzard $27,857 $93,660 0.30 9,800
Unum Group $105,766 $62,650 1.69 9,400
Juniper Networks $32,640 $126,668 0.26 9,381
Weyerhaeuser $62,581 $75,893 0.82 9,300
Zoetis $93,913 $70,260 1.34 9,200
Lincoln National $229,800 $68,299 3.36 9,047
Advanced Micro Devices $4,831 $89,909 0.05 8,900
Align Technology $26,554 $12,764 2.08 8,715
Ameren $60,708 $122,003 0.50 8,615
Mosaic -$12,612 $88,792 -0.14 8,500
Martin Marietta Materials $84,861 $68,778 1.23 8,406
Altria Group $1,231,566 $137,763 8.94 8,300
Leucadia National $20,409 $44,584 0.46 8,200
Comerica $90,720 $79,951 1.13 8,190
NiSource $15,719 $105,206 0.15 8,175
WEC Energy Group $148,222 $120,223 1.23 8,129
Ball $46,173 $82,329 0.56 8,100
Eversource Energy $122,216 $124,959 0.98 8,084
CenterPoint Energy $224,646 $96,573 2.33 7,977
CMS Energy $57,847 $167,636 0.35 7,952
Vulcan Materials $76,099 $76,906 0.99 7,900
Akamai Technologies $28,539 $109,461 0.26 7,650
Idexx Laboratories $34,624 $55,202 0.63 7,600
Citrix Systems -$2,763 $118,631 -0.02 7,500
Celgene $393,732 $213,089 1.85 7,467
Verisk Analytics -$76,725 $71,555 -1.07 7,304
XL Group $75,999 $114,526 0.66 7,304
Biogen $347,822 $148,904 2.34 7,300
International Flavors & Fragrances $40,502 $61,140 0.66 7,300
Equinix $32,034 $119,045 0.27 7,273
Cadence Design Systems $28,347 $110,038 0.26 7,200
Kansas City Southern $134,923 $46,019 2.93 7,130
Invesco $160,356 $97,775 1.64 7,030
Discovery -$48,143 $80,858 -0.60 7,000
FMC Corporation $2,902 $50,370 0.06 7,000
Waters $76,543 $75,696 1.01 7,000
American Water $61,739 $81,999 0.75 6,900
T. Rowe Price $217,672 $96,190 2.26 6,881
Navient $43,582 $43,865 0.99 6,700
Pinnacle West Capital $77,705 $128,140 0.61 6,286
Illumina $193,308 $102,920 1.88 6,200
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals $117,097 $123,418 0.95 6,200
NRG Energy -$362,458 $112,446 -3.22 5,940
Public Storage $257,539 $23,921 10.8 5,600
People’s United Financial $60,387 $61,039 0.99 5,584
Netflix $101,623 $183,304 0.55 5,500
Williams Companies $400,737 $124,648 3.21 5,425
Albemarle $73,446 $73,074 1.01 5,400
Hasbro $10,157 $74,207 0.14 5,400
SCANA -$22,762 $113,394 -0.20 5,228
Harley-Davidson $100,338 $77,958 1.29 5,200
IPG Photonics $69,108 $32,676 2.11 5,030
Simon Property Group $448,981 $53,872 8.33 5,000
Intercontinental Exchange $507,674 $135,990 3.73 4,952
Cincinnati Financial $212,183 $91,647 2.32 4,925
Devon Energy $183,265 $134,800 1.36 4,900
PulteGroup $92,977 $83,153 1.12 4,810
American Tower $260,711 $50,384 5.17 4,752
Nasdaq $155,049 $109,556 1.42 4,734
Church & Dwight $158,170 $63,989 2.47 4,700
Crown Castle International $98,789 $106,562 0.93 4,500
Intuitive Surgical $148,515 $157,491 0.94 4,444
Affiliated Managers Group -$103,636 $157,384 -0.66 4,400
Anadarko Petroleum $156,705 $160,251 0.98 4,400
Alliant Energy $117,197 $120,296 0.97 3,989
Vornado Realty Trust $57,011 $61,824 0.92 3,989
Pioneer Natural Resources $217,153 $118,769 1.83 3,836
E-Trade Financial $170,556 $93,681 1.82 3,600
FLIR Systems $30,272 $79,263 0.38 3,542
Extra Space Storage $141,720 $36,117 3.92 3,380
Apache $447,855 $145,954 3.07 3,356
TripAdvisor -$5,886 $99,643 -0.06 3,228
AvalonBay Communities $281,703 $60,332 4.67 3,112
Torchmark $468,889 $80,680 5.81 3,102
MSCI $100,057 $59,126 1.69 3,038
CF Industries $119,333 $108,533 1.10 3,000
Monster Beverage $274,382 $48,773 5.63 2,991
Ansys $89,397 $133,074 0.67 2,900
CME Group $1,435,830 $134,962 10.6 2,830
Equity Residential $223,501 $56,804 3.93 2,700
EOG Resources $969,437 $146,016 6.64 2,664
Alexion Pharmaceuticals $175,564 $167,282 1.05 2,525
ONEOK $157,021 $105,847 1.48 2,470
Mid-America Apartment Communities $138,205 $48,577 2.85 2,464
SVB Financial Group $201,192 $131,664 1.53 2,438
Marathon Oil $114,558 $131,720 0.87 2,300
Vertex Pharmaceuticals -$2,488,261 $211,511 -11.8 2,300
Noble Energy -$490,997 $127,488 -3.85 2,277
Hess -$1,963,373 $161,039 -12.2 2,075
EQT $729,816 $102,470 7.12 2,067
Essex Property Trust $235,999 $60,470 3.90 1,835
GGP $386,667 $80,869 4.78 1,700
Prologis $1,084,562 $94,915 11.4 1,565
UDR $78,831 $60,162 1.31 1,542
Digital Realty Trust $172,882 $136,843 1.26 1,436
Apartment Investment & Management $233,907 $57,047 4.10 1,350
Everest Re $367,530 $183,050 2.01 1,276
SBA Communications $83,525 $62,949 1.33 1,241
Incyte -$259,224 $253,015 -1.02 1,208
Concho Resources $794,680 $143,172 5.55 1,203
SL Green Realty $95,187 $57,508 1.66 1,065
Newfield Exploration $422,772 $131,614 3.21 1,010
Verisign $480,303 $171,615 2.80 952
Cimarex Energy $543,219 $119,127 4.56 910
Cboe Global Markets $451,856 $144,616 3.12 889
Macerich $170,912 $75,369 2.27 855
Range Resources $430,978 $123,500 3.49 773
Boston Properties $624,918 $104,897 5.96 740
Kimco Realty $682,163 $98,977 6.89 546
Nektar Therapeutics -$189,965 $198,865 -0.96 509
Ventas $2,760,876 $88,630 31.2 493
Regency Centers $394,791 $94,802 4.16 446
Duke Realty $4,135,853 $109,695 37.7 400
Welltower $1,379,115 $90,908 15.2 392
Federal Realty Investment Trust $889,307 $101,598 8.75 326
Alexandria Real Estate Equities $523,508 $142,000 3.69 323
Cabot Oil & Gas $325,951 $75,891 4.29 308
Host Hotels & Resorts $2,785,366 $179,574 15.5 205
HCP $2,179,837 $181,076 12.0 190
Realty Income $2,097,355 $114,692 18.3 152

We named it for the 19th-century economist and philosopher Karl Marx, who argued that the interests of capital and labor are inherently in tension. His intellectual adversaries argued that those interests are in fact aligned, as successful companies inevitably reward both capital and labor.

We take no stand in that debate. But we have come up with a simple way of calculating how the fruits of any given company’s success are distributed.

The Marx Ratio, as we’re calling it, captures the relationship between a company’s profits — the return to capital, on a per-employee basis — and how much its median employee is compensated, a rough proxy for the return to labor.

Companies with high Marx Ratios offer particularly strong rewards to their shareholders relative to workers. For example, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer had a Marx Ratio of 2.64, meaning the per-employee earnings captured by shareholders were about 2.6 times as high as the compensation a typical employee received. Numbers below 1 signal the reverse: a more favorable return to labor. The Marx Ratio of 0.498 for the health insurer Aetna means that it earned only half as much per worker for its shareholders as it paid its median employee.

Companies with high Marx Ratios also included the tobacco giants Altria and Philip Morris International; consumer products companies like Kraft-Heinz and Colgate-Palmolive; fast food giants McDonald’s and Yum Brands (parent of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut); and almost all real estate investment trusts.

Those that favored workers more tended to be in labor-intensive industries. They included the huge retailers Walmart and Amazon, hotel companies like Marriott and Hilton, and both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

Companies that record a net loss consequently have a negative Marx Ratio. For those companies, which in 2017 included General Electric and Citigroup, shareholders lost money while workers still got paid.

Of the 394 companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 that had reported their median compensation number by May 3, the median Marx Ratio was 0.82, meaning at a typical company the median pay was higher than the profit generated per worker.

Beginning this year, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies in the United States to disclose their median employee compensation: how much pay the person in the middle of their distribution receives. The research firm MyLogIQ compiled the data; the remaining companies have more time because of the dates of their fiscal year. We spell out the math, and its limitations, below.

Median compensation is an imprecise measurement of how much of a company’s returns flow to labor. Among other things, it can be distorted by companies’ use of contract and part-time labor, and a median pay number inherently fails to capture the full range of how a company’s workers are paid.

Given those flaws, the Marx Ratio isn’t some definitive measure of how a company affects the economy and society. Rather, it is a tool for understanding the differences between companies and industries. In particular, the more a company’s ability to generate profits is driven by things shareholders own — patents, a well-known brand or capital goods like machines and real estate — the higher its Marx Ratio will tend to be.

To see how the Marx Ratio can help you understand the competitive dynamics and economic structure of an industry, consider how the numbers vary across well-known companies in some prominent industries.

Labor vs. capital in banking

100000005907844

Evan Cohen

Wall Street may be the ultimate bastion of capitalism. But some of the highest Marx Ratios in the financial industry aren’t found at the companies stocked with cutthroat traders and deal makers. Rather, the business of commercial banking — accepting deposits and making loans from branches around the United States — features a higher return to capital relative to labor.

So for example, Wells Fargo has a Marx Ratio of 1.4, and JPMorgan Chase came in at 1.2. By contrast, Goldman Sachs’s number was only 0.9 and Morgan Stanley’s was 0.8.

