OECD has a new report out on income inequality. The report concludes:
Today in advanced economies, the average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10%. Even in traditionally egalitarian countries – such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden – the income gap between rich and poor is expanding – from 5 to 1 in the 1980s to 6 to 1 today. It’s 10 to 1 in Italy, Japan, Korea and the United Kingdom, rising to 14 to 1 in Israel, Turkey and the United States and reaching more than 25 to 1 in Mexico and Chile.Why should we care about income inequality?
Rising income inequality creates economic, social and political challenges. It can jeopardise social mobility: intergenerational earnings mobility is low in countries with high inequality such as Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, and higher in the Nordic countries, where income is distributed more evenly. The resulting inequality of opportunities will affect economic performance as a whole. Inequality can also fuel protectionist sentiments. People will no longer support open trade and free markets if they feel that they are losing out while a small group of winners is getting richer and richer.An interesting finding from the analysis is that one reason that income inequality has increased has been a diversification of the labor force, with globalization playing a minor role:
[R]egulatory reforms and institutional changes increased employment opportunities but also contributed to greater wage inequality. These reforms were carried out to strengthen competition in the markets for goods and services and to make labour markets more adaptable. The good news is that more people, and in particular many low-paid workers, were brought into employment. But the logical consequence of more low-paid people in work is a widening distribution of wages.What does OECD recommend? Better jobs.
The most promising way of tackling inequality is through boosting employment. Fostering more and better jobs, enabling people to escape poverty and offering real career prospects, is the most important challenge for policy makers to address.Boosting employment may help lift the bottom, but it does not address issues at the top. The OECD tiptoes around the issue of taxes and the super wealthy.
39 comments:
This comment struck me incredibly naive, "The most promising way of tackling inequality is through boosting employment. Fostering more and better jobs, enabling people to escape poverty and offering real career prospects, is the most important challenge for policy makers to address." Small business owners are in a position to provide some of the jobs that make up the first step on the career ladder. These are not rich people but the government treats them as the a piggy bank to fund the all the "good things" government must do. Entry level positions have a much higher tax burden than people realize. First is 15% payroll tax, half paid by the employee and half by the employer. Don't kid yourself, the half paid by the employer affects the employee's wages. Unemployment insurance in our state is assessed on at 2% of the first $18K earned so its applied to the nearly all the low wager worker's earnings. Healthcare is a massive cost. Not only have government policies in Medicare and Medicaid lead to costs that are double other industrialized nation's outlays on a per capita basis, 15-20% of those costs for private insurance is to make up for the discounts Medicare and Medicaid negotiate for themselves but allow healthcare providers to pass onto private insurers. I cringe to think that employees earning $15 per hour are likely contributing $3-5 per hour of their earnings to support government provided medical care to elderly people with millions in assets. Its no wonder the wealth difference between elderly (over 65) and the young (25-40) is wider now than its ever been. By funneling more and more wealth through the government those with the best access and influence are negotiating advantages for themselves. Those not in a position to lobby the government like small businesses and entry level workers end up making up the shortfall with hidden taxes and fees that are highly regressive, inhibit job creation and exacerbate the income gap you are trying to fix.
Income inequality cannot be "solved" by any government. Income inequality is a direct function of 100% of all people deciding who will get their money. A survey of the top individuals within the 10% aggregate indicates that very few have inherited wealth or wealth that was derived by exploiting the 90%.
It seems to me that income inequality is the equivalent of monopoly awareness. Both are essentially false and government involvement only makes things worse: increasing the size and scope of the state, and increasing the prices of goods.
The OECD is a prime example of this statist overreach. A cursory examination of their various mission statements indicates that they are more interested in social engineering than in breaking down trade barriers. Free trade and intercourse among people is what builds strong societies not governmental policies designed (by whom?) to craft artificial groupings (leading to class warfare).
I agree with Sean. Employee cost is about 1.3 times salary. Most of that driven by taxes and health care.
The top 10% in America starts at $110,000/year. That doesn't sound super rich to me. The top 10% pay the vast majority of taxes. The bottom 50% pay less 3% of taxes.
The problem is with the bottom. The unemployment rate is 25% for those without a HS diploma.
