Just a quick post to direct your attention to the current print or online edition of the Economist. The leading article, though covering a somewhat stale topic, is well written and insightful (big surprise there…). Take a gander at the online version: Globalisation and the Rise of Inequality: Rich Man, Poor Man. A few passages I found interesting are noted below.

On wage disparity:

“Since 2001 the pay of the typical worker in the United States has been stuck, with real wages growing less than half as fast as productivity… If you look back 20 years, the total pay of the typical top American manager has increased from roughly 40 times the average—the level for four decades—to 110 times the average now.”

On globalization:

“When the jobs going abroad are not whole assembly lines, but bits of departments, how exactly do you pick out the person who has lost his job to globalisation from the millions of people changing jobs for other reasons? And, hardhearted though it may sound, most of the gains from trade and technology alike come from the way they redeploy investment and labour to activities that create more wealth. That, like all change, can be painful; but it is what makes a country richer. A policy locking people into jobs that could be better done elsewhere is self-defeating.”

A suggested solution:

“Instead, the way to ease globalisation is the same as the way to ease other sorts of economic change, including the impact of technology. The aim is to help people to move jobs as comparative advantage shifts rapidly from one activity to the next.”

TAGS: Globalization | Economy | GDP | Economist | Compensation | Wealth

Though little time has passed since the closing of 2006, I am just now beginning to reflect on the meaningful and powerful events came to pass during the year. My personal life was certainly packed to the brim with amazing milestones and events including my first full year as a father, an eye-opening trip to China and then another one from one coast of the US to the other, and the completion of my MBA studies.

2006 proved also to be an important year for many of the issues I follow, including the socially responsible investing (SRI) movement. At a time when the public’s knowledge of SRI and related issues such as business ethics, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and renewed concern in corporate governance, seem to be rapidly increasing, so too has its level of related cynicism.

While much progress has been made in bringing greater focus on such issues in the business world and society at large, those critical of the merits of each issue seem to find ample evidence of companies touting their new CSR or ethics programs, yet not practicing what they preach. Nonetheless, along with the inevitable negativity (justifiable and not) comes a host of notable examples of these initiatives actually creating positive change in society.

Social Funds compiled a list of the top five SRI stories of 2006, and all are well worth reviewing. My top pick would be split between the United Nation’s launch of the UN Principles of Responsible Investment (which I blogged about here and here), and Muhammad Yunus being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

TAGS: SRI | Socially Responsible Investing | CSR | Ethics