The issue of income inequality is one of great complexity that ties into many different factors and issues. One of these issues is the inequality in education in the United States. The video we watched in class today that highlights the differences in education systems between Japan and the US was very interesting as it showed the disparity between the two as well as how it relates to the income inequality of our two nations. Throughout the video, the points they made seemed to resonate and make logical sense with what we already know about income inequality but I still found it very interesting.

The first point that I found agreeing with were the claims they were stating how the methods access to education are far skewed to the advantage of the rich over the poor.  A child in a rich family usually has access to more and better resources like private tutoring, better textbooks and going to better schools. With private tutoring, this is an exclusive and expensive method that gives children who’s families can afford it an advantage over the others. By receiving private tutoring, it allows a student to shoot to the front of the class and receive high marks and opportunities to more prestigious schools. On the other hand, children born to poorer families do not have the luxury of these advantages and must achieve everything on their own.

Aside from that, the video also talked about how the United States education system puts a greater emphasis on the reallocation of resources and improvement of school culture through lively participation and discussion. Despite this, the US is still underperforming academically compared to the rest of the world unlike Japan which is excelling in academics, which I found interesting although not surprising once I found out the reasons. These reasons included having longer school days and also a greater emphasis on education culturally in Japan than in the United States.

In the video I thought it was funny how they mentioned the idea of senpai (mentor) and kohai (apprentice) although I sort of like the idea of having a mentorship program between different age groups of children. I agree that it would help children be able to better interact and associate with people of different ages if we are used to it from a young age. This is unlike here in America, where for the first 18 years of our life, we go to school with children relatively the same age as ourselves so it is weird to interact with people more than two years apart in age.

Overall, I thought the reasons and solutions to fix our education system the video gives made sense and were reasonable in context. In a country where people are always complaining about our poorly run education system, I think it is good that we are trying to learn from a country that values education to a high degree culturally. The idea of creating more programs that improve association and communication sounds like a great idea. If it can actually be implemented though is the question.

 

From multi-million dollar gigantic skyscrapers that tower over everything else to government projects, the issue of housing and property is an issue that runs deep under the umbrella topic of income inequality. The video presentation we watched today about Housing and Income Inequality raised a lot of interesting facts as well as speculations and points of discussion for this issue as it pertains to New York City.

One part that I found interested was the fact that 2/3 of NYC residents rent their homes. It makes sense why topics like rent control and the threat of gentrification is such a debated issue in the city as the majority of NYC residents depend on reasonable rates to stay afloat.  Not surprisingly, according to the graph shown in the video, the disparity between rental expense and the median income of renters is increasing to a point where only the richest of the rich will be able to afford to live here.

With rents increasing at an astonishing rate throughout NYC, another part that I found interesting was the fact that the only borough where the median rent did not increase was Staten Island. Instead of increasing it actually decreased. The only reason that I can think of of why it may have decreased is because of it’s more distant association with NYC when compared to the other 4 boroughs and that it does not generate the type of “urban pull” that is drawing people to want to live in NYC. When I think of Staten Island, I generally associate it more with suburban New Jersey or Long Island than NYC.

Despite this slight decrease, it is no secret that the rents are rising. Looking at the bar graph in the video of Rent-Burdened households by income, it almost made me feel a little disappointed how since 2000-2012 the burden has only increased for the poorest New Yorkers and richest are relatively unaffected. It seems as if the the city is intentionally trying to push out poorer and middle class residents. Part of me also felt somewhat guilty that some people are struggling so much to pay their rents. Up until only a few years ago before my family bought a house, we too were in the same position as many of these families today. This topic really resonated with me because my family could relate to how some of these people feel.

After watching this video, it raised a lot of points about the connection between housing and income inequality. I thought the video was well made and provided a lot of facts about the current situation with rising rents in NYC that were relevant and highlighted the seriousness of the situation. It was both informative and enjoyable to watch. The policies that the video proposes to help regulate the issue of housing in NYC were also relevant. Although I felt  some of them were a little optimistic though, I still have hope that they can help alleviate the situation and provide better and more housing to all new york city residents and not just the richest of the rich .

Inequality has always been a consistent element of society. It is now being studied so heavily because it has become so alarmingly obvious. I think it’s a great thing to see everyone talking about it, regardless of what side they take. It creates tension but it also creates awareness of a scary issue that boils down to control. The less equality, the less control you have over your own life.

