Yesterday, a groundbreaking study by the RAND Corporation put the first-ever price tag on how much income inequality costs American workers. The bill? $50 trillion. You read that right: $50 trillion has been diverted from working Americans to the wealthiest 1% since 1975. To make sense of this staggering number, Nick and Goldy are joined by mathematician Carter Price, the study’s co-author.
Carter C. Price is a senior mathematician at the RAND Corporation.
Twitter: @CarterCPrice
If you like the show, please consider leaving a rating or a review! RateThisPodcast.com/pitchforkeconomics
Further reading:
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90% – And That’s Made the U.S. Less Secure: https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/
“We were shocked”: RAND study uncovers massive income shift to the top 1%: https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1
Website: https://pitchforkeconomics.com/
Twitter: @PitchforkEcon
Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics
Nick’s twitter: @NickHanauer
David Goldstein:
For years, we’ve been talking and writing about the massive redistribution of income and wealth from ordinary working Americans like me to super-rich like you.
Nick Hanauer:
Correct.
David Goldstein:
We always knew that number was big, but my God, Nick, now we know exactly how big it’s been.
Nick Hanauer:
In fact, bigger than we thought.
Carter Price:
It sums up to $47 trillion. That’s money they could have had in the bank.
Speaker 4:
From the offices of Civic Ventures in Downtown Seattle, this is Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer. One American capitalist take on how we got into this mess and how we can get out.
Nick Hanauer:
I’m Nick Hanauer, founder of Civic Ventures.
David Goldstein:
I’m David Goldstein, senior fellow at Civic Ventures. Nick, for years, we’ve been talking and writing about the massive redistribution of income and wealth from ordinary working Americans like me to the super-rich like you.
Nick Hanauer:
Correct.
David Goldstein:
We always knew that number was big, but my God, Nick, now we know exactly how big it’s been.
Nick Hanauer:
Yeah. This is a very exciting day for us, or moment for us, because finally someone with the math and economics chops to get to the bottom of exactly how much money has been redistributed from the bottom to the top, has done it. The RAND Corporation, which is one of the most credible nonpartisan think tanks, maybe in the world, has done this amazing analysis of what has happened basically to incomes since 1975. The results are simply shocking. In fact, bigger than we thought.
In 2018 dollars, $2.5 trillion per year has been redistributed upward from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1% of Americans. What’s particularly shocking is the people in the 90th to 99th percentile they basically just held their own.
David Goldstein:
Right.
Nick Hanauer:
Even people in the 90th percentile fell behind.
David Goldstein:
Be clear, that’s $2.5 trillion out of a $20 trillion economy.
Nick Hanauer:
Right.
David Goldstein:
It’s about 12% of GDP.
Nick Hanauer:
We now know by decile how badly people were hurt and for a full-time median worker using a conservative inflation number, instead of earning 50 they’d earn 92. If you use, I think frankly, a more realistic number, it’s $102,000.
David Goldstein:
Think about that folks, if you are a median worker, that means somebody in the middle, you’re earning $50,000 a year and you’re struggling to get by, how much easier would your life be if you were earning twice that for the same work?
Nick Hanauer:
Yeah. $102,000. Yeah.
David Goldstein:
$102,000, how much better your life would be. To be clear, this is not some fantasy. That is what you would have been earning had income distributions remained constant, had incomes broadly continued to grow with GDP, at the same rate as GDP, as they had done in the three decades prior to 1975. If we had just kept things the same, the median worker would be earning twice what they are now. Over that 45 years, I’ll give you the gift of putting the price tag on it. How much have the bottom 90% lost Nick?
Nick Hanauer:
$50 trillion was redistributed upwards from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. It’s a shocking number and I think explains again why our politics is so screwed up and shows what it will take to get the country back on track. That the idea that America will do better if Americans don’t do better is just folly. It’s folly. It’s just wishful thinking. To try to help people understand this data, I hope that they will read the piece that David Rolf, my colleague and coauthor, and I wrote in Time Magazine describing the ups and downs and ins and outs of all this data.
That piece is in the show notes in the details. Goldie, today we’re incredibly fortunate to get to talk to the mathematician, Carter Price, who coauthored the study at RAND. I think he’s going to take us through the detail of what they did and how they did it.
