Inequality for All (2013) - full transcript

OK, we're going in my MlNl Cooper.

Now, the thing you ought to know
about this MlNl Cooper...

...is, it is small.

l like having a MlNl Cooper.
l sort of identify with it.

You know?
lt's pretty little.

l feel as if
it's proportion...

that we are in proportion,
you know?

Me and my car, we are sort of...

...together,
facing the rest of the world.

Economic fairness is,

"the defining issue of our time,
and what the millions..."



This kind of gaping inequality
gives lie to the promise

that's at the very heart of America.

There is income inequality
in America.

There always has been,
and hopefully there always will be.

lf inequality is at a very
much higher level, who cares?

- lncome inequality has been ticking up.
- lncome inequality is bull.

l think it's about envy.
l think it's about class warfare.

lt's class warfare, and it's the kind of
language that you would expect

from a leader of a third world country,
not the president of the United States.

lt's true,
because United States of America

is not a third world country
by any measure,

except perhaps income inequality,
where we rank...

...worse than the lvory Coast,
worse than Cameroon...

64th! Aah!



ln your face,
Uruguay, Jamaica, and Uganda!

Yeah.

OK, are we all here?

My name is Robert Reich.

l was secretary of labor
under Bill Clinton.

Before that, l was at Harvard.

Before that, l was in
the Carter administration.

Do you remember...
does anybody...

You don't remember
the Carter administration.

Before that, uh, l was a special aide
to Abraham Lincoln.

Those were tough times.

We are going to deal
with three questions.

The first question is:
what is happening

in terms of the distribution
of income and wealth?

Number two, why?

Number three, is it a problem?

Maybe it's not a problem.

Many of you call yourselves
conservatives.

Many of you call yourselves liberals.

Those labels will become
increasingly irrelevant

as you get deeper and deeper
into this subject.

l want you to test your assumptions.

lf possible, l want to shake
your assumptions a little bit

about why the system works as it does.

Some inequality is inevitable.

lf people are gonna have
the proper incentives

to be productive, to work hard,
to be inventive...

...that's the essence of capitalism,

and capitalism does generate
a lot of good things.

Look, the question
is not inequality per se.

The question is, when does
inequality become a problem?

How much inequality can we tolerate

and still have an economy
that's working for everyone

and still have a democracy
that's functioning?

Of all developed nations today,
the United States has

the most unequal distribution
of income and wealth by far.

And we're surging
toward even greater inequality.

One way of looking at
and measuring inequality

is to look at the earnings
of people at the top

versus the earnings
of the typical worker in the middle.

The typical male worker in 1 978

was making around $48,000,
adjusted for inflation,

while the average person
in the top 1 %

earned $390,000.

Now fast-forward.

By 201 0, the typical male worker

earned even less than he did then,

but the person at the top
got more than twice as much as before.

Today the richest 400 Americans
have more wealth

than the bottom
1 50 million of us put together.

Now, think about it.
400 people have more wealth

than half the population
of the United States.

Anger rising
over an economic system

that has rewarded some
but leaves many feeling left behind.

After the economy
crashed in 2008,

inequality suddenly
became front-page news.

Who else wants to join the 1 % ?

You look like a one percenter.
We're a fabulous percent.

People from both parties
were looking for someone to blame.

But most people have no idea
how it got this bad or why.

Not until the last few years

have we really understood
all that much about inequality.

l mean, we knew the top 1 0% or 20%
were moving in one direction

and the bottom 1 0% or 20%
was moving in another.

But we didn't know what was happening
at the very top, to the top 1 % .

- Hello.
- How are you doing? Good to see you.

And then a few years ago,
two researchers,

Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty,

found a different source of data.

They looked at lRS tax data,

not just over the last few years

but all the way back to 1 91 3,

when the income tax was instituted.

lt showed that
there were two peak years.

1 928 and 2007 become the peak years

for income concentration,

both of them in which
the top 1% is taking home

more than 23% of total income.

We knew that inequality
had started to increase

in the late '70s and the 1 980s,

but we didn't know how dramatically
income concentration had increased,

especially within the top 1 % .

When you had this study
come out in 2003,

it sat there for a number of years,

and then suddenly it became important.

But you see them
starting to recover...

This graph
becomes very central

for explaining what has
happened to the U.S. economy

and, indeed, what's happening
and has happened to our society.

lt looks like a suspension bridge.

What happened the year after 1 928?