In the New Yorker article, the author points out that many Europeans and Americans chose inequality over religious and ethnic hatred as the greatest threat to the world. I think about both in tandem. Inequality between classes means that the majority class gets to impose their beliefs and values. Religious and ethnic hatred means that one religion or ethnic group is placed higher than the others; making the other groups struggle with low income and poor living conditions. All kinds of inequality are rooted in each other.

I think that belief is reflected in what Putnam writes about the black people in his community. His community growing up was predominantly white. This wasn’t because of mere coincidence, it was because of discriminatory housing and employment practices no doubt imposed by those in power who possessed prejudices against black people. This also shows the different level of privilege we all have. Putnam and his friends were by no means rich but at least they were white. Poor and white was better and may be still better than poor and black. One of his black friends tells Putnam, ““Your then was not my then, and your now isn’t even my now.”

The New York Times article and report in the Center for an Urban Future give some hope in the future of lowering inequality. The NYT writer’s opinion on the technology being able to close the gap in the future is something I agree with. Technology has given the most valuable threat to inequality: access. For some older people, learning to use a computer is like learning a new language. However, for millennials and younger, it’s second nature. It’s given access to information, free resources, and the pathway to new professional skills. Any person can learn to code, can learn to design, can learn to make a website all at little cost. But these are the skills of the future. Technology has opened the world and that’s not a bad thing. I resonate with the author’s message of “Why do we have to do it all?” We don’t always have to invent the next big thing. If we do or don’t, it doesn’t mean less of anything. Just like one person can’t do it all, one country can’t either.

The report in Center for an Urban Future is interesting. I never knew at what extent foreign-born residents of NYC were self-employed. Now that I think about it, many of them are small community business owners. I think the reason why so many immigrants are more entrepreneurial is because it’s one of the few options they have. Native-born residents are constantly instilled that they need to finish school, get a degree, and work in an office. Maybe later they’ll start a business or they get too comfortable. Immigrants don’t see that as a possibility for them. With little to no education and the drive to do well in a new place, they are more open to investing in their own business. However, I think it’s weird that the authors didn’t compare the type of businesses created by each group. I believe native born residents were more likely to create businesses such as tech startups or agencies rather than the smaller community businesses created by foreign-born residents.

For me, I agree with Putnam. Stories get across better than numbers. Whether social, racial, political, religious, financial, or whatever else kind of inequality, it’s something that exists in everyone’s lives. Inequality is a subject everyone has a story for. Hopefully as more stories are passed, more solutions are proposed.

Stella Kong

Income inequality pervades all aspects of society. People all over the United States were born different, grew up differently, and wind up doing differently. The problem is not that some are people are richer, it is that over time the effect allows certain people to be born with a head start over others, eliminating the idea of equal opportunity. The article “Richer and Poorer” talks about a book that presents the income inequality problem through a narrative following the lives of a few characters, who are based on real people. It also talks about the “Second Gilded Age” in the United States. Income inequality is so high, that it is reaching 1920’s levels and America is reacting differently. One solution proposed by another article for this is technology. The NY Times article claims that some income inequality will lead to more equality over time, with the main catalyst being technology.

The first article talked about how Democrats bring up equality of results as well as equality of opportunity while Republicans focus on the latter. I think equality of results is something to consider in society because of the way capitalism works. Wealth tends to accumulate at certain areas and those places get rich, leaving less for others. That means that the next generation has different starting points. The generation after inherits that legacy and then society becomes more and more unequal. I remember how the article talked about the kids on the wrong and right side of the tracks. The kids on the right side of the tracks had futures the other kids could not imagine. Is it really equal and fair that where you are born drastically influences how successful you will be? It is not like I chose my parents and neither did any rich kids. But if they have so much more opportunity than poorer children and the poverty locks out those poor kids from getting ahead, the system is broken. They no longer have equality of opportunity.

I liked how the article also brought up the issue of race. Only two people in the book were black but the issue or race was still discussed in the article. Blacks were redlined, assaulted, and threatened all the time and it contributed greatly to the income inequality we experience today. What people fail to grasp sometimes is that the legacy you inherit does not go away easily. Blacks cannot simply ignore the plight their ancestors faced and the real effects they have to put up with in the present. I especially liked what one of the black guys in his book told Putnam. He told him that basically, they did not start out the same and they did not grow up the same, and by now they still face two different realities. Just being black changed those two people’s lives and put up even more roadblocks, which white people just do not experience. That is why their upbringing and potential is so starkly different, a fact some white people cannot seem to grasp.

