93 replies to this topic

[suspire]

An in-depth and fascinating article on the current income inequality in the U.S. Apparently, during the Robber Baron era of the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts, the top 1% accounted for 18% of all income in the U.S. Now? The top 1% accounts for 24% of the income in the U.S. Yes, it is worse than the era of the Robber Barons. Yes, nearly 1/4th of all income in the U.S. goes to 1% of the people. Apparently, banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc are in better shape than the U.S. when it comes to income inequality:

http://www.slate.com.../entry/2266026/

Edit: fixed broken link.

Edited by niner, 10 November 2010 - 05:31 AM.

[nowayout]

The Republicans made us this bed.

Americans of all economic strata continue to choose to sleep in it, even when it is clearly against their own best interests.

Edited by viveutvivas, 07 November 2010 - 08:20 PM.

[rwac]

I question the relevance of income inequality as a measure. It's basically a measure of envy. Why do you care what Warren Buffet makes, as long as you are comfortable ? Even the poor people have a good standard of living here, relative to the poor people elsewhere.

[Rational Madman]

The concentration of a higher quality human capital accounts for much of the disparity, since a significant portion of our country's native born population are high achievers----28% of the population have bachelor's degrees---and because the relative promise of reward acts as a gravitational pull for talented individuals in general. Due to there being a strong correlation between wealth and educational attainment, a concentration of a higher grade of human capital leads to a more productive upper class, and thus, provides a deceptive picture about income inequality. But across the spectrum, economic indicators are relatively stable, although wages and household income have been somewhat stagnant. There are, however, good reasons for the stagnant growth of these measures, but I'll leave that for another topic.

Edited by Rol82, 08 November 2010 - 12:19 AM.

[Rational Madman]

I think the Human Development Index, composed by the United Nations' Development Program, and which accounts for income inequality, provides a better picture of where the United States ranks among nation-states. According to the latest rankings, we're fourth, but with the new methodology, we've actually declined from first since the index was started in 1980.

[Rational Madman]

The relative quality of institutions of higher education is also important, and because our institutions dominate all rankings of higher education, the 28% figure, which is one of the highest in the world, is provided more explanatory power. And when all tertiary education is accounted for, the figure increases to nearly 40%. So the picture should be a bit more clear with these figures.

[suspire]

I question the relevance of income inequality as a measure. It's basically a measure of envy. Why do you care what Warren Buffet makes, as long as you are comfortable ? Even the poor people have a good standard of living here, relative to the poor people elsewhere.

If you read the article, it actually outlines pretty effectively why you should care about income inequality.

[suspire]

The concentration of a higher quality human capital accounts for much of the disparity, since a significant portion of our country's native born population are high achievers----28% of the population have bachelor's degrees---and because the relative promise of reward acts as a gravitational pull for talented individuals in general. Due to there being a strong correlation between wealth and educational attainment, a concentration of a higher grade of human capital leads to a more productive upper class, and thus, provides a deceptive picture about income inequality. But across the spectrum, economic indicators are relatively stable, although wages and household income have been somewhat stagnant. There are, however, good reasons for the stagnant growth of these measures, but I'll leave that for another topic.

Actually, educational disparity is only a small fraction of the picture of income inequality according to the piece.

[Rational Madman]

I question the relevance of income inequality as a measure. It's basically a measure of envy. Why do you care what Warren Buffet makes, as long as you are comfortable ? Even the poor people have a good standard of living here, relative to the poor people elsewhere.

If you read the article, it actually outlines pretty effectively why you should care about income inequality.

I don't really have high expectations from an online publication like Slate, and as much as I would like to criticize the article, I need a working hyperlink first.

[Rational Madman]

The concentration of a higher quality human capital accounts for much of the disparity, since a significant portion of our country's native born population are high achievers----28% of the population have bachelor's degrees---and because the relative promise of reward acts as a gravitational pull for talented individuals in general. Due to there being a strong correlation between wealth and educational attainment, a concentration of a higher grade of human capital leads to a more productive upper class, and thus, provides a deceptive picture about income inequality. But across the spectrum, economic indicators are relatively stable, although wages and household income have been somewhat stagnant. There are, however, good reasons for the stagnant growth of these measures, but I'll leave that for another topic.

Actually, educational disparity is only a small fraction of the picture of income inequality according to the piece.

