Robert B. Reich, a co-founder of The American Prospect, is a Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. His website can be found here and his blog can be found here.
D ot-com billionaires are sprouting like spring crocuses, and their money is trickling down through the rich topsoil of America. The average pay of chief executives of major companies rose 18 percent in 1999, to $12 million. (Back in 1990, it was a modest $1.8 million.) Fearful of the dot-com brain drain, big law firms just hiked the pay of first-year associates to $120,000, not including signing bonuses. Wall Street investment banks, facing the same threat, are even raising the pay of analysts just out of college, to more than $75,000. The frenzy knows no bounds. Setting a new moral example for college students across America, the president of Brown University, not content with a meager $300,000 salary, just jumped ship after only a year and a half for another university that offered three times as much. Fed chief Alan Greenspan fears that all this prosperity is causing consumers to buy more than the economy can produce, which means that inflation is just around the corner. So...
I f they were true profit-maximizers--textbook illustrations of rational self-interest--American corporations and their top executives would be flooding Al Gore's campaign with money, and not George W.'s. Rather than gamble on an unknown W., they'd bet on a proven Al Gore.
No administration in modern history has been as good for American business as has the Clinton-Gore team; none has been as solicitous of the concerns of business leaders, generated as much profit for business, presided over as buoyant a stock market or as huge a run-up in executive pay. And no vice president in modern history has had as much influence in setting an administration's agenda as has Al Gore.
Consider fiscal policy. You'll recall that by 1992, after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, the nation's debt had almost quadrupled, from $914 billion to $4 trillion, and yearly deficits had quintupled from $59 billion to more than $300...
Any time now, government economists will decide whether America Online's (AOL's) $165-billion proposed take-over of Time Warner is likely to be good or bad for consumers. If good, the government will sign off. If bad, there'll be negotiations with AOL and Time Warner until an agreement can be reached on what the new company would have to do to answer economic objections. The inquiry will be quiet and businesslike, occurring in colorless offices and occasionally in meeting rooms filled not only with economists but also with government lawyers and the counsel and investment bankers representing AOL and Time Warner.
I'll save all those economists and lawyers and bankers a lot of time and trouble, and answer their questions right here:
Is the combination efficient? Yes. AOL serves about 20 million Internet subscribers. Time Warner serves 13 million cable subscribers and also has a lot of content--magazines, movie and music studios, and...
Broadcast January 18, 2001 A lot of Americans are concerned these days about sweatshops in Asia and Latin America where poor people cut and sew garments at cut-rate wages, often in unsanitary conditions. But you don't need to go to a third-world nation to find a sweatshop. You can find all the sweatshops you want right here in the United States, producing a big portion of the shirts, dresses, blouses, and skirts on the shelves of big American retailers. The U.S. Department of Labor, where I used to work, recently completed its latest survey of cutting and sewing shops in New York and Los Angeles. The places surveyed were randomly selected from lists of registered garment contractors. And here's what the Labor Department found. In Los Angeles, 61 percent of the cutting and sewing shops don't give their workers even minimum wages or overtime. In New York, 65 percent don't provide minimum wages or overtime. In other words, the vast majority of cutting and sewing shops in America s...
The Washington Post
Last year I woke up to discover that I'm now working part-time for a German
company named Bartelsmann AG. You see, when I wasn't looking,
Bartelsmann scooped up Random House, which has published several of my
books and still occasionally sends me exceedingly small royalty checks.
Bartelsmann is now the largest publisher of English-language books in the
world, and for all I know it may become the largest publisher of Chinese
books as well. Do I care whether an American-owned publisher (which may
print its books in Singapore, bind them in New Zealand and market them
through Hong Kong) gains better access to China than my own
Bartelsmann? Not at all, as long as the royalty checks keep coming.
Don't think me either unpatriotic or selfish. It's just my way of suggesting
that there's something missing in all the talk about how America will soon
have its goods on Beijing's streets and will own...