What I also found interesting was the comparison of our time today and the Gilded Age. Income inequality is getting just as bad today as it was back then but he added an interesting twist. Frazier said it was almost better back then because people actually tried to do something about it. The muckrakers attempted to expose the inequality and people actively criticized it. People today do not attack it as actively. I found this information pretty disappointing. i had always thought the present could always do much better than the past because we should have less concerns to deal with in lessening inequality but instead we wind up doing just as bad. And worse, there is no real outrage about it.

The second article attempts to defend the inequality we face by claiming it will unleash a reaction which will increase quality of life for all of us and decrease inequality. As technology improves, people will gain more access to jobs and the new population will be more tech-savvy. He basically claims that technology will even the playing field. I do not really see it personally. I think that even as technology improves, the rich and powerful get their hands on it first anyway. They will continue to innovate and will keep ahead. I do not like how most of his arguments are all based on the premise that people will want to help the poor or help the country as a whole. It has shown that if the rich could get richer, they will do it no matter what happens to the rest of us. As such, his examples about India inventing low cost heart surgery technology or cheap Chinese technology making its way to America, while everyone would like, do not seam that feasible. Cheap, low cost innovations do not always make it here and if something is detrimental to the rich, it usually does not gain ground, like free health insurance.

The New York Times article on how Technology could help fight income inequality was quite interesting to read but with all it’s predictions and speculations, I am still skeptical on the validity and accuracy of these predictions as there does not seem to be much evidence to support them. Maybe it is just me but blatantly throwing out vague speculations is not enough to completely convince me that technology will be the answer to our income inequality problems. One point that this article makes is that the increase in technology will bring back the resurgence of less-skilled workers like the ones that have since been lost to overseas labor.

The theory behind this is that as technologies like computer use increases, it will be becomes easier to use for people with minimal skills and knowledge with computers. Along with that, while there is a generational gap right now when it comes to computer usage, the article predicts that this will change over time as older generations retire from the work force and younger people take their place. Over time, in combination with computers becoming easier to use, this may increase less-skilled labor. While I do find this idealistic and optimistic view of the future of human-computer labor relations, I am still skeptical about this as it may in fact be the opposite where computers can replace human labor all together and there will be no need. At this point, I find this article’s claims as convincing as the claim when computers first came out in the 90’s that the internet would help students do their homework faster (sorry Facebook and other social networks).

In the second article we read, titled “Launching Low-Income Entrepreneurs,” I found it a pretty easy read and thought it was somewhat interesting but obvious in the points it was trying to make. It is no doubt that families of lower income would be less likely to start their own business and become Entrepreneurs over families of higher income. Families of lower income have to take greater risks as they pour a greater proportion of their savings into a business that they don’t know will succeed or not, while people of higher income, yes are also taking a risk, but the money, time and effort they put in isn’t necessarily as large as a proportion of their overall worth.

What I found interesting in this article was the fact that in most of the five boroughs, non-native residents were more likely to start entrepreneurial businesses over native residents, regardless of income. (By non-native, I was not sure if they meant immigrants or people not from New York, but I am assuming they mean immigrants). From my experience, this seems to make sense as although both groups may be of lower income, having already made the jump to leave their home country, immigrants may be willing to take more of a risk to try to make a living here in America and open up their own business as opposed to native residents, who would be more hesitant to.

The third article we read was about richer and poorer but I seemed to only understand part of it. What I did find interesting from this article was the statistics about this Gini Index that they kept talking about, although I felt as if we already knew this information from our previous classes that yes, it is increasing; income inequality is increasing.

Overall, I thought all these articles were good reads. Although somewhat obvious in some parts, it was interesting to read about the entrepreneurial rates among native/non native residents as well as based on their income. It highlights the many restrictions both social and economic that some people have on starting their own businesses. The New York Times article was interesting with it’s optimistic and idealistic at best views, although only time will tell.

The numerous innovations of technology has served the world and how we live quite well, yet drastic changes to life style due to technology has not made health care or education any cheaper. Only through further implementation can further improvements be made that will tackle social issues, and this means it will take more time. Since technological advances have been recently quite new, not everyone is up to speed with the updates. A large gap is in between certain age groups, but this will close over time.

