He's Obsessed With Data, And He Found Something Really Shocking

This is definitely not good for society.

Question: Why are you not more worried about capital?

Maybe you're not so worried because you don't know what the heck I'm talking about. Let's start with a definition: Capital is stuff you own and can make money off of. For example, your house in the hills, your 10 acres of beachfront property, or the 20,000 shares of Google stock you own (I'm an optimist). OK, perhaps you don't have any of those things, but there's a small group of wealthy folks who do. They're the ones holding most of the capital.


And capital should concern you because of a man named Thomas Piketty. Piketty wrote a book called "Capital in the 21st Century" in which he collected a whole lot of data.

We won't go through all that data, but instead, let's just look at a few graphs.

Back in the day (18th and 19th centuries), the value of capital grew faster than the economy. It grew so much that by 1900, wealth in the U.K. was 700% more valuable than the national output. In other words, it was much more lucrative to just have lots of capital than to create goods and services for the economy.

Which meant — big surprise — rich folks benefited from this situation, and wealth inequality got real bad.

However, things got a little more equal in the 20th century. World wars and decolonization either blew up the wealth of those rich folks or forced them to give back some of their stuff.

And as the economy began to grow again after World War II, your average Joe (or Jane) started to gain some traction on the rich.

But here's where the upsetting part comes in: Piketty and his data suggest that since 1980, things are going backward. Capital (remember that thing?) is, once again, starting to grow faster than the economy, and rich folks are pulling away.

That means, according to Piketty, we're headed back to the (not so) good ol' days where the rich pretty much just own all the things. Plus top hats and monocles.

Check out the BBC's explainer of Piketty's "Capital" and find out what he thinks the solution is.

<span class="redactor-invisible-space"></span>
More

If you're a woman and you want to be a CEO, you should probably think about changing your name to "Jeffrey" or "Michael." Or possibly even "Michael Jeffreys" or "Jeffrey Michaels."

According to Fortune, last year, more men named Jeffrey and Michael became CEOs of America's top companies than women. A whopping total of one woman became a CEO, while two men named Jeffrey took the title, and two men named Michael moved into the C-suite as well.

The "New CEO Report" for 2018, which looks at new CEOS for the 250 largest S&P 500 companies, found that 23 people were appointed to the position of CEO. Only one of those 23 people was a woman. Michelle Gass, the new CEO of Kohl's, was the lone female on the list.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

How much of what we do is influenced by what we see on TV? When it comes to risky behavior, Netflix isn't taking any chances.

After receiving a lot of heat, the streaming platform is finally removing a controversial scenedepicting teen suicide in season one of "13 Reasons Why. The decision comes two years after the show's release after statistics reveal an uptick in teen suicide.

"As we prepare to launch season three later this summer, we've been mindful about the ongoing debate around the show. So on the advice of medical experts, including Dr. Christine Moutier, Chief Medical Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, we've decided with creator Brian Yorkey and the producers to edit the scene in which Hannah takes her own life from season one," Netflix said in a statement, per The Hollywood Reporter.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture

At Trump's 'Social Media Summit' on Thursday, he bizarrely claimed Arnold Schwarzenegger had 'died' and he had witnessed said death. Wait, what?!


He didn't mean it literally - thank God. You can't be too sure! After all, he seemed to think that Frederick Douglass was still alive in February. More recently, he described a world in which the 1770s included airports. His laissez-faire approach to chronology is confusing, to say the least.

Keep Reading Show less
Democracy

Words matter. And they especially matter when we are talking about the safety and well-being of children.

While the #MeToo movement has shed light on sexual assault allegations that have long been swept under the rug, it has also brought to the forefront the language we use when discussing such cases. As a writer, I appreciate the importance of using varied wording, but it's vital we try to remain as accurate as possible in how we describe things.

There can be gray area in some topics, but some phrases being published by the media regarding sexual predation are not gray and need to be nixed completely—not only because they dilute the severity of the crime, but because they are simply inaccurate by definition.

One such phrase is "non-consensual sex with a minor." First of all, non-consensual sex is "rape" no matter who is involved. Second of all, most minors legally cannot consent to sex (the age of consent in the U.S. ranges by state from 16 to 18), so sex with a minor is almost always non-consensual by definition. Call it what it is—child rape or statutory rape, depending on circumstances—not "non-consensual sex."

Keep Reading Show less
Culture