[Senate Hearing 117-33] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 117-33 THE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY CRISIS IN AMERICA ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ March 17, 2021 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 45-040 WASHINGTON : 2021 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont, Chairman PATTY MURRAY, Washington LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MIKE CRAPO, Idaho SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island PATRICK TOOMEY, Pennsylvania MARK R. WARNER, Virginia RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MIKE BRAUN, Indiana TIM KAINE, Virginia RICK SCOTT, Florida CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland BEN SASSE, Nebraska BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico MITT ROMNEY, Utah ALEX PADILLA, California JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota Warren Gunnels, Majority Staff Director Nick Myers, Republican Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2021 Page STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Chairman Bernard Sanders......................................... 1 Ranking Member Lindsey Graham.................................... 3 Senator Charles E. Grassley...................................... 91 WITNESSES Statement of the Honorable Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Former U.S. Secretary of Labor................................. 5 Prepared Statement of............................................ 31 Questions and Answers (Post-Hearing) from: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse............................... 85 Senator Tim Kaine........................................ 87 Statement of Sarah Anderson, Program Director, Global Economy, Institute for Policy Studies................................... 7 Prepared Statement of............................................ 53 Questions and Answers (Post-Hearing) from: Senator Tim Kaine........................................ 88 Statement of Jennifer Bates, Amazon Worker, Bessemer, Alabama, Fulfillment Center............................................. 8 Prepared Statement of............................................ 62 Statement of John W. Lettieri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Economic Innovation Group (EIG)....................... 11 Prepared Statement of............................................ 65 Questions and Answers (Post-Hearing) from: Senator Tim Kaine........................................ 90 Statement of Scott Winship, Ph.D., Resident Scholar and Director of Poverty Studies, American Enterprise Institute.............. 13 Prepared Statement of............................................ 75 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Statement of Star Parker, President, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, Submitted for the Record by Senator Graham.......... 93 Newsweek Article Submitted for the Record by Senator Graham...... 97 AL.com Article Submitted for the Record by Senator Graham........ 106 THE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY CRISIS IN AMERICA ---------- WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2021 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Budget, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m., via Webex and in Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Honorable Bernard Sanders, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Sanders, Whitehouse, Kaine, Van Hollen, Lujan, Graham, Grassley, Crapo, Toomey, Johnson, Braun, and Scott. Staff Present: Warren Gunnels, Majority Staff Director; and Nick Myers, Republican Staff Director. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BERNARD SANDERS Chairman Sanders. Okay. Let us get to work. Let me begin by thanking Ranking Member Graham and the other members of this Committee for being with us this morning. Some will be here, some will be virtual. And I also want to thank the many witnesses who will be with us today remotely because of the pandemic. Today we are going to be discussing an issue that, in my view, is of enormous consequence, both morally and economically. But it is an issue that gets far too little discussion, and that is, the crisis of income and wealth inequality in our country. The simple truth is that today in America the very, very rich are getting much richer, while tens of millions of working-class Americans are struggling to put food on the table and take care of their basic needs. This morning we are going to learn why it is that the middle class in our country, once the envy of the world--the whole world looked to the United States and saw a growing and strong middle class--but why it is that that great middle class has been in decline for decade after decade after decade while at the same time there has been a massive transfer of wealth from working families to the top 1 percent, an issue that needs to be discussed. We are going to be talking about why it is that during this horrific pandemic 63 percent of our workers have been living paycheck to paycheck, worried that if somebody in the family gets sick or the car breaks down, they will be thrown into financial desperation because they do not have the money to pay those bills. Meanwhile, same exact time, 660 billionaires, the richest people in America, have become $1.3 trillion richer. So during the pandemic, millions of people are struggling to put food on the table. A handful of billionaires are becoming much richer. We are going to talk about the obscenity of the 50 wealthiest Americans now owning more wealth than the bottom half of our society--50 people, half of our people, 160 million people--while at the same time over 90 million Americans are uninsured, have no health insurance, or are underinsured, cannot afford to go to a doctor when they get sick. Is that the America that we want? I do not think so. We will be asking about how it happens that the top one- tenth of 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent--one-tenth of 1 percent more wealth than the bottom 90 percent--and two individuals, Bezos and Musk, now own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent. And, meanwhile, we are looking at more hunger in America than at any time in decades. Incredibly, if income inequality had remained the same as it was in 1975, the average worker in America would be making $42,000 more today than he or she is earning. Instead, as the number of billionaires explodes, the average worker in America is now making $32 a week less than he or she made 48 years ago after adjusting for inflation. So you have got a huge explosion in technology, worker productivity, average worker today making less in real dollars than they did 48 years ago. Today we are going to be talking about what it means morally and economically when one person in this country, the wealthiest person in the world, Jeff Bezos, has become $77 billion richer during this horrific pandemic, while denying hundreds of thousands of workers who work at Amazon paid sick leave and hazard pay. As you may know, I asked Mr. Bezos to testify at this hearing. He declined my invitation, and that is too bad, because if he was with us this morning, I would ask him the following question, and that is: Mr. Bezos, you are worth $182 billion--that is a ``B''--$182 billion; you are the wealthiest person in the world. Why are you doing everything in your power to stop your workers in Bessemer, Alabama, from joining a union so that they can negotiate for better wages, better benefits, and better working conditions? While Mr. Bezos would not be with us today to answer those questions, we are going to hear from Jennifer Bates, an Amazon worker in Bessemer, Alabama, who will tell us what it is like to work for one of the most profitable corporations in America and why she and her co-workers are trying to form a union there. But let us be clear. Amazon and Jeff Bezos are not alone. The American people are increasingly disgusted with the corporate greed they are experiencing every single day. They are sick and tired of corporate Chief Executive Officers (CEO) who now make 320 times more than their average employees, while at the same time give themselves big bonuses, all kinds of golden parachutes, and yet they cut back on the health care that their workers have. They want corporations to invest in workers, in decent wages, benefits, and working conditions, not just higher dividends, stock buybacks, and outrageous compensation packages for their executives. And that is why I am introducing legislation today to impose an income inequality tax on corporations that pay their CEO over 50 times more than their average workers. It has always been true, of course, that CEOs make more than their employees. But what has been going on in recent years is totally absurd. In 1965, CEOs of large corporations made just 20 times as much as their average workers. Today those CEOs now make over 300 times and in some cases over 1,000 times more than their average workers. That is absurd, that is wrong, and that has got to change. Now, when we talk about the need to protect the working class in this country and to address the crisis of income and wealth inequality, there is an enormous amount of work that Congress has got to undertake. We need to raise that minimum wage to a living wage. Nobody who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty, and that living wage should be at least 15 bucks an hour. We need to make it easier for workers to join unions, not harder. The massive increase in wealth and income inequality today can be directly linked to the decline in union membership in America. We need to create millions of good-paying jobs, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, our roads, bridges, wastewater plants, sewers, culverts, building the affordable housing that our people need. We need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, and when we fight to protect our kids and this planet from climate change, we also create millions of good-paying jobs. We need to guarantee and do what every other major country on Earth does, and that is to guarantee health care to all people as a human right. Health care is a human right, not a privilege. We need to make sure that all of our young people in this country have the right to get a higher education, regardless of their income, and, yes, we need to make sure that the wealthiest people and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. Now, I know that my Republican colleagues have a different view. I suspect that Senator Graham will disagree with one or two things that I have said. I may be wrong about that. But at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, I do not believe that we should be giving more tax breaks to the rich. In fact, amazingly enough--and maybe we can discuss this-- several of my Republican colleagues in the Senate, including Minority Leader McConnell, introduced a bill to repeal the estate tax, legislation that would provide $1.7 trillion in tax breaks to the billionaire class while doing nothing to help working families or family farms. Let us be clear. Repealing the estate tax would only benefit the top one-tenth of 1 percent who inherit over $11.7 million; 99.9 percent of the American people would not receive a penny if this legislation became law. So the bottom line is today we are discussing a huge issue that has broad implications for every person in this country, and I look forward to our panelists' presentation and to the discussion. Senator Graham. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing we will agree on is that you believe this. You have been the most consistent voice I think in the country over a long period of time on issues like this. We do have disagreement, but I like working with people who believe what they believe. Now, here is some common ground, I think. Most of us do not want the consolidation of wealth and power to lie in the hands of the few through ill-gotten gain, through monopolies, through unfair trade practices, through criminal enterprise, market manipulation. But if you can make your money legally and fairly, good for you. And that brings us to the question of Big Tech. I do not know what we do about this, Mr. Chairman, but the question for me is: Have we let too much power consolidate in the hands of Big Tech? Is it a virtual monopoly in terms of flow of information? And have we allowed these new technologies to become the modern version of robber barons of the last century? And I would like to talk more about that. I do not know if you need to break these companies up or not, but Section 230 and other things we need to revisit. But, generally speaking, this has been a capitalist Nation, and I hope it remains so, with regulation to prevent environmental abuse and make sure people play by the rules. To me, the Government plays a role in keeping the water in the banks. When people start creating monopolies, that is unfair to other competitors. When people cheat and scheme and get rich off bad business practices, that is something we all should be concerned about. But the Gallup poll company has been asking Americans what they think is the most important problem facing the country every month for a long time. In the latest survey, 26 percent said it was the coronavirus; just 1 percent said it was the gap between rich and poor. Now, how can that be? I actually believe that. I believe that most Americans do not spend their time wondering about how to take from somebody else. They are wondering about how do I get ahead, and they are looking for opportunity, and they should be demanding that opportunity. One thing that I think we can start focusing on is how do you lift people up who have been in poverty, how do you present better opportunity. There is the way described by the Chairman, and I think the other way that I like is Senator Scott, who is focused on enterprise opportunity zones in blighted neighborhoods, making sure that there are tax advantages for businesses like Amazon and others to go into these neighborhoods and increase wages by having better business opportunity. But all of us have one thing in common here on this Committee. We had good educations. And if you want to level the playing field for America, make sure that every kid, regardless of Zip code, has an adequate opportunity to be well educated, and I believe in public school systems. I am a product of it. But the question becomes: What happens when a public school fails time and time again? What are the things that we can do to level that playing field? So here is what the Census Bureau said: that the poverty rate hit an all-time low in 2019, and that between 2017 and 2019 income inequality actually declined; that before the pandemic, the unemployment rate was at a 50-year low; the rates for African American, Hispanic, and people with disabilities hit their lowest unemployment levels on record; wages were rising at the fastest pace in years; and they were rising fastest for blue-collar workers. So there are two different models being suggested here, and I think the model that we are suggesting is that accumulation of wealth through monopolies and other unfair trade practices or manipulation of markets or criminal enterprises. We should all be against that. But like Bill Gates, you invented something a lot of people want. Amazon, they found a way to get you products that you want. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is online shopping may put brick-and- mortar businesses out. So one of the things that I have been focused on is making sure that sales taxes are collected from online vendors like a brick-and-mortar business, like my family had, because that would create a tax advantage for online businesses. So I want a level playing field in terms of regulation and taxes and educational opportunity, and I think that is the role of the Government, not picking who gets this and who gets that and what is too much money. I think that if the Government gets in that business, it will do more harm than good. But I am looking forward to working with you on this and many other issues, and, quite frankly, I am enjoying this Committee because we are talking about things that matter. So thank you. Chairman Sanders. Senator Graham, thanks very much. Now we are going to go to our witnesses, and we have some great witnesses this morning, and I thank all of them for their willingness to be with us. First, we have Robert Reich. Many of you will remember that Bob Reich is the former Labor Secretary, Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, and in my view, one of the great Secretaries of Labor this country has ever had. Professor Reich is the author of numerous books, including ``The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It,'' and is currently a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. Professor Reich, thank you so much for being with us this morning. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT B. REICH, CHANCELLOR'S PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR Mr. Reich. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. With your permission, I will simply provide my testimony and submit it to the Committee, also several charts that I think the Committee might find very useful. Let me just say--and I am going to summarize very quickly-- even before the pandemic, America had the widest inequalities of income and wealth we have had in a century, and wider than any other developed nation. The median wage in the United States has barely budged for 40 years when you adjust for inflation, even though the economy of the United States is almost three times larger. And more than half Americans earn so little that they have to live paycheck to paycheck. And this is something new in the history of at least post-World War II America. We have never seen the degree of inequality we are now experiencing. Increasingly, the economy's gains have gone to the top. The richest one-tenth of 1 percent, Mr. Chairman, as you said--I want to just underscore this. The richest one-tenth of 1 percent has almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent put together. And, again, the compensation packages of the top executives of big companies, CEOs, have soared from an average of 20 times that of the typical worker 40 years ago, or 60 times when I was Labor Secretary, to 320 times today. And, you know, the pandemic has just made all of this much more stark. America's 660 billionaires have together become $1.3 trillion richer. This would be enough, by the way, this $1.3 trillion that they have gained during the past year would be enough for them to give every American a $3,900 check and still be as rich as they were before the pandemic. The American Rescue Plan, just enacted, is helpful in this regard, but I think it is very important for this Committee to look at the underlying structure of power. ``Power'' is a word that we do not use very often when we talk about the economy. But there has been a huge shift in power over the last 40 years, a shift toward very large corporations. And Senator Graham is absolutely right. There has got to be much more emphasis on fighting monopolies, and it is monopolies both in terms of big high-tech companies, also monopolies in terms of high finance, big pharma. I mean, you go around this country today, and you see more concentration, more economic concentration, than we have seen at any time in the last 60 years, and also that economic concentration translates into political power. We have got a severely imbalanced political economy. Fewer than 7 percent of our workers are in unions today. Fifty years ago, over a third of workers in the private sector were unionized. Fifty years ago, giant corporations did not have the power to suppress prevailing wages. They did not have platoons of Washington lobbyists which they have today. Another very important indication of what is happening and what has happened is that before the 1980s, the main driver of profits and the stock market was economic growth. But research has shown--and I include some of that research in my testimony--that since the late 1980s, the major means by which corporations have increased profits and stock prices has been by keeping payroll down. And that has hurt the working class. The working class in this country has taken it on the chin. The working class needs to understand that this is about--you know, there is not a market someplace in the atmosphere, in nature. I mean, the market is a human creation, and what has happened, as power has shifted dramatically toward big corporations and against workers and against workers because they do not have unions to represent them, you have a change in the structure of the market, a dramatic change. To rebalance the economy it is necessary to provide more vigorous use of antitrust; substantially higher taxes on growing accumulations of income and wealth at the top; stronger labor protections to enable workers to join together to gain higher wages benefits; and also greater restrictions on the use of private and corporate wealth to influence political decisions. I have much more to say, but I just want to--and I eagerly await your questions, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. [The prepared statement of Mr. Reich appears on page 31] Chairman Sanders. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Our second witness is Sarah Anderson, director of Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. Ms. Anderson has studied income and wealth inequality for years and is a well-known expert on executive compensation. Ms. Anderson, thanks so much for being with us. STATEMENT OF SARAH ANDERSON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, GLOBAL ECONOMY, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES Ms. Anderson. Thank you. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I am Sarah Anderson with the Institute for Policy Studies, and I have been researching inequality for more than 25 years, concentrating on what might be the single most dramatic driver of that inequality: the growing gap between CEO and worker pay. This is a systemic problem in corporate America. In 1980, the average gap between big company CEOs and typical worker pay was 42:1. Over the past 20 years, that gap has averaged about 350:1. This growing pay divide is also a driver of gender and racial disparities. Nearly 90 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are White men, while women and people of color are disproportionately a large share of low-wage workers. But we all pay a price for this executive excess. Back in 2008, executives chasing huge bonuses crashed our economy, leaving millions homeless and without jobs. In the wake of that disaster, Senator John McCain and many other lawmakers called for a $400,000 cap on pay at all companies receiving taxpayer assistance. But corporations and Wall Street banks not only blocked that proposal, they designed compensation packages to help executives rebound more quickly than ordinary Americans. Today we are living through a period of even greater national suffering and a period when front-line workers have proved how essential they are to our economy and our health, and yet once again many corporate leaders are focused on bending the rules to protect massive CEO paychecks. Let me give you a few examples. At Coca-Cola, none of the top executives met their bonus targets last year, but the board gave them all bonuses anyway. The CEO wound up with $18 million in total compensation, over 1,600 times as much as the company's typical worker pay. Or look at Carnival. Remember how they stranded their employees on their cruise ships for months without pay? Meanwhile, the board gave the CEO a special retention and incentive award that lifted his overall pay to more than $13 million, a 22-percent increase over 2019. At Tyson Foods, 12,000 front-line workers contracted COVID last year, but that did not stop the board from giving executives stock grants to make up for the fact that they had not met their bonus targets. One of these executives was company Chair John Tyson, who was hardly in dire need. He has seen his personal wealth increase 62 percent during the pandemic to $2.4 billion. Research by my Institute for Policy Studies colleagues and Americans for Tax Fairness shows that the combined wealth of all 660 U.S. billionaires has soared by $1.3 trillion during the pandemic. Many of them, of course, owe their fortunes to their years as CEOs. Now, corporate executives did not cause the pandemic in the direct way that executives' reckless behavior led to the 2008 crash. But many CEOs did make working families much more vulnerable to the current crisis by outsourcing jobs and turning millions of the jobs that remained into low-wage, part- time work without benefits. We can and must do better as a Nation than to accept a business model that creates prosperity for the few and precarity for the many. This is not just bad for workers. It is also bad for business. Research shows that having these extreme gaps undermines morale, which lowers productivity. In this time of crisis, we also must seek common ground, and we have common ground when it comes to CEO pay. In fact, a Stanford survey found that 52 percent of Republican voters actually want to cap CEO pay relative to worker pay. I will end with a few policy solutions that are far more moderate than what a majority of Republicans support. First, the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act. This would increase taxes on corporations with huge gaps between CEO and worker pay, and this would create an incentive to both rein in pay at the top and lift up worker wages, all while generating an estimated $150 billion in revenue over 10 years. Companies that have small gaps, less than 50:1, they would not owe one more dime under this proposal. Another way to generate revenue while curbing executive excess would be through a financial transaction tax. This would curb the short-term speculation that has inflated Wall Street executive bonuses while doing nothing for Main Street. We could also leverage the power of the public purse by giving corporations with narrow gaps a leg up in Government contracting. Corporate boards have shown us, after the financial crash and during the pandemic, that we cannot rely on them to do the right thing when it comes to CEO pay. This is a problem that affects all of us, and we need responsible policy solutions. Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson appears on page 53] Chairman Sanders. Ms. Anderson, thank you very much. Our next panelist is Jennifer Bates. Ms. Bates is an Amazon worker at the Bessemer, Alabama, Fulfillment Center. She and her co-workers are trying to form a union at Amazon with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union. I invited both Ms. Bates and Amazon founder and executive chairman Jeff Bezos. I am very happy Ms. Bates agreed to testify, unlike Mr. Bezos. Ms. Bates, thank you very much for being with us. STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BATES, AMAZON WORKER, BESSEMER, ALABAMA, FULFILLMENT CENTER Ms. Bates. Thank you, Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Amazon brags it pays workers above the minimum wage. What they do not tell you is what those jobs are really like. And they certainly do not tell you that they can afford to do much better for the workers. Working at an Amazon warehouse is no easy thing. The shifts are long. The pace is super-fast. You are constantly being watched and monitored. They seem to think you are another machine. I started working at Amazon in May of 2020 not too long after they opened. By my third day, I was hurting. I looked around and saw it was not just me. I mentioned it to my sister, who also worked there at the time, and she just told me it only gets worse. At Amazon, you are on your feet walking all the time and climbing stairs to get to your station and move products. We have only two 30-minute breaks during a 10-hour shift which is not long enough to give you time to rest. The place is huge-- the size of 16 football fields. Just walking the long way to the bathroom and back eats up precious break time. My co-workers and I--older, younger, middle-aged people-- limp from climbing up and down the stairs in the four-floor building. When I first came to Amazon to work, I noticed there was one elevator for human use. When I tried to use it, a co- worker stopped me and told me that we were not allowed to use it. Then I noticed that around the facility there were plenty of elevators, but the signs say, ``Material only, no riders.'' I could not believe that they built a facility with so many elevators for materials and make the employees take the stairs on a huge four-flight facility. The work itself is also grueling. We have to keep up with the pace. My workday feels like a 9-hour intense workout every day. And they track our every move. If your computer is not scanning, you get charged with being time-off-task. From the onset, I learned that if I worked too slow or had too much time off task, I could be disciplined or even fired. Like a lot of workers, it was too much for my sister, and she ended up quitting. I thought there should be another way. I mean, why can't a large and wealthy company do better for their workers? Amazon has made tons of money during the pandemic. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. And now he is even richer thanks to us workers. Yet they expect us not to expect anything we did not already have before we started working there, like we do not deserve better. Amazon goes into poor communities claiming that they want to help with economic growth. That should mean paying its employees a living wage and benefits that truly match the cost of living and ensure workers work in safe and healthy conditions, because we are not robots designed to only live to work. We work to live. We deserve to live, laugh, and love and have full self-fulfilling lives. We the workers deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and deserve to be given the same commitment that we give to the job every day we go in. We give 100 percent at work, but it feels like we are being given back only 30 percent. We are committed to making sure the customers get a nice package, the whole product in a couple of days. But who is looking out for us? We, the workers, made the billions for Amazon. I often say we are the billionaires; we just do not get to spend any of it. We first started to talk about unionizing one day during a break. One guy said, ``They would not be doing these things to us if we had a union.'' People were upset about the breaks being too short and not having enough time to rest, about being humiliated by having to go through random security checks going into our breaks to make sure we are not stealing merchandise and then not even being given the time back for our breaks. Others did not like that they never actually spoke to a manager. They just got messages on the app or by text. It is all so impersonal and at times just plain weird. And then there is the issue of job security. People are concerned about people getting fired for no real reason and not being given the opportunity to speak to anybody at Amazon about it. They deny us good working conditions and claim we should be happy with what we have and then go around spending millions to tell us we do not need a union. As soon as Amazon found out about the union, they started going hard trying to stop the union drive. We were forced into what they called ``union education'' meetings. We had no choice but to attend them, not given an opportunity to decline. They would last for as much as an hour, and we would have to go sometimes several times a week. The company would just hammer on different reasons why the union was bad for us, and we had to listen. If someone spoke up and disagreed with what the company was saying, they would shut the meeting down and told people to go back to work, then follow up with us in one-on-one meetings on the floor. A lot of what was said in those meetings was untrue, like telling people they would lose their benefits if they joined the union. It was upsetting to see some of the younger people who were really on board with the union get confused by what was being said in the meetings. All around the plant, Amazon had put up anti-union signs and messages. They sent messages to workers' phones. They even had signs posted in the bathroom stalls. No place was off limits. No place seemed safe. Despite all that, or maybe because of it, we continue to organize and build support for the union. We do it because we hope that with a union we will finally have a level playing field. We hope we will be able to talk to someone at Human Resources (HR) without being dismissed. We hope that we will be able to rest more, that there will be changes in the facility to take some of the stress off our bodies. We are hoping we get a living wage--not just Amazon's minimum wage--and be able to provide better for our families. We hope that they will start to hear us and see us and treat us like human beings. It is frustrating that all we want is to make Amazon a better place to work. Yet Amazon is acting like they are under attack. Maybe if they spent less time--and money--trying to stop the union, they would hear what we are saying. And maybe they would create a company that is as good for workers and our community as it is for the shareholders and executives. Thank you for giving me the time to share my story. [The prepared statement of Ms. Bates appears on page 62] Chairman Sanders. Ms. Bates, thank you very much. Our next witness is John Lettieri, who is president and CEO of Economic Innovation Group. Prior to his work at the Economic Innovation Group, Mr. Lettieri was the vice president of public policy and government affairs for a leading business association, the Organization for International Investment. Mr. Lettieri, thank you very much for being with us. STATEMENT OF JOHN W. LETTIERI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ECONOMIC INNOVATION GROUP Mr. Lettieri. Thank you, Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the privilege of testifying today on the challenge of inequality in the United States. I believe there are many ways for Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to tackle economic inequality and support the needs of low-income and disadvantaged people. I discuss several such areas in my written testimony, including promoting economic dynamism and worker mobility, by banning the use of noncompete agreements, pursuing an aggressive policy of full employment to boast wages and labor force participation for workers at the bottom, and enacting a bold place-based policy agenda to support struggling regions and distressed communities. But in the interest of time, I want to focus my opening comments this morning on a fourth issue: helping low- and moderate-income Americans build wealth through long-term retirement savings. The U.S. economy is the world's most powerful engine of wealth creation and prosperity, but