Carter Price:
My name is Carter Price. I’m a senior mathematician at the RAND Corporation, and I’m here to talk about the work that Kathryn Edwards and I did looking at trends in economic inequality over the last 43 years.
David Goldstein:
Carter, could you tell us more about what the RAND Corporation is? Because people have heard about it, but we didn’t really know.
Carter Price:
Yeah. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit nonpartisan think tank. We do policy research on a whole range of issues. We study economic inequality. We study healthcare policy. That’s one of the areas that I work in quite a bit, is on healthcare policy. We also look at labor policy, labor market policy, environmental policy, defense policy. Any kind of policy question, we try and support, providing nonpartisan objective analysis, ideally based on as much data as possible, but sometimes, we can apply a whole host of methods to study these kinds of problems.
David Goldstein:
Right. A lot of organizations describe themselves as nonpartisan think tanks, but RAND is one of the few that actually-
Nick Hanauer:
That actually is. Right. If you wouldn’t mind, can you characterize the nature of this study and your findings in general terms?
Carter Price:
Yeah. We looked at essentially the income trends over the last 43 years, essentially from 1975 to 2018, which was the most recent year the data were available, to look at how different groups their incomes had changed and essentially to try and calculate the wedge caused by rising inequality in terms of what people’s take-home pay was, what people earned. We used a lot of different data sets, mostly the CPS, the Current Population Survey, which is a survey that goes back to at least the 50s that has income information, demographic information, a whole host of information.
Because that data set doesn’t do a great job capturing the highest earners, it’s what’s known as top-coated, some of the highest earners, their income is just listed as a hundred thousand dollars or $150,000 or whatever the top coat was for that year. We used the work of Piketty and Saez and Gabriel Zucman, their World Top Incomes Database to figure out exactly how much money was going to the top 1%, top 5%, top 0.1%. Essentially stitch these two data sets together so we had a picture of the entire income distribution going back to 1975.
Nick Hanauer:
Now, you can tell people how much different their incomes would have been if the country had not become more unequal every year.
Carter Price:
That was one of the things that we worked on, was to make sure that we knew had incomes grown at the rate of per capita GDP. If you look at the income from 1947 to 1975 it more or less grew with per capita GDP across the board. The bottom quintile, the middle quintile, all across the distribution, incomes were growing more or less with per capita GDP. If you look after 1975, we see rising inequality and we see a big difference between what those at the bottom of the income spectrum were making and those are the top.
We essentially tried to quantify what those workers below the 90th percentile would have made, had that pre-1975 trend kept on going and so that people essentially were benefiting from a growing economy, as opposed to having stagnant incomes.
David Goldstein:
One of the unique contributions of working paper is that while others have talked about this shift of income from the lower distributions to the top 1% as a in percentage terms, with your data, you’re able to put an actual number on it.
Carter Price:
Yes. The bottom 90th percentile had their incomes grown with per capita GDP, in 2018 they would have earned $2.5 trillion more than they actually earned.
David Goldstein:
Were you surprised that the number was that high?
Carter Price:
A little bit. Had someone just asked me and I got out a napkin, I probably would’ve come up with something around a trillion would have been my guess. Obviously this is two and a half times that, and so I was surprised and we definitely checked those numbers a lot of different ways because it was such a large number.
Nick Hanauer:
That implies that for the bottom 90% of Americans, there was essentially no income growth over the last, whatever it is, 43 years, is that correct?
Carter Price:
There was income growth for different parts of the distribution. At the very bottom there was some income growth, but nowhere near that of per capita GDP. They weren’t really in the middle and certainly for certain subpopulations. If you talk about white men, white men’s incomes below the median were essentially stagnant and so there was no growth there. Then other populations, there was some growth, but nowhere near what you would expect given the way the economy grew and certainly nothing close to the income’s growth at the very top.
Nick Hanauer:
I think one of the coolest parts of this dataset is that it describes what’s happening for basically any old person. That’s what makes this so cool is if you’re a median worker or if you’re in the 20th percentile or whatever it is, you can see the degree to which you got left behind. For a median full-time prime age worker who now earns about $50,000 a year, using a fairly conservative inflation number, they would be earning $92,000 if they had been held harmless by the last 40 years of rising inequality, correct?
Carter Price:
Yes. Yeah.