In effect, the profitability of those commercial banks is driven by things the company controls: their network of branches, their information technology systems, their brand reputation. Their employees, who include lots of bank tellers and loan officers, have little leverage with which to demand high pay; the median compensation at Wells Fargo was around $60,000.

By contrast, the investment banks employ a lot more highly compensated, highly sought-after professionals, who in turn can demand premium salaries. The median compensation at Goldman was about $135,000. Those workers were more successful at claiming the value the organization created.

Meanwhile, BlackRock, the giant asset management company, pays Goldman-esque salaries (median compensation: $141,987) but manages to have a higher Marx Ratio than either commercial or investment banks, as it is able to manage a huge $6.3 trillion with a lean 13,900 workers.

Big tech: Amazon vs. Facebook

100000005907850

Evan Cohen

You see similar divides among the most powerful giants of the technology industry.

Facebook is wildly profitable, generating almost $635,000 in earnings per employee for shareholders. It also pays those employees extremely well, with median compensation of $240,340, for a Marx Ratio of 2.64.

More of Facebook’s success accrued to capital — to the company’s owners — than to labor. Its profits are driven by the network effects that keep both users and advertisers wedded to it, which are owned by shareholders. Rank-and-file software developers and advertising sales workers have less ability to extract a big chunk of the value being created.

By contrast, Amazon is not very profitable — it is plowing most of the earnings from its mature businesses into longer-term investments in emerging ones. And its core retail business has low profit margins and requires vast armies in distribution centers and, with the acquisition of Whole Foods, grocery stores.

With earnings per employee of only $5,359 and median compensation of about $28,000, Amazon has a Marx Ratio that is a mere 0.19. So far, neither the median Amazon worker nor Amazon shareholders are being rewarded very handsomely.

Other prominent tech companies are somewhere in between. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, generates a healthy $158,000 in profit per employee, but like Facebook has a high median pay of $197,000. That’s good for a Marx Ratio of 0.8. Other notable tech companies like Apple and Microsoft have not yet reported a median compensation number, but are also likely to end up in that middle ground once they do — Apple had earnings per employee in the most recent fiscal year of $393,100, and Microsoft came in at $171,000.

Marx Ratio extremes

The highest Marx Ratios were found at real estate investment trusts: companies with a favorable tax structure devised to invest in real estate. Publicly traded REITs in the sample had a median Marx Ratio of 4.13, higher than any other category of companies.

This makes sense, as these companies work more as vehicles through which to deploy capital toward real estate than as conventional operating businesses. The highest Marx Ratio, for example, at 38, was for Duke Realty, an Indianapolis-based company that manages $6.2 billion worth of industrial real estate with a mere 400 employees (who, we might add, are well compensated, with median pay of $109,695).

Some of the highest Marx Ratios — as well as some of the lowest — are to be found at oil- and gas-related businesses. This also makes sense. Energy companies are making huge bets, often with borrowed money, the success of which depends on the future market price and on their ability to extract petroleum.

That explains how EQT Corp., a Pittsburgh-based natural gas producer, had one of the highest Marx Ratios among non-REITS (7.1), while Houston-based oil giant Marathon Oil had the lowest in the sample (-18.9). Marathon’s $5.7 billion loss was due mainly to the sale of a Canadian oil sands business.

Low oil and gas prices were bad news for many energy shareholders. Over all, the energy sector accounted for four of the five lowest Marx Ratios, a list that also included Hess, Noble Energy and NRG Energy.

It is a good business for shareholders to be in when things are going well, but the risk they are taking on is real.

The math of the Marx Ratio, and its limitations

Here are the calculations behind the Marx Ratio — and some of the limitations to the underlying data that make it an imperfect measure of how a company rewards capital versus labor.

The numerator is the net income of the company in question per employee. Note that net income is subject to big year-to-year fluctuations, and doesn’t necessarily reflect a company’s continuing operating performance in any given year.

Note what the numerator isn’t — this isn’t about the returns shareholders could earn through stock price appreciation, or dividends. This is focused on the underlying economics of the business; returns through the stock market can fluctuate for all kinds of reasons.

The denominator is the compensation to the median employee, as disclosed in the company’s proxy statement, which can create distortions in representing rank-and-file employees.

Companies also have some degree of flexibility in how they calculate median pay, so comparisons are not necessarily apples-to-apples. For example, they may choose to use statistical sampling instead of actual payroll records, and may exclude non-U.S. employees depending on privacy rules in overseas markets.

A better number for the idea we’re really trying to get at would be average compensation for nonexecutive employees, but companies aren’t required to report that publicly.

We intentionally kept the math of the Marx Ratio simple. But if you want to make it a little more sophisticated, there are options.

For one, you might adjust the calculation based on how much capital a company required to make its money. Shareholder’s equity, for example, captures the book value of a company’s assets minus its liabilities. If two companies generate similar profits but one requires much less equity to do it, it is essentially more efficient at generating returns for capital.

You also might consider adjusting the measure of profitability to smooth out a company’s returns to shareholders. After all, when a company records some enormous loss, it is frequently because the company is marking down the value of an earlier acquisition for which it paid too much, meaning it is capturing a past bad decision rather than providing information about future operating performance.

Given all those limitations, the Marx Ratio should not be used as a definitive measure of how a company does or does not contribute to inequality. Rather, think of it as an important clue about how it is organized, how its economic structure works, and to whom its greatest rewards tend to flow.

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro

Is Capital or Labor Winning at Your Favorite Company? Introducing the Marx Ratio

100000005907840

Evan Cohen

Who benefits the most when a company is successful: its shareholders or its employees? Capital or labor?

It is a question that speaks to some of the oldest debates in economics. But now, thanks to a minor provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, we have a tool for measuring, in rough terms at least, how much any given publicly traded firm rewards its shareholders relative to its rank-and-file employees.

Behold, the Marx Ratio.