Between 1947 and 1968, the U.S. Gini index was .386, the lowest it has ever been. The closer the measurement is to 0, the more equality that is present. In 2013, the U.S. Gini index was .476, and it’s just been increasing since. With further calculations using tax data, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez reported that the top one percent were earning twenty-three percent of the nation’s income in 2012. Many of the lower income families and individuals are working hard to just scrape by, and as income inequality goes up, opportunities for the less fortunate go down. But this still doesn’t answer how to resolve income inequality.

Robert Putnam’s and Jennifer M. SIlva’s novel “Our Kids” tackles the issue in the form of stories. Despite Port Clinton having a slightly lower U.S. Gini index, the problems for low-income families and individuals don’t change from anywhere else in the United States. These are real stories from real people that have been collected through numerous interviews about poverty. Putnam suggests that the more privileged can advocate changes in family structure, parenting, school, and community. Increasing the earned-income tax credit and protecting existing anti-poverty programs, as well as having better child care programs, funding of public schools, increasing extracurricular activities in schools, and offering mentorship programs can all guide mislead youth. Yet the New Yorker writes these ideas off as admirable and excellent, but not new or realistically achievable.

New York City is known to be thriving with business, and rising entrepreneurs. Many obstacles stand in the way of low-income people, but entrepreneurship offers an opportunity. Manhattan has the highest rate of both native-born and foreign-born self-employers, and I think it’s mostly due to the convenience of having a large population in a dense borough. With more entrepreneurs, gives the future of New York City new jobs for incoming graduates, which all adds up to the success of the United States economy. I feel that income inequality will continue to rise, unless achievable policies are set and implemented.

The future of New York City cannot see change without the help of its people. Throughout the course, I’ve learned a lot of many of the issues currently affecting NYC, and some of the possible solutions we can implement. However, without the firm backing and a clear vision of how to tackle these issues, the plans will ultimately not do anything, and we will revert to what we have now.

Recent trends in the entrepreneurship field are discussed within the Center for an Urban Culture article. The article mentions how New York City is currently in the middle of a “golden age” of entrepreneurship. Many individuals are deciding to open new businesses and employ themselves despite the incredible hardship one must endure in order to become successful. The prevailing state of the economy is in large part to blame as individuals face high unemployment rates and low wage jobs that may not be able to satisfy needs if one is found. However, it is who is actually starting these new businesses that seems to be most noteworthy.

Perhaps it is exactly because of these poor economic conditions that some individuals choose not to risk everything to become self-employed, but the foreign-born individuals are not making that decision. Approximately 49% of the city’s self-employed are foreign born according to the article. Native born individuals are simply not as willing to start their own business. Furthermore, the article discusses primarily low-income individuals who are undertaking these risks. For me, this shows something that is extremely important to America. After all of these years and all that has gone on, many still truly do believe in the American Dream. This is extremely refreshing to hear, to know that the American spirit, the heart of our country’s identity still remains, albeit a lot less evident than in the past, and is still being pursued today.

Now, while I admire the courageous efforts of these new businesses, the fact that native-born Americans are not as willing to open businesses does worry somewhat.
It could signal the slowly dying spirit of the American Dream, the loss of something so very close to the center of the foundation of this country. And, while these numbers do not necessarily allow me conclude this, I think this is an issue. Not only do start-ups play major role in building an economy, but they also help bring an identity to America. The American spirit is a very strong and powerful force that has helped to build one of the world’s greatest countries and I think it is extremely important that we do not lose that. Everyone deserves that equal opportunity to become all that he or she can be.

The New York Times article helps to shed the light on how this is not always the case. The article gives a now familiar historical perspective of the issue of income inequality in America. As such, unfortunately, in reality the idea of equal opportunity for Americans is not an actual piece of reality. The issue has been on going and has only gotten worse as time has gone on. We have discussed this in great detail during our class discussion throughout the semester.