Mike,
I think one of the points I am trying to make is that if an employer pays 30% of an entry level worker's earnings to the government it is essentially a tax paid for by the work of that employee. In other words, 50% of the work force that is lower and middle class may only see 3% of their income going directly to the government in taxes but 30% of the compensation earned by that employee is being sent to the government by their employer. It is still a hefty tax being paid on behalf of that low wage worker that depresses their income.
One of the main aims of automation and information technology (IT) has been to increase productivity – more product or service per man hour of 'labor'. The more 'productive' are automation and IT, the fewer workers needed to meet market demands.
With the recent large, worldwide, downturn of economies, employers have finally begun to make the most of automation and IT. As a result, they find less need for additional workers.
But greater unemployment means poorer customers, and therefore reduced ability to pay – that effectively reduces demand.
This is one inevitable long-term consequence of unregulated capitalism – an Achilles' heal – that is bound to increase "Income Inequality"!
Whether this mechanism has finally set in – or, like Malthusean limits on growth – is yet to 'materialize', it can no more be ignored than can the problems of unsustainable depletion of natural resources.
An attractive long-term 'cure' is reduction in population growth, reduction in the average work-week, and reduction in "Income Inequality" through increased hourly 'wages'.
This can only be accomplished by increased transparency in market transactions, and regulation of 'free' markets so as to reduce lying and cheating, and reduce GROSS inequities.
It should be able to generate a continually increase in quality of life as education, research and development are promoted for THESE reasons, rather than for classical 'free market motives'.
It is far more than just tax policy which promotes wealth and wage disparity. Almost our entire system is set up to create a handful of very wealthy while having a huge number of poor.
The leftist argument against income inequality sounds strangely like social conservative arguments against gay marriage, which often hinge on the proposition that gays marrying somehow devalues straight marriage. I've never managed to coax out of a social conservative either evidence for this, or even a plausible mechanism for it.
So maybe I'll have better luck with you, Roger. If Mr. Buffett doubles his income, thereby increasing his income inequality with respect to this poor impoverished college professor, how does that affect my social mobility or that of my children? How does it affect my productivity? (Assuming I'm not spending my days gnawing my fingernails in envy). And by what mechanism is his getting richer making me poorer? How does it affect me at all, except to the extent he's now paying more tax and thereby adding more to the public coffers?
According to Alan Reynolds in today’s Wall Street Journal the share of income received by the top 1% in the US grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007 and fell to 11.3% in 2009. Recessions will do that, as Reynolds explains.
I don’t know enough about the other economies the OECD, but in the US have not the top earners succeeded in blowing the lid off their earnings, especially using 1979 as the base? It’s not just Bill Gates and Steves (Wozniak and Jobs) who were nowhere near the top in 1979, but look at what’s happened in Hollywood and professional sports where annual earnings have skyrocketed.
I for one am ecstatic: before the end of this year we’ll celebrate the Winter Solstice on the day that unemployed millionaires return to their jobs making baskets for billionaires, certainly reason for celebration, no?
Len Ornstein’s prescription -- reductions and regulation all around -- has not worked out well for Japan, and the problem is not IT or automation, in fact, the Japanese lead in robotics because they see that mix of technology as the answer to their aging population.
Nor is the problem the free market, or at least we’ve not seen that to date, rather it’s been our well-intentioned attempts to make life fair that screws things up. The great deregulation binge of the early 1920s and late 1970s early 1980s led to dramatic increases in wages and wealth as new types of jobs arose in new and renewed industries.
There has been quite some debate about the book 'The Spirit Level' in the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better
"Boosting employment may help lift the bottom, but it does not address issues at the top."
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. You assume there is a problem with having highly compensated employees. This would be true if the market for these workers were not competitive. Yet, clearly *someone* with resources values each and every one of these workers enough to give them this compensation in return for services worth *more* to them than that compensation.
I don't think it's worth $1M to hit a ball into a hole or over a wall... but clearly there are people for whom it is worth more. That Tiger or A-Rod can earn millions for their exceptional capabilities in their fields affects the well being of the lowest quintile none at all.