Company Profit per worker Median worker pay Marx ratio Employ­ees
Walmart $4,288 $19,177 0.22 2,300,000
Amazon $5,359 $28,446 0.19 566,000
United Parcel Service $10,815 $53,443 0.20 454,000
Home Depot $21,256 $21,095 1.01 406,000
Berkshire Hathaway $119,204 $53,510 2.23 377,000
IBM $15,693 $54,491 0.29 366,600
General Electric -$18,486 $57,211 -0.32 313,000
Lowe’s $11,886 $23,905 0.50 290,000
PepsiCo $18,468 $47,801 0.39 263,000
Wells Fargo $84,442 $60,446 1.40 262,700
Cognizant Technology Solutions $40,608 $31,998 1.27 260,000
UnitedHealth Group $5,785 $58,378 0.10 260,000
HCA Healthcare $8,759 $55,354 0.16 253,000
JPMorgan Chase $96,781 $77,799 1.24 252,539
AT&T $116,865 $78,437 1.49 252,000
TJX Companies $10,474 $11,243 0.93 249,000
CVS Health $26,919 $38,372 0.70 246,000
McDonald’s $22,095 $7,017 3.15 235,000
Bank of America $87,234 $87,115 1.00 209,000
Citigroup -$32,526 $48,249 -0.67 209,000
United Technologies $22,205 $72,433 0.31 205,000
Ford $37,762 $87,783 0.43 202,000
General Motors -$21,467 $74,487 -0.29 180,000
Marriott International $7,751 $33,697 0.23 177,000
Comcast $138,500 $71,006 1.95 164,000
Hilton Worldwide $7,724 $33,168 0.23 163,000
Verizon $196,589 $126,623 1.55 155,400
Macy’s $10,357 $13,810 0.75 148,300
Boeing $58,217 $111,204 0.52 140,800
Kohl’s $6,225 $8,976 0.69 138,000
Gap $6,281 $5,375 1.17 135,000
Johnson & Johnson $9,701 $66,000 0.15 134,000
Honeywell International $12,634 $50,296 0.25 131,000
Aptiv $10,504 $5,464 1.92 129,000
American Airlines $15,158 $62,394 0.24 126,600
Dollar General $12,719 $13,387 0.95 121,000
Intel $93,486 $102,100 0.92 102,700
Lockheed Martin $20,020 $123,231 0.16 100,000
Schlumberger -$15,050 $88,604 -0.17 100,000
Abbott Laboratories $4,818 $75,679 0.06 99,000
General Dynamics $29,533 $98,563 0.30 98,600
Caterpillar $7,663 $65,770 0.12 98,400
DowDuPont $14,898 $78,835 0.19 98,000
Eaton $31,104 $71,073 0.44 96,000
Charter Communications $104,378 $52,722 1.98 94,800
L Brands $10,502 $12,673 0.83 93,600
Whirlpool $3,804 $19,906 0.19 92,000
3M $53,072 $63,338 0.84 91,536
Pfizer $236,231 $89,206 2.65 90,200
United Continental $23,731 $83,122 0.29 89,800
Delta Air Lines $41,115 $93,316 0.44 87,000
Mondelez $35,205 $42,893 0.82 83,000
Philip Morris $74,876 $19,170 3.91 80,600
Alphabet $158,058 $197,274 0.80 80,110
CBRE Group $8,643 $57,303 0.15 80,000
Ross Stores $17,338 $9,437 1.84 78,600
Omnicom Group $14,080 $40,230 0.35 77,300
Universal Health Services $9,821 $39,978 0.25 76,600
O’Reilly Automotive $15,059 $20,453 0.74 75,289
DaVita $8,908 $60,332 0.15 74,500
Nordstrom $6,028 $30,105 0.20 72,500
U.S. Bancorp $85,882 $58,269 1.47 72,402
Advance Auto Parts $6,697 $18,460 0.36 71,000
Amphenol $28,786 $12,179 2.36 70,000
Northrop Grumman $31,786 $101,872 0.31 70,000
Thermo Fisher Scientific $9,293 $68,732 0.14 70,000
Exxon Mobil $283,190 $161,562 1.75 69,600
Envision Healthcare -$3,290 $52,228 -0.06 69,300
Merck $34,696 $82,173 0.42 69,000
V F $8,912 $10,151 0.88 69,000
Chipotle $2,558 $13,582 0.19 68,890
MGM Resorts International $28,828 $36,785 0.78 68,000
Hanesbrands $921 $5,237 0.18 67,200
Danaher $37,196 $67,756 0.55 67,000
Royal Caribbean Cruises $24,623 $18,320 1.34 66,000
Marsh & McLennan $22,954 $61,318 0.37 65,000
Baker Hughes $31,625 $68,917 0.46 64,000
Goodyear Tire & Rubber -$3,781 $52,704 -0.07 64,000
Raytheon $5,406 $144,589 0.04 64,000
Coca-Cola $20,194 $47,312 0.43 61,800
Laboratory Corp of America Holdings $21,137 $41,609 0.51 60,000
Yum Brands $22,333 $9,111 2.45 60,000
Cummins $17,048 $59,682 0.29 58,600
Stanley Black & Decker $21,224 $45,449 0.47 57,765
Morgan Stanley $106,033 $127,863 0.83 57,633
Fluor $3,375 $67,580 0.05 56,706
Southwest Airlines $62,175 $81,177 0.77 56,100
Anthem $38,286 $70,867 0.54 56,000
International Paper $68,621 $84,701 0.81 56,000
American Express $23,800 $56,873 0.42 55,000
Halliburton -$8,418 $79,636 -0.11 55,000
IQVIA $49,745 $97,997 0.51 55,000
Fidelity National Information Services $24,887 $44,556 0.56 53,000
PNC Financial $101,841 $69,190 1.47 52,906
Sherwin-Williams $33,632 $41,827 0.80 52,695
Bank of New York Mellon $77,905 $55,970 1.39 52,500
Chevron $177,168 $137,849 1.29 51,900
CenturyLink $27,235 $69,252 0.39 51,000
Interpublic Group of Companies $11,534 $63,936 0.18 50,200
Foot Locker $5,661 $9,228 0.61 50,168
Aon $25,260 $67,492 0.37 50,000
Illinois Tool Works $33,740 $40,738 0.83 50,000
American International Group -$122,169 $64,186 -1.90 49,800
Prudential Financial $158,193 $101,067 1.57 49,705
Capital One Financial $40,203 $62,037 0.65 49,300
MetLife $81,837 $73,794 1.11 49,000
Newell Brands $56,098 $32,010 1.75 49,000
Ecolab $31,165 $60,556 0.51 48,400
Genuine Parts $12,849 $35,415 0.36 48,000
Aetna $39,708 $79,720 0.50 47,950
PPG Industries $33,708 $37,307 0.90 47,200
Baxter International $15,255 $42,008 0.36 47,000
Corning -$10,758 $47,410 -0.23 46,200
Cigna $48,630 $63,010 0.77 46,000
Ingersoll-Rand $28,317 $56,115 0.50 46,000
Nielsen Holdings $9,326 $21,468 0.43 46,000
Humana $53,333 $57,385 0.93 45,900
Quest Diagnostics $17,156 $48,194 0.36 45,000
Marathon Petroleum $78,356 $21,034 3.73 43,800
Willis Towers Watson $13,088 $62,568 0.21 43,400
LKQ $12,413 $32,343 0.38 43,000
Allstate $74,336 $81,573 0.91 42,900
Waste Management $46,076 $65,988 0.70 42,300
Kimberly Clark $54,238 $48,866 1.11 42,000
Union Pacific $255,096 $82,994 3.07 41,992
Arconic -$1,783 $52,243 -0.03 41,500
Eli Lilly & Co. -$5,020 $134,003 -0.04 40,655
Wyndham Worldwide $22,219 $37,934 0.59 39,200
Kraft Heinz $282,026 $46,006 6.13 39,000
Mohawk Industries $25,042 $40,630 0.62 38,800
Huntington Ingalls Industries $12,605 $132,546 0.10 38,000
Textron $8,297 $90,025 0.09 37,000
State Street $59,411 $85,322 0.70 36,643
Goldman Sachs $117,104 $135,165 0.87 36,600
BB&T $66,193 $84,550 0.78 36,484
Colgate Palmolive $56,379 $23,929 2.36 35,900
Xerox $5,524 $85,276 0.06 35,300
Mylan $36,526 $40,270 0.91 35,000
Republic Services $19,886 $61,684 0.32 35,000
Exelon $10,456 $117,176 0.09 34,621
Hershey $23,151 $28,173 0.82 33,820
Centene $24,570 $66,600 0.37 33,700
Progressive $47,308 $68,304 0.69 33,656
Kellogg $30,909 $40,163 0.77 33,000
Stryker $38,455 $66,901 0.57 33,000
Quanta Services $9,603 $75,554 0.13 32,800
National Oilwell Varco -$7,432 $52,930 -0.14 31,889
Ulta Beauty $17,460 $27,235 0.64 31,800
Southern $29,543 $138,000 0.21 31,344
Archer Daniels Midland $50,958 $57,345 0.89 31,300
Chubb $21,839 $63,419 0.34 31,000
L3 Technologies $124,548 $78,820 1.58 31,000
Norwegian Cruise Line $24,512 $20,428 1.20 31,000
Travelers Companies $66,753 $99,004 0.67 30,800
Avery Dennison $9,393 $12,016 0.78 30,000
Texas Instruments $123,915 $78,951 1.57 29,714
Duke Energy $105,265 $122,365 0.86 29,060
AbbVie $183,069 $157,347 1.16 29,000
BorgWarner $3,586 $57,127 0.06 29,000
Boston Scientific $15,169 $63,696 0.24 29,000
Dover $27,988 $41,943 0.67 29,000
Mattel $15,093 $6,271 2.41 28,000
Tractor Supply -$37,637 $24,108 -1.56 28,000
Norfolk Southern $199,336 $91,791 2.17 27,110
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. $17,280 $62,441 0.28 26,800
Express Scripts $169,827 $52,509 3.23 26,600
Praxair $47,126 $46,209 1.02 26,461
Cerner $201,808 $69,575 2.90 26,000
Fortive $33,345 $53,805 0.62 26,000
Masco $40,173 $38,617 1.04 26,000
Time Warner $20,500 $75,217 0.27 26,000
W. W. Grainger $22,791 $63,577 0.36 25,700
Stericycle $1,665 $57,642 0.03 25,472
Freeport-McMoran $83,135 $66,490 1.25 25,200
Wynn Resorts $29,650 $44,437 0.67 25,200
Facebook $634,694 $240,430 2.64 25,105
Nucor $52,537 $90,635 0.58 25,100
J.B. Hunt $27,805 $57,384 0.48 24,681
CSX $227,958 $98,697 2.31 24,000
Fiserv $51,917 $69,205 0.75 24,000
Iron Mountain $5,135 $34,717 0.15 24,000
Fortune Brands Home & Security $19,857 $68,684 0.29 23,800
SunTrust Banks $95,564 $60,477 1.58 23,785
Bristol-Myers Squibb $42,489 $110,280 0.39 23,700
Alaska Air $44,654 $49,664 0.90 23,156
PG&E $73,522 $140,263 0.52 23,000
Booking Holdings $102,217 $46,355 2.21 22,900
Expedia Group $16,713 $71,696 0.23 22,615
Leggett & Platt $13,180 $16,403 0.80 22,200
Henry Schein $18,468 $71,304 0.26 22,000
Regions Financial $58,165 $63,174 0.92 21,714
Dr Pepper Snapple $51,238 $42,689 1.20 21,000
Amgen $95,144 $132,930 0.72 20,800
Fastenal $28,135 $34,967 0.80 20,565
S&P Global $73,333 $24,714 2.97 20,400
Alliance Data Systems $39,435 $75,232 0.52 20,000
AES -$61,105 $49,229 -1.24 19,000
PayPal Holdings $95,989 $70,228 1.37 18,700
KeyCorp $70,377 $68,875 1.02 18,415
Pentair $36,223 $54,201 0.67 18,400
Zimmer Biomet $99,659 $61,496 1.62 18,200
Fifth Third Bancorp $121,048 $60,078 2.01 18,125
Loews $64,309 $77,916 0.83 18,100
Northern Trust $66,243 $70,029 0.95 18,100
Allergan $231,770 $94,064 2.46 17,800
American Electric Power $109,187 $113,084 0.97 17,666
Charles Schwab $133,750 $98,152 1.36 17,600
Citizens Financial Group $93,864 $55,118 1.70 17,600
Half Robert International $107,581 $17,340 6.20 17,200
Molson Coors Brewing $16,894 $72,661 0.23 17,200
Dish Network $156 $46,778 0.00 17,000
Flowserve $123,452 $77,110 1.60 17,000
Ametek $40,324 $54,059 0.75 16,900
M&T Bank $83,858 $57,571 1.46 16,794
Discover Financial Services $127,212 $48,155 2.64 16,500
Expeditors International $29,657 $40,918 0.72 16,500
The Hartford -$190,915 $91,865 -2.08 16,400
Dominion Energy $185,123 $142,758 1.30 16,200
Xylem $20,432 $51,198 0.40 16,200
Dentsply Sirona -$96,273 $53,136 -1.81 16,100
A. O. Smith $18,416 $17,687 1.04 16,100
Sempra Energy $15,954 $134,571 0.12 16,046
Synchrony Financial $120,938 $45,369 2.67 16,000
Under Armour -$3,054 $10,686 -0.29 15,800
Huntington Bancshares $75,206 $59,693 1.26 15,770
FirstEnergy -$110,393 $170,299 -0.65 15,617
Consolidated Edison $97,813 $168,028 0.58 15,591
Mettler Toledo International $24,414 $40,882 0.60 15,400
Principal Financial Group $150,241 $100,355 1.50 15,378
Gartner $217 $126,646 0.00 15,131
C.H. Robinson Worldwide $33,494 $52,606 0.64 15,074
Motorola Solutions -$10,333 $103,332 -0.10 15,000
Sealed Air $54,327 $61,031 0.89 15,000
DTE Energy $76,107 $173,839 0.44 14,900
United Rentals $90,946 $77,127 1.18 14,800
Assurant $35,227 $41,853 0.84 14,750
Packaging Corp. of America $349,726 $68,888 5.08 14,600
Phillips 66 $45,795 $170,988 0.27 14,600
Andeavor $106,853 $151,793 0.70 14,300
Roper Technologies $68,262 $82,543 0.83 14,236
eBay -$72,057 $122,891 -0.59 14,100
Eastman Chemical $384,143 $86,728 4.43 14,000
NextEra Energy $98,857 $121,355 0.81 14,000
BlackRock $357,554 $141,987 2.52 13,900
Entergy $30,481 $124,050 0.25 13,504
LyondellBasell Industries $292,164 $111,568 2.62 13,400
Mastercard $364,104 $120,499 3.02 13,400
Ameriprise Financial $113,846 $107,082 1.06 13,000
Public Service Enterprise Group $121,591 $132,480 0.92 12,945
CBS $28,110 $116,654 0.24 12,700
Snap-on $44,262 $48,307 0.92 12,600
Newmont Mining -$7,811 $121,008 -0.06 12,547
Edison International $53,350 $157,112 0.34 12,521
PPL Corp. $25,256 $104,520 0.24 12,512
Garmin $56,500 $31,823 1.78 12,300
Edwards Lifesciences $47,836 $50,195 0.95 12,200
Moody’s $83,383 $59,692 1.40 12,000
Tiffany & Co $31,101 $32,055 0.97 11,900
Nvidia $264,313 $147,640 1.79 11,528
Western Union -$48,443 $33,278 -1.46 11,500
ConocoPhillips -$75,000 $158,943 -0.47 11,400
Aflac $406,786 $76,089 5.35 11,318
Xcel Energy $103,108 $105,907 0.97 11,134
Occidental Petroleum $119,182 $115,552 1.03 11,000
PerkinElmer $26,603 $56,775 0.47 11,000
Total System Services $53,290 $7,392 7.21 11,000
Kinder Morgan $16,794 $103,947 0.16 10,897
Perrigo $11,500 $65,284 0.18 10,400
Equifax $57,019 $60,695 0.94 10,300
Zions Bancorporation $58,713 $63,321 0.93 10,083
Valero Energy $405,891 $192,837 2.10 10,015
Allegion $462,800 $43,812 10.6 10,000
Gilead Sciences $49,407 $165,007 0.30 10,000
Global Payments $27,330 $57,725 0.47 10,000
Activision Blizzard $27,857 $93,660 0.30 9,800
Unum Group $105,766 $62,650 1.69 9,400
Juniper Networks $32,640 $126,668 0.26 9,381
Weyerhaeuser $62,581 $75,893 0.82 9,300
Zoetis $93,913 $70,260 1.34 9,200
Lincoln National $229,800 $68,299 3.36 9,047
Advanced Micro Devices $4,831 $89,909 0.05 8,900
Align Technology $26,554 $12,764 2.08 8,715
Ameren $60,708 $122,003 0.50 8,615
Mosaic -$12,612 $88,792 -0.14 8,500
Martin Marietta Materials $84,861 $68,778 1.23 8,406
Altria Group $1,231,566 $137,763 8.94 8,300
Leucadia National $20,409 $44,584 0.46 8,200
Comerica $90,720 $79,951 1.13 8,190
NiSource $15,719 $105,206 0.15 8,175
WEC Energy Group $148,222 $120,223 1.23 8,129
Ball $46,173 $82,329 0.56 8,100
Eversource Energy $122,216 $124,959 0.98 8,084
CenterPoint Energy $224,646 $96,573 2.33 7,977
CMS Energy $57,847 $167,636 0.35 7,952
Vulcan Materials $76,099 $76,906 0.99 7,900
Akamai Technologies $28,539 $109,461 0.26 7,650
Idexx Laboratories $34,624 $55,202 0.63 7,600
Citrix Systems -$2,763 $118,631 -0.02 7,500
Celgene $393,732 $213,089 1.85 7,467
Verisk Analytics -$76,725 $71,555 -1.07 7,304
XL Group $75,999 $114,526 0.66 7,304
Biogen $347,822 $148,904 2.34 7,300
International Flavors & Fragrances $40,502 $61,140 0.66 7,300
Equinix $32,034 $119,045 0.27 7,273
Cadence Design Systems $28,347 $110,038 0.26 7,200
Kansas City Southern $134,923 $46,019 2.93 7,130
Invesco $160,356 $97,775 1.64 7,030
Discovery -$48,143 $80,858 -0.60 7,000
FMC Corporation $2,902 $50,370 0.06 7,000
Waters $76,543 $75,696 1.01 7,000
American Water $61,739 $81,999 0.75 6,900
T. Rowe Price $217,672 $96,190 2.26 6,881
Navient $43,582 $43,865 0.99 6,700
Pinnacle West Capital $77,705 $128,140 0.61 6,286
Illumina $193,308 $102,920 1.88 6,200
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals $117,097 $123,418 0.95 6,200
NRG Energy -$362,458 $112,446 -3.22 5,940
Public Storage $257,539 $23,921 10.8 5,600
People’s United Financial $60,387 $61,039 0.99 5,584
Netflix $101,623 $183,304 0.55 5,500
Williams Companies $400,737 $124,648 3.21 5,425
Albemarle $73,446 $73,074 1.01 5,400
Hasbro $10,157 $74,207 0.14 5,400
SCANA -$22,762 $113,394 -0.20 5,228
Harley-Davidson $100,338 $77,958 1.29 5,200
IPG Photonics $69,108 $32,676 2.11 5,030
Simon Property Group $448,981 $53,872 8.33 5,000
Intercontinental Exchange $507,674 $135,990 3.73 4,952
Cincinnati Financial $212,183 $91,647 2.32 4,925
Devon Energy $183,265 $134,800 1.36 4,900
PulteGroup $92,977 $83,153 1.12 4,810
American Tower $260,711 $50,384 5.17 4,752
Nasdaq $155,049 $109,556 1.42 4,734
Church & Dwight $158,170 $63,989 2.47 4,700
Crown Castle International $98,789 $106,562 0.93 4,500
Intuitive Surgical $148,515 $157,491 0.94 4,444
Affiliated Managers Group -$103,636 $157,384 -0.66 4,400
Anadarko Petroleum $156,705 $160,251 0.98 4,400
Alliant Energy $117,197 $120,296 0.97 3,989
Vornado Realty Trust $57,011 $61,824 0.92 3,989
Pioneer Natural Resources $217,153 $118,769 1.83 3,836
E-Trade Financial $170,556 $93,681 1.82 3,600
FLIR Systems $30,272 $79,263 0.38 3,542
Extra Space Storage $141,720 $36,117 3.92 3,380
Apache $447,855 $145,954 3.07 3,356
TripAdvisor -$5,886 $99,643 -0.06 3,228
AvalonBay Communities $281,703 $60,332 4.67 3,112
Torchmark $468,889 $80,680 5.81 3,102
MSCI $100,057 $59,126 1.69 3,038
CF Industries $119,333 $108,533 1.10 3,000
Monster Beverage $274,382 $48,773 5.63 2,991
Ansys $89,397 $133,074 0.67 2,900
CME Group $1,435,830 $134,962 10.6 2,830
Equity Residential $223,501 $56,804 3.93 2,700
EOG Resources $969,437 $146,016 6.64 2,664
Alexion Pharmaceuticals $175,564 $167,282 1.05 2,525
ONEOK $157,021 $105,847 1.48 2,470
Mid-America Apartment Communities $138,205 $48,577 2.85 2,464
SVB Financial Group $201,192 $131,664 1.53 2,438
Marathon Oil $114,558 $131,720 0.87 2,300
Vertex Pharmaceuticals -$2,488,261 $211,511 -11.8 2,300
Noble Energy -$490,997 $127,488 -3.85 2,277
Hess -$1,963,373 $161,039 -12.2 2,075
EQT $729,816 $102,470 7.12 2,067
Essex Property Trust $235,999 $60,470 3.90 1,835
GGP $386,667 $80,869 4.78 1,700
Prologis $1,084,562 $94,915 11.4 1,565
UDR $78,831 $60,162 1.31 1,542
Digital Realty Trust $172,882 $136,843 1.26 1,436
Apartment Investment & Management $233,907 $57,047 4.10 1,350
Everest Re $367,530 $183,050 2.01 1,276
SBA Communications $83,525 $62,949 1.33 1,241
Incyte -$259,224 $253,015 -1.02 1,208
Concho Resources $794,680 $143,172 5.55 1,203
SL Green Realty $95,187 $57,508 1.66 1,065
Newfield Exploration $422,772 $131,614 3.21 1,010
Verisign $480,303 $171,615 2.80 952
Cimarex Energy $543,219 $119,127 4.56 910
Cboe Global Markets $451,856 $144,616 3.12 889
Macerich $170,912 $75,369 2.27 855
Range Resources $430,978 $123,500 3.49 773
Boston Properties $624,918 $104,897 5.96 740
Kimco Realty $682,163 $98,977 6.89 546
Nektar Therapeutics -$189,965 $198,865 -0.96 509
Ventas $2,760,876 $88,630 31.2 493
Regency Centers $394,791 $94,802 4.16 446
Duke Realty $4,135,853 $109,695 37.7 400
Welltower $1,379,115 $90,908 15.2 392
Federal Realty Investment Trust $889,307 $101,598 8.75 326
Alexandria Real Estate Equities $523,508 $142,000 3.69 323
Cabot Oil & Gas $325,951 $75,891 4.29 308
Host Hotels & Resorts $2,785,366 $179,574 15.5 205
HCP $2,179,837 $181,076 12.0 190
Realty Income $2,097,355 $114,692 18.3 152

