Showing posts sorted by relevance for query SAM PIZZIGATI. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query SAM PIZZIGATI. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, March 06, 2024


Can Brazil Convince the World to Tax


Billionaire Wealth?



  MARCH 4, 2024

Sam Pizzigati writes on inequality for the Institute for Policy Studies. His latest book: The Case for a Maximum Wage (Polity). Among his other books on maldistributed income and wealth: The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970  (Seven Stories Press). 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for SAM PIZZIGATI 


Friday, October 08, 2021

The least sympathetic people in the entire world?

They just may be the super rich who’ve bought mega-million condos in midtown Manhattan’s now infamous needle towers.


Have you heard about the people in that new condo building over at 432? They’re having quite a spat with the developer. Floods from the plumbing. Scary noises and vibrations. The whole building had to empty out for an overhaul of the electrical system, and plenty of folks living there fear getting stuck — for hours — on the elevators. Such a shame.

Imagine some friend of yours shared this grisly tale of condo woe. You’d naturally feel some sympathy with the poor souls that corner-cutting developer had taken to the cleaners, right? Well, that troubled building does actually exist, at 432 Park Avenue in Manhattan. But the victims aren’t getting much sympathy. In fact, those victims — fabulously rich gazillionaires all — just may be the world’s least sympathetic people.

The super rich started taking up residence at 432 Park when the place opened up in 2015. At nearly 1,400 feet high, 432 Park then rated as the world’s tallest residential structure, the most amazing of the slim, incredibly tall residential skyscrapers then popping up just south of Central Park in midtown Manhattan. These “needle towers” had started multiplying in the years right after the Great Recession, high-rise totems for a giddy, fabulously wealthy new age.

“In buildings with just one sprawling residence per floor,” gushed one commentator on the needle-tower phenomenon, “the owner shares the views only with passing falcons.”

Inside 432 Park, that reviewer continued, “monumental windows and 12.5-foot-high ceilings conjure a modernist baronial grandeur,” with “residential amenities” galore, everything from studio apartments for whatever household help the tower’s rich want at their beck and call to a private restaurant complete with a Michelin-star chef and free daily breakfasts.

A residence at 432 Park, not surprisingly, quickly became a must-have for top 0.1 percenters the world over. The tower’s 125 units sold quickly, with three-bedrooms starting at $20 million and the penthouse up on the top going for well over four times that.

But few average New Yorkers took any satisfaction from all the needle tower buzz. They didn’t see 432 Park — of any of the other nearby needles — as inspired additions to New York’s built environment. They saw these super-slims as edifices devoted to avarice, high-tech concrete baubles for the richest of the rich that were casting ugly shadows deep into Central Park, the city’s most prized public space.

Architectural critics have expressed similar displeasure. Oliver Wainwright has likened New York’s “beanpole” towers to “raw extrusions of capital piled up” until they hit the clouds. Other analysts have zoned in on the greed and grasping that’s driving developers to build ever higher. Luxury developers, New York magazine’s Justin Davidson has observed, now realize that ever nicer bathtubs can only bump up prices so much. They’ve learned that only a truly “scarce and irreproducible resource” — “an aerial view of Central Park,” for instance — can justify a “hyper-super-ultra-deluxe” price.

But that sort of view will always ultimately disappoint. From high up on a needle tower, as Davidson points out, “Shakespeare in the Park looks like a flea circus.”

Apartment owners at 432 Park and other needle towers, for their part, could care less about all the kvetching from average New Yorkers and critics like Justin Davidson. Many of the owners aren’t even spending any appreciable time in their sky-high New York luxury lairs. Their condos sit empty for huge stretches of each year. They haven’t, in effect, purchased homes. They’ve purchased safe-deposit boxes in the sky, as Vanity Fair explains, “commodities for investment” sold to limited-liability companies “created to shield the identities” of their globe-trotting rich owners.

What do the owners at 432 Park care about? The value of their investments, of course. And that value is trending the wrong way. Only one condo sale at 432 has closed since January, and that one unit went for less than 1 percent more than the owner paid five years ago. One big reason for the sales stagnation: A New York Times exposé this past February. The Times coverage revealed that life at 432 Park had become a series of frustrating encounters with “leaks” and “creaks” and “breaks.”