The totality of the problem is what you've highlighted in your excellent articles on the skilled labor gap. The issue with income inequity is the productivity advantages given by capital to the marginal contribution of skilled workers (and their general scarcity). Given these conditions, divergent income is unavoidable.
The challenge for the society is how to enable each citizen to increase their own skill and marginal contribution such that the gap doesn't increase.
re 10
============
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. You assume there is a problem with having highly compensated employees. This would be true if the market for these workers were not competitive. Yet, clearly *someone* with resources values each and every one of these workers enough to give them this compensation in return for services worth *more* to them than that compensation.
==============
The "someone" who decides on compensation for senior executives are senior executives and the compliant compensation consultants who they hire.
An affluent middle class is not a required outcome in the economy. It is a matter of policy. Henry Ford chose to pay workers $5 a day so that they could buy his cars. The affluent middle class of the 20th century was the result of political choices. It is something that we could lose because of different choices that were made later.
@jzulauf
The highly compensated tend to use that money to buy govt influence which in turn is used to enrich themselves further. Many use their govt power and positions to enrich themselves period at the expense of everyone else.
If one isn't a Pollyanna, one must also consider the possibility that, as technology advances, there might be a substantial fraction of the population who are incapable either of learning marketable skills or selling their unskilled labor for a living wage. That would present a truly difficult problem. Should society force them to do work society doesn't really need done to avoid the moral hazard of welfare? Should we pay them a sustenance, in order to buy them out of criminality?
-7-Gerard Harbison
To answer your question, Buffet's income is irrelevant to your productivity. But I think that your example misses the point.
Here is a hypothetical for you:
Your household is going to be relocated to a desert island with 49 other households chosen at random from somewhere on planet Earth. Please tell me which set up you'd prefer and why:
A. One household receives $1 million in income per year, 49 households receive zero.
B. All 50 households receive $20,000 per year.
I would like to add a definition to the debate. We do not tax wealth in the USA. We tax income. So Buffet's and Gate's billions in savings are NOT taxed. As far as I know of the OECD's only the French tax system does that (0.5%?). I often hear from politicians and others about wealthy people.
Roger 14
Your argument is hypothetical if not absurd. The world doesn't work that way. In a meritocracy such as the USA those that strive are rewarded and those that don't ...There is of course the great middle ground. Even those that don't strive at all (drop out) received supplements of medicaid, food stamps, etc. Are you suggesting that a HS drop out with no skills or drive be given further handouts from the top 1% or 10%?
#14 Roger
A. One household receives $1 million in income per year, 49 households receive zero.
Under A only one person can afford to be lazy and contribute nothing to the community in the way of labor and talent.
Under B everyone will be lazy and the community will quickly degenerate into a cesspool.
An even distribution of income is clearly a noble idea. Unfortunately without a reason to strive the vast majority of us, including myself will just do the bare minimum of what is required of us to receive our 'fixed income'.
Roger:
Your two alternatives constitute a zero sum game. They assume a fixed amount of wealth, to be distributed two different ways. This would be a reasonable analogy only if Mr. Buffett's means of enriching himself is by taking my money and that of hundreds of other people's. But the fact is, if the price of BRK.A doubles tomorrow, nobody in the US will lose a cent (except, perhaps, those short in BRK.A, but caveat short seller applies).
Now you might argue, of course, that once Mr. Buffett has made his extra million, then it constitutes a big glob of wealth that we should confiscate and divide among everyone. I don't see the ethical basis for that. I don't even think Rawls would approve of it. And I see nothing in our system of government that says it should have the power to redistribute wealth according to some formula.
Mr. Harbison,
I do think that Buffet's increase in wealth affects your productivity, and thus your mobility. The farther ahead he gets, the less believable it is for the lowest classes to believe they can be him. When the gap is narrow, aspiring to be "the rich" is sensible and realistic. Everyone works hard because they believe they can climb the economic ladder. When the gap becomes so great you have better odds of becoming "the rich" by playing the lottery, more and more people give up the hope and start settling for less, which means a decrease in productivity. I'm not saying it's right, but it's how psychology works...at least in the argument that an income gap reduces mobility. A comparison everyone posting on a climate science blog can probably see in their own lives is that we don't aspire to run in the Olympics. We all probably gave that dream up long ago when reality informed us that no amount of hard work was going to get us there. Economics operate the same way.