We named it for the 19th-century economist and philosopher Karl Marx, who argued that the interests of capital and labor are inherently in tension. His intellectual adversaries argued that those interests are in fact aligned, as successful companies inevitably reward both capital and labor.

We take no stand in that debate. But we have come up with a simple way of calculating how the fruits of any given company’s success are distributed.

The Marx Ratio, as we’re calling it, captures the relationship between a company’s profits — the return to capital, on a per-employee basis — and how much its median employee is compensated, a rough proxy for the return to labor.

Companies with high Marx Ratios offer particularly strong rewards to their shareholders relative to workers. For example, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer had a Marx Ratio of 2.64, meaning the per-employee earnings captured by shareholders were about 2.6 times as high as the compensation a typical employee received. Numbers below 1 signal the reverse: a more favorable return to labor. The Marx Ratio of 0.498 for the health insurer Aetna means that it earned only half as much per worker for its shareholders as it paid its median employee.

Companies with high Marx Ratios also included the tobacco giants Altria and Philip Morris International; consumer products companies like Kraft-Heinz and Colgate-Palmolive; fast food giants McDonald’s and Yum Brands (parent of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut); and almost all real estate investment trusts.

Those that favored workers more tended to be in labor-intensive industries. They included the huge retailers Walmart and Amazon, hotel companies like Marriott and Hilton, and both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

Companies that record a net loss consequently have a negative Marx Ratio. For those companies, which in 2017 included General Electric and Citigroup, shareholders lost money while workers still got paid.

Of the 394 companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 that had reported their median compensation number by May 3, the median Marx Ratio was 0.82, meaning at a typical company the median pay was higher than the profit generated per worker.