The Great Crash.

And what happened
just after 2007?

Another crash.

The parallels are breathtaking

if you look at them carefully.

Leading up
to those two peak years,

as income got
more and more concentrated

in fewer and fewer hands,

the wealthy turned
to the financial sector,

and in both periods,
the financial sector ballooned.

They focused
on a limited number of assets:

housing, gold, speculative instruments,

debt instruments.

And that creates
a speculative bubble in both times.

We also know that the middle class,

in both periods,
their incomes were stagnating,

and they went deeper and deeper
into debt

to maintain their living standards.

And that creates a debt bubble.

That's why you see,
in both these periods,

economic instability.

What makes an economy stable
is a strong middle class.

Look, the most important thing
to understand

is that consumer spending is 70%

of the United States economy.

And the middle class is the heart
of that consumer spending.

So it's your middle class
that keeps the economy going.

There's no way you can sustain
the economy over the long term

without a strong and vibrant
and growing middle class.

Can't be done.

- People are being intimidated.
- Correct.

l mean, they might
lose their jobs if they...

l talk to
a lot of different groups.

Some are wealthy.
Some are working-class.

Some are conservative.
Some are liberal.

And he finally got a full-time job.

The middle class
is struggling. lt is going downhill.

l hear it all the time.

Well, everyone tells me that l am,

but l don't feel like l'm middle-class,
because l'm barely making it.

Middle-class is living comfortably

and not having to... not having
every week be a struggle.

l'd like to save up
and buy a house one day,

and, you know, l haven't really
been able to do that

and been kind of holding back

and just trying to make rent right now.

How, um...
how much do you make an hour?

Right now, l think it went up... $21 .50.

$21 .50 an hour.

Hola, Roberto.

l think l'm being paid fair.

lt got to a point
that we were able to afford,

you know, a condo on Olivera Road,

and we bought it.

We had our own things, our own place.

lt was little, you know, two-bedroom.

We bought it in 2004.

Around 2006, start of 2007,

um... the market just
dropped like a rock.

And not that long after, actually,

l lost my job that l'd been at
for a long time.

Luckily we had
some really good friends,

and one of them said,

"Come over here and live with me."

So that's where we are now.

Go with Daddy.

- Go with Daddy.
- l'm hungry.

You're hungry?

Child care for Paulina right
now costs me about $400.

l'm, like, undecided whether
l should make her walk home...

buy her a phone and walk home,
making sure she gets home OK,

or keep paying a day care.

- Bye.
- Here, Mom.

Ready?

l have $25 in my
checking account right now

and just thinking about
all the things that we need.

l don't have a way of communicating
with Robert right now.

He doesn't have a phone,
so we have to wait for that.

l got to figure out...
we have to have enough,

you know,
food on the table for the kids.

$25 in your checking
account, that's got to be...

- That's not very much.
- No, it's not.

But, l mean, it's Tues...
it's Wednesday.

l'll survive today.

l'll look up in the pantry,
see what else is there to eat.

l have a full tank of gas,
so l'm fine on that part.

l don't need to go anywhere right now.

When l was laid off,
l decided to go ahead

and pursue my degree at that point.

Most of the classmates l have
are a lot younger than l am.

lt's different
when you're reading about it

or somebody else's issues.

That's different from when
it's your own family's.

So when it hits home,
that's probably the hardest part.

There is no official
definition of the middle class.

But Alan Krueger, chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisors,

these are the percentage of households

with annual incomes within 50%
of the median household.

$50,000, median income,
50% above, 50% below.

lf you're in the top 1%,
you're earning

at least $380,000 a year.

lf you're at the lower end
of this group,

you're probably at the top levels

of the professional fields,
a top doctor or a top lawyer.

Higher in this group, earning
several million dollars a year,

are successful entrepreneurs
who start profitable companies.

At the highest levels, earning
$1 0 million a year or more,

are the CEOs of big companies,

the heads of Wall Street banks,
top entertainers,

and also the top sports stars.

Last year, we made $36,000,
and we're a family of three.

l think l probably make
in between $45,000 and $50,000 a year

working 70 hours a week,
six days a week.

Combined income with the army

and with my personal job,
maybe $55,000 to $60,000 a year.

Probably close to $600,000.

Usually more than $1 0 million,
less than $30 million

but, you know, a lot.
A ridiculous amount of money.

l am an entrepreneur
and venture capitalist.