The Times put part of the blame for those aggravations on cutting-corner moves during 432’s construction. But other problems seemed to stem from the sheer folly of trying to build beanpoles into the clouds.

For 432’s super rich, this new reporting created a psychic crisis of sorts. They had bought into the needle-tower universe for the status of it all, for still another opportunity to be envied for the drop-dead luxuriousness of their daily existence. But real life in 432 Park wasn’t, after the Times exposé, inviting envy. Real life at 432 Park was inviting snickers. Owners were looking like sad-sack fools as media outlets rushed to follow up on the Times revelations.

Those free breakfasts from a Michelin-star chef? Residents, news reports related, were now paying for all their restaurant meals, on top of an annual fee that had jumped twelve-fold over the previous six years.

And those elevators! The super-tall, super-skinny 432 Park tower sways in high winds, and engineers designed the elevators to shut down whenever the swaying gets too severe. The elevators can stall, condo owners have discovered to their horror, with residents trapped inside.

And the noise! One owner’s meeting surfaced complaints about “banging and clicking” in 432’s apartments — and a trash chute “that sounds like a bomb” when garbage gets tossed. At one point, the building did suffer an actual explosion, after contractors trying to fix one of the tower’s chronic plumbing problems drilled into wiring and killed the building’s power.

All these discomforts — and the high visibility these discomforts have gained — have now pushed the 432 Park’s apartment owners over the edge. Their condo board has filed a lawsuit demanding the developers pay $125 million in damages, the cost of fixing what they count as some 1,500 construction and design defects.

“Far from the ultra luxury spaces that they were promised,” the lawsuit reads, “unit owners were sold a building plagued by breakdowns and failures that have endangered and inconvenienced residents, guests, and workers, and repeatedly been the subject of highly critical accounts in the press and social media.”

That $125 million the condo board is seeking doesn’t include the millions more in punitive damages that individual resident lawsuits will also likely be seeking. The residents clearly want “justice”!

But real justice in housing — in Manhattan and throughout the United States — would mean relief for chronically squeezed working and middle class families.

Close to 50 percent of U.S. workers, a National Low Income Housing Coalition concluded this past summer, can’t afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment. Just since January, researchers at Apartment List report, median rents nationally have soared 16.4 percent. These rising rents reflect an increasingly intense shortage of affordable housing. In New York, 80 percent of the city’s apartments under construction in 2019 were sitting in luxury buildings.

And what “luxury” itself means, says Jonathan Miller of the appraisal firm Miller Samuel, “has changed” as more and more wealth has concentrated at America’s economic summit.

“In the ’50s,” Miller notes, “you had mid-rise buildings that were called ‘luxury’ because they had an elevator and a doorman. You’d see signs: ‘Air conditioning, doorman and elevators — luxury building.’ Now you’re on the 96th floor, and you have a pool and a slew of amenities.”

We’re “seeing the results of the incredible growth of inequality between the rich, the super rich, and the absolutely ridiculously, obscenely rich,” adds City University of New York Grad Center sociologist Philip Kasinitz.

So what can be done? In Europe, voters in Berlin have just okayed an advisory referendum that calls on the city to buy about 15 percent of the city’s private housing stock and convert the purchased units into affordable public housing.

Elsewhere in Europe and across the United States, local and state governments have begun experimenting with a host of taxes on luxury real estate. These various approaches, notes Institute for Policy Studies inequality program director Chuck Collins, are aiming to “calm the disruptive impact of surging luxury markets” and generate revenue for improving public services.

In New York City, for instance, lawmakers enacted a “progressive mansion tax” in 2019, a levy that kicks into effect when properties transfer owners. A bolder approach for New York, an annual “pied-a-terre” tax aimed at luxury second homes, sank that same year under pressure from real-estate interests. The measure would have had owners of $10-million properties paying an extra $45,000 a year in taxes.

Activists see reforms like this “pied-a-terre” tax as steps we can take toward a broader goal: shrinking grand private fortunes down to a much more socially responsible size.

By concentrating riches at the economic summit, the sage British scholar R. H. Tawney noted way back in 1920, inequality “diverts energy from the creation of wealth to the multiplication of luxuries.” And that diversion invariably undermines, in every unequal era, society’s capacity to satisfy basic consumer needs. Especially that most basic consumer need of all, the home. In a housing market where price has become no object for some people, prices will eventually be higher for all people.