in spite of this, the lack of wealth at the bottom remains a troubling and persistent fact of life. The numbers are startling. The median net worth for the bottom 25 percent of American families is a mere $310. The bottom 50 percent of families own less than 2 percent of total U.S. wealth. One of the central reasons for the persistent lack of wealth at the bottom is the lack of adequate retirement savings among low-income families. The median retirement savings balance for the bottom 50 percent of American families is $0. For comparison, the median for families in the top 10 percent is $610,000. Now, the problem here is not that affluent Americans are doing well at saving but, rather, that current policy is so poorly designed to support those most in need of building wealth. And the reason here is simple. Retirement savings policy mostly relies upon deductions from taxable income that are of little use to Americans in the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution, most of whom pay little to no Federal income tax to begin with. So as a result, a person making $20,000 a year and contributing the maximum gets nothing from Federal and State tax incentives, while a person earning $200,000 gets over $7,000 in Federal and State aid. In other words, those who need help building wealth are the ones most excluded by current policy. Deeply uneven participation in retirement savings also perpetuates the racial wealth gap. Only 35 percent of Hispanic families and only 41 percent of Black families hold any retirement account savings, compared to 68 percent of White families. Among those that do have at least some retirement savings, the median White family holds more than double that of the median Hispanic family and the median Black family. So what can be done? A number of noteworthy proposals, including from members of this Committee, have been put forward in recent years to address the dearth of retirement savings among low-income workers. But there is one option that is both elegant in its simplicity and transformative in its potential benefits, and it will be familiar to every member of Congress, and that is, to make all low- and moderate-income workers eligible for a program modeled after the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), complete with a match on contributions up to a certain percentage of income. The TSP is a defined contribution savings program now available only to Federal employees and members of the military. In a paper soon to be published by my organization, co-authors Dr. Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School and Dr. Kevin Hassett, former Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, make the case for expanding access to the TSP to tens of millions of Americans who currently do not enjoy participation in an employer-sponsored plan. They argue that the design of the TSP makes it an ideal model for helping low- and moderate-income workers build wealth, ensure a comfortable retirement, and grow a nest egg that can be passed on to future generations. The TSP is an incredibly well-designed program. Participants enjoy automatic enrollment, a simple menu of options for investment, an easy user interface, very low expense ratios, and matching contributions of up to 5 percent of income, along with a number of other features that, when combined, have proven to generate remarkably strong participation among eligible workers. The beauty of the TSP is that it is a proven and carefully studied model that performs exceedingly well for the very traditionally marginalized workers that have largely been neglected by U.S. retirement policy. Participation rates, for example, among those with a high school degree or less and workers in the bottom one-third of earnings have reached as high as 95 percent. And such workers on average contributed a significant share of their earnings to their TSP accounts. In other words, the TSP already provides compelling evidence that low-income, limited-education workers will avidly participate in a well-designed savings scheme if it is made available to them. Creating such a pathway for working Americans to build wealth through a widely available and portable program modeled on the TSP would be a transformative step towards ensuring everyone in this country has a meaningful stake in national economic growth and prosperity. Such a program would be in addition to, not in place of, Social Security, filling the gap in current policy to support of tens of millions of workers, including part-time and gig workers, who are most in need of additional support. And early estimates suggest that the enormous social and economic benefits generated by this policy could be achieved at relatively little cost, as the forthcoming paper and subsequent analyses will demonstrate. Boosting incomes, wealth, and well-being for those at the bottom is a worthy policy goal that should be tackled from a number of complementary directions, and I believe this is one of the most important. Thank you, and I look forward to taking your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Lettieri appears on page 65] Chairman Sanders. Mr. Lettieri, thank you very much for your presentation. Our last witness is Scott Winship, director of poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Before joining AEI, Dr. Winship served as the Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee. Mr. Winship, thank you very much for being with us. STATEMENT OF SCOTT WINSHIP, PH.D., RESIDENT SCHOLAR AND DIRECTOR OF POVERTY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Mr. Winship. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today to discuss inequality in the United States. Policymakers confront difficult decisions prioritizing different challenges facing the nation. Obviously, to the extent that some issue merits being designated a crisis, it should command the highest levels of attention. But income and wealth inequality do not constitute a crisis. The conventional wisdom that inequality has risen dramatically is wrong based on influential research that turns out to have suffered from mismeasurement problems. Even if inequality had risen by as much as is often claimed, over the same period middle-class incomes have risen significantly and are at all-time highs. Poverty has fallen sharply and is at an all-time low. Other sets of problems deserve more of our attention. Twenty years ago this September, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez published their first estimates of income concentration in the United States. As I discuss in my written testimony, these estimates turned out to have important flaws, since acknowledged by Piketty and Saez. These figures indicate that the share of income received by the top 1 percent rose 14 percentage points between 1979 and 2019. However, improved estimates from Gerald Auten and David Splinter put the likely increase at just 4 points. These figures do not take into account taxes, nor most Government transfers. In other words, they ignore most of the ways that Federal policy already reduces inequality. After taxes and transfers, Auten and Splinter find that the top 1 percent's share rose from 7.2 percent in 1979 to 8.7 percent in 2017. As income measurement has improved, it seems ever likelier that the perception of a crisis in income inequality stems from statistics that turned out not to reflect reality. The wealth concentration estimates of Saez and Gabriel Zucman have also been influential, leading to calls for wealth taxation. However, their research has been challenged by Matthew Smith, Owen Zidar, and Eric Zwick. They report an 8- point rise in the top 1 percent's share from 1979 to 2016 compared with the 13-point rise Saez and Zucman report over the same years. Measuring wealth, however, is subject to complicated challenges which I discuss in my written testimony. Here I will only point out that most Americans would save more for retirement absent the strong likelihood that they will be able to count on receiving senior entitlements from the Federal Government. If they saved more, that would show up in the data as higher wealth. Yet we do not count these Government promises in wealth. Smith, Zidar, and Zwick find that the share of wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent rose from around 9.5 percent in 1989 to 14 percent in 2016. But after adding the value of Social Security, the increase was only from 8 percent to 10 percent. Even if income or wealth concentration had risen more sharply, it would matter whether increasing inequality had come at the expense of people and families below the top 1 percent. The fact of the matter is that incomes below the top have risen significantly. The Congressional Budget Office finds that median pre-tax household income rose between 32 and 41 percent from 1979 to 2017, and the increase was 54 to 61 percent after taxes and transfers. That amounts to $30,000 in additional inflation-adjusted income. According to the official measure, the poverty rate in 2019 was lower than ever before among all Americans, all American families, families headed by a single woman, non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. As I discuss in my written testimony, official statistics are biased in a variety of ways that dramatically understate the progress we have made reducing poverty. Poverty among the children of single mothers, for instance, fell from 49 percent in 1982 to 18 percent in 2014 and is lower today. Before closing, I want to redirect your attention to two sets of issues that I would characterize as ``crises of opportunity.'' First is the problem of limited upward mobility out of poverty. Even as we have driven child poverty rates down, that has not resulted in a greater chance that children raised in low-income families will make it to the middle class. The lack of progress boosting upward mobility is even more worrisome because it prevents us from narrowing vast disparities in mobility between Black and White children. A second crisis of opportunity involves the deterioration of our associational life. Relative to 40 or 50 years ago, Americans marry less often, live further from family members in adulthood, do fewer things together with their neighbors, attend religious services less often, join fewer groups, and spend less time with co-workers outside the workplace. Economic residential segregation has worsened; trust in institutions has diminished. Single parenthood has increased, along with nonmarital birth rates and divorce. Since these problems predate the increase in inequality and have occurred as poverty rates have fallen, addressing them is likely to require different kinds of policies than would be considered if the goal were to reduce inequality or poverty. Indeed, many policies that would reduce inequality or short- term poverty might be counterproductive in terms of increasing upward mobility or reversing declines in associational life. Policymakers should take care in labeling some economic or social challenge a ``crisis.'' People, of course, will differ in their assessment of how serious an issue is. But a crisis that is declared on the basis of questionable data and questionable claims about why that data is important runs the risk of crowding out more pressing national problems. It is difficult enough identifying solutions to our problems; we cannot let ourselves be led astray in prioritizing them. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Winship appears on page 75] Chairman Sanders. Mr. Winship, thank you very much for your testimony. Now we are going to begin the questions. Let me begin my questioning with former Secretary of Labor Bob Reich. Mr. Secretary, according to your testimony, 50 years ago General Motors was the largest employer in America where the typical worker belonged to a union and made $35 an hour after adjusting for inflation. Today America's largest employer is Walmart, where over half their workforce makes less than $15 an hour, and none of their workers belong to a union. How has the decline in union membership contributed to the increase in income inequality? Mr. Reich. Mr. Chairman, one of the most dramatic changes in the United States over the past 60 years has been the decline in the percentage of private sector workers who are unionized. Sixty years ago, even, in fact, 50 years ago, one- third of all private sector workers belonged to a union. That gave them bargaining power at the firm level. It gave them a voice at the firm level. It also gave them political power because when you consider a third of all workers unionized, the unionized segment of the workforce actually had a political voice. Now, today, by contrast to 50 years ago, only 6.4 percent of private sector workers are unionized, which means that at the level of the firm, there is almost no union presence in most firms. At the level of national politics, the union voice is far less; the working-class voice is far less. And so in both respects and at both levels, you get this severe imbalance. In the 1950s, we talked about the countervailing power represented by American labor unions, countervailing to the great power of American corporations. Countervailing power is now gone. There is almost no countervailing power left. And so it is not that the GM worker was that much more brilliant or productive or the GM worker was so much better prepared than the Walmart worker. No. The difference really was that the GM worker had a union behind him or her, and the Walmart worker does not. Chairman Sanders. All right. With that, I am going to have to interrupt you, and I apologize, but I want to ask some of the other panelists a question. Let me go to Jennifer Bates. Ms. Bates, let me ask you a very simple question. Why do you believe it is so important for you and your co-workers to have a union at the Amazon facility in Bessemer, Alabama? Why is that so important? Ms. Bates. It is important because we need an equal playing field. For so long, people have been walking away from jobs because of the disrespect in equality, and nobody has actually stood up to say, ``You know what? It is time for someone to be held accountable for what they are doing.'' Amazon has a sign that sits outside that says, ``If you see something, say something.'' So we decided to stand up and say something. We need better work conditions. We need a better wage for living. We need job security. So it is important for us that the union come in so that Amazon will have the opportunity then to sit down and talk to us and with us to get these issues resolved. Chairman Sanders. Okay. Thank you very, very much. Let me ask Ms. Anderson a question. Ms. Anderson, according to your testimony, in 1980 CEOs of large corporations made about 42 times more than their average worker. Today CEOs now make over 300 times more than their average worker. Very briefly, how did that happen? Ms. Anderson. Well, it did not happen because CEOs just got a whole lot smarter during that time period. On the worker end, it has happened because wages have stagnated as unions have declined, as we have already discussed. On the CEO pay end, it has happened because stock-based pay has come to dominate CEO pay packages. And the argument there was that shifting to stock-based pay would ensure pay for performance, and that has really turned into a joke. Study after study shows there is no connection between CEO pay levels and their performance. One of the most obvious examples was after the 2008 financial crash when companies gave boatloads of new stock options to their executives when the market was at bottom, and very quickly those stock options ballooned in value as a result of a taxpayer-fueled recovery, not because of any brilliant executive performance. Chairman Sanders. Okay. Well, thank you very much, and my time has expired. Senator Graham. Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let us start with Secretary Reich. Yes, can you hear me? Hello? Mr. Reich. I can hear you perfectly fine, Senator. Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. What should the top individual tax rate be, in your view? Mr. Reich. Well, under President Eisenhower, Dwight Eisenhower, you may recall, the top rate---- Senator Graham. A little before my time, but I have heard of him. Go ahead. Mr. Reich. The top marginal rate was 91 percent. The top effective rate was about 43 percent. I do not think we need to go back to the Eisenhower years. He was a great President in many respects. But I think that we do need to substantially increase the top marginal rate from what it is today. And it is not just---- Senator Graham. Just generally speaking, what would that look like? You do not have to give me an exact number. Mr. Reich. Well, I would say probably in the range of 40 to 50 percent. Senator Graham. Okay. What should the corporate tax rate be? Mr. Reich. Are you asking me again, Senator? Senator Graham. Yes, sir. Mr. Reich. I would say that the corporate rate probably ought to be--and, again, we are talking about income taxes, corporate income taxes. I think that the top corporate income tax rate ought to be around 30 percent, maybe 35 percent of where it was before, but the question with corporate taxes is always interesting because the real underlying questions is: Who ultimately pays? I am one of the people who thinks that maybe we ought to reduce the corporate income tax and increase capital gains taxes, because it really is shareholders who bear or should bear most of the burden of the corporate income tax. Senator Graham. What should the capital gains rate be? Mr. Reich. I think the capital gains rate should be probably around 25 or 28 percent. That would be my best guess. Warren Buffett obviously thinks that there ought to be a minimum 30 percent income tax; that would be including capital gains. I think he may be--he may be right. Senator Graham. Okay. Do you support school choice for neighborhoods who have poor-performing public schools? Mr. Reich. Again, if you are asking me, Senator, I support school choice in the sense that I think that poor-performing schools do need to be held accountable. The real question is what the choice is. I think that any organization, whether it is a charter school or a public school, ought to be in the position of offering a good education, and I have offered a proposal years ago--nobody supported it except Jeb Bush. Governor Jeb Bush liked this idea, which was a voucher that would be inversely related to family income. Senator Graham. That is very helpful. Thank you. Mr. Lettieri, are you there? Mr. Lettieri. I am. Senator Graham. Okay. Do you support school choice for poor-performing schools for parents to have a choice? Mr. Lettieri. Senator Graham, it is an important question, but it falls outside of the scope of my organization's work. So I am happy to offer you my personal opinion, but I just want to make it clear it is not an issue that we have studied at EIG. Senator Graham. Well, that is okay. About the tax rates that I just talked about, what is your view on tax rates? Mr. Lettieri. I think the question about where tax rates should be set is a complicated one because it depends on what other aspects of the Code are a factor. Senator Graham. Deductions and exemptions, right? Mr. Lettieri. Exactly. So I think what we know about the corporate tax rate, for example, is that the U.S.---- Senator Graham. Would you support a flat tax? Mr. Lettieri. No. Senator Graham. Okay. Do you support tax reform to eliminate some deductions and exemptions? Mr. Lettieri. Yes. Senator Graham. Okay. Mr. Lettieri. As a general matter, I think some of our Tax Code is good. A progressive Tax Code is good, and so I think if that is what you mean by tax reform, then the answer is yes. Senator Graham. So my point here is you wanted to improve the life of the average American worker, at what point does regulation and taxation on business trickle down to the inability to get good-paying jobs and a growing economy? How much does tax and regulation impact the American economy and the ability of people to participate in it at a higher level? Mr. Lettieri. Well, I think one of the things that is often misunderstood is that complexity is a subsidy to larger incumbent stakeholders. So the more complex an economy is, the more complex the regulatory system or the Tax Code is, the more likely it is to be gamed by those at the top, and the more likely it is to disadvantage those at the bottom. So as policymakers think about these questions, which are important, I think the implicit barrier to entry that is created by complexity is something that you should keep in mind, because it is something that certainly plays into the theme of robust competition and holding larger stakeholders to account for competition. Senator Graham. Yes, thank you. One last question. Do you worry that if our tax rates are out of line on the corporate side with the rest of the world, that we will incentivize American companies maybe to leave? Mr. Lettieri. I think certainly the tax rates can be a disincentive. It is not the only factor that companies consider when they are looking at locational decisions. Trade policy, for example, plays a large role. But certainly if the U.S. were to get way out of whack with the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) average, I think that would be a problem. Chairman Sanders. Senator Graham, thank you. Senator Whitehouse. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. My questions are for Mr. Reich. First of all, thank you for your testimony and your graphs. You document unprecedented income inequality in this country basically since the Gilded Age, which, on its own, is a problem. But the question I want to raise with you is: What do the New Age robber barons do with that money, the 1 percent billionaires? We know that some of them start big, famous foundations, and they do charitable work, and good for them. But some of them set up faux foundations and fund fake think tanks and go to work in politics from hiding. Many of them are billionaires who made their billions in the fossil fuel industry. And the operation that they run with their billions can actually best be compared, in my view, to hostile covert operations like intelligence services run. And so the question is: What happens when income inequality at virtually unprecedented levels spawns political inequality? What happens when you have a quietly ruling political class that is hiding behind dark money outlets to control political parties, to control public debate, to control elections through sponsored think tanks, through captive, paid-for media outlets, and through dark money-funded super Political Action Committees (PAC) and independent expenditure political operations? Could you comment on--there is that old line in TV advertising, ``But wait, there is more.'' Can you comment on the ``But wait, there is more'' of the political inequality that the political hidden use of all this massive fortune that they have aggregated is brought to bear? Mr. Reich. Yes, Senator, and this is really one of the most important negative consequences of wide inequality and the degree of inequality we have in the United States today; that is, people at the top who are sitting on top of huge amounts of assets can and do use a lot of that money to influence political decisions, not only at the Federal level but also at the State and local levels, that in turn increases their wealth. It is