Beginning this year, the Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies in the United States to disclose their median employee compensation: how much pay the person in the middle of their distribution receives. The research firm MyLogIQ compiled the data; the remaining companies have more time because of the dates of their fiscal year. We spell out the math, and its limitations, below.

Median compensation is an imprecise measurement of how much of a company’s returns flow to labor. Among other things, it can be distorted by companies’ use of contract and part-time labor, and a median pay number inherently fails to capture the full range of how a company’s workers are paid.

Given those flaws, the Marx Ratio isn’t some definitive measure of how a company affects the economy and society. Rather, it is a tool for understanding the differences between companies and industries. In particular, the more a company’s ability to generate profits is driven by things shareholders own — patents, a well-known brand or capital goods like machines and real estate — the higher its Marx Ratio will tend to be.

To see how the Marx Ratio can help you understand the competitive dynamics and economic structure of an industry, consider how the numbers vary across well-known companies in some prominent industries.

Labor vs. capital in banking

100000005907844

Evan Cohen

Wall Street may be the ultimate bastion of capitalism. But some of the highest Marx Ratios in the financial industry aren’t found at the companies stocked with cutthroat traders and deal makers. Rather, the business of commercial banking — accepting deposits and making loans from branches around the United States — features a higher return to capital relative to labor.

So for example, Wells Fargo has a Marx Ratio of 1.4, and JPMorgan Chase came in at 1.2. By contrast, Goldman Sachs’s number was only 0.9 and Morgan Stanley’s was 0.8.

In effect, the profitability of those commercial banks is driven by things the company controls: their network of branches, their information technology systems, their brand reputation. Their employees, who include lots of bank tellers and loan officers, have little leverage with which to demand high pay; the median compensation at Wells Fargo was around $60,000.

By contrast, the investment banks employ a lot more highly compensated, highly sought-after professionals, who in turn can demand premium salaries. The median compensation at Goldman was about $135,000. Those workers were more successful at claiming the value the organization created.

Meanwhile, BlackRock, the giant asset management company, pays Goldman-esque salaries (median compensation: $141,987) but manages to have a higher Marx Ratio than either commercial or investment banks, as it is able to manage a huge $6.3 trillion with a lean 13,900 workers.

Big tech: Amazon vs. Facebook

100000005907850

Evan Cohen

You see similar divides among the most powerful giants of the technology industry.

Facebook is wildly profitable, generating almost $635,000 in earnings per employee for shareholders. It also pays those employees extremely well, with median compensation of $240,340, for a Marx Ratio of 2.64.

More of Facebook’s success accrued to capital — to the company’s owners — than to labor. Its profits are driven by the network effects that keep both users and advertisers wedded to it, which are owned by shareholders. Rank-and-file software developers and advertising sales workers have less ability to extract a big chunk of the value being created.

By contrast, Amazon is not very profitable — it is plowing most of the earnings from its mature businesses into longer-term investments in emerging ones. And its core retail business has low profit margins and requires vast armies in distribution centers and, with the acquisition of Whole Foods, grocery stores.

With earnings per employee of only $5,359 and median compensation of about $28,000, Amazon has a Marx Ratio that is a mere 0.19. So far, neither the median Amazon worker nor Amazon shareholders are being rewarded very handsomely.

Other prominent tech companies are somewhere in between. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, generates a healthy $158,000 in profit per employee, but like Facebook has a high median pay of $197,000. That’s good for a Marx Ratio of 0.8. Other notable tech companies like Apple and Microsoft have not yet reported a median compensation number, but are also likely to end up in that middle ground once they do — Apple had earnings per employee in the most recent fiscal year of $393,100, and Microsoft came in at $171,000.

Marx Ratio extremes

The highest Marx Ratios were found at real estate investment trusts: companies with a favorable tax structure devised to invest in real estate. Publicly traded REITs in the sample had a median Marx Ratio of 4.13, higher than any other category of companies.

This makes sense, as these companies work more as vehicles through which to deploy capital toward real estate than as conventional operating businesses. The highest Marx Ratio, for example, at 38, was for Duke Realty, an Indianapolis-based company that manages $6.2 billion worth of industrial real estate with a mere 400 employees (who, we might add, are well compensated, with median pay of $109,695).

Some of the highest Marx Ratios — as well as some of the lowest — are to be found at oil- and gas-related businesses. This also makes sense. Energy companies are making huge bets, often with borrowed money, the success of which depends on the future market price and on their ability to extract petroleum.

That explains how EQT Corp., a Pittsburgh-based natural gas producer, had one of the highest Marx Ratios among non-REITS (7.1), while Houston-based oil giant Marathon Oil had the lowest in the sample (-18.9). Marathon’s $5.7 billion loss was due mainly to the sale of a Canadian oil sands business.

Low oil and gas prices were bad news for many energy shareholders. Over all, the energy sector accounted for four of the five lowest Marx Ratios, a list that also included Hess, Noble Energy and NRG Energy.

It is a good business for shareholders to be in when things are going well, but the risk they are taking on is real.

The math of the Marx Ratio, and its limitations

Here are the calculations behind the Marx Ratio — and some of the limitations to the underlying data that make it an imperfect measure of how a company rewards capital versus labor.

The numerator is the net income of the company in question per employee. Note that net income is subject to big year-to-year fluctuations, and doesn’t necessarily reflect a company’s continuing operating performance in any given year.

Note what the numerator isn’t — this isn’t about the returns shareholders could earn through stock price appreciation, or dividends. This is focused on the underlying economics of the business; returns through the stock market can fluctuate for all kinds of reasons.

The denominator is the compensation to the median employee, as disclosed in the company’s proxy statement, which can create distortions in representing rank-and-file employees.

Companies also have some degree of flexibility in how they calculate median pay, so comparisons are not necessarily apples-to-apples. For example, they may choose to use statistical sampling instead of actual payroll records, and may exclude non-U.S. employees depending on privacy rules in overseas markets.

A better number for the idea we’re really trying to get at would be average compensation for nonexecutive employees, but companies aren’t required to report that publicly.

We intentionally kept the math of the Marx Ratio simple. But if you want to make it a little more sophisticated, there are options.

For one, you might adjust the calculation based on how much capital a company required to make its money. Shareholder’s equity, for example, captures the book value of a company’s assets minus its liabilities. If two companies generate similar profits but one requires much less equity to do it, it is essentially more efficient at generating returns for capital.

You also might consider adjusting the measure of profitability to smooth out a company’s returns to shareholders. After all, when a company records some enormous loss, it is frequently because the company is marking down the value of an earlier acquisition for which it paid too much, meaning it is capturing a past bad decision rather than providing information about future operating performance.

Given all those limitations, the Marx Ratio should not be used as a definitive measure of how a company does or does not contribute to inequality. Rather, think of it as an important clue about how it is organized, how its economic structure works, and to whom its greatest rewards tend to flow.

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro

Nonfiction: How Rampant Globalization Brought Us Trump

Over the past four decades, though, global capitalism has increasingly come to set the rules for nation-states. This has occurred mostly through the mechanism of ever more free and powerful financial markets, but also through such multilateral bodies as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization and European Union.

There are lots of international organizations, Kuttner writes, but the only ones that seem able to compel nations to do anything are the ones setting economic rules. And while the I.M.F. and World Bank were created in the waning days of World War II with the idea that they would give nations space to pursue domestic economic goals without having to worry about currency crises and such, they evolved in the 1970s into what Kuttner calls “instruments for the enforcement of classical laissez-faire as a universal governing principle.” The results, in his telling, include skyrocketing inequality, stagnant middle-class incomes and, in recent years, a right-wing populist backlash embodied in the United States by the election of Donald Trump.

Accounts of the economic changes of the past half century have tended to focus on how new technologies ranging from the computer to the shipping container reordered global markets, the workplace and society. Kuttner gives such factors awfully short shrift, but one can understand why. Others have downplayed political choices, so he puts them front and center.

Kuttner isn’t an especially original or compelling analyst of electoral politics, and the weakest parts of this book are those in which he describes the rise of Trump, or the 1990s embrace of markets by the Democrats in the United States, Labour in the United Kingdom and the Social Democrats in Germany. But never fear: There’s lots more space devoted to the less personal politics of institutions and rules, where Kuttner is in his element.

In this he follows in the footsteps of the economic historian Karl Polanyi, whose 1944 classic “The Great Transformation” is a model for this book. Polanyi argued that the 19th-century economic brew of “international free trade, competitive labor market, and gold standard” had, while bringing rapid economic growth for a time, eventually proved so unstable and destructive of existing social relations that it led to fascism. Kuttner’s sadly plausible argument is that the renewed global economic order based on free trade, competitive labor markets and the dollar standard is now pushing politics in a similar direction.

What can stop it? Well, I don’t want to give away the ending, but it should be pretty clear by now that Kuttner doesn’t think salvation lies in global hand-holding. He made national headlines last summer when he reported that Stephen K. Bannon, then still chief strategist in the Trump White House, had telephoned him out of the blue (Bannon did have an assistant email first to arrange the call). After declaring himself a longtime fan of Kuttner’s work, Bannon had argued that “if the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.” Kuttner wants the Democrats to win, but he too thinks economic nationalism is the ticket.

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro

Nonfiction: How Big Data Is ‘Automating Inequality’

Although Eubanks is an activist and a political-science professor (at the University of Albany, SUNY), “Automating Inequality” is a work of investigative journalism. She travels to Indiana, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles, conducting illuminating interviews with administrators, social services staff and, most powerfully, people unlucky enough to reside in the digital poorhouse.

Image

The book is dedicated to a severely disabled little girl named Sophie. At the age of 6, during Indiana’s experiment with welfare eligibility automation, Sophie received a letter (addressed directly to her) informing her that she was losing her Medicaid benefits because of a “failure to cooperate” in establishing her eligibility for the program. This happened just as she was gaining weight, thanks to a lifesaving feeding tube, and learning to walk for the first time. Many Hoosiers lost vital assistance because of such computer “mistakes.”

In Pittsburgh, Eubanks meets Patrick and Angel. Though they are caring and vigilant parents to their own children, as well as generous volunteers helping other children in their community, this couple has been repeatedly flagged by social service databases for child neglect. It turns out, along with many other parents under suspicion by Pittsburgh child welfare authorities, their crime is being poor. In one instance, Patrick was investigated for “medical neglect” when he couldn’t afford an antibiotic prescription for his daughter.

