Sunday, July 10, 2016

The Sunday Funnies: UC Berkeley ‘income inequality’ experts earn more than $300,000 a year

Mod: Would these esteemed scholars be able to care as much if they were only making around $150,000 a year? Some have expressed their doubts.

The College Fix (link): If UC Berkeley economists are really opposed to income inequality and are concerned about low-paid workers, they might consider sharing some of their compensation with the teaching assistants, graders, readers and administrative staff at the bottom of Cal’s income distribution.

Several UC Berkeley economics professors who support “income inequality” research each earn more than $300,000 a year, putting them in the top 2 percent of the public university’s salary distribution, according to a recent report by a nonpartisan California think tank.

The report pointed out that the prominent scholars leading or advising the Cal Berkeley Center for Equitable Growth (link) are richly compensated as professors, even as the center seeks to research ways to create economic growth that is “fairly shared,” the center’s website states.

But the California Policy Center report (link), using 2014 data from the state’s public records, found Cal’s equitable growth center’s director, economics Professor Emmanuel Saez, earned an annual salary of just under $350,000.

The center’s three advisory board members – all economics professors – made similar amounts: Professor David Card made $336,367 in 2014; Professor Gerard Roland took in $304,608; and Professor Alan Auerbach earned $291,782. That’s not even including their pensions — equal to 2.5 percent times their final average salary times the number of years employed.

Town Hall: Will California Ever Thrive Again? (link) - There was more of the same old, same old California news recently. Some 62 percent of state roads have been rated poor or mediocre. There were more predictions of huge cost overruns and yearly losses on high-speed rail -- before the first mile of track has been laid. One-third of Bay Area residents were polled as hoping to leave the area soon.

Such pessimism is daily fare, and for good reason.

The basket of California state taxes -- sales, income and gasoline -- rates among the highest in the U.S. Yet California roads and K-12 education rank near the bottom.

After years of drought, California has not built a single new reservoir. Instead, scarce fresh aqueduct water is still being diverted to sea. Thousands of rural central California homes, in Dust Bowl fashion, have been abandoned due to a sinking aquifer and dry wells.

One in three American welfare recipients resides in California. Almost a quarter of the state population lives below or near the poverty line. Yet the state's gas and electricity prices are among the nation's highest.

One in four state residents was not born in the U.S. Current state-funded pension programs are not sustainable.

Public health costs have soared as one-third of California residents admitted to state hospitals for any causes suffer from diabetes, a sometimes-lethal disease often predicated on poor diet, lack of exercise and excessive weight.

Nearly half of all traffic accidents in the Los Angeles area are classified as hit-and-run collisions.

Grass-roots voter pushbacks are seen as pointless. Progressive state and federal courts have overturned a multitude of reform measures of the last 20 years that had passed with ample majorities

In impoverished central California towns such as Mendota, where thousands of acres were idled due to water cutoffs, once-busy farmworkers live in shacks. But even in opulent San Francisco, the sidewalks full of homeless people do not look much different.

What caused the California paradise to squander its rich natural inheritance?

Last week we asked if the Mountain Views News was in the tank for Michael Antonovich - After all, 3 articles about the same guy, and all in the same edition mind you, might be seen as a kind of leaning in for this termed out career pol now running for a California State Senate seat. This week? Apparently The MVN believes Antonovich was the star attraction at last Monday's 4th of July parade.

You can only wonder what this kind of news coverage costs.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

32 comments:

  1. I think these professors need to make that kind of money so they can better understand what income inequality means. It is a part of their research.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These professors believe that Socialism is for YOU, not for them. So, as long as they get their largess, income redistribution/ equality is just fine for the plebeians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let them eat cake.

      Delete
    2. Donuts are cake too you know.

      Delete
  3. Your tax dollars at work.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Both Antonovih and Judy Chu want the 710 Tunnel. Both were on the cover of the Mtn Views "News" this week.
    http://www.no710.com/officials-710-for.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Susan fancies herself to be a big player, and she is hardly above pandering to the gullibility of complete idiots.