Nick Hanauer:
That fact I had understood. Here’s the fact that I find staggering, is that if you’re the 90th percentile, that is to say, if you earn more than 90% of other Americans year today in 2018, earning about $133,000 a year, but if you had been held harmless by rising inequality, instead of earning 133,000, you’d be earning $168,000, which is just astonishing. Even people in our country who are doing relatively well have been left behind in just a really unbelievable way.
Even in the 95th percentile, where if you’re earning $191,000 a year, you would actually be earning $198,000 a year, which is not that different. But it’s astonishing how completely most American families have been disadvantaged by these decades. It’s virtually everyone, except the top 1%.
David Goldstein:
Who are earning twice what they would have.
Nick Hanauer:
Right.
David Goldstein:
More than twice what they would have had levels of inequality remained constant. It’s a huge number, this $2.5 trillion a year, but you’ve also calculated over the course of the past 45 years, as income inequality grew, the year by year accumulation of that number. You calculate the bottom 90% had lost $47 trillion to rising inequality through 2018, is that correct?
Carter Price:
Yeah. That’s the cumulative number for those 43 years. It sums up to $47 trillion. You can’t translate that directly into wealth because people get taxes, people would have spent that, but that’s a lot of wealth that has been lost to that segment of the population. When we think about family instability and instability in income and people losing their unemployment and so they have to be homeless, that’s money they could have had in the bank, some portion of that.
David Goldstein:
Right. Right. Could have invested in themselves, could have earned enough money to help pay for a college education without going into debt. There’s been previous reports. I think the OECD did a report some years back talking about how rising inequality knocked as much as nine points off of U.S. GDP growth over the previous two decades. Presumably, had our economy been more equal, GDP would have grown even faster. In essence your numbers actually underestimate the loss to the bottom 90%.
Carter Price:
That’s quite possible given that GDP growth may have been faster. There have been a lot of studies that indicate that lower inequality supports faster economic growth. It’s not a clear cut case, but there’s very strong evidence that that’s the case.
Nick Hanauer:
Right. To be clear, Carter, your study does not take into account rising prices.
Carter Price:
It does to some extent, because we do capture an inflation. We just capture the overall inflation as opposed to the consumer good inflation.
Nick Hanauer:
Got it. In terms of understanding the circumstance, if you’re trying to understand the circumstance of the median full-time earner, that was earning 50 and now would have earned 92, I guess what my point was, in addition to having forgone someplace between 40 and $50,000 in annual income, that earner is also paying astronomically more for educating their kids in college, for housing, for healthcare, so on and so forth.
David Goldstein:
Childcare.
Nick Hanauer:
Childcare, all of those expenses, and this analysis does not contemplate the pressures that those dynamics put on these people too at all.
Carter Price:
Yeah. That’s absolutely correct that we use the overall inflation rate for the broader economy, even the CPI doesn’t really do a great job capturing that because it’s, again, for all consumers, for all urban consumers. If you’re a single parent and have to have childcare, those prices are very high. That’s a different basket of goods than is used to calculate the inflation, and so we don’t have the tool for that.
Nick Hanauer:
Right. If you’re trying to understand how people are doing and how people are feeling this data set, which shows how much income the typical family has foregone over the last 40 years, tells one side of the story. Then the rising price of maintaining a middle class lifestyle tells another part of that story. When you put those two stories together, it’s super obvious why everyone is so angry and our politics is so polarized, it feels like to me. The combination just puts insane amounts of pressure on the typical family. It is shocking and hard to believe that people can hold it together.
Carter Price:
Yeah. I mean, especially in this time when a lot of people are unemployed and their benefits are being cut. There are all these other issues that just shows the fragility in the system when the inequality is this high.
Nick Hanauer:
When you look at these numbers, and I’m not sure how deeply you may have looked at the knock-on or tertiary effects, one of the things that seems intuitively obvious to me, may not be true, but seems true, is that if the median worker had earned instead of 50, call it a hundred or plus or minus, whatever, they would have paid a lot more taxes.
Carter Price:
There’s the offsetting angles that those top earners do pay higher marginal rates and if they were making, instead of 1.1 million, they were making $600,000, they would be losing $600,000 at that top marginal rate. However, a lot of that income is capital income and are things that are taxed at different rates. We did crunch those numbers and it does seem like there would have been higher tax revenue, but there are a lot of moving parts there and so it’s hard to say definitively.