Buildings, too. The faster wealth has concentrated in our modern era, the higher our towers have soared. Since 2001, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat research shows, the world’s 100 tallest buildings have seen their average height soar 41 percent.


Sam Pizzigati
Sam Pizzigati co-edits Inequality.org. His latest books include The Case for a Maximum Wage and The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970. Follow him at @Too_Much_Online.

Tuesday, January 05, 2021

In 2021, Let's Ring a Global Alarm—on Inequality—That Everyone Can Hear

Our task ahead: preventing a deeply unequal world from recreating pre-pandemic business as usual.


 Published on Saturday, January 02, 2021 
by

Food Bank for New York City hosts a food distribution pop-up in partnership 

with Alianza De Futbol during Hunger Action Month at New York Hall of

 Science on September 27, 2020 in Queens. 

(Photo: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images for Food Bank For New York City)

Remember that old joke they used to tell — and maybe still do — in luxury retail circles? The customer, precious product in hand, walks over to a haughty sales clerk at a high-end emporium and timidly asks: “How much does this cost.”

“If you have to ask,” the sales clerk smiles back, “you can’t afford it.”

How much more unequal have we become in 2020? This question demands that we turn that old joke inside-out: We have to ask because we can’t afford not to know. And we can’t afford not to know because inequality is killing us. We have to know exactly what we’re facing.

And what we’re facing, the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have just reminded us, doesn’t look good. Yes, they acknowledge, we most certainly will be getting the pandemic much more under control over the course of the year ahead. But that will just leave us with an intolerable status quo ante, with “deaths of despair” — suicides, drug overdoses, and liver disease — taking lives by the tens of thousands.

In 2019, the last full pre-pandemic year, “deaths of despair” felled 164,000 Americans, almost triple the annual total a generation earlier. These deaths may well increase significantly in 2021, Case and Deaton fear, “as the structure of the economy shifts.” Many more people will be working remotely post-pandemic than before Covid-19 first hit. Downtowns will be losing service jobs on a permanent basis. The resulting disruptions will likely seriously expand the ranks of the despairing.

But we will have more than deaths of despair to fear. Covid-19 will indeed eventually ebb, but inequality is slowing that ebbing. One reflection of inequality’s sobering impact: We’re now privileging the already privileged in the emerging chaotic rush to administer precious life-saving vials of vaccine.

“Rural areas and towns with smaller populations are being trampled in the stampede,” notes science writer Leigh Phillips. “The regions and hospitals able to bid the highest are not necessarily the ones most in need.”

Our corporate vaccine makers, meanwhile, are fighting all efforts to move vaccine patents into some sort of emergency public domain status, a step that would enable wider and faster vaccine manufacture and distribution, especially within poorer societies worldwide.

The prime argument Big Pharma is making against patent reform? Pharmaceutical firms, the argument goes, will have no incentive to develop vaccines if they can’t count on their patent-guaranteed market power, an incredibly cynical defense, observes science analyst Phillips, given that “almost every penny of the cost of research, development, and manufacture” of the Covid-19 vaccines has come from government grants and contracts.

Still another key reason inequality is slowing progress against the pandemic: The less equal societies become, the less they seem to trust science.

So suggests the University of Melbourne’s Tony Ward, based on his analysis of data published this past October in the Swiss journal Frontiers in Public Health. The journal surveyed over 25,000 scientists worldwide about their Covid-19 experiences, and one of the survey questions asked scientists whether lawmakers in their nations had used scientific advice to inform their pandemic strategy.

The results varied substantially. In some nations, large majorities of scientists felt that their governments were listening to what they had to say. In the ferociously unequal United States, only 18 percent of the scientists surveyed felt that government officials were taking what they were saying into account.

On average, notes the University of Melbourne’s Ward, trust in what scientists have to say appears to decrease as the level of inequality within a society increases, with an increase of one percentage point in inequality “associated with a decrease of 1.5 percentage points in listening to scientists.” Inequality, Ward concludes, makes for “a corrosive solvent.”

Maybe corrosive for science, but not for grand fortune. Those who sit at the top of the world’s most unequal societies have seen their fortunes explode, not corrode, over the past pandemic year. U.S. billionaire net worth has soared by over $1 trillion, Institute for Policy Studies research shows, since the pandemic first hit at full blast. The nation’s top 10 billionaires alone now hold a combined fortune worth over $1 trillion.