In Los Angeles, Eubanks follows Gary Boatwright, 64, who lost his job processing subprime mortgages when that industry collapsed. The city uses an algorithm to determine which of the city’s tens of thousands of homeless people will get housing. It helps favor the hardest cases (those struggling with substance abuse or mental illness) and the easiest (people likely to be homeless only for a short time). Boatwright, lacking job prospects or unmanageable addictions, has fallen permanently between these cracks and never seems to get help. He has been homeless on and off for a decade.

Technology allows the government to harass and punish the poor, but Eubanks adeptly shows that what they need instead is help. Assistance may cost more than technology, at least in the short run, but as countries that are more generous with housing, cash and health care have learned, it’s the only effective way to fight poverty, along with poverty’s associated ills, from child abuse to drug addiction to homelessness.

“Automating Inequality” is riveting (an accomplishment for a book on technology and policy). Its argument should be widely circulated, to poor people, social service workers and policymakers, but also throughout the professional classes. Everyone needs to understand that technology is no substitute for justice.

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro

The 10-Year Baby Window That Is the Key to the Women’s Pay Gap

Women who have their first child before 25 or after 35 eventually close the salary divide with their husbands. It’s the years in between that are most problematic, research shows.

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro

Income Mobility Charts for Girls, Asian-Americans and Other Groups. Or Make Your Own.

Last week we wrote about a sweeping new study of income inequality, which followed 20 million children in the United States and showed how their adult incomes varied by race and gender. The research was based on data about virtually all Americans now in their late 30s.

This first animated chart illustrates one of the study’s main findings: White boys who grow up rich are likely to remain that way, while black boys raised in similarly wealthy households are more likely to fall to the bottom than stay at the top in their own adult households.

Black and white boys raised in wealthy families

Follow the lives of these Americans and see where they end up as adults:

In the days since that article was published, we’ve heard from many readers eager to know more – about women, about other racial groups and about the differences between individual income and household income. The charts below make several such comparisons, and at the bottom of this page, we’ve created a tool that lets you make these animations for virtually any combination of race, gender, income type and household income level. If you’re an American born between 1978 and 1983, you are most likely reflected in this data (most of us at The Times who worked on this project are, too).

Black and white girls raised in poor families, as measured by individual income

Follow the lives of these Americans and see where they end up as adults:

Black and white women raised in families with comparable incomes earn more similar amounts as individuals in adulthood. Previous research has suggested that black women may work longer hours than white women to compensate for the fact that they’re more likely to be the sole earner in a family. But — contrary to that idea — this data found that black and white women from similar backgrounds in this age group worked a similar number of hours per week, and made about the same amount of money per hour. They also had similar occupations.

Black and white girls raised in poor families, as measured by household income

Follow the lives of these Americans and see where they end up as adults:

Black women’s economic prospects are still different from white women’s, however. As individuals, black and white women who start from the same place have comparable incomes. But white women are significantly more likely to marry than black women are, and that means they’re also more likely to have a second income at home. The household incomes of white women, as a result, are higher on average.

Asian-American and white children raised in middle-class families, as measured by household income

Follow the lives of these Americans and see where they end up as adults:

Both Asian-Americans and whites are likelier to move up the income ladder than down it. One reason Asian-Americans appear to have higher upward mobility rates than whites is that the children of Asian immigrants do particularly well in this data. If we look only at children whose mothers were born in the United States, Asian-Americans and whites fare about equally well.

Black and Hispanic children from all income groups, as measured by household income

Follow the lives of these Americans and see where they end up as adults:

Both Hispanic and black Americans grow up to earn less than whites raised at the same income level. But Hispanics are on track to close that gap in several generations if mobility stays the same, while blacks are not. (The data included Americans born in the United States and authorized immigrants.)

White boys and white girls from all income groups

Follow the lives of these Americans and see where they end up as adults:

Another way to think about this data is that white men earn more than almost anyone else. They earn more than black men and they earn more than white women. Both gender and race contribute to inequality, and white men hold advantages in both ways. In this chart, which compares individual incomes, they fare better than white women, in part because men were about 10 percentage points more likely than women to be employed.

Create Your Own Mobility Animations

Pick any two demographic groups. You can sort by gender and by the income bracket in which children were raised. You can watch what happens to them as adult individuals, or in their adult households, in a variety of scenarios.

Follow the lives of these Americans and see where they end up as adults:

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro

Sons of Rich Black Families Fare No Better Than Sons of Working-Class Whites

Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds, according to a sweeping new study that traced the lives of millions of children.

White boys who grow up rich are likely to remain that way. Black boys raised at the top, however, are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households.

Most white boys raised in wealthy families will stay rich or upper middle class as adults, but black boys raised in similarly rich households will not.

…and see where where they end up as adults:
Follow the lives of boys who grew up in rich families …

Adult outcomes reflect household incomes in 2014 and 2015.

Even when children grow up next to each other with parents who earn similar incomes, black boys fare worse than white boys in 99 percent of America. And the gaps only worsen in the kind of neighborhoods that promise low poverty and good schools.

According to the study, led by researchers at Stanford, Harvard and the Census Bureau, income inequality between blacks and whites is driven entirely by what is happening among these boys and the men they become. Black and white girls from families with comparable earnings attain similar individual incomes as adults.

Large income gaps persist between men — but not women.

Black men consistently earn less than white men, regardless of whether they’re raised poor or rich.

No such income gap exists between black and white women raised in similar households.

“You would have thought at some point you escape the poverty trap,” said Nathaniel Hendren, a Harvard economist and an author of the study.

Black boys — even rich black boys — can seemingly never assume that.

The study, based on anonymous earnings and demographic data for virtually all Americans now in their late 30s, debunks a number of other widely held hypotheses about income inequality. Gaps persisted even when black and white boys grew up in families with the same income, similar family structures, similar education levels and even similar levels of accumulated wealth.

The disparities that remain also can’t be explained by differences in cognitive ability, an argument made by people who cite racial gaps in test scores that appear for both black boys and girls. If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.

A more likely possibility, the authors suggest, is that test scores don’t accurately measure the abilities of black children in the first place.

If this inequality can’t be explained by individual or household traits, much of what matters probably lies outside the home — in surrounding neighborhoods, in the economy and in a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls.

“One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”

The authors, including the Stanford economist Raj Chetty and two census researchers, Maggie R. Jones and Sonya R. Porter, tried to identify neighborhoods where poor black boys do well, and as well as whites.

“The problem,” Mr. Chetty said, “is that there are essentially no such neighborhoods in America.”

The few neighborhoods that met this standard were in areas that showed less discrimination in surveys and tests of racial bias. They mostly had low poverty rates. And, intriguingly, these pockets — including parts of the Maryland suburbs of Washington, and corners of Queens and the Bronx — were the places where many lower-income black children had fathers at home. Poor black boys did well in such places, whether their own fathers were present or not.

Share of children living in low-poverty neighborhoods with many fathers present

Share of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods with few fathers present

“That is a pathbreaking finding,” said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard sociologist whose books have chronicled the economic struggles of black men. “They’re not talking about the direct effects of a boy’s own parents’ marital status. They’re talking about the presence of fathers in a given census tract.”

Other fathers in the community can provide boys with role models and mentors, researchers say, and their presence may indicate other neighborhood factors that benefit families, like lower incarceration rates and better job opportunities.

The research makes clear that there is something unique about the obstacles black males face. The gap between Hispanics and whites is narrower, and their incomes will converge within a couple of generations if mobility stays the same. Asian-Americans earn more than whites raised at the same income level, or about the same when first-generation immigrants are excluded. Only Native Americans have an income gap comparable to African-Americans. But the disparities are widest for black boys.

For poor children, the pattern is reversed. Most poor black boys will remain poor as adults. White boys raised in poor families fare far better.

…and see where where they end up as adults:
Follow the lives of boys who grew up in poor families …

“This crystallizes and puts data behind this thing that we always knew was there because we either felt it ourselves or we’ve seen it over time,” said Will Jawando, 35, who worked in the Obama White House on My Brother’s Keeper, a mentoring initiative for black boys. Even without this data, the people who worked on that project, he said, believed that individual and structural racism targeted black men in ways that required policies devised specifically for them.

Mr. Jawando, the son of a Nigerian father and a white mother, grew up poor in Silver Spring, Md. The Washington suburb contains some of the rare neighborhoods where black and white boys appear to do equally well. Mr. Jawando, who identifies as black, is now a married lawyer with three daughters. He is among the black boys who climbed from the bottom to the top.

030918_Silver_Spring_043.jpg

Will Jawando was raised in a low-income household in Silver Spring, Md. A lawyer and a former Obama White House staffer, he is among the rare black boys who reached the top fifth of the income distribution as an adult. T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

He was one of the 20 million children born between 1978 and 1983 whose lives are reflected in the study. Using census data that included tax files, the researchers were able to link the adult fortunes of those children to their parents’ incomes. Names and addresses were hidden from the researchers.

Previous research suggests some reasons there may be a large income gap between black and white men, but not between women.

Other studies show that boys, across races, are more sensitive than girls to disadvantages like growing up in poverty or facing discrimination. While black women also face negative effects of racism, black men often experience racial discrimination differently. As early as preschool, they are more likely to be disciplined in school. They are pulled over or detained and searched by police officers more often.

“It’s not just being black but being male that has been hyper-stereotyped in this negative way, in which we’ve made black men scary, intimidating, with a propensity toward violence,” said Noelle Hurd, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.

She said this racist stereotype particularly hurts black men economically, now that service-sector jobs, requiring interaction with customers, have replaced the manufacturing jobs that previously employed men with less education.

The new data shows that 21 percent of black men raised at the very bottom were incarcerated, according to a snapshot of a single day during the 2010 census. Black men raised in the top 1 percent — by millionaires — were as likely to be incarcerated as white men raised in households earning about $36,000.

The sons of black families from the top 1 percent had about the same chance of being incarcerated on a given day as the sons of white families earning $36,000.

Share of the men incarcerated on April 1, 2010

Includes men who were ages 27 to 32 in 2010.

At the same time, boys benefit more than girls from adult attention and resources, as do low-income and nonwhite children, a variety of studies have found. Mentors who aren’t children’s parents, but who share those children’s gender and race, serve a particularly important role for black children, Ms. Hurd has found. That helps explain why the presence of black fathers in a neighborhood, even if not in a child’s home, appears to make a difference.

