A "blue-ribbon panel report" on our grand economic divide never gets around to recognizing that in order to save our democracy, we need to contemplate our plutocracy.
Two of the world's top progressive social scientists, the British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, reflect on how economic inequality poisons our lives — and how we might detox.
This year’s all-stars of avarice range in age from thirty-somethings to just shy of octogenarian status. They’re all doing their greedy best to keep our world a staggeringly unequal place.
A rising tide lifts all boats? New research and another dose of on-the-ground reality are shredding what little credibility the rationalizers of inequality have left.
America’s 400 richest are collecting far more of the nation’s income than they did two generations ago — and paying Uncle Sam far less. To fudge these facts, pals of plutocrats are having to work overtime.
The kingpins of Congress have spent years carving tax loopholes that help America’s CEOs fleece the federal treasury. Now these kingpins are pushing a corporate tax ‘reform’ that ignores the loopholes.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has just released its latest appraisal of America’s income breakdown. Whatever yardstick you use, the CBO study makes plain, the rich are winning. Big.
Americans want what 21st century politics has so far not delivered: real options for challenging concentrated wealth. That's one conclusion from new polling that gave Americans a choice of seven tax policy options.
America’s most powerful economic policy maker dramatically charges that inequality is choking off opportunity for average families. Political candidates across the nation pay absolutely no attention.
Income gaps and wealth concentration go hand in hand, new global stats from the Credit Suisse Research Institute make clear. With one exception.
A landmark new study has laid bare the dirty little secret of modern American philanthropy: America's wealthy don't particularly care all that much about the rest of us.
Forbes doesn’t bother asking how our absurdly rich went about making their fortunes. But we should. Our top 400, after all, haven’t just made monstrously large fortunes. They’ve made a monstrously large mess.
The just-released new Forbes 400 numbers don't just stagger the imagination. They stagger common sense. The average Forbes 400 deep-pocket now holds a net worth 70,000 times the wealth of the median household.
The more wealth concentrates, the greater the strain on our biosphere. Top environmentalists get that connection. Now our societies must.
The "average" U.S. family is doing just fine, says the Federal Reserve's latest portrait of household wealth. But typical Americans, other numbers in the report make clear, are struggling something awful. What's up here?
An obscure provision in the Affordable Care Act, a new report details, raises taxes on firms that overpay their top execs. The only problem: The provision so far only applies to corporations in one industry.
America's top central bankers didn't make time for inequality at their annual hobnob last week. Over in Germany, the world's Nobel Prize winners in economics did. But few Americans noticed.
Wealth's current tilt to the top sometimes seems almost eternal. But can our economy ‘self-correct’? A provocative new paper out of the developed world's official research agency contemplates our tomorrow.
A leading conservative academic is charging that critics of America's top-heavy distribution of income and wealth are missing the bigger picture. In the process, progressive economists point out, he's only fogging that picture up.
Narcissists don’t happen to be particularly nice people. They preen. They grab. And they never ever really feel our pain. New research shows that extremely self-centered people also don’t make particularly effective corporate CEOs.
The outsourcing of public services to private go-getters has concentrated wealth the whole world over. The best answer to that concentration? That just may be new forms of public ownership.
More than enough, the latest statistical evidence suggests, to warrant a full-fledged federal search. A new banking law in effect this month could start that search in the right direction.
Workers in the United States don't make double what workers make in Japan or Switzerland. Why should U.S. CEOs routinely make double — and often much more — than Japanese and Swiss top execs?
A key keeper of the market fundamentalist flame, the Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore, wants us to know that all his rich and powerful red-state pals really do care about income maldistribution.
Wage squeezes, share buybacks, and tax subsidies, three new progressive think tank studies show, are all combining to keep America's high and mighty ever higher and mightier.
Almost every day, the headlines remind us how outrageous CEO pay in America has become. Will these outrages ever end? Congress give us no cause for optimism. But at the state level we actually may be in for a pleasant political surprise.
Amid all the financial squeezing at state universities, a new study shows that the more students lose out and faculty feel chronically frustrated, the grander the rewards university presidents reap.
Could the classic conservative put-down of progressive policy become a strategic template for attacking CEO pay excess? Legislators in California and Rhode Island may soon find out.
The CEOs of America's 20 largest restaurant chains must be providing diners some mighty fine service. Their 'performance' is costing Uncle Sam nearly a quarter-billion dollars a year.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to demonstrate the link between inequality and catastrophic environmental change. But a little help from rocket scientists can certainly help.
Baseball’s top hitter and Wall Street power suits both ply their trades in a high-speed world. That hitter will make over a quarter-billion in the next decade. The top suits stand to ‘earn’ astonishingly more.
The recently departed heiress Bunny Mellon – “the last standing true American aristocrat” – didn't promise us a rose garden. She gave us one. We would have been much better off with more equality instead.
The chase after the super rich is leaving the world’s choicest cities nastier places to live for anyone without a grand fortune. Any city “in thrall to money and greed,” one newspaper warns, is inviting “nightmarish consequences."
Let's learn from our not-so-distant past and share the gold. New technologies don't have to bring us new inequities. The prime example from our past: The advent of television in the decade right after World War II.
A prominent conservative in Congress has released a tax reform package that actually will not leave the rich significantly richer. Should progressives be grateful for small blessings — or suspicious? Or both?
Why should moving data around be any different from moving people? No private party, the latest Comcast merger ought to remind us, should be allowed to get rich off a basic public trust.
Equal pay for equal work? We still haven't arrived at that destination. Decent pay that reflects the dignity of all who labor? In today's America, we've barely even begun that journey.
On Valentine's Day and every other, those arrows aren't hitting their lovelorn targets the way they once did. The reason? New research is pointing to our unconscionable – and still growing – economic divide.
In the fierce debate over our top-heavy distribution of income and wealth, egalitarians have vanquished both inequality's deniers and defenders. Now the debate is shifting to the most pivotal question of all.
At the annual Davos retreat of our global elites, the world’s wealthy have just spent a week wringing their hands over widening inequality. The irony? We essentially owe this widening inequality to their relentless behaviors.