a vicious cycle. We see, for example, Amazon in Seattle has spent a great deal of money on city council elections. Amazon around the country is large enough that it can actually have an auction in which it extorts money from States and cities around the country for where its second headquarters is going to be. Dark money is proliferating around the country, as is our corporate public relations efforts to change public attitudes in a direction that a corporation may want. The whole role of money in our system and the overwhelming dominance of money from big corporations as well as from very wealthy individuals polluting American politics is one of the worst aspects of inequality. As the great Louis Brandeis, the Justice, once said, ``We have a choice in this country. We can either have a great deal of money in the hands of a few people, or we can have a democracy. But we cannot have both.'' Senator Whitehouse. So what happens to citizenship and to the citizenry when a citizen cannot tell who the actor is on the political stage, when the ad does not say, ``Hi, I am Exxon and I approved this message,'' ``I am Koch Industries or Charles Koch and I approved this message''? Instead it says behind some phony front group, ``Americans for Peace and Puppies and Prosperity approved this message,'' and you go and look up Americans for Peace and Puppies and Prosperity, and it is a mail drop. What is the citizen left with? Mr. Reich. The citizen is left with no ability to sift through the messages that that citizen receives as to their veracity and reliability. Senator Whitehouse. Motive sometimes matters, doesn't it? And if you hide the identity, you also hide the motive, and you hide the ability of the citizen to evaluate the motive and, therefore, the veracity. Mr. Reich. Indeed, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said as recently as in Citizens United, Senator, as you know, that transparency will cure all of the negative aspects of great wealth, corporate wealth in our political system. Well, that has not happened. We do not have the transparency. Congress has not demanded it, and a lot of dark money and dark money groups and 401(c)(4), 501(c)(4) groups make it impossible for the citizens to know who is actually providing what message. Senator Whitehouse. And I will conclude by pointing out that a great number of them are in the Supreme Court right trying to undo that transparency part of the Supreme Court's Citizens United holding. Thank you, Secretary Reich. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Sanders. Senator Toomey. Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for holding this hearing, the title of which is ``The Income and Wealth Inequality Crisis in America.'' And I think we ought to start with asking ourselves: Is this really a crisis? Is that the way we should think about especially the most recent trends in income and wealth inequality? I want to start with a chart that Mr. Reich has provided us. He refers to it as the ``Wage and salary income has dropped as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP),'' and this is the chart he provides in his testimony. And, you know, if you look at it, it does look like, you know, that is a declining trend, right? It was kind of pronounced since 2000. You could argue it goes back further, but, yeah, that sure looks like it is declining. But what is really interesting is that Mr. Reich chose not to provide all the data that is available. He cuts off the data in 2018. The data for 2019 and 2020 are available. And so let us take a look at what the picture looks like if you include all the available data. If you include all the available data, what you notice is it is the same graph except we have got this very significant uptick. In fact, it is an upward trend from 2011. Clearly an upward trend. In fact, in 2018 and 2019, the upward trend--now, mind you, what we are talking about here is wages and salaries as a percentage of our total economy. The upward trend that has been underway for 10 years now was accelerating in 2018, 2019, further in 2020. So should we consider that we are in a crisis of income inequality when the situation has been trending better for 10 years and most recently at an accelerating pace? Take a look. We have recaptured back where we were in 2003. I think when you have got more data available, you really ought to use it. Let us take a look at another chart that we have here. This is from the Atlanta Fed, and it compares wage growth for the lowest 25 percent of wage earners to the wage growth of the highest 25 percent of earners. Now, the lowest 25 percent of earners is in blue, and the highest 25 percent of earners is in this gold color. Now, what does this chart show? It shows clearly that sometime around about 2014, wages started growing more rapidly for low-income works than wages have been growing for high- income workers. And what does that mean? That means the income gap is getting narrower, right? If higher-income people's raises are occurring at a lower pace than low-income raises, then the income differential is narrowing. And that is exactly what is happening, and once again not only is that happening, but it is happening at an accelerating pace, because you see the gap by which low-income earners are outperforming high- income earners in terms of their wage growth. That gap has widened. So, again, does an acceleration in the rate at which lower- income earners are gaining ground relative to high-income workers, when that is happening and accelerating, should we think of that as a crisis? Really? And the reason I am concerned--well, let us go to one more chart here. We have got another one that is provided by the St. Louis Fed, and the data itself comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and this is a depiction of average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees. So these are not managers. They are not executives. And what is happening is wages have been rising--and, you know, prior to 2015, not at a very spectacular pace, that is for sure. But it has certainly been accelerating to the point where in recent years these wage gains have been well above the rate of inflation. So my point is this is very good news. I know some would like to suggest that we have a crisis so as to justify various socialistic policies and even more redistribution of wealth. But the fact is the income gap has been narrowing, and it has been narrowing at an accelerating pace. A quick word about the wealth gap. You know, one of the ironies of this is a big source of the increase in the wealth gap has been the inflated value of financial assets. And why have financial assets gone up so much in value? Well, a big part of it, I think, is ultra-easy money by the Federal Reserve. Our Democratic colleagues have long been huge advocates of ultra-easy money by the Federal Reserve. Well, you should be careful what you wish for, because this is one of the consequences. But even here, there is good news, and the good news is that while investing in financial assets used to be the domain of just the wealthy, that is increasingly becoming an activity of middle-income and even people of modest means. In 1989, fewer than one-third of American households owned stocks. In 2019, a majority, almost 53 percent, of American households owned stocks. This is going to help narrow the wealth gap. And I see I have consumed my time. Thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator. Senator Van Hollen should be with us on video. Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and all out witnesses for your testimony. We have seen another explosion in terms of the gaps between CEO compensation and the compensation that they provide to their workers. And that is why I join Senator Sanders in introducing the bill we did today. But I would like to talk and start with you, Dr. Reich, with the danger of using sort of economic average measures to measure how the overall economy is performing for working people. So, for example, if Jeff Bezos had moved to Baltimore City last year, you would have seen a tripling of the per capita income in Baltimore City. The current per capita income in Baltimore City is roughly $53,000. If Jeff Bezos moved there last year, it would have more than tripled that to roughly $175,000 per person. And, of course, the situation of any individual in Baltimore City would not have changed at all. And so looking from the outside of those averages, you would say, ``Wow, what is going on in Baltimore City? A huge increase in economic activity.'' Can you talk about why we really need to be drilling down on different economic measures in order to gauge the success of our policies for most Americans? Mr. Reich. Aggregate measures that simply look at the average--and the average, as you get more and more unequal in terms of income and wealth, the average tells you less and less about how most people are living. Even the median, which is half above, half below, gives you more information but still does not tell you what you need to know about what is happening to the bottom half. The biggest story of America over the last 50 years has been really the fact that the bottom half, what we used to call the ``middle class'' and the ``working class'' and the ``poor,'' their situations have become so similar and their insecurities and the degree to which they are living paycheck to paycheck have really become very central to our political economy. I think one reason that we find so many people who are poor and working class are so angry--it is justifiable. Their anger is justifiable. They have worked harder and harder, and they are getting less and less. Mobility, economic mobility, the ability to move upward is becoming harder and harder for the bottom half. Logically, because as the ladder becomes longer and longer, even if you are moving up the ladder at the same rate you used to move up the ladder, you get fewer and fewer rungs up that ladder. So you are absolutely 100 percent correct. We need to look at median and below, not at average, to get a real insight into what is happening to the American workforce. Senator Van Hollen. Well, I appreciate that, and I hope we will do that because we tend to throw around numbers about aggregate GDP growth and those really disguise what is happening to so many working Americans. And, of course, this is all--we have seen the drop in real wages since the late 1970s coincide with many factors, including globalization, but certainly a big one is the drop in union membership and activity, and that is what the PRO Act is designed to address. If I could just ask Jennifer Bates to let us know, first, thank you for what you and your fellow workers are doing to try to organize and empower workers. Can you tell us what difference you think a union would make to you and your colleagues at Amazon? Ms. Bates. What difference a union will make, it will allow us to feel more comfortable with coming to work. We are already coming there with commitment, but we will come to work understanding that things are being fair with us. We are able to sit down and negotiate better working conditions to get some of the issues resolved and to facilitate; that it will allow us to come to work and not have to worry about just getting fired for something that you have no idea that you had done. It helps us to be put in a position where we are able to negotiate a living wage and not just the minimum wage. Just only yesterday, one of my co-workers tried to apply for an apartment, and they told her she did not make enough. And if we would do the study, we understand that you have to make at least $39,000 average to afford an apartment. So it would open the eyes not just in