      Delete
  5. We are surrounded by well paid hypocrits: movie stars, politicians, unions, big corps, and then there's us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sounds like you should look for a better paying job

      Delete
    2. A redistribution of six figure public employee compensations seems preferable to me. Feel the burn!

      Delete
    3. Except that the inequality that allows for their pay is not the problem. A 300,000/year salary is not a response nor a driver of widening inequality. If you look at the research on the topic, returns on capital and executive salary (millions/year) is what is driving inequality. Talking about world-class professors is really muddling the issue and it isn't really an academically honest response.

      Delete
    4. I am fairly certain that what the author is recommending is that these heavily compensated academics might want to do something non-abstract with their vast compensations. Like sharing some of it with those suffering the consequences of economic inequality. Especially those working for them. You might want to reread the article.

      Delete
    5. but no one in Sierra Madre or on this blog ever seems to want affordable house in town...

      Delete
    6. Usually when people live here it is because they can afford their home. If they couldn't they would live elsewhere.

      Delete
  6. On a few occasions, there have been many cars belonging to people from 22 W. Carter on both sides of the street that renders that portion of Carter a one-way street. During those times, I (or the other car(s)) have had to yield to one another so that we can drive-by the bottlenecked area. This is one reason why it is zoned as an R1 (residential) area. Dedicato Treatment Center is a business. It does not belong in a residential neighborhood. This area was never constructed for the purpose of having the volume of people that come and go from this place. The streets are too narrow. At least when 22 W. Carter was a small white cottage a few years back, never was that portion of Carter bottlenecked.

    Secondly, Dedicato and Escobar are trying to cleverly manipulate us by playing nice with pretended transparency and invitations to Dedicato to see what they are about. I say don't buy into it. If I ever decide to sell my property and am given low offers and/or have to disclose Dedicato as being a few doors down from me, these inconsiderate people will not recompense me of potentially several thousand dollars that my property has lost in value due to their selfish business. They could care less about my family and I.

    Suffice to say, the Dedicato people have been inconsiderate in how they do business. They have caused a lot of stress for my neighbors and I. I feel much empathy for their immediate/adjacent neighbors as Dedicato is lit up like a Las Vegas business at night (a comparison brought by an unfortunate adjacent neighbor of this place). Even from a few doors down, their lighting system can be irritatingly seen from my window. The light pollution from this place takes away from the intended preservation of dark skies.

    I just feel very upset that the Dedicato people have proved so inconsiderate in how they selected Carter to do its business in at our expense. I can't reiterate how unfair it is to have a business in an R1 zoned area. I own an industrial company and am forced into strictly industrial zoned areas and must comply with an array of permits and licensing. I also wonder if the burglary a few months ago was in anyway related to Dedicato. This is a usually quiet neighborhood and it was a bit strange that the burglary coincided with the opening of Dedicato.

    Lastly, I think people have the right to mental health help. I have a close family member who had problems and had to go into treatment. But I don't think I would ever trust a company such as Dedicato in seeing how they did not seem to care about their very own neighbors when they opened their business up. How can a potential client trust these people to take care of them?

    I would have commented on sooner; but I was only just recently provided a link to this website by my more savvy neighbor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sincere troll.....July 10, 2016 at 8:54 AM

      "How can a potential client trust these people to take care of them?"
      The one I went to,3 times,was totally free for me. Insurance paid 80% and the treatment center waived my portion,the rest. So I got to live in a mansion in San Clemente for 3 months in the summer,free room and board, free therapy-my favorites were; 24 four fitness membership, meditation on the beach, and equine therapy( we played with horses) all totally free to me the insurance paid for everything.Not much care involved just kept me happy That's how. Sovereign healthcare I wonder if they're still around or are spending their money on some island paradise.

      Delete
    2. Interesting that the link was mysteriously deleted after it appeared on The Tattler.

      I also looked up this Dr. Keith on the CA Board of Psychology and noted that he is a Registered Psychological Assistant under supervision of Raphael Johnson. But if 5:46 PM (above) is correct in her/his post, and Dr. Keith is advertising himself as a full-blown "Clinical Psychologist," then he needs to be reported to the Board of Psychology so Dr. Keith can be held accountable for misrepresentation. It isn't right to portray oneself to clients in a dishonest manner.