But one thing the article does go on to do is to try and establish a solution to the problem. The article points to technology, the advancement of which has in part caused the vast amount of income inequality in this country, as a potential solution to he issue at large. Essentially, the argument appears to be as time goes on and technology becomes increasingly capable of many extraordinary things, the innovation will lead to more job opportunities. The idea is new technology will actually be able to cut costs and the playing field will be leveled via cheaper services and not by wage gains, like artificial intelligence being used to diagnose a medical issue. However, for me, this is thinking way too far ahead into the future after a lot of money has been invested into technological advancements. That means, the issue of technology causing job losses is very real and the article itself acknowledges it. It states how a more universal expertise in information technology can help to reverse the trend of income inequality. That, I think, is the key. We have also discussed this before but education is the route for leveling the playing field. By educating Americans, they can learn to find their place within the new society and continue to further advance the technological progress, not simply be stuck with a set of outdated skills that are becoming less and less desirable in today’s job market. So, yes, I do agree technology can help, but before that, we need education.

I think the New York Times article has a lot of speculations, but not enough evidence. Many changes and innovations are predicted, like a simpler computer-human interface. However, only the benefits, and not the limitations, are explored. The article suggest that these innovations can cause the return of less-skilled labor like repair and such with the increase in technologies, but it could actually be harmful. I think this move could recreate the market where we rely too much on computers. These new technologies could easily displace real entrepreneurs who may not be with the times, but will then be forced to take a more menial role. Though, I do like the article’s idealistic approach. I do agree that we will likely see inequality for some time, but technological innovation will lessen its impact as it provides more useful products to the consumers.

The New Yorker’s “Richer and Poorer” article offers two different standpoints to view inequality. One put stories on the forefront instead of numbers and statistics. Numbers are varied and contradict each other, but stories are relatable, emotional, and are different because each person’s experience is different. The distinction between the rich and the poor is painted clearly in the stories of Chelsea and David in Putnam’s book “Our Kids.” Their surroundings are entirely different and portray a story that’s not only black and white. His resolutions complement this by addressing the need for communal support.

He calls for changes in “family structure, parenting, school, and community.” Again they’re idealistic, and as the article says, “none are new… few are achievable.” Though, I still firmly believe the structuring of a youth is the most important event that will ultimately carry over to his or her future. It’s also hard to disagree with the numbers argument that shows how the United States for so long has greater inequality than other democracies. In the study, the fact that the U.S. has the least representative form of legislature indicates that inequality may be an institutional problem. So in culmination, there needs to be two approaches which address familial and governmental structuring.

I found the article on entrepreneurship in low-income households to be pretty obvious. The amount of capital, risk, and time involved in entrepreneurship is not something a lot of people can manage to give. It’s an extremely big task for someone to handle and will only get more difficult as your idea grows. Furthermore, the relative ease in getting a job at an established firm attractive. I think it’s only wise when one has all these factors taken into account. Your idea may be your dream, but your life can be jeopardized with one wrong move. Nevertheless, I think with the vast amount of information online, entrepreneurship is definitely growing, though I can’t speak about the number of successes versus failures.

The takeaway that really stood out was that early stage development is very important. Children who begin with a head-start have a much better chance to continue to succeed. But hard work can only take one so far without the resources available. I think as technologies continue to innovate, the availability of opportunities for future generations will steadily level.

 

—

Jia Jun (Jay) Wu

As Joseph Stieglitz mentions in his book “The Price of Inequality,” income inequality is a growing concern. It is “responsible for all manner of political instability, as well as for the slowing of economic growth worldwide.” The causes of income inequality have been controversial, but what we need to focus upon more importantly are the solutions. The New York Times and NYC future article present interesting and creative solutions to this issue: technology and entrepreneurship.

We are in the age of technology and information. Even though technology has been a part of the problem, it may also be a practical way to tackle income inequality. Buying a computer or a cell phone is relatively cheap compared to how much it was 10 years ago. It’s has become affordable for a low-income families to purchase at least one computer per family. As the NY Times article states, our generation has become more adapt with the knowledge of computers and computer-human interfaces have become easier to manage. This means that computers can do the harder and more skilled work which can make room for less-skilled jobs.

Technology can be very advantageous for the poor since it’s always progressing. It has been advancing to where data can be easily stored in the cloud/online which makes more space for living. There are also new apps and websites developing to make health care services more adorable. What I found the most interesting in the NY Times article was how immerging innovations may benefit low-income Americans. For instance, India is testing techniques for cheap and high quality heart surgery while China has the potential to find a way to produce cheaper/safer cars or workable battery storage for solar energy. We should open ourselves to more innovation and we might be able to find ways to reduce income inequality in the future.