I think Americans have ignored the statistics of social mobility for a long time, preferring to indoctrinate themselves and their children into a dream involving bootstraps, ingenuity, and hard work. Indoctrinate is a scary term, but I think it's the best one to describe the approach we take to the work ethic virtue. We had lots of work ethic messages targeted at children when I was in school. I also don't think it's too out-there to say that most parents believe it's their job to instill a strong work ethic. If parent's take it as their mission, the message is in school, and suggestions otherwise are basically heresy, you have strong case for indoctrination, for better or worse. At the risk of stating the obvious, a strong work ethic is not necessarily a feature of culture and education in most of the world's countries.
The American Dream is basically a work ethic wrapped in hope. Real stats about the income gap tear the insulating hope part away, exposing the work ethic part to the elements. Whether it wears away or stays solid largely depends on how high up the economic ladder you are. As the gap widens the rich will maintain a belief that their position is substantially due to their work ethics, and poor people will increasingly believe theirs is not.
Unless they give it all away, stick it into trusts, or use various insurance schemes to provide for their offspring, Buffet and Gates or their spouses will pay federal and possibly estate taxes on whatever is not sheltered. I hope that makes some feel better. It makes me rather queasy.
I’ve never understood why death should be anything more than a capital gains event, tax-wise. If Jim and Betty win Powerball over the weekend, collect a lump sum on Monday less about half for income taxes, then pass on by Friday, why are the feds (and possibly state) entitled to half of the remainder? It implies that the sovereign state in fact owns all with its subjects entitled to use whatever they grab while they live and forfeit the balance when they pass on. How is that fair?
Lets consider east and west Germany. By 1960 massive numbers of east germans- many the best and brightest- fled the Soviet Bloc government. The Soviet Bloc rather than correct the failings that were impoverishing its people- solved the problem by building a wall. By 1989 the growing inequalty in wealth and freedom could no longer be contained and the wall fell and with it the government. Redistibution, like the wall, is another “solution” by bad governments trying to avoid the consequences of their own failings. If successful however no government will ever again be responsible for its actions and perhaps why so many governments find this appealing.
And any debt we may have had- Norman Borlaug paid in full.
Time for some humility. A Hayek named Friedrich offers this wisdom in his book The Fatal Conceit:
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
In a lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 11, 1974, he expanded his thought as follows:
“It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences—an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the ‘scientistic’ attitude—an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, ‘is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.’”
His point was, in part, the social sciences are not as clear, prescriptive, or permanent as the physical sciences, something economists must keep in mind as they assist policymakers.
-17-Harrywr2 and -18-Gerard Harbison
You both are ignoring the simple hypothetical;-)
Do you really believe that there are no (zero!) societal implications associated with different wealth distributions in a society?
And if there are different societal implications that some people might value one distribution over another?
My analogy has nothing to do with taxes, redistribution or the price of cocoa in Ivory Coast.
It is a simple illustration that wealth distribution has consequences, and we value those consequences like other societal outcomes. Reasonable people can agree to disagree on what constitutes appropriate levels of equity, no?
Thanks!
-23- Roger,
Yes, they mostly ignored what you asked about, but it's a difficult thing to answer. Is this distribution static? Is there no way to change my income? What's the guy with the million dollars a year doing with all that money, anyways? Is he forced to spend it only off the island? How else would no one else on the island get any income? If no one else could get any of this currency, wouldn't they create some new currency, and thus be able to earn an income through that?
Still, it's important to consider means when considering the ends, and in a place where this distribution were dictated by fiat, and not allowed to change, I think either scenario would have worse consequences than where the distribution were due to voluntary interactions among the inhabitants.
It's also noteworthy that people generally feel rich or poor by comparing people similar to them. Sure, the Warren Buffets of the world have a lot more than us, but we're more likely to be affected by the guy down the street with the pool and the TV that's bigger than ours. So in that situation, there doesn't seem to be much difference between $0 and $20K, though in general I'd rather have $20K than $0.