Bessemer, Alabama, but all over, that the corporations that soon pay attention to the working-class people, that we are living paycheck to paycheck trying to get to not just pay the rent or pay mortgage, but we also have to live, put food on the table. So I think the union coming to Bessemer, Alabama, to Amazon will really open the door to a lot of things. Senator Van Hollen. Thank you all. Senator Whitehouse. [Presiding.] Thank you, Ms. Bates. We turn now to Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish Chairman Sanders were here because I wanted to second, first of all, what Lindsey was talking about, how I think these hearings are very interesting. I think they are also very important. And I would just talk to my Democrat colleagues. I think there is an awful lot of areas of potential agreement here on this particular issue. I am not so sure that it is the accumulation of wealth that is the main problem here. I think it is the accumulation of power. I think Lindsey was kind of referring to that, monopolistic power. I went to Eastern Europe, and I know, Senator Whitehouse, you have been to the Munich Conference. When you go to Eastern Europe, they always talk about the corruption of the media oligarchs. Well, we have something similar here as well. So you can measure the income disparity; you can measure asset disparity. I do not have the big charts like Senator Toomey, but here is one way to look at income disparity, and I will do it for the cameras. This is just simply the five quintiles, you know, income earners broken up into 20 percent increments, and you can see when you are just looking at income, it is a 26 times difference between the lowest quintile and the upper quintile. But it completely changes when you take away taxes from the upper quintile and you add benefits to the lower quintile, and then it is only a 3 times differential. So we can all talk about statistics. We can all use them to, I guess, support our arguments. But what I would argue or what I would like to say is let us kind of get together on this. I think we do recognize that there is a problem, and we have to diagnose what caused it. I see Senator Kaine is back. I have been talking to him a little bit about in the past, even with the Republican tax plan--I was not a big fan of it, quite honestly. I voted for it because I think we did need to make our tax system more competitive. But at the time I was promoting something that I thought would be a better approach, which is tax simplification and tax rationalization. To me, income is income. The fact that we have so many different types of income that we just arbitrarily assign different tax rates distorts economic activity. I think one of the reasons you see this asset bubble is we have created so many incentives for C corporations to retain earnings, so they do not flow out to their shareholders. They are not efficiently reallocated in through our economy. So one of the things I was proposing is what I would call the ``true Warren Buffett tax.'' Ninety-five percent of American businesses are pass-through entities. The income is taxed at the individual level at individual rates. So why not do it to 100 percent of corporations? Tax all corporate income at the individual level at individual rates. Income is income. We have worked out all the complications. It is actually quite easy to do. I know it is a departure, but I would love to work with my colleagues across the aisle and my Republican colleagues as well to rationalize and simplify our tax system. Capital gains. You know, the reason we have lower capital gains rates makes some sense because you do not want to tax mere inflationary gains. But from my standpoint, the better way of doing it is to call income income, tax it at the same rate, but remove the inflationary gain by indexing the asset. Again, simplify, rationalize the tax system. I do not like social or economic engineering to the Tax Code. We need to simplify it. We need to rationalize it. And I guess I just want to ask Mr. Winship, first of all-- no, let me go to Professor Reich first. Do you disagree with this chart where I am showing, you know, income without taking account of income taxes and benefits, 26-time differential, but when you add in income taxes--or deduct income taxes and add benefits, which, by the way, according to Phil Gramm, $45,000 average benefits from different welfare programs, tax credits to the lowest 20 percent in 2020 alone. Real disposable income went up 5.5 percent, total savings up $1.6 trillion. Our economy is going to take off with all the pent-up demand. But do you dispute this, Professor Reich? Mr. Reich. Senator, no, I think that undoubtedly, when you add in taxes and transfers, inequality of income becomes far less dramatic, and that is an argument, I assume, for more taxes and more transfers. But also let me just stress that wealth inequality is not really touched by that. And one of the biggest problems we have in this country in terms of everything from political influence to the distortions that occur when great wealth is transferred from family to family, from generation to generation, has to do with wealth inequality and not only income inequality. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Secretary Reich. It is Senator Kaine's time now. Senator Kaine. Thank you, Chair and fellow colleagues. And, Senator Johnson, ``income is income'' is something I really believe in, too, so there may be some profitable discussions there. I have a chart with me that I hope might be visible behind me, depending upon the camera angle. It is not right now. I wonder--thank you for that. This chart is an interesting chart because I think it shows the different values of the two parties right now, but it also shows potentially a different economic philosophy that we can operate a real-time experiment on. So this takes a look at how the benefits in the Trump 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act were allocated among the five economic quintiles of the American public. And then it also shows how the benefits of the American Rescue Plan passed in February by Democrats were allocated among the American public. And if you look at the chart, what you see is a couple of things. The quintile of the American public that was most benefitted by the Trump tax cut was the top quintile. The quintile benefitted by the Democratic American Rescue Plan was the lowest quintile. Sixty-five percent of the benefit in the Trump tax cut went to the top quintile; whereas, more than 65 percent of the benefit in the American Rescue Plan went to the bottom three quintiles. The Democratic recovery plan was relatively even in distribution of benefits across the first four quintiles of American income; whereas, you see a dramatic un-weighting and lack of evenness in the Republican Tax Cut and Jobs Act. Given that the Republican tax plan was passed with unanimous Republican support and no Democratic support and the American Rescue Plan was passed with unanimous Democratic support and no Republican support, I think these two plans are a really interesting window into the values of the two parties. And the price tags of both plans are essentially the same. The tax cut plan was about $1.9 trillion; the American Rescue Plan was about $1.75 or $1.8 trillion. So I think this is a great chart, and the coincidence of which bars are blue and which bars are red is not a coincidence. But I think it is a great chart to show the different philosophies in the two parties as to how you want to allocate benefits if the Government does something like this that is supposed to be a stimulus in nature. The Democratic proposal is to spread it more evenly with a little bit more focus on the lowest-earning Americans; the Republican philosophy is to concentrate benefits at the top. But what I am interested in--and this is the question I would like to pose to the panelists--is in addition to expressing the values of the parties, I also think we are now going to set up a really interesting 2-year study of what the effect of these proposals--what the effect of this legislation is on the American economy. So the Republican tax cut was done in December of 2017, and you could run a 2-year experiment, December 2017 to December 2019. You would not want to get too much into 2020 because COVID is what economists would say is an ``exogenous shock,'' so you run a 2-year study. And then you run a 2-year study on the American Rescue Plan from February of 2021 until February of 2023. And what you do--and I would encourage maybe some of my academic friends on this to do this--is look at every economic data point you think is significant: family income, employment, poverty rates among adults and children, stock market, business startup activity, GDP, wealth inequality, deficit. You pick the economic measure, and for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, you start in December 2017, and you look at how it affected the economy for 2 years. And for the American Rescue Plan, you start in February of 2021, and you look how it affected the economy in the next 2 years. And I think you will see not only what the values of the parties are, but I think you will also see which economic philosophy actually produces more good for American society. So that is a working hypothesis that I would put on the table to our experts, and I would love anyone who is on the panel to address whether my hypothesis might be worthy of study. Ms. Anderson. Well, perhaps I could jump in. This is Sarah Anderson from the Institute for Policy Studies, and I really appreciate your call for more analysis of the impacts of these policies on inequality and the whole range of income levels. I would perhaps suggest an additional indicator for you to look at. No one today has yet mentioned the Federal Reserve figure from 2019 that found that 40 percent of Americans could not afford a $400 emergency, meaning they were just one medical problem or car breakdown away from financial ruin. And I think that is one of the most powerful indicators that really gets at how it is not just about wages, it is about the cost of living. And for so many Americans, the cost of housing and health care just skyrocketed, and it is a very concrete way of looking at how that affects people's level of economic security at a time when we have a growing number of billionaires at the top. So thank you. Senator Kaine. I am over my time, but I might love to hear answers from some of the other witnesses for the record. Senator Whitehouse. We are waiting for Senator Braun who is on his way here. So in the spirit of equivalence, why don't we have Senator Johnson ask a question, have Senator Kaine ask a question, and then--oh, here is Senator Braun saving the day, coming in just in the nick of time for his time. So I will recognize Senator Braun. If you want to take a moment to get yourself squared away, we can---- Senator Braun. It will not take me long. Senator Whitehouse. Okay. Very good. And Chairman Sanders is back from the vote, so he can resume the gavel. Chairman Sanders. [Presiding.] Senator Braun. Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So listening to the opening remarks, I have got this to say when it comes to what happens with minimum wage, what happens with income inequality. I think both are valid issues. When it comes to how you tackle it, the difference between Main Street USA, small businesses, family-owned, even mid-sized businesses, it is a lot different than, in my opinion, public corporations where you have got a different dynamic at play. When you look at income inequality, you have got to be careful because the opposite of that ends up where you get a central Government too overbearing. That has not worked anywhere where it has occurred. And when you look at how did we get into the pickle that we have gotten into currently, I think a lot has to do with many of the major sectors of our economy, and I would cite health care, for instance. You are dominated by a system that has no transparency, has no competition, has barriers to entry, and does not have an engaged consumer--the hallmark of what makes markets work. So I think when you hear discussions of, well, Amazon is paying 15 bucks an hour, to me for a huge corporation that has got the wherewithal, it probably should be more than that. When you look at wages across the country, I think that something needs to be done with the minimum wage. But then you need to look at it from a regional point of view. You do not want to disrupt places like Indiana where it is working because you have got a great business climate. You have also got a low cost of living, so if you do anything with minimum wage, it ought to be done to where you regionalize it. Places like New York City, San Francisco, Seattle probably should be over 20 bucks an hour because their cost of living is so high. But when you go to the extreme of what has been talked about here, I think you end up maybe hurting in the long run if you try to bring the Federal Government in as someone that tries to moderate the situation other than maybe making sure that markets are free and unfettered and that they are competitive. And, sadly, when you look at many of the places where public companies and corporations rule, you do not have that. So the other thing is when you look at the structural deficits that we run in this country of close to $1 trillion a year, my first question, if he is still on, would be for Mr. Reich. How do you, without upsetting an economy that I think was working fairly decently--you were raising wages the old- fashioned way, pre-COVID. How do you bridge a structural deficit when it is mostly associated with programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that we need but that are not self-sustaining? And I would love your explanation. Can you raise revenues in any way that is not going to upset the economy that to me there is a sweet spot, and corporate rates, when they were moved from 35 to 21, effective corporate tax rates were 18 percent, largely due to all the exceptions in the Code. Main Street employers actually got a tax break that I think was driving the economy when you took the qualified income deduction and took that rate from 39.6 to 29.6. I would love to hear your comments on what your idea is on revenue without upsetting the economy. Mr. Reich. Well, Senator, we have learned that the deficit and the overall Federal debt is less of a threat than we thought it was as recently as even 20 years ago in terms of inflation and inflationary expectations. But at some point we do need to raise revenue, and the question, obviously, becomes: Where and how and who is going to pay? The subject of these hearings is widening inequality of income and wealth, and it would seem to me that if we are looking for places to raise revenue, assuming that we come to the point where we say, well, given the needs of this country, we do have to raise revenue, that the place to look is certainly at the top. And I think that the proposals for a wealth tax merit a great deal of attention. Other countries have a wealth tax. We have property taxes at the local level, a form of wealth tax. It seems to me that, given the extraordinary wealth in the hands of certain people in this country, a wealth tax is appropriate. We also need to get rid of the loopholes, loopholes that we have been talking about for years, like the carried interest loophole. There is no reason for it, and there are many other loopholes as well that have been put into the Tax Code because there are companies and industries that are hiring lobbyists that have really spent all their time looking for ways of creating methods to reduce tax liability. Let us get rid of those loopholes and let us make sure the base is as wide as possible. Senator Braun. Thank you. Do I have time for one quick follow-up? Chairman Sanders. Well, you are over time, but I will give you--if it's brief, very brief. Senator Braun. So a quick follow-up question. Where does spending fit into the formula when we have had record revenues of recent years? And how much of a deficit are you willing to tolerate under the maybe new modern monetary theory? Mr. Reich. Well, Senator, we do not know all that much, quite frankly, as to modern monetary theory. It is a fairly new idea. The mainstream notion--and I think that we do not want to take too many risks. I think that at some point the deficit and deficit financing and the total Federal debt could ignite inflationary expectations. And that is why we do have to get serious about raising revenue. The easiest place to raise revenue, as I just said, is from people who are very wealthy. It has the least dampening effect on the economy. Right now, however, when there is so much underutilized capacity in terms of 9.5 million Americans who have lost their jobs, 4 million Americans who have dropped out of the wage labor force altogether, something in the order of 15 million Americans who are working part-time when they would rather be working full-time, given all of this underutilized capacity, right now we do need to spend in order to stimulate the economy. I do not think there is any question about that, and there is a great deal of consensus about that with regard to the mainstream. Senator Braun. Thank you. Chairman Sanders. Okay. Thank you very much. I believe our last questioner is Senator Lujan. Senator? Senator Lujan. Chair Sanders, thank you so very much, and thanks to you and to Ranking Member Graham for today's hearing. And I look forward to having a conversation about the importance of unions to our democracy, our republic, and to working Americans. Mr. Chair, my family raised me to understand that our communities are stronger when workers are protected and empowered. My grandfather was a union carpenter. My dad was a union ironworker in Local 495. My mom worked for the local public school district. My brother is International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and my nephew just was accepted into an apprenticeship program with IBEW. I believe that everybody in America should have the same opportunity that my grandfather, father, siblings, and nephew have had to work hard, to build real economic security, and to pass something better onto your children and grandchildren. Those are the values I grew up learning, and those are the values that I continue to fight for today. The testimony we heard today from our witnesses includes a number of striking statistics, and that is where my questions will begin. Mr. Lettieri, how much wealth does the bottom 50 percent of families own? Mr. Lettieri. Senator, that would be 2 percent. Senator Lujan. And, Ms. Anderson, what is the current pay gap between corporate CEOs and the average workers? Ms. Anderson. Over 300:1. Senator Lujan. And, Mr. Reich, how much of its value has the minimum wage lost to inflation since it was last raised in 2009? Mr. Reich. Just about 10 percent. Senator Lujan. Mr. Reich, how much has union membership fallen over the past half-century? Mr. Reich. From 32 percent of private sector workers down to 6.4 percent of private sector workers today. Senator Lujan. So down about 33 percent since 1950. Mr. Reich. Right. Senator Lujan. Mr. Reich, yes or no, would you agree that the statistics and increased inequality are correlated with the decline in union membership? Mr. Reich. I think they are directly correlated. In fact, if you look at the rise of unions in terms of the percentage of Americans in the private sector who are unionized and then the decline of unions, you see that the peak years of unionization were from 1940 to 1978, and those were exactly the years when we had the greatest degree of equality in this country in terms of income and wealth spread much more equitably than today. Senator Lujan. And, Ms. Bates, I very much appreciate having you here today, and I want to make sure that I give you some time to answer this question, and it is similar to a question that you were asked earlier. So my question, Ms. Bates, is: What would having the opportunity to join a union mean to you and to your co-workers? Ms. Bates. What having a union will mean to me and my co- workers is that our voices are being amplified. That would give us an even playing field. We would be able to negotiate better pay wages, which means that it is a living wage and not just the minimum wage that Amazon voices. What it would mean is that we would have job security, that people will not get fired for mundane things or be afraid that they are going to get fired for doing something that they had no idea of doing. It would bring us respect. It would bring us a sense of empowerment that, when we stand, we continue to believe that we are valued, bring the value and commitment that we bring into the jobs, that we receive the same thing. So having a union to amplify what we are saying, it would bring us a sense of security and not just at the Amazon in Bessemer but all over the country. Senator Lujan. Ms. Bates, all I have to say to that is, ``Amen.'' I want to thank you for being here today. While I appreciate the expertise of the panelists and the witnesses, especially the expertise that I have benefitted from the work that he has done as the Secretary of Labor, but all of his advocacy, Secretary Reich, your testimony today has been very compelling, and I just want to say thank you so much for coming today. And, again, to the Chair and to the Ranking Member, thank you for bringing us together. And with that, Chair Sanders, I yield back. Chairman Sanders. Well, thank you very much, Senator. I am not sure if we are going to have another Senator or not join us, but let me wrap up this hearing by thanking all of the panelists and all of the Senators who participated. The issue that we are dealing with today, income and wealth inequality, is an issue that has to be addressed and is an issue that will determine what kind of Nation we wish to become. We are the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world, but the truth is that half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. Many millions of people are working for starvation wages. And as a result of the pandemic, people are wondering how they are going to feed their kids, how they are going to avoid eviction, how they are going to go to the doctor when they or another family member gets sick. Clearly, I think our goal is to create a Nation where the economy works for all people and not just the very few. But that is, in fact, where we are right now, and as I think some of the discussion this morning has been about, it is that it is not only the absurdity of two people in America owning more wealth than the bottom half of the country; it is the kind of power that the people on top have to hire lobbyists here in Washington, to influence legislative decisions, to own media, to make campaign contributions. There is a reason why the rich get richer and so many other people are becoming poorer, and that is not just economic decisions but those are political decisions as well, and too often those decisions are influenced by the people who have the money. So this is an issue. I think this was an excellent hearing, and I thank all of our panelists for participating, and we look forward to pursuing this issue in the months to come. Thank you all very much, and this hearing is ended. [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD [Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]