My family owns a large
manufacturer of bed pillows

and down comforters called
Pacific Coast Feather Company.

We are, in fact,
one the largest manufacturers

of those things in the world.

The problem with rising inequality is,

a person like me,
who earns 1 ,000 times as much

as the typical American,

doesn't buy 1 ,000 pillows a year.

Even the richest people only
sleep on one or two pillows.

The pillow business is quite tough,

as it is for many, many industries,

because fewer and fewer people
can afford to buy

the products that we make.

And l have the nicest Audi you can get,
but it's still only one Audi.

l personally hate fancy food.

l would infinitely rather
go have a great bowl

of pho at the local Vietnamese place

than a five-course $300 dinner
at some fancy place.

You know, we can only go out to eat
so many times a year.

We can only get so many haircuts a year.

We can only get...
l can, you know...

Three pairs ofjeans
will do you, you know?

Like, you don't need 300 pairs.

The problem
isn't that the rich

spend too much of what they earn.

lt's actually, paradoxically,
that they spend too little.

They're not generating
enough economic activity.

Somebody earning $1 0 million a year

doesn't spend $1 0 million.

They save it.

And those savings go
anywhere around the world

they can make the most money,
get the highest return.

They become part
of the global capital market,

including a lot
of speculative instruments,

having gold and real estate
and anything else

that they're all chasing.

With the exception
of the money l personally invest

to start companies,
l have essentially no idea

what happens to my money.

l invest in funds of funds,

and those hedge funds
do God knows what with it.

But l do believe absolutely

that most of the return
that's being created

isn't creating
any kind of social utility

other than creating a return for me.

Now, ordinarily we like saving.

l mean, savings are good,
but when we have

so much unemployment,
so much underutilized capacity

here in the United States,
we need spending.

Every single person there has
to process 1 2 units per hour.

How are we gonna create jobs
if you're taxing

the very successful people in America

who provide those jobs?

Sometimes we think
that this is a debate

over facts and figures and data.

...to raise taxes on the job
creators in this country...

l think if you believe that,
you're fooling yourself a little bit.

The people that you call rich,
l call job creators.

When somebody calls themselves
a job creator,

they're not describing the economy
or how the economy works,

although that's what it sounds like.

What they're really doing
is making a claim

on status, privileges, and power.

lf a guy like me is a job creator

at the center of the economic universe,

the current economic arrangements

are righteous and justified.

l know how comfortable
this is to believe

because l used to believe it.

You know, l grew up
kind of believing that.

You know, and when people
challenged that idea,

l would say things like,

"Well, you just don't
understand economics."

But of course,
if rich business guys like me

are not job creators,
it's actually our customers

that are the job creators,

we are not the center
of the economic universe, they are.

We need to replace
trickle-down economics

with middle-out economics.

And, indeed,
every place you look on Earth

where you find prosperity,
you find massive investments

in the middle class and the poor,

because at the end of the day,
they are the true job creators.

The most pro-business thing you can do

is to help middle-class people thrive.

OK, l'm gonna get the box.

Now, see, this box is really important.

l travel not only with my MlNl Cooper,

but with my box.

Hello, George.
How are you?

You are so kind to bring the box.
We have one for you too.

lt's the same room and...

ln recent years, l've discovered
that l actually have a very, very rare

genetic condition.

lt's Fairbanks Syndrome

that is responsible
for me being very short.

- Hey, Bob, let me carry that.
- No, no, no, that's fine.

My parents were normal size.

My grandmother always said to me,

"Don't worry," 'cause when l hit
about 1 0 or 1 1 or 1 2, l'm gonna,

you know, have a real growth spurt.

And then l got to be about 1 0, 1 1 ,

and nothing happened...
you know?

- Right up this way to the right.
- Right this way.

Yup, behind you.

l grew up in the shadow
of World War ll.

My father was in the war.

We were middle-class.

My father sold dresses.
My mother helped in the shop.

My first job in Washington
was working as a summer intern

for Robert Kennedy.

lt was a time
when there were kind of giants.

Robert F. Kennedy,
Martin Luther King,

they were all trying to change society.

There was a sense of possibility.

lt kind of turned me on to politics.

A few years later, l was picked
to be a Rhodes Scholar.

ln those days,
all the Rhodes Scholars

who were selected
took a boat to England.

The problem was, you know,
when you go over there,

the Atlantic Ocean
is pretty rough.