The NYC Future article presents increasing entrepreneurship as a way to help low-income families out of poverty. It didn’t know that this was true until I read that majority of self-employed businesses are run by foreign-born while the lowest are run by low-income minorities. A speculation for why this is true is that for immigrants there is a language and cultural barrier. It’s harder to fit into the workplace, and therefore; it’s easier for them to start their own businesses.  I think increasing entrepreneurship can help combat income inequality since it increases productivity and helps out the local economy. With technology and innovation, entrepreneurship and exposure can be easily achieved.

Technology and entrepreneurship has potential to reduce income inequality in the long term. My question is, “what are the sacrifices in the short term to achieve goals in the long term?” This may help level the playing field to compete with larger corporations, but the governments still plays a larger role in this as a whole.

-JanYing He

While inequality is omnipresent throughout today’s society, it is refreshing to know that people are trying to battle it through their own ways. Whether it be through storytelling to get the message across in a human interest method or by battling it head on by starting your own business, it is nice to see that people are not just succumbing to the effects of inequality. I thought it was interesting to know that there are currently books being published addressing the effects of income inequality through various people’s perspectives using stories instead of numbers and showing the difference between generations. Additionally, it was encouraging knowing that along with the advancement of technology, the jobs market may also grow, instead of diminish, as I used to believe, if machines would be integrated into the workplace.

Within the New York Times piece, the article mentions that inequality can be overcome by using technology to help us and not hurt us. The article focuses much on how in the future all of this will be possible, but I wonder how soon in the future all this will occur. Although income inequality is inevitable within our society and the article argues technology can reduce the effects, how much of an affect could it possibly have? I understand and hope that technology is a strong enough factor to shrink the income inequality gap. Additionally, can technology be a long term or a short term solution to fixing the income inequality gap? By the end of the article, the author ends on a disclaimer stating that results are conditional based on the global economy and the technology that will become available to us as time progresses. Even though I may agree with the article and have high hopes for a solution to income inequality to be as simple as advancing technology, I currently do not think it is a solution anytime soon.

In my opinion, the New Yorker article had a comprehensive perspective on how income inequality can be viewed and the various texts currently published that examine the problems income inequality has on our society. I have not heard or read most of the books listed, but the article covered many different texts that clearly show the issues with the current generation and how we differ from the generations before us. I appreciate how some of the authors of the books mentioned discuss the issue of income inequality without using numbers and with stories, so as readers we can connect more personally to how income inequality may affect others while it may not directly make an impression on the specific reader.

In the last article in NYC Future article I can see why many foreign born Americans are attempting to start their own business and take the path of entrepreneurship. In my opinion, one of the reasons why I think many native-born Americans have a lower rate of entrepreneurship is because we may not have to work as hard to climb the corporate ladder. As a native- born American I am less likely to start my own business and would rather just go in the interview process like the rest of the hopefuls in the applicant pool. I respect those who come to America and start their own business as I believer that is an extremely hard thing to achieve. I, on the other hand, will take the easy way out and struggle through the interview process to get my position. Additionally, maybe the reason why many foreign born Americans decide to start their own businesses instead of interview is because they wish to avoid that process.

Overall, from reading these articles I have hope that income inequality may be solved through awareness and other outlets that may not necessarily be political or economical, but through people’s own advancements. While it is clear that income inequality is not going to be solved tomorrow, the optimism that the possibility of income inequality slowly closing is something to look forward to.

keep looking »

• Recent Posts

  • Blog post- Reaction to IDC presentation to Education in Japan and US
  • Blog post- Housing and Income Inequality Reaction
  • Class #22 / Blog Post
  • Post #16- Nick Djamalidinov
  • Class #22- Technology and Entrepreneurship

• Student Writing

  Student Writing Select Category announcements  (1) Bill De Blasio  (26) charter schools  (17) education  (29) entrepreneurship  (10) environmental inequality  (20) finance  (14) health law  (12) housing  (31) income gap  (81) income inequality  (118) insider trading  (9) job creation  (17) just-in-time  (6) living wage  (27) minimum wage  (36) Paul Krugman  (2) public schools  (7) recession  (4) technology  (13) Thomas Piketty  (13) Uncategorized  (77) zoning  (18)