Do you realize how absurd it is to treat an article on income inequality from a publication like Slate as the final authority on the issue? Or are you just finally learning about the topic?

Edited by Rol82, 08 November 2010 - 01:47 AM.

[suspire]

The concentration of a higher quality human capital accounts for much of the disparity, since a significant portion of our country's native born population are high achievers----28% of the population have bachelor's degrees---and because the relative promise of reward acts as a gravitational pull for talented individuals in general. Due to there being a strong correlation between wealth and educational attainment, a concentration of a higher grade of human capital leads to a more productive upper class, and thus, provides a deceptive picture about income inequality. But across the spectrum, economic indicators are relatively stable, although wages and household income have been somewhat stagnant. There are, however, good reasons for the stagnant growth of these measures, but I'll leave that for another topic.

Actually, educational disparity is only a small fraction of the picture of income inequality according to the piece.

Do you realize how absurd it is to treat an article on income inequality from a publication like Slate as the final authority on the issue? Or are you just finally learning about the topic?

So:

A) You didn't bother to read the article, but weighed in with a bare-bones, one-shot explanation for a massively complex situation (and a 10 segment article).
B) My response to your lack of reading the article was a snotty reverse argument from authority (ie, it was in SLATE, heaven forbids, so there cannot be ANYTHING worth reading!)

I can only conclude you do not want to be taken anymore seriously than Slate, for the irony of the entire situation is beyond words. At least Slate puts in the old college try. Next time, just say: "I am too lazy to read, but I like hearing the sound of my voice and sounding like an expert on everything."

[Rational Madman]

The concentration of a higher quality human capital accounts for much of the disparity, since a significant portion of our country's native born population are high achievers----28% of the population have bachelor's degrees---and because the relative promise of reward acts as a gravitational pull for talented individuals in general. Due to there being a strong correlation between wealth and educational attainment, a concentration of a higher grade of human capital leads to a more productive upper class, and thus, provides a deceptive picture about income inequality. But across the spectrum, economic indicators are relatively stable, although wages and household income have been somewhat stagnant. There are, however, good reasons for the stagnant growth of these measures, but I'll leave that for another topic.

Actually, educational disparity is only a small fraction of the picture of income inequality according to the piece.

Do you realize how absurd it is to treat an article on income inequality from a publication like Slate as the final authority on the issue? Or are you just finally learning about the topic?

So:

A) You didn't bother to read the article, but weighed in with a bare-bones, one-shot explanation for a massively complex situation (and a 10 segment article).
B) My response to your lack of reading the article was a snotty reverse argument from authority (ie, it was in SLATE, heaven forbids, so there cannot be ANYTHING worth reading!)

I can only conclude you do not want to be taken anymore seriously than Slate, for the irony of the entire situation is beyond words. At least Slate puts in the old college try. Next time, just say: "I am too lazy to read, but I like hearing the sound of my voice and sounding like an expert on everything."

Again, like I said, provide a working hyperlink, and then I'll most certainly read the article.

[suspire]

The concentration of a higher quality human capital accounts for much of the disparity, since a significant portion of our country's native born population are high achievers----28% of the population have bachelor's degrees---and because the relative promise of reward acts as a gravitational pull for talented individuals in general. Due to there being a strong correlation between wealth and educational attainment, a concentration of a higher grade of human capital leads to a more productive upper class, and thus, provides a deceptive picture about income inequality. But across the spectrum, economic indicators are relatively stable, although wages and household income have been somewhat stagnant. There are, however, good reasons for the stagnant growth of these measures, but I'll leave that for another topic.

Actually, educational disparity is only a small fraction of the picture of income inequality according to the piece.

Do you realize how absurd it is to treat an article on income inequality from a publication like Slate as the final authority on the issue? Or are you just finally learning about the topic?

So:

A) You didn't bother to read the article, but weighed in with a bare-bones, one-shot explanation for a massively complex situation (and a 10 segment article).
B) My response to your lack of reading the article was a snotty reverse argument from authority (ie, it was in SLATE, heaven forbids, so there cannot be ANYTHING worth reading!)

I can only conclude you do not want to be taken anymore seriously than Slate, for the irony of the entire situation is beyond words. At least Slate puts in the old college try. Next time, just say: "I am too lazy to read, but I like hearing the sound of my voice and sounding like an expert on everything."

Again, like I said, provide a working hyperlink, and then I'll most certainly read the article.