I will say though, that given that payroll taxes would have been higher and that’s what funds Medicare and social security, that if people’s incomes had tracked with the broader economic growth, then you would have seen a much more revenue going into social security.
Nick Hanauer:
What’s super interesting to me is when you begin to unpack these numbers and think about the knock-on effects of a society where people captured the same amount of economic growth that they once did, what the impact of that would have been reverberating through communities. Because it’s not just federal taxes that would have been higher. It’s obviously state and local taxes that would have been higher and better schools. I mean just a billion things that would have gone better over the last 40 years than they have.
It is quite astonishing when you start to peel back the layers of the onion, in my opinion. Just where you’re like, “Oh my gosh, well, what about that? What about this? What about that?” Then you look around the country at how angry everybody is and you’re like, “Oh, I get it.”
David Goldstein:
Carter, I want to get to one of the other unique contributions of this working paper. That is, you and your colleague have actually come up with a new inequality metric where a lot of people are familiar with the Gini coefficient, but you’re using something different here. Could you explain what it is and why you think it’s important?
Carter Price:
Yeah. We essentially came up with a measure of equitable growth or of growth equity so that you can assess essentially what we’ve been talking about, is if you have a target rate of income growth based on GDP growth or something like that, how close was the actual income growth to that? That lets you look at, is a rising tide lifting all boats, or to what degree is that true? Then you can also use that to compare different groups to determine which groups are seeing more rapid income growth and try and come up with an explanation as to why that is.
You can also get it through different business cycles. In our piece, we looked at that, so that you can find some groups did really well in the 90s. Most groups did really poorly in the 2000s and had mixed results in the 2010s. It lets you break down who is benefiting from a rising economy and to what degree.
David Goldstein:
Am I correct to understand this, that you can essentially think of it as a percent of real GDP growth over that period?
Carter Price:
Yes.
David Goldstein:
Okay.
Carter Price:
Yes. Yeah.
Nick Hanauer:
For example, if you’re looking at full year of full-time prime-aged workers, GDP growth since 1975 was 118%, their incomes have grown at 321% of 118%.
Carter Price:
Yeah. They essentially captured three times as much of the economic growth as you would have expected had their income just grown at GP, per capita.
Nick Hanauer:
Whereas the median during that period only captured 17.4% of growth.
Carter Price:
Right. That segment of population they were only getting 20% or less than 20% of the benefit of a growing economy.
Nick Hanauer:
Do you have a name for this metric? Are we calling it the Carter value? The Carter. The Carter coefficient. I love that.
Carter Price:
[crosstalk 00:21:56].
Nick Hanauer:
The Carter coefficient.
Carter Price:
[crosstalk 00:21:58] calling it Omega but [crosstalk 00:22:01].
Nick Hanauer:
Yeah. You’re going to have to do better than that dude.
David Goldstein:
Yeah.
Carter Price:
Yeah.
Nick Hanauer:
I mean, Gini named it after himself so we could call it the Carter coefficient.
David Goldstein:
We’re calling it [crosstalk 00:22:08] coefficient. Let’s be clear the Carter coefficient across all income distributions, across most demographic groups in that period, 1947 and 1974, it varied from year to year, but it was roughly 100.
Carter Price:
It was in that ballpark. Yeah.
David Goldstein:
Generally, broadly, incomes rose with growth in real GDP. Since then, in that bottom 25th percentile for full-time workers, it’s been 13.5 instead of a hundred. Whereas again, we said at the very top, the mean of the top 1%, it’s 321. That paints a stunning picture.
Carter Price:
I mean, it goes to show that a rising tide has not been lifting all boats and that’s understandable and observable, but I think we’re hoping that this helps people better quantify that and better understand.
Nick Hanauer:
I this is an extraordinarily important finding because it allows policymakers to finally frame up where the there is and what we should be doing to mend these problems. Because it’s fine and well to say, “Well, we live in an unequal country and we should do better.” But it’s an entirely different thing to say that the point of politics or the point of policy should be to close the gap from where we are back to where we once were. It just makes your work much more tangible.
I think you can just have much more useful conversations about what to do and how to do it and what’s necessary and what’s overreaching and so on and so forth.
Carter Price:
Yeah. I certainly hope so.