      Nevertheless, anyway to archive a cached version of Keith's biography from Elijah's House?

      Also, I am all for getting people mental help; but in my opinion, this Dedicato place just reeks of a money-hungry entity (in which WE are paying the price for their questionable decision to open up right in the middle of a residential neighborhood... especially if I ever decide to sell my home and am required to disclose the fact a sober facility is just a few doors down from me).

      These Dedicato Treatment fools are just so inconsiderate. It makes me wonder how much "care" they really give their clients. I would not spend even $2,000 for a month at that place. Especially with its completely annoying lighting that -- as someone mentioned in a different post -- resembles a Las Vegas business (and adds a tremendous amount of light pollution).

      Hope the city can do more than support a bill to make these hustlers register with the city.

      Delete
    3. Here's my question:
      According to the city attorney, that business on Carter said it was "supportive housing." That means it gets away with virtually no oversight or regulations.
      But if you look up the code for supportive housing, it says the target population is LOW INCOME.
      So how does the expensive Carter place find people who qualify for low income but also have extraordinarily good insurance?

      Delete
    4. You need to find out where the cash is, and if the city is getting any of it. If the city is getting money out of the sober living fiasco, then the city atty's agenda is clear. Protect the cash flow.

      Delete
    5. Agreed 1:49, that the money trail is the one to follow. But I think city hall was as surprised by this as the residents were. No doubt there is financial corruption, but the more likely direction to look in is with the operators, and financiers, of this "treatment center." Maybe the lawyers who specialize in setting these entities up could provide some insight.

      Delete
    6. 9:33, I also searched for the credentials of the staff, and hit a dead end with the Raphael Johnson search. It was listed on one state form that he was at Kaiser, but he's not on the Kaiser directory....
      ?

      Delete
  7. Wonder if professors who grew up being graded on a curve look at our social economics with a curved mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. From the Center for Equitable Growth: "The Center is particularly interested in research on the links between inequality and economic growth, the effects of government policies on both the distribution of economic well-being and economic growth, as well as how the public views on equity and fairness affects policy making."

    Great. Easy solution. Let's distribute the salaries of these $300K professors. Problem solved!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Berkeley proff's and the received my degrees through the U.S.Post office; are all about "show me the money".

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sure seems like a lot of money (nearly $1.3 million) taxpayers pay for these four professors, but it's nothing compared to how much taxpayers subsidize the enormous salaries of the private sector.

    Mark Hurd and Safra Catz EACH received over $53 million that Oracle gets to deduct from its income taxes, sticking all tax payers with the bill.

    Leaving aside the question how the Oracle board's payment of $106 million to TWO employees does not constitute a breach of fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders, at the federal corporate tax rate of 35% and CA corporate tax rate of 8.84% we taxpayers have financed over $46 million for two people.

    Consider the thousand and thousands of private sector executives who make hundreds of thousands and up that we likewise subsidize.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the difference is you have no choice but to pay taxes, and then little real influence on how that tax money is spent. Overpaid academic bureaucrats being an example of a consequence. However, if you are offended by private sector executive pay you can easily refuse to do business with the company they represent. Private industry does not have the rights of confiscation that government entities do.

      Delete
    2. For some goods and services, it is indeed possible to refuse to do business with certain companies. For example, I have spent a total of exactly 50 cents at Walmart over the last 25-30 years.

      But for many goods and services it is not possible to live a modern life and "refuse to do business" with all companies that excessively compensate their executives at the taxpayers' expense. Of course, you know that, 11:10, which makes your response silly.

      A better response would be that companies should not be allowed to deduct from gross income more than a certain amount of salaries for highly paid executives, say $250,000, $500,000, or even $1 million per executive.

      But that will never be possible until big business is prohibited from purchasing politicians through campaign contributions, a situation that does, in fact, give what you call the "rights of confiscation" to private industry when we are forced to not only provide direct subsidies to private industry but also indirectly subsidizing the largess it provides to the few.

      Delete
  12. California has been a one party state for over forty years.

    ReplyDelete
  13. California is one big party if you work for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some people get tired of those parties and get the hell out.

      Delete