Apologies. My turn to retract a little snottiness. I missed your comment about the hyperlink not working.

Try two: http://www.slate.com.../entry/2266026/

[platypus]

Even the poor people have a good standard of living here, relative to the poor people elsewhere.

I seriously doubt that given your moronic healthcare "system". Maybe if you compare to poor countries, yes.

[suspire]

Even the poor people have a good standard of living here, relative to the poor people elsewhere.

I seriously doubt that given your moronic healthcare "system". Maybe if you compare to poor countries, yes.

Yeah, it is one of the myths the Slate article debunks: "This argument has been made by too many conservatives to count. Yes, it's true that an unemployed steelworker living in the 21st century is in many important ways better off than the royals and aristocrats of yesteryear. Living conditions improve over time. But people do not experience life as an interesting moment in the evolution of human societies. They experience it in the present and weigh their own experience against that of the living."

Saying that random X poor guy on the street in Newark NJ is theoretically better off than random Y poor guy in war-torn Congo means little to random X poor guy. People don't live on the hypotheticals that Ivory Tower constructs for them.

[DairyProducts]

I read this slate series when it came out. Like Rol82, I am a bit skeptical of anything that Slate publishes for a number of reasons, the main one being its consistently contrarian stance. Its fine to have opinions outside of the mainstream elite media, but the amount that Slate does that just makes it seem reactionary. However, Slate occasionally comes out with something good and that series was the best of anything I can remember that they did.

I am not sold hook/line/sinker though. I am too lazy to go through that piece and look for logical inconsistencies or do research into his claims, so I am waiting for some sort of response or criticism from some figure(s) of authority. The only thing I saw was a New York Times opinion piece that mentioned it was good, but didn't go into any detail.

Edited by DairyProducts, 08 November 2010 - 03:48 PM.

[rwac]

Saying that random X poor guy on the street in Newark NJ is theoretically better off than random Y poor guy in war-torn Congo means little to random X poor guy. People don't live on the hypotheticals that Ivory Tower constructs for them.

Not just theoretical. I bet the poor guy in Newark can get a decent meal for free, and a roof over his head at least some nights. Ever heard of homeless shelters ?
Nobody starves to death here.

Edited by rwac, 08 November 2010 - 04:12 PM.

[suspire]

Saying that random X poor guy on the street in Newark NJ is theoretically better off than random Y poor guy in war-torn Congo means little to random X poor guy. People don't live on the hypotheticals that Ivory Tower constructs for them.

Not just theoretical. I bet the poor guy in Newark can get a decent meal for free, and a roof over his head at least some nights. Ever heard of homeless shelters ?
Nobody starves to death here.

Your standards of acceptable income inequality are so humane. One day I hope you're in the same position as the poor guy in Newark so that I can humanely point out the homeless shelters to you.

And of course, you've missed the entire point. You could also say that the poor guy in Newark probably has more access to better things than Alexander the Great, but people don't live in hypotheticals or compare against distant points in the arc of human history. Gross income inequality of a level never before seen in America indicates a very disturbing trend in American society and politics and such trends tend to lead to dangerous outcomes.

Of course, if you had read the article, you could have commented constructively, but I understand your need to blab on uselessly in the absence of actually reading, comprehending and critiquing intelligently.

Edited by suspire, 08 November 2010 - 05:32 PM.

[suspire]

I read this slate series when it came out. Like Rol82, I am a bit skeptical of anything that Slate publishes for a number of reasons, the main one being its consistently contrarian stance. Its fine to have opinions outside of the mainstream elite media, but the amount that Slate does that just makes it seem reactionary. However, Slate occasionally comes out with something good and that series was the best of anything I can remember that they did.

I am not sold hook/line/sinker though. I am too lazy to go through that piece and look for logical inconsistencies or do research into his claims, so I am waiting for some sort of response or criticism from some figure(s) of authority. The only thing I saw was a New York Times opinion piece that mentioned it was good, but didn't go into any detail.

Nicholas Kristof wrote the NY Times piece that referenced the Slate article, though he added little to the dialogue. And yes, Slate has its tendencies, but as you mentioned the piece was probably the best researched and most involved piece I'd seen Slate do. I find reverse arguments from authority just as annoying as arguments from authority. Either a piece is useful and has information or it does not. Everything else, including where it comes from, is irrelevant (though perhaps important to note if determining biases or other external conditions).