Researchers at Forbes, meanwhile, have found 50 new billionaires in the global health care sector. Vaccines have generated some of these fortunes, but, Forbes adds, “companies developing antibody treatments and drugs to help doctors fight the virus have also benefited from the market frenzy.”

The bottom line: We may have just experienced the greatest ever single-year redistribution of wealth to the already wealthy. In some corners of the world, even mainstream voices are taking notice. In a year-end editorial, for instance, the Korea Times — the English-language version of one of South Korea’s top daily papers — is decrying how the pandemic is making “the poor poorer, the rich richer.”

Covid has wrought “devastating havoc,” the editorial continues, and “deepened the growth imbalance between rich and poor countries.” Societies everywhere need to “take the coronavirus-triggered divide seriously” — and with more than the “empty slogan of inclusive growth.” That will require, the Korea Times concludes, real moves “to expand the social safety net and promote income redistribution.”

“Influencers” worldwide need to be sounding that same alarm. Our task for 2021 could hardly be clearer. We have to prevent our societies from returning to — our deeply unequal — business as usual.

Friday, January 29, 2021

Essential Workers Take the Risk, CEO’s Reap the Rewards


 
 JANUARY 29, 2021

FacebookTwitter

Every week, millions of us walk into a Walgreens drugstore without giving it a second thought.

Maybe we should. Walgreens perfectly encapsulates the long-term economic trends of the Trump years: top corporate executives pocketing immense paychecks at the expense of their workers.

At Walgreens, workers start at just $10 an hour. No chain store empire employing essential workers pays less.

And no retail giant in the United States has given its workers less of a pandemic hazard pay bump — just 18 cents an hour, according to Brookings analysts Molly Kinder and Laura Stateler.

These paltry numbers look even worse when we turn our attention to the power suits who run Walgreens, who face no pandemic hazard. Walgreens CEO Stefano Pessina took home $17 million last year. Altogether, the five top Walgreens execs averaged $11 million for the year, a 9 percent hike over the previous year’s annual average.

Meanwhile, the typical Walgreens employee pulled down a mere $33,396. Pessina’s take-home outpaced that meager reward by 524 times. In effect, Pessina made more in a single weekday morning than his company’s typical worker made for an entire year.

Kinder and Stateler found similar levels of greed at other U.S. retail giants, especially Amazon and Walmart. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and the heirs to the Walmart fortune, they note, “have grown $116 billion richer during the pandemic — 35 times the total hazard pay given to more than 2.5 million Amazon and Walmart workers.”

Amazon and Walmart, they add, “could have quadrupled the extra COVID-19 compensation they gave to their workers” and still earned more profit than the previous year.

Not every major corporate player has treated the pandemic as just another easy greed-grab. Workers at Costco — who start at $15 an hour, $5 an hour more than workers at Walgreens — got an extra $2 an hour in hazard pay.

Costco’s top executive team, interestingly, last year collected less than half the pay that went to their counterparts at Walgreens. Costco’s most typical workers took home $47,312 for the year. At 169 to one, that’s less than one-third the pay gap between Walgreen’s chief exec and his company’s most typical workers.

As a society, which corporations should we be rewarding — those whose executives enrich themselves at worker expense, or those that value the contributions all their employees are making?

In moments of past national crises, like World War II, lawmakers took action to prevent corporate profiteering. They put in place stiff excess profits taxes. We could act in that same spirit today. We could, for instance, raise the tax rate on companies that pay their top execs unconscionably more than their workers.

We could also start linking government contracts to corporate pay scales: no tax dollars to any corporations that pay their CEOs over a certain multiple of what their workers take home.

Efforts to link taxes and contracts to corporate pay ratios have already begun.

Voters in San Francisco this past November opted to levy a tax penalty on corporations with top executives making over 100 times typical San Francisco worker pay. Portland, Oregon took a similar step in 2018. At the national level, progressive lawmakers have introduced comparable legislation.

Donald Trump may be gone, but the executives who did so well throughout his tenure remain in place. We need to change the rules that flatter their fortunes.

Sam Pizzigati writes on inequality for the Institute for Policy Studies. His latest book: The Case for a Maximum Wage (Polity). Among his other books on maldistributed income and wealth: The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970  (Seven Stories Press).