David Goldstein:
I would have thought that much of this shift in income was due to capital gains, but what you actually see in this data, is that the bulk of this is earned income, am I correct?
Carter Price:
I guess it depends on what segment of the population you’re talking about, but certainly there was a substantial growth in earned income for those at the top. We added in capital income just to see, and so we’ve cut this data a lot of different ways to try and figure out how best to tell the story and how best to convey the information. We have looked at it from strictly a labor standpoint and then also from overall income.
David Goldstein:
One of the biggest driving factor is a shift of salaries and wages from the bottom to the top. It’s not mostly the rich people just earning lots of money on their portfolios. They’re being paid more. It’s executive pay. It’s the pay to professionals, doctors, lawyers, et cetera, am I correct in understanding it that way?
Carter Price:
I want to be careful about interpreting it that way, because if you look at particularly those at the bottom 90%, they’ve been hit by two different forces. One, you’ve seen a decline in overall the share of the economy that’s going to wages and salary.
David Goldstein:
Right.
Carter Price:
That’s declined. Then on top of that, the share of income for the bottom 90%, their share of that slice of the pie has been declining. They’re getting a smaller slice of a smaller pie and so there’ve been two effects that have hit them. The 90th to the 99th percentile, those very higher earners, but not the highest earners, their share of the pie has stayed about the same. Then that top 1% are getting a much bigger part of a shrinking pie, but their absolute size of slice has grown. I don’t know if that … Does that make sense?
David Goldstein:
Yeah. No. That makes total sense. Yeah.
Nick Hanauer:
Yeah. Totally. Well, this has been fantastic, right Goldie? I mean, I think we have everything that we need.
David Goldstein:
Yeah. I mean, look, I’ve got to tell you, Carter, we were so thrilled to see this because we have touched on this for years in the pieces we’ve written, but it was just in our own back of the napkin math. We didn’t know how big the number was. We just knew it was likely very big. To see somebody as reputable as the RAND Corporation come out and confirm this and say it was even bigger than we imagined, that’s very exciting.
Nick Hanauer:
Hopefully, it will force political leaders to reckon with the size and scale of the problem that we face as a country. That it will allow people to formulate strategies that can address these issues in a way that will make an actual impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. Let us hope.
David Goldstein:
Yeah.
Nick Hanauer:
Thank you buddy.
Carter Price:
Well, thank you guys.
Nick Hanauer:
What’s really extraordinary about this data set is it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this redistribution of income had actually nothing to do with economics. It was all power. It was all a set of different political choices that advantaged the few and disadvantaged the many. Because for the prior 30 or 40 years, everyone grew the same, right?
David Goldstein:
Right.
Nick Hanauer:
What we have said a million times is that economics is simply how human beings instantiate their social and moral preferences about status, privileges and power. We lived in a society for a long time where we agreed that we should all treat one another fairly. Then Ronald Reagan and neo-liberalism came along and all of a sudden, if the rich got richer, that would be good for everyone and-
David Goldstein:
Right. Because a rising tide lifts all yachts.
Nick Hanauer:
Yeah. Yeah. It does.
David Goldstein:
As it turns out.
Nick Hanauer:
That’s right. We began in the early 70s to make a different set of economic choices. We froze the minimum wage. We basically eliminated overtime protections. We deregulated industries. We did all these things-
David Goldstein:
We slashed top marginal tax rates.
Nick Hanauer:
That’s right. We did all these things simultaneously all in the service of this fraudulent idea about what grows the economy, that if the rich get richer, that’s good for the economy and if the poor get richer that’s bad for the economy. Trickle-down economics or neo-liberalism or whatever it is. Every tiny little thing that we did in policy enacted by both Republicans and Democrats, contributed to this widening gap in income.
It’s an astonishingly stark reminder of how our economic arrangements are simply a reflection of our political values and our power relationships and how easy it has been to con ordinary Americans out of their money.
David Goldstein:
Right. I want to make an important point here, because I know what a lot of people are thinking. You want to double median income? That’s just going to make American companies uncompetitive and these jobs will move overseas and we’ll lose jobs and everybody will be worse off. If you raise wages for the bottom 90%, it will increase costs for corporate America and we’ll have this incredibly uncompetitive economy. I just have to say the data tells us, no, no, no.
That’s not what’s happened. We slashed wages at the bottom. We’ve allowed wages to stagnate for the vast majority of Americans and that just went to other Americans.
