No one will ever run the 100-meter dash in less than five seconds. And no one, Brazil’s story suggests, will ever end poverty while ignoring grand fortune.
Billionaire banker Jamie Dimon says he’s fighting inequality. If we take him seriously, the joke — and much worse — will be on us.
Banks are squeezing consumers because the squeezing can really pay off — at the top.
We all know what happened in the City of Brotherly Love 240 years ago on July 4. Maybe we should also pay some attention to the egalitarian earthquake that happened two months later.
From new research on the Great Recession, still more evidence that maldistributions of income and wealth really matter.
A slick new ad campaign from America’s most notorious billionaires is tugging at our heartstrings — and distorting the debate over inequality. The good news? We have a new antidote.
Let’s stop waiting for corporate insiders to fix our growing executive pay mess.
Our global economy will never become more productive, the developed world’s official economic research agency suggests, if we continue to let wealth concentrate.
Flacks for grand fortune would like us to believe the rich are performing a public service every time they go shopping. Our wallets tell a different story.
America’s affluent are misreporting their incomes big-time — and annually costing the federal treasury hundreds of billions in the process.
Hedge fund kings are celebrating another year of super earnings — with more crumbs for the victims of the political choices that have made the hedgies so rich.
Can we conquer disease without concentrating wealth in a precious few pockets? Not-so-distant history offers a clear and encouraging answer.
That has to be Yahoo, where they’ve been busy manufacturing mega-millionaires one CEO at a time.
On this month’s 50th anniversary of one of the all-time edgiest Beatles tracks, our super rich have a personal reason to look back fondly on the lads from Liverpool.
Israeli taxpayers will no longer be subsidizing financial industry executive pay excess. Could the United States follow suit?
The just-departed “father of Silicon Valley” may deserve high praise for his life. Did he also deserve mega millions for his work?
The two Democratic Party White House hopefuls agree on cutting back the after-tax incomes of America’s rich. They disagree significantly on how much.
Conservatives who worry about government ‘red tape’ smothering ‘freedom’ need to take a closer look at our great economic divides.
Just a busload of billionaires, says Oxfam, now hold as much wealth than the entire bottom half of humanity. The elites now at Davos could, if they so chose, start steering that bus in a different direction.
Making benefits like free college tuition available to everyone, some claim, will waste scarce tax dollars on rich households. Does that claim hold water?
Startling new data from the National Academy of Sciences suggest that inequality may be exacting a much steeper price on our health than we thought.
To help overcome inequality, the latest global gathering of economic statisticians agrees, we need to do much more than total up an economy’s goods and services.
The new leader of the UK Labour Party is talking about capping income. Most Americans might be surprised to know that FDR did, too.
The federal Securities and Exchange Commission has just given Americans an official yardstick for measuring corporate CEO greed.
In India, major corporations now have to disclose their CEO and median worker pay. U.S. corporations may soon have to finally follow suit.
The Oracle of Omaha may not be all that incredibly wise after all, just incredibly rich and sheltered from the real world of work.
In the wacky world of cable TV’s top commentator, the rich are getting squeezed while the rest of us just happily cruise along.
This simple question can’t seem to get a simple answer. A look at some new attempts to explain why.
A $58,000 traffic ticket? A number of European nations don’t let the rich off easy. In the United States, by contrast, we punish the poor for minor offenses.
A new online petition drive is protesting the incredibly high prices that enormously overpaid pharmaceutical company CEOs charge for cancer drugs.
The basic idea behind innovative legislation now pending in our smallest state: The taxes we all pay should bankroll quality public services, not grand fortunes.
Should America’s taxpayers be subsidizing all those millions in compensation that CEOs are collecting? At least some members of Congress don’t think so.
The New York Times and the Washington Post have done some solid reporting on inequality. But this past week doesn’t rank among their finest moments.
The SEC finally moves, ever so slightly, against wagers that reward CEOs when their companies fail.
Can we trust Oxfam’s latest numbers on global inequality? Critics don’t think we should. But their pushback is getting pushback.
To save our democracy, a major new report on our grand divide never gets around to recognizing, we need to contemplate our plutocracy.
The typical American would be three-times richer if the United States distributed wealth as equally as France.
Is the world, as a whole, growing more or less unequal? Seems like this should be a fairly easy question to answer. But this simple question has no simple answer. Global inequality can be devilishly difficult to decipher.