@#17
under scenario A the person with $1 million will be killed by the others in a typical marxist endpoint
Roger (#23),
To address your hypothetical, of course it matters if wealth inequality is achieved in the way your hypothetical presents--with one person having everything and the others having nothing. In your scenario, the rich guy ends up dead with all the others fighting over the proceeds.
Translating into more realistic terms, it's not the wealth inequality itself that matters (at least, not very much) but how it is achieved. If it comes about by the poor getting poorer, that's bad. If it comes about by the poor having enough for their basic needs but the rich rapidly increasing their wealth, that can be a good thing.
Think of it as wealth diversity. Diversity of wealth is good for the same reasons that ANY kind of diversity can be good--it broadens the range of options available to society and ensures that the optimal outcome is capable of being achieved. Limits on wealth means limits on what societies can achieve, and the reality is that expensive action is more likely to be achieved when wealth is in the hands of a few (whether businessmen, politicians, kings, emporers) than evenly distributed.
To put it more bluntly, I will accept the notion that the rich have too much as soon as you convincingly argue that, similarly, the educated know too much, professional athletes are too skilled, and that highly ethical people are destructive of society. I don't expect that argument any time soon.
The problem, as always, is when the bottom has too little--too many are uneducated, out of shape, and poorly behaved. But really, that's NOT what's going on with wealth these days. Everyone is better off than they were a generation ago. That the wealthy have gotten better by a greater amount can only be a good thing. That's the ultimate in upward mobility.
-26-Brian (and others)
It is of course fine to alter they hypothetical (it is after all a hypothetical) ... but I designed my version to make a simple point, which I make explicit in -23- above.
Thanks!
Seems that we are setting up an impossible test if we must have perfect redistribution inter and intra national borders. Are we assuming Pareto efficiency or will we allow a race to the bottom to achieve equality? What is more important GINI, purchasing power parity or the consumption of the top and bottom 10% ? Since wealth is always being redistributed- what time scale are we using for evaluation?
Does any of this matter? The answers to the above are processed differently in the brain than justice and equity. Logic is a poor defense against angry people.
The most important question- what are the unintended consequences?
Roger:
Clearly and almost by definition, individuals in a group of people can have different attitudes/preferences to the distribution of wealth/income among the people in that group. However, using Arrow's impossibility theorem on social welfare functions, there can be no single preference without coercion or force assuming that there are different preferences. That is perhaps the bottom-line when posing the question whether the collective can agree on an ideal distribution of wealth/income: might makes right!
In addition, your hypothetical triggered an interesting real world analogy that many of us are likely to have experienced to some degree! In a family, a parent who generates the income essentially is the equivalent of the millionaire. As kids we essentially had nothing. Moreover, I recall expressing no demand that my dad share his pay with me in any direct way: My "pocket money" was his largesse. To all intents and purposes he was a benign autocrat - his preference was the only one that actually existed. I do not recall the thought of the distribution of my dad's wealth ever occurring to me until I went off to college. At which point I recall arguing that he "owed" me the money he saved by claiming me as a dependent! Boy, can I think of a host of devastating counter-arguments now that I have three kids.
I am not sure where this gets us. The arguments that a more equal distribution would lead to better outcomes is fraught with difficult to resolve questions. Most revolutions triggered by claims of the injustice of unequal distributions of wealth have been led by those who ultimately replaced skewed distributions of wealth with skewed distributions of power - which ultimately led to different but equally skewed distributions of wealth.
Roger:
You can give everyone $20,000 on your desert island. In five years Warren Buffett will have his money back.
.
If I recall correctly, an annual income of $34,000 puts you in the top 1% in the world. So anyone making that or more should see a tax increase?
Frankly "income inequality" is not a problem. Lack of economic opportunity is the problem. If your real income doubled every year only those choked with envy would care even a fig if someone else's income was tripling.
As a closing thought, if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both dropped dead tomorrow and thus decreased income inequality, it would benefit almost no one but the undertaker.
.
.
"Do you really believe that there are no (zero!) societal implications associated with different wealth distributions in a society?"
Roger, you are mixing apples and water mellons. Income and wealth are two different things. Neither for the most part is distributed.
.
Roger, I can see potential societal implications living next to a millionaire on your hypothetical island. But like anything in life there pros and cons to any arrangement. An exercise for you: posit the societal positives of having an uber-rich neighbor.