Nick Hanauer:
Right.
David Goldstein:
If-
Nick Hanauer:
You don’t have to-
David Goldstein:
Yeah.
Nick Hanauer:
You don’t have to raise prices. You just have to lower salaries and giveaways to rich people.
David Goldstein:
Yeah. Nick, you need to make less money. That’s all we’re talking about, and-
Nick Hanauer:
No. That’s true.
David Goldstein:
To be clear, that’s the way we did it during the era when we built the great American middle class. Yes. A middle class with incredible racial and gender inequalities, but we built this great American middle class at a time when those in the top 1% earned 10 times median, and that’s a lot. That’s a big difference when you’re earning 10 times median, that’s a big income. Today it’s 32 times median. It’s unnecessary and so we could have an economy in America in which it’s a lot more equal between distributions and completely equal within distributions.
Nick Hanauer:
It’s hard to understate how different the country would be politically, socially in terms of health outcomes, education outcomes, if that $2.5 trillion per year had stayed with working middle class Americans and not been redistributed upwards. Just how much more economic stability there would be for ordinary families. Then a world where people’s incomes are rising with GDP we probably wouldn’t have had the financial crisis of 2007 and ‘8, which was a debt-fueled crisis.
David Goldstein:
Right.
Nick Hanauer:
The debt-fueled crisis was a consequence of stagnant wages. People used debt to make up for the fact that their wages were stagnant. It’s almost inconceivable how different the country … Well, I mean, it is actually conceivable how different the country would be if we hadn’t screwed this up in this way. If you visit Norway or Australia or New Zealand, or to a certain extent, Canada, today, you find a much more stable society. You find institutions that are far less fragile. You find healthcare systems that work far better.
You find middle income families that are infinitely more stable and secure. Again, it had nothing to do with economics. There was an economic outcome as a consequence of this, but these were political choices that advantaged the few and disadvantaged the many. That’s what neo-liberalism is.
David Goldstein:
Right.
Nick Hanauer:
It’s simply an ideology that concentrates wealth and advantage.
David Goldstein:
In his massive new book, Capital and Ideology, Thomas Piketty points out that the United States went from one of the most equal economies in the world. One of the most equal to one of the least over the past 45 years. We made that choice. Here’s the thing, we can unmake it and the great thing about having these numbers in front of us, Nick, is I think it helps open people’s eyes to the scale of the problem.
Nick Hanauer:
We rarely ask our listeners to do anything, but I do think that in this case, there is something to do, which is to begin to socialize these numbers and to force our political leaders to reckon with the scale of the problem. It is super important that the Biden administration should they come to power, and I hope they will, understands that it is the difference between 50 and $102,000 a year. That’s their job, is to double the median wage. That unless you’re talking about that, you are underappreciating the problem.
By the way, that’s probably not even good enough. When we talk about economic policy, it has to be framed in that context. It’s not good enough to say, “Well, we should give people a little bit more.” The question we should be asking is, what are we going to do to get people from 50 to a hundred, the median family, or frankly that the family in the 90th percentile from whatever it was 160 to 190. This has to be the goal of politics and economic policy.
I hope that our listeners will grab this Time Magazine article from the show notes and tweet it at the Biden campaign and tweet it at Elizabeth Warren and tweet it at Bernie Sanders and tweet it at Mark Warner, or any other elected leader that you know of. By the way, tweeted at Marco Rubio.
David Goldstein:
Right.
Nick Hanauer:
Our elected leaders must reckon with this data. Success means political leaders beginning to grapple with this problem at the scale of the problem.
David Goldstein:
Right. If they understand this as a $50 trillion problem, we have a better shot at getting a $50 trillion solution.
Nick Hanauer:
Absolutely.
David Goldstein:
On the next episode of Pitchfork Economics, we’ll be talking with the economist Suresh Naidu about coercive labor markets and the imbalance of power between employers and employees.
Speaker 4:
Pitchfork Economics is produced by Civic Ventures. If you like the show, make sure to subscribe, rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Find us on Twitter and Facebook at Civic Action and Nick Hanauer. Follow our writing on Medium at Civic Skunk Works and peek behind the podcast scenes on Instagram at Pitchfork Economics. As always, from our team at Civic Ventures, thanks for listening. See you next week.