[Rational Madman]

I have every intention of reading the group of articles published by Slate, but before I can even think about leisure reading, I have to attend to some work assignments, which I've nearly completed. But throughout the day, a few points have occurred to me, and I thought I would share them briefly. First, how do we account for the productivity growth of the wealthy? Again, I'll return to my answer of education attainment, but I also remembered a paper I read a few years back by Robert Solow, whose quantitative analysis of the growth of output between 1909 and 1959 resulted in the following conclusion: that 88% of the growth in output was attributable to ingenuity, which is a finding that has been replicated in future studies, but with methodological adjustments, the ingenuity share is generally reduced. To be sure, ingenuity should be seen as distinct from education attainment, but the latter has been found to be a hugely important independent variable for output growth, and should be judged as a means of better utilizing the ingenuity that Solow found to be so valuable. As I remember, the mid 90s paper that eventually led to Krugman's Nobel Prize reached to a similar conclusion in regards to the relationship between education and inequality. In his paper, Krugman was attempting to dispel the belief that trade with poorer countries widened income inequality, which he found was only able to account for 10 percent of the gap. Rather, education differences, and the ability of the higher educated to take advantage of technological changes and innovation was the largest reason for the income disparity.

But there is still a disparity nonetheless, and the question is, should the have-nots be considered in bad shape? The growth in wealth has been significant in the last 30 years, and the bottom 50% has not been left behind. Even in the naughties, aggregate wealth grew on annual basis of approximately $1 trillion in the United States. Populist economists question the distribution of this wealth, which is fair I suppose, but there is a failure to examine the consumption patterns of the less affluent, and the movement of price levels, which reduces the importance of the income gap. It is generally agreed that the consumption patterns of the affluent and less affluent are quite different, with the latter spending a large portion of disposable income on non-durable goods, and the former spending large portion of their disposable income on services. But what has been the difference in the rate of inflation between services and non-durable goods? With economic globalization, the rate of inflation has been much lower for non-durable goods, which as I remember, the poorest households devote at least 15 percent more of their income on non-durable goods than the richest 10 percent of households. This has translated into very real savings for the poorest households, and because the price levels of services have increased at a far higher rate, and because of the wealthy's appetite for more expensive consumption options, I believe one study out of the University of Chicago (Broda maybe?) concluded that the actual effects of income inequality were reduced by as much of 2/3 due to the relative impact of inflation on the consumption patterns of the richest and poorest households.

Edited by Rol82, 09 November 2010 - 08:30 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Another point that I just realized I neglected, should a distinction be made between income inequality and consumption inequality? Has consumption inequality grown in tandem with income inequality? What, for instance, is the lived difference between the owner of a $500 refrigerator, and $10,000 refrigerator? Have technological changes provided more of a living quality boost to lower end products, or higher end products? It's an interesting question, and I think I recall seeing a paper that suggested that consumption inequality has narrowed, but I'll have to search for it. I think probably the biggest problem between the rich and poor is education inequality, and like I said, it seems to be the biggest source of output differences. So should an anti-poverty program be focused most on narrowing differences in education attainment? Again, It's another interesting question, and could easily be incorporated into global campaigns against poverty. But how do policymakers upgrade education in a way that leads to lasting gains, and how do we disincentivize the flight of human capital, which I imagine is one of the larger reasons for the North-South income differences----our advanced economies capture their smartest individuals with the promise of greater rewards.

Edited by Rol82, 09 November 2010 - 06:39 AM.

[churchill]

I think this article is pertinent..
http://www.economist...m_in_inequality
Quote from text...
'If the egalitarians are right, then average happiness levels should be falling. But they aren’t. The GSS shows that in 1972, 30 percent of the population said that they were “very happy” with their lives; in 1982, 31 percent; in 1993, 32 percent; in 2004, 31 percent. In other words, no significant change in reported happiness occurred—even as income inequality increased by nearly half.'

[niner]

I think this article is pertinent..
http://www.economist...m_in_inequality
Quote from text...
'If the egalitarians are right, then average happiness levels should be falling. But they aren’t. The GSS shows that in 1972, 30 percent of the population said that they were “very happy” with their lives; in 1982, 31 percent; in 1993, 32 percent; in 2004, 31 percent. In other words, no significant change in reported happiness occurred—even as income inequality increased by nearly half.'