You know, l and most
of the other Rhodes Scholars

were sick, and l went down to my cabin.

You know, l thought l was gonna die.

And then there was a knock
on the door,

and this fellow was there,

this kind of tall,
gangly Southerner,

and he had chicken soup
in one hand

and crackers in the other,

and he said, "l hear
you aren't feeling too well.

l thought these might help.

My name is Bill Clinton."

At Oxford, we were at the same college.

We kept in touch.

At Oxford, l studied mostly economics

and philosophy.

But those experiences
really were a study for me

of the rules by which
markets are organized.

And this is an important point,

and it's one that's very often lost,

but it was the focus of my attention.

You see, there's no such thing
as a perfectly free market anywhere.

Government sets the rules
by which the market functions.

All of these rules are necessary

in order to construct
a free market.

The real question is,
who do these rules benefit

and who do they hurt?

And in the last 30 years,

as the structure of the economy
began to shift,

many of the rules
governing our market

began to shift as well.

Today we're going to try to explain

the mystery of why inequality
has been widening.

Remember, the economy is growing
all of this time.

The economy is...

The economy continues to grow.

Look, here is
gross domestic product growth

from 1 929 to 201 1 .

The economy overall
has done extremely well,

and productivity keeps on increasing.

We are producing more and more
and more and more and more value.

That's a big, big success story.

But here is the problem.
Here's the puzzle.

Because if you look
at the average hourly earnings

of production workers,

the average hourly earning
continued to rise

until the late 1 970s,
and then something happened,

flattening wages.

Look at the gap.

Something happened in the late 1 970s.

Something happened
in the late 1 970s, folks.

ln the late 1 970s,

l was at the Federal Trade Commission.

l was looking at a lot of studies

about the direction
that the economy was going in.

More of American manufacturing
was beginning to move abroad.

There was the beginnings
of a technological revolution.

Financial markets were becoming
a little bit more powerful.

There was a move to deregulate.

Well, you connect the dots,
and all of these

begin to look as if
they're connected somehow

to this widening inequality.

For example, we knew that
labor unions were declining.

And that decline mirrored
almost exactly

the decline in the middle class'
share of national income.

The hard part is stepping back
and seeing the big picture.

Many people, even to this day,

say that the decline of unions
really was attributable

to Ronald Reagan taking on
the air traffic controllers.

Strike, strike, strike,
strike, strike, strike...

l must tell those who failed
to report for duty this morning,

they have forfeited their jobs
and will be terminated.

There's no question
that beginning in the late '70s

but also after Reagan fired
the air traffic controllers,

there was a major assault

on unions.

Employers did try to prevent
unions from being formed

much more aggressively than before...

l'll go.
You don't have to hang on to me.

...and employers fought to
bust unions that were already there.

But maybe they were doing so
because they felt they had to

in order to maintain
their competitiveness

given so many other companies
that were non-union

in the United States
and also many companies abroad.

The major underlying issue

was two interrelated things:

globalization and technology.

l mean, you hear the word
"globalization"

over and over and over again.

Globalization, globalization,
globalization.

Rarely has a word gone so directly

from obscurity to meaninglessness

without any intervening period
of coherence.

Can anybody lend me
their iPhone for a moment?

Anybody have one that...
great.

Thank you.

l don't have one,
and l've really wanted to have one.

Where do most of your dollars go
when you buy an iPhone?

What do you think?

Let's go.
Let's do the bidding.

A little over 700 of you
have these clickers,

which is great.

You say mostly to the United States,
some of you say to China,

and then some of you say...
a few of you say Japan. Uh...

Eleven of you think Germany.

Well, here is where your dollars go.

Most of your dollars are going to Japan.

Some of your dollars
are going to Germany.

ln fact, Germany is the biggest...
is the second-biggest one.

South Korea's the third, and here,

six percent of your dollars
are going to the United States,

and only 3.6% of your dollars
are going to China.

Now, it's assembled in China.

Do you get this?

lt's assembled in China,

but the assembly is of pieces

from all over the place.

Everything is coming from everywhere.

l want my students to see it's not just

cost of wages or labor.

lt's also which country's
workers add what value.

My MlNl Cooper
is made by a foreign company.

But where a company's headquartered

means less and less
in this new global economy.

Technologies like
cargo ships, containers,

satellite communication
technologies,

and eventually
computers and the internet,

these technologies enabled
the production process

to be parceled out around the world.