From -23- "Reasonable people can agree to disagree on what constitutes appropriate levels of equity, no?"
Ummm, NO! Clearly not. You're attempting to map a fractal space (the emergent valuations of the market), into a simple table of acceptable compensations. 1 - Z^2 doesn't have a simpler representation than to evaluate it at *every* location in the complex plane -- the Mandelbrot shape emerges, and at every level has the same complexity. The market has the same kind of complexity.
Politically, you creating a Donner Party Democracy where the 99% decide which of the 1% to eat next. Historically it has failed. If you pay doctors like janitors (as the did in the .* People's Republics), you get doctors as good as janitors.
The whole of the market is based on the fact that buyer and seller value there parts of the exchange differently. I work for my company because my time is worth *less* to me than the salary they offer. They hired me because my product is worth more than that same salary. Without this fundamental disagreement in the value of goods and services, no commerce happens.
Also, "appropriate levels of equity" assumes fungibility of value and contribution. I'll never throw a 100MPH fastball (though watching Randy Johnson do so is thrilling), never close a $1B real estate deal, or be the next supermodel (for which the world rejoices). At the same time, when it comes to my discipline, I'm far above average (he says without false humility), and "appropriate ... equity" doesn't reflect the scarcity of this level of ability, and can't. The *buyers* make the valuations, central planning is incapable.
I don't think hitting a ball into a cup is worth $1M. You'll never convince me of that. My wife doesn't think tomatoes are worth $0.01/lb -- she hates them. However, Tiger was clearly worth more than a $11M to FedEx, and I'll pay several $/lb for good tomatoes. These valuation differences pervade they whole of the market, at fractal complexity.
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” -- cited above is perfectly apt.
-32-jzulauf
"I don't think hitting a ball into a cup is worth $1M. You'll never convince me of that. My wife doesn't think tomatoes are worth $0.01/lb -- she hates them. However, Tiger was clearly worth more than a $11M to FedEx, and I'll pay several $/lb for good tomatoes."
That sounds a lot like the point I was trying to make ;-)
"Do you really believe that there are no (zero!) societal implications associated with different wealth distributions in a society?"
I think that there are not zero consequences of different wealth distributions in a society.
I think a great variation in wealth distribution is a positive influence on a society if the *reasons* for the variations, no matter how huge in range, are percieved as being fair by the majority in that society. If the majority accept that other people values are rewarded by by yet others talents or resources, then even if the poorest pays to watch the richest play with a ball it is fair society.
Any assumption that income or wealth equality is intrinsically *better*, or *fairer*, assumes a pathological state in humn nature. A kind of heat death of the human soul were entropy is at its maximum.
Roger (#27 and #23),
I know I shouldn't quibble, but I can't help myself. So here goes.
1) I didn't alter your hypothetical. I addressed it by agreeing with your fundamental point: Wealth distribution can have consequences.
2) I also pointed out that your hypothetical is also misleading. By choosing an all-or-nothing extreme, it can lead to faulty interpretations. This matters because I suspect your way of framing the hypothetical is similar to what's been going on in the brains of the so-called 99%. These misinterpretations can induce people to do strange things, like camping out in the middle of a city for months on end.
3) You say "Reasonable people can agree to disagree on what constitutes appropriate levels of equity, no?" Well, no, not really. Not if they're rational. Just because we instinctively dislike inequality doesn't make it bad. Most disagreements on policy are, I think, based on faulty understandings of the consequences of those policies, or due to a faulty equating of those policies with the underlying values they are meant to advance.
-37-Brian
1) fair enough, thanks
2) I do not expect that anyone is motivated to camp out based on the simple framing I presented here ;-)
3) "rational" -- don't get me started! I'll just say that individual judgments of good and bad social outcomes are not a function of rationality -- in the sense that there is a "rationally" correct judgment.
Thanks!
-38-Roger
Given your comment on "rationality" is the earlier claim -23- that "Reasonable people can agree to disagree on what constitutes appropriate levels of equity, no?" sarcasm (without the required sarc=on tag), and you succeeded in trolling us?
Post a Comment