Suggesting that "money doesn't buy happiness". Shocking.

[niner]

Gross income inequality of a level never before seen in America indicates a very disturbing trend in American society and politics and such trends tend to lead to dangerous outcomes.

And this is why everyone should care about income inequality. People can come up with all kinds of reasons why "the poor have it really great in America", but if we fully bifurcate into a population of rich people and a large horde of hopeless poor people, we can expect social dysfunction on a scale we haven't known. Purists may whine about "income redistribution", but we can choose to build a healthy society or a shitty one. Either way, we're all going to have to live in it.

[chris w]

Gross income inequality of a level never before seen in America indicates a very disturbing trend in American society and politics and such trends tend to lead to dangerous outcomes.

And this is why everyone should care about income inequality. People can come up with all kinds of reasons why "the poor have it really great in America", but if we fully bifurcate into a population of rich people and a large horde of hopeless poor people, we can expect social dysfunction on a scale we haven't known. Purists may whine about "income redistribution", but we can choose to build a healthy society or a shitty one. Either way, we're all going to have to live in it.

Gosh Niner, sounds like you must have been a Scandinavian in your past life .

I agree of course, it's just that the the meme "some evil ( = taxes ) to make things right in the long run" is pretty hard to sell to the more affluent parts of the voting population ( who cannot be blamed either for wanting to keep all that they have earned, hoarding is just human nature ) I imagine - especially in culture like the American one, with the idea of personal self reliance and all that.

Rwac's argument about "envy index" is probably right when considered on its own, but I think not on strictly utilitarian grounds in the longer perspective.

I once read a study ( altough one needs just common sense to come up with that on your own ) that people are mobilised to lift themselves up only if the discrepancy between their actual state and the one they aspire to doesn't cross a certain critical treshold, after that the trick stops working. So, in the bigger picture, too significant wealth differences may actually be detrimental to upward mobility in a given society. Which in turn breeds all sorts of "men of the people" that may turn out ok in the end ( like Lula ) or not so much ( Chavez ), it's better not to have to play that lottery.

Western post-war leaders seemed to grasp that concept pretty well up untill the 80's, after then the Casino has been officialy opened.

Edited by chris w, 09 November 2010 - 06:26 PM.

[suspire]

Rol82: I wish you'd break down your responses into more readable paragraphs. It is hard to properly parse and respond to you in your current format.

Additionally, I cannot emphasize enough why you should read the article--several of the points I could gleam from your responses were tackled in the Slate article. It's clear they had heard the Cato Institute's talking points before and had researched them for a proper context.

The same can be said of Churchill's "happiness" index. Much of this is answered in the article.

For all the slamming Slate seems to be getting in this thread, the Slate article seems to be one step ahead of most of its detractors--which isn't surprising, since they have yet to actually read the article. You'd think I'd asked people to read The Wealth of Nations and comment on it, for all the hardship it has imposed.

People seem more eager to comment than they are to read. And we wonder why the level of dialogue on serious topics has so drastically declined.

[Rational Madman]

Rol82: I wish you'd break down your responses into more readable paragraphs. It is hard to properly parse and respond to you in your current format.

Additionally, I cannot emphasize enough why you should read the article--several of the points I could gleam from your responses were tackled in the Slate article. It's clear they had heard the Cato Institute's talking points before and had researched them for a proper context.

The same can be said of Churchill's "happiness" index. Much of this is answered in the article.

For all the slamming Slate seems to be getting in this thread, the Slate article seems to be one step ahead of most of its detractors--which isn't surprising, since they have yet to actually read the article. You'd think I'd asked people to read The Wealth of Nations and comment on it, for all the hardship it has imposed.

People seem more eager to comment than they are to read. And we wonder why the level of dialogue on serious topics has so drastically declined.

I'll certainly read it today, I just had a lot of work yesterday, and the urge to convey the reflections I made about the subject that day was relatively greater. But to be clear, I never use the CATO Institute as a source. And I don't think the difficulty of material is what's deterring reading, it's our different rankings of preferences.

Edited by Rol82, 09 November 2010 - 08:46 PM.