Some of the widest black-white income gaps in this study appear in wealthy communities. This fits with previous research that has shown that the effects of racial discrimination cross class lines. Although all children benefit from growing up in places with higher incomes and more resources, black children do not benefit nearly as much as white children do. Moving black boys to opportunity is no guarantee they can tap into it.

“Simply because you’re in an area that is more affluent, it’s still hard for black boys to present themselves as independent from the stereotype of black criminality,” said Khiara Bridges, a professor of law and anthropology at Boston University who has written a coming paper on discrimination against affluent black people.

This dynamic still weighs on Mr. Jawando. He has a good income, multiple degrees and political aspirations — he is running for county council in Montgomery County, where he grew up. But in his own community, he is careful to dress like a professional.

“I think if I’m putting on a sweatsuit, if I go somewhere, will I be seen as just kind of a hood black guy?” he said. “Or will people recognize me at all?” Those small daily decisions — to wear a blazer or not — follow him despite his success. “I don’t think you escape those things,” he said.

Other Findings From the Research

This study makes it possible to look in greater detail at interrelated disparities that researchers have long studied around income, marriage rates and incarceration. Here are some of the other findings.

There’s a large gap in the marriage rates of white and black Americans, even after accounting for income.

Percent of the children married in 2015

Includes men and women who were ages 32 to 37 in 2015.

One reason income gaps between whites and blacks appear so large at the household level is that black men and women are less likely to be married. That means their households are more likely to have a single income — not two. For this reason and others, many point to differences in family structure as a primary driver of racial income inequality. If black children don’t have married parents, the argument goes, they’re more likely to grow up with fewer resources and less adult attention at home.

This study found, however, that broad income disparities still exist between black and white men even when they’re raised in homes with the same incomes and the same family structure.

The income gap exists for black and white boys if they had one parent in the house or two.

As this chart shows, a black man raised by two parents together in the 90th percentile — making around $140,000 a year — earns about the same in adulthood as a white man raised by a single mother making $60,000 alone.

The high mobility rate for Asian-Americans is partly about immigration.

Based on a sample of the children. Few Native Americans have immigrant mothers; their differences in income are not meaningful.

Asian-Americans earn more in adulthood than whites who were raised in families with similar incomes. But that advantage largely disappears when the researchers look only at children whose parents were born in the United States. Non-immigrant Asian-Americans fare about as well in the economy as whites. (The study did not divide Asian-Americans or Hispanics into smaller groups by country of origin, collapsing potentially significant differences between, say, Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans.)

The worst places for poor white children are almost all better than the best places for poor black children.

Average income of white children from poor families

Average income of all children from poor families

Average income of black children from poor families

In previous work, some of these same researchers looked at how the prospects for poor children vary depending on where they grow up. The middle map above shows those earlier results: Poor children appeared to have less opportunity in the Southeast and more in the Northern Great Plains. With the new data, it’s now possible to look at the effects of geography separately for blacks and whites.

Poor white children struggle in parts of the Southeast and Appalachia. But they still fare better there than poor black children do in most of America. In effect, the worst places for whites produce outcomes that are about as good as the best places for blacks. These new maps also suggest that part of the reason the Southeast looks bad for all children, in the middle map, is that the region is home to many black children who fare particularly poorly there.

Very few nonwhite Americans started at the very top.

Income distribution of the children in the study

Excludes those reporting multiple races and those for whom no race was identified.

African-Americans made up about 35 percent of all children raised in the bottom 1 percent of the income distribution. They made up less than 1 percent of the children at the very top. This picture captures both a source of racial inequality and a consequence of it. White children are more likely to start life with economic advantages. But we now know that even when they start with the same advantages as black children, white boys still fare better, only reinforcing the disparities seen here.

The Real Starting Positions

The ladder charts so far have shown equal numbers of black and white boys raised by rich or poor families — what would happen, in other words, if we started with 10,000 boys, and half were black and half white.

In reality, whites and blacks are not represented equally across the income spectrum. More than two-thirds of black boys are raised by poor or lower-middle-class families, while more than half of white boys are raised by rich or upper-middle-class families. The chart below depicts boys from every income quintile – not just the top or bottom ones – proportioned according to their real starting places in life.

…and see where where they end up as adults:
Follow the lives of boys who grew up in the U.S. …

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro

Netflix Paid Claire Foy, Queen on ‘The Crown,’ Less Than Her On-Screen Husband

Ms. Foy was reportedly paid $40,000 per episode, according to Variety, out of the show’s hefty budget, which is upward of $7 million per episode. “We put that money on the screen,” said Andy Harries, the chief executive of Left Bank, adding that 120 different costumes were created for the queen just for Season 2. What Mr. Smith made for “The Crown” has not been disclosed.

A representative for Left Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

For comparison, Chrissy Metz was reportedly paid $40,000 per episode for the acclaimed NBC drama “This Is Us,” which has had 18 episodes per season. Tituss Burgess reportedly made $90,000 per episode for the Netflix comedy “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt,” which has had 13 episodes per season. “The Crown” has had 10 episodes per season.

Don’t expect Ms. Foy to fade into the background, though. She secured the lead role in the film version of “The Girl in the Spider’s Web,” part of the “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” series, expected in theaters this year. She’ll also star in “First Man,” a Damien Chazelle film, also to be released this year.

This revelation of pay imbalance is one of several in recent months, and it comes at a time when women are being more vocal about pay equality in Hollywood.

In January, it was revealed that Michelle Williams, the female star of the Ridley Scott film “All the Money in the World,” was paid a per diem of $80, a bit above the union minimum, for 10 days of added work after the disgraced actor Kevin Spacey was purged from the film and replaced with Christopher Plummer — a move that required reshoots. Her male counterpart, Mark Wahlberg, received the same per diem — plus a negotiated fee of $1.5 million.

As a response, Mr. Wahlberg and his talent agency donated $2 million in the name of Ms. Williams to a fund dedicated to fighting pay inequity and harassment of women in Hollywood.

Continue reading the main story

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro

Nonfiction: Getting Better All the Time?

Easterbrook, the author of several books, often airbrushes or smooths over history; temporary reversals are missed or their consequences minimized. This trivializes the argument that the future will be even better than the present. The past is indeed a tale of progress, but it is not a tale of continuous progress, and some of the reversals, though temporary, have been catastrophic. If repeated, they might be the end of us. Seeing the past as unbroken progress breeds a foolish and false optimism, not the skeptical and realistic optimism that we need.

Photo

Life expectancy indeed shows upward trends worldwide. But it is not true that the trends “are smooth and almost uninterrupted: Graphs look like an escalator rising at a 45-degree angle.” Easterbrook mentions H.I.V./AIDS only to say that life expectancy did not “decline much during wars or health alarms such as the AIDS spread.” AIDS has been responsible so far for the deaths of around 35 million people, and it brought life expectancy down in around 20 African countries, including South Africa (10 years), Botswana and Swaziland (14 years each). Temporary, true (life expectancy has recently been going up), yet there is nothing temporary about 35 million deaths. Fears of SARS and Ebola can be (and were) exaggerated, but H.I.V./AIDS should remind us that the danger from modern plagues is real enough.

As to rising living standards, again the long-term case is right, but many of those left behind in today’s America have good reason to challenge Easterbrook’s rosy account of contemporary middle-class prosperity. I found it difficult to accept much of what I read, and several claims are not supported by citations. One surprising assertion is that “recent Census Bureau statistics show if lower taxes, higher benefits and consumer prices are taken into account, since 2000, middle-class buying power was rising at about the postwar average of about 3 percent per year.” But the census publication referred to says no such thing; median family income in 2015 was lower than in 2000. The Census Bureau adjusts for prices, but for neither taxes nor benefits. The latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, which does so adjust, show only a modest increase in middle incomes from 2000 to 2013. I can only hope that Easterbrook did not use the formula given in the book, according to which people are better off when prices go up.

“It’s Better Than It Looks” makes many good arguments about inequality. It correctly emphasizes that Exhibit 1 for the Macmillan view is that 750 million people have been removed from destitution in China in 30 years, one of the greatest human achievements ever, and that this achievement is impossible to separate from rising inequality in China — that those who board private jets wearing vicuna overcoats are “part and parcel” of the same phenomenon. But it is not at all persuasive to relate this to what is happening in the United States today, because ordinary people here, unlike the Chinese poor, are not doing better.

Like many, Easterbrook proposes to tackle income inequality with a Universal Basic Income (U.B.I.) whereby each adult receives $1,000 a month unconditionally. But if a U.B.I. replaced all other benefits, it would make many of today’s poor or disabled worse off, and if it were added to present benefits it would double the level of taxes. He denies that a U.B.I. would discourage people from work, flying in the face of the results of the American negative income tax experiments in the 1960s and ’70s, results that sank the proposals then.

Easterbrook is good on democracy and dictatorship (democracy is better at money and better at war). He is also good on climate change (the technical solutions are there, and all will be fine “if society chooses reform,” though that choice is surely the crux of the problem).

It is at the end of the book that I became most unhappy. He claims that there was a steady improvement in living standards after Watt invented the steam engine in 1763, brushing aside a century and a half of serious inquiry, much of which argues the opposite. Never mind the new cities without sanitary facilities — one district in Manchester had only about 30 “necessaries” for 7,000 people. Never mind the mortality and impoverishment that troubled Chadwick, Marx and Engels. Never mind the declining stature of military recruits. And as a monument to airbrushing we read “today many around the world are worried, and with cause, about the wave of despotic cult-of-personality leaders. History suggests this situation will be temporary, and then the positive trends will resume.” The situation was far from temporary for the tens of millions who died because of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Like Easterbrook, I am an optimist. I believe that the revolution in thinking that came with the Enlightenment gives us a good chance that lives will continue to improve today and for our children and grandchildren. Reason and the desire for progress are powerful weapons now, just as they have been for more than 250 years. But progress has been interrupted by catastrophes, and we cannot soothe ourselves with the thought that the catastrophes will be temporary, even if we can persuade ourselves that temporary bumps cannot cause permanent derailment. Grey, on the eve of World War I, would hardly have been relieved by knowing that, four decades later, Macmillan could claim that Britons “have never had it so good.”

Continue reading the main story

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro

Op-Ed Contributors: The Unmet Promise of Equality

GettyImages-507249295.jpg

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders in session in Washington in 1967. Known as The Kerner Commission, after the chair, Otto Kerner, seated at the head of the table, the group was convened by President Lyndon Johnson in the wake of the 1967 race riots. Fred Harris is the second person to the right of Kerner. Underwood Archives/Getty Images

“Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white – separate and unequal.”