[DairyProducts]

Has consumption inequality grown in tandem with income inequality? What, for instance, is the lived difference between the owner of a $500 refrigerator, and $10,000 refrigerator? Have technological changes provided more of a living quality boost to lower end products, or higher end products? It's an interesting question, and I think I recall seeing a paper that suggested that consumption inequality has narrowed, but I'll have to search for it. I think probably the biggest problem between the rich and poor is education inequality, and like I said, it seems to be the biggest source of output differences. So should an anti-poverty program be focused most on narrowing differences in education attainment? Again, It's another interesting question, and could easily be incorporated into global campaigns against poverty. But how do policymakers upgrade education in a way that leads to lasting gains, and how do we disincentivize the flight of human capital, which I imagine is one of the larger reasons for the North-South income differences----our advanced economies capture their smartest individuals with the promise of greater rewards.

Rol82, I would love to see the paper you are thinking of because I've been looking for anything that can explain living quality increases for high end/low end technology.

Another thought I had was that the Noah says that the current top 1 percent earners take home more of the share of the national income than they did during the Vanderbilt, Rockefeller years. Those families had significantly more wealth than the world's richest now,

Elizabeth Warren had a long video about consumption patterns in middle class American households (its an hour long so I'll just summarize) -- middle class families have spent less or only slightly more on food, entertainment, clothing, electronics but spend significantly more (adjusted for inflation) on education, housing, and health care.


I think a big part of the problem of inequality is not that it exists, but that people know it exists. In the past, the lives of the wealthy generally weren't known by the public. "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" MTV's Cribs, The Hills, etc. and a flashier wealthy than in the past has made many people realize that they are living lives no where near as exciting/pampered as those at the top.

For those of who don't want to read the whole series, here is the tldr (referring to the reasons for increasing income gap in the United States)

• Race and gender are responsible for none of it, and single parenthood is responsible for virtually none of it.
• Immigration is responsible for 5 percent.
• The imagined uniqueness of computers as a transformative technology is responsible for none of it.
• Tax policy is responsible for 5 percent.
• The decline of labor is responsible for 20 percent.
• Trade is responsible for 10 percent.
• Wall Street and corporate boards' pampering of the Stinking Rich is responsible for 30 percent.
• Various failures in our education system are responsible for 30 percent.

[suspire]

Rol82: I wish you'd break down your responses into more readable paragraphs. It is hard to properly parse and respond to you in your current format.

Additionally, I cannot emphasize enough why you should read the article--several of the points I could gleam from your responses were tackled in the Slate article. It's clear they had heard the Cato Institute's talking points before and had researched them for a proper context.

The same can be said of Churchill's "happiness" index. Much of this is answered in the article.

For all the slamming Slate seems to be getting in this thread, the Slate article seems to be one step ahead of most of its detractors--which isn't surprising, since they have yet to actually read the article. You'd think I'd asked people to read The Wealth of Nations and comment on it, for all the hardship it has imposed.

People seem more eager to comment than they are to read. And we wonder why the level of dialogue on serious topics has so drastically declined.

I'll certainly read it today, I just had a lot of work yesterday, and the urge to convey the reflections I made about the subject that day was relatively greater. But to be clear, I never use the CATO Institute as a source. And I don't think the difficulty of material is what's deterring reading, it's our different rankings of preferences.

Ah. Weird. Not denying your comments about the Cato Institute, but some of the items you'd mentioned smacked of direct talking points of the Cato Institute. Perhaps it is just a sign of how good and clever they've got with their messaging.

And I don't mean to be snippy about reading the article. Only that I feel like my response to a number of remarks made here by people would be: "Read the article", since it is clear, concise and I feel no need to crib from it.

I am more than willing to engage in a thoughtful discussion about points brought up in the article or disagreements/divergence from it if people construct well considered opinions after reading it.

[niner]

• Race and gender are responsible for none of it, and single parenthood is responsible for virtually none of it.
• Immigration is responsible for 5 percent.
• The imagined uniqueness of computers as a transformative technology is responsible for none of it.
• Tax policy is responsible for 5 percent.
• The decline of labor is responsible for 20 percent.
• Trade is responsible for 10 percent.
• Wall Street and corporate boards' pampering of the Stinking Rich is responsible for 30 percent.
• Various failures in our education system are responsible for 30 percent.

Most of this seems plausible, but if our education system is "failing", and it mostly fails for Black kids who mostly have single parents, then it seems somehow wrong that race and single parenthood are responsible for none of it. The use of the phrase "Stinking Rich" makes me think a wee bit o' bias just might be sneaking into the analysis here.