Fifty years ago, on March 1, 1968, these were the grim words of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, called the Kerner Commission after its chairman, Gov. Otto Kerner of Illinois.

President Lyndon Johnson had established the commission to examine the disorders and violent protests in Detroit, Newark and well over 100 other American cities during the summer of 1967, and earlier. What it found was searing. “What white Americans have never fully understood – but what the Negro can never forget – is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto,” the commission concluded. “White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.”

Mostly moderate and mostly white men, the members of the bipartisan panel carried the imprimatur of the political establishment. Their recommendations attracted widespread public debate. The paperback edition of the report sold over two million copies.

Occupied by the Vietnam War and concerned about the legacy of his Great Society domestic agenda, Johnson distanced himself from the “two societies” warning. But the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy strongly endorsed the commission’s findings and recommendations before they were assassinated and before more protests erupted during that traumatic year of 1968.

The Kerner Commission recommended “massive and sustained” investments in jobs and education to reduce poverty, inequality and racial injustice. Have we made progress in the last 50 years?

A Return to Segregation

In many ways, things have gotten no better — or have gotten worse — since 1968. Public schools have been re-segregating for decades.

Progress, Then Backsliding

Percentage of each region’s black students in schools with a student body that is more than 90 percent minority, 1968-2011.

SEGREGATION INCREASED

BORDER

STATES

NORTH-

EAST

Schools in the Northeast are now the most segregated overall.

Not Just a Problem in the South

The 10 most segregated states are mostly in the North. Percentage of each region’s black students in schools with a student body that is more than 90 percent minority, 2011-12.

NEW JERSEY

PENNSYLVANIA

MISSISSIPPI

CALIFORNIA

Progress, Then Backsliding

Percentage of each region’s black students in schools with a student body that is more than 90 percent minority, 1968-2011.

SEGREGATION INCREASED

Schools in the Northeast are now the most segregated overall.

BORDER

STATES

Not Just a Problem

In the South

The 10 most segregated states are mostly in the North. Percentage of each region’s black students in schools with a student body that is more than 90 percent minority, 2011-12.

NEW JERSEY

PENNSYLVANIA

MISSISSIPPI

CALIFORNIA

Border states: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, West Virginia. Source: “Brown at 60,” University of California Civil Rights Project

Today the gap between poorer and richer American students in access to qualified teachers is among the highest in the world. Fewer African-Americans have access to majority-white (read: generally better financed) schools.

Progress Erased

By another measure, segregation has returned to Kerner-era levels across the South. Percentage of all black students in the South who attended majority-white schools, 1968-2011.

The 10 most segregated states in 2011-12, by the same measure, are scattered throughout the country.

CALIFORNIA

CONNECTICUT

NEW JERSEY

Progress Erased

By another measure, segregation has returned to Kerner-era levels across the South. Percentage of all black students in the South who attended majority-white schools, 1968-2011.

The 10 most segregated states in 2011-12, by the same measure, are scattered throughout the country.

CALIFORNIA

CONNECTICUT

NEW JERSEY

Source: “Brown at 60,” University of California Civil Rights Project

We know why. One reason: When schools are released from court-mandated desegregation, that progress gradually is reversed.

When the Courts Step Away

After being released from court oversight, this group of 159 schools across the South wound up as segregated, on average, as they were before the mandates began.

For less than three years, segregation stabilized.

That small gain was soon wiped out; segregation eventually matched levels from decades prior.

PERCENT

MORE SEGREGATED

THAN IN YEAR

OF RELEASE

PERCENT

LESS SEGREGATED

15

YEARS

BEFORE

15

YEARS

AFTER

YEAR

RELEASED

When the Courts Step Away

After being released from court oversight, this group of 159 schools across the South wound up as segregated, on average, as they were before the mandates began.

For less than three years, segregation stabilized.

That small improvement was soon wiped out; segregation eventually matched levels from decades prior.

PERCENT

MORE SEGREGATED

THAN IN YEAR OF RELEASE

PERCENT LESS SEGREGATED

5

YEARS

BEFORE

5

YEARS

AFTER

YEAR

RELEASED

Source: Sean F. Reardon, Elena Tej Grewal, Demetra Kalogrides and Erica Greenberg in The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Inequality That Would Shock the Commission’s Members

The disheartening percentage of Americans living in extreme poverty — that is, living on less than half the poverty threshold — has increased since the 1970s. The overall poverty rate remains about the same today as it was 50 years ago; the total number of poor people has increased from over 25 million to well over 40 million, more than the population of California.

Meanwhile, the rich have profited at the expense of most working Americans. Today, the top 1 percent receive 52 percent of all new income. Rich people are healthier and live longer. They get a better education, which produces greater gains in income. And their greater economic power translates into greater political power.

Five Indicators

America of the 1960s contrasted with the most recent available data.

MEDIAN

HOUSEHOLD

INCOME

MEDIAN

HOUSEHOLD

WEALTH

HOME

OWNERSHIP

RATE

UNEM-

PLOYMENT

RATE

C.E.O.-

WORKER

PAY RATIO

Income, wealth figures in thousands of 2016 dollars.

Five Indicators

America of the 1960s contrasted with the most recent available data.

MEDIAN

HOUSEHOLD

INCOME

MEDIAN

HOUSEHOLD

WEALTH

HOME

OWNERSHIP

RATE

UNEMPLOYMENT

RATE

C.E.O.-WORKER

PAY RATIO

All income and wealth figures in thousands of 2016 dollars.

Source: Economic Policy Institute

The Tragedy of Mass Incarceration

At the time of the Kerner Commission, there were about 200,000 people behind bars. Today, there are about 1.4 million. “Zero tolerance” policing aimed at African-Americans and Latinos has failed, while our sentencing policies (for example, on crack versus powder cocaine) continue to racially discriminate. Mass incarceration has become a kind of housing policy for the poor.

Out of Proportion

Incarcerations far outstrip reported violent crime rates, especially for African-Americans.

VIOLENT CRIMES

per 100,000 people

INCARCERATIONS

per 100,000

people

Change in reported violent crimes from 1968 to 2014 and in incarceration rates from 1968 to 2016.

MURDER RATE

VIOLENT

CRIME RATE

WHITE

INCARCERATION

BLACK

INCARCERATION

Out of Proportion

Incarcerations far outstrip reported violent crime rates, especially for African Americans.

MURDERS

per 100,000 people

VIOLENT CRIMES

per 100,000 people

INCARCERATIONS

per 100,000

people

CHANGE, 1968–2014:

CHANGE, 1968–2014:

CHANGE, 1968–2016:

Out of Proportion

Incarcerations far outstrip reported violent crime rates, especially for African-Americans.

MURDERS

per 100,000 people

VIOLENT CRIMES

per 100,000 people

INCARCERATIONS

per 100,000

people

CHANGE, 1968–2014:

CHANGE, 1968–2014:

CHANGE, 1968–2016:

Figures are rounded. Murder includes cases of nonnegligent manslaughter. Sources: Department of Justice (reported crime); The Sentencing Project (incarceration rates)

Fifty Years Later, We’ve Figured Out What Works

Policies based on ideology instead of evidence. Privatization and funding cuts instead of expanding effective programs.

We’re living with the human costs of these failed approaches. The Kerner ethos — “Everyone does better when everyone does better” — has been, for many decades, supplanted by its opposite: “You’re on your own.”

Today more people oppose the immorality of poverty and rising inequality, including middle-class Americans who realize their interests are much closer to Kerner priorities than to those of the very rich.

We have the experience and knowledge to scale up what works. Now we need the “new will” that the Kerner Commission concluded was equally important.

What Doesnt Work

THE ECONOMIC PLAYING FIELD

Reduced health care for workers and low-income Americans

Insured health care through a single-payer system

Small, grudging increases to minimum wage

Substantial increases to minimum wage

No new tax credits or child allowances

Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit to reduce gaps in wealth and income

Supply-side, trickle-down economics for the rich and corporations; enterprise zones with corporate tax breaks

Demand-side, full-employment Keynesian economics for all Americans

Unrestrained corporate globalization

Globalization that prioritizes worker rights

Fewer and weakened labor unions

More labor union power

No or minimal job training; “welfare reform”

Job training tied to job creation and placement

Racial segregation in schools, neighborhoods

Racial integration

Vouchers, choice and charter schools

Investments in public school equity, quality teachers, early childhood education, community schools and other proven models

Subsidized housing that reaches only one-quarter of eligible low-income citizens

Subsidized housing for all eligible citizens

Continued neglect of fair-housing laws

Rigorous enforcement of those laws

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Zero-tolerance policing; excessive use of force

Community-based policing; partnerships with local nonprofit youth development groups

Continued mass incarceration

Alternatives to incarceration, especially for nonviolent offenders

Lack of investment in proven ex-offender reintegration programs

Funding and wide use of these programs

What Doesnt Work

THE ECONOMIC PLAYING FIELD

Reduced health care for workers and low-income Americans

Insured health care through a single-payer system

Small, grudging increases to minimum wage

Substantial increases to minimum wage

No new tax credits or child allowances

Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit to reduce gaps in wealth and income

Supply-side, trickle-down economics for the rich and corporations; enterprise zones with corporate tax breaks

Demand-side, full-employment Keynesian economics for all Americans

Unrestrained corporate globalization

Globalization that prioritizes worker rights

Fewer and weakened labor unions

More labor union power

No or minimal job training; “welfare reform”

Job training tied to job creation and placement

Racial segregation in schools, neighborhoods

Racial integration

Vouchers, choice and charter schools

Investments in public school equity, quality teachers, early childhood education, community schools and other proven models

Subsidized housing that reaches only one-quarter of eligible low-income citizens

Subsidized housing for all eligible citizens

Continued neglect of fair-housing laws

Rigorous enforcement of those laws

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Zero-tolerance policing; excessive use of force

Community-based policing; partnerships with local nonprofit youth development groups

Continued mass incarceration

Alternatives to incarceration, especially for nonviolent offenders

Lack of investment in proven ex-offender reintegration programs

Funding and wide use of these programs

Fred Harris, a former senator from Oklahoma, is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of New Mexico and the lone surviving member of the Kerner Commission. Alan Curtis is the president and chief executive of the Eisenhower Foundation, the private-sector continuation of the 1968 Kerner Commission and the 1969 National Violence Commission. The two are the co-editors of “Healing Our Divided Society: Investing in America Fifty Years After the Kerner Report.”

Хостинг сайтов Joinder.Pro