Large numbers of American
manufacturing workers

began to lose theirjobs,

which meant it inevitably
began undercutting

the wages of a lot of working Americans.

Even factories remaining
in the United States

shed workers as they automated.

And we have this romantic idea

that we can get manufacturing back.

But you get manufacturing plants back,

and they're filled
with robots and computers.

The old assembly line is gone.

economic achievements of our time

and certainly something
l'm incredibly proud of.

But make no mistake:

and does $70, $80 billion in sales.

But if mom-and-pop retailers were doing

that $70 billion
or $80 billion in sales,

it wouldn't be 60,000 people
employed doing it.

lt'd be 600,000
or 800,000 or a million people

because those business models
are so much less efficient.

So Amazon created
a huge economic windfall

here in the Pacific Northwest,

but all over the country,

there are people
who are no longer employed...

...in selling stuff
who are not happy.

As a manager for Circuit City,

it was a look behind
the curtain, so to speak,

as a manager, to see exactly
how everything worked.

So when you got laid off,
did you see it coming,

or was it sudden?

They did several layoffs
while l was there.

People who had been there too long:

"They're making too much money
because they've been there too long,

and we're gonna have to do
something to cut the payroll."

The hardest part was thinking,

"ls it gonna happen to me?"

Until l became a student,
it was pretty dicey.

l mean, it would have been easy for me
to just fall into depression,

which happens to a lot of people,

or go for a lower-paying job,
which would have

put me in a worse financial situation.

Looking back on it,
you can see the pattern.

lt's not as easy to see
when you're in it,

but the signs were there.

l mean, there was
a major slowdown in business,

and l think a lot of that had to do
with things like Amazon.

Because l've been in retail for so long,

l don't go through
the automated checkout lines.

And one of the main reasons
is because l know

that every time l go through that,

it's taking a little bit
of someone's job away.

lt's not that l think
that l'm going to...

...save their jobs in the long run.

But l know that l'm gonna slow down

the transition a little bit
so that maybe

they're gonna have a little bit longer
to get ready for the transition.

Contrary to popular mythology,

globalization and technology

haven't really reduced the number
ofjobs available to Americans.

These transformations
have reduced their pay.

l mean, it's not just
that wages are stagnating,

but when you take into consideration

rising costs...

The rising costs of rents or homes

dramatically increasing costs
of health care,

the rising costs of child care,

and also the rising costs
or higher education,

rising much faster than inflation...

Take all of these into consideration,

and you find that it's much worse
than just stagnating wages.

lt's basically middle-class families,

often with two wage earners,

working harder and harder and harder

and getting nowhere.

l work at a law firm
as a litigation assistant.

And Moises?

l work as a bus operator.

Do you know how much is
in your bank account right now?

Mine is less than 1 00 bucks.

So l want to say maybe $80.

Yeah, yesterday it was only $30.

- And that's with us working.
- Yeah.

Car insurance, $1 25.
Kids' World, $1 50.

Rent, $1 ,375.

We felt like
we had to write it all down,

because how could we not have money?

We make money.

You know, l'm working now.

We don't know how much
we're gonna be paying on that.

The Y.

This is my money that l donate.

$1 6 a month
to Children lnternational.

We don't even have here
my UCSF bill.

Remember that hospital bill?

lt's, like, 200 and something dollars
that's not here that we need to pay.

Oh, yeah.

What about savings?

We haven't been able to.

We don't have a savings account.

- l took it off because it...
- lt wasn't working.

Oh, you brought your glove.

Did you guys play baseball?

And she's been playing with you?

When she was born,
we had no money.

The refrigerator was empty.
The freezer was empty.

l said, "This is not the way
l want to raise my daughter."

- How was your day?
- Good.

l've seen single mothers
work three jobs

just to be able to pay rent.

And l didn't want that.

So l started going to school.

How do you build wealth?

Not that l want to be wealthy.

l just...
How do you do it?

How the heck do you build wealth,
like, when you don't have anything,

when you don't have any assets,
when you don't have nothing?

This is gonna be Mommy's office. Look.

This is gonna be my office.

lt's not my office yet,

but it's going to be my office
really soon.

Hmm?

People, l think,
would be less concerned

about inequality of income and wealth

if everybody had a chance to make it.

As long as there's upward mobility,

as long as anybody
with enough guts and gumption

and hard work can make it in America,

can move up the income ladder,
then we don't have a problem.

But as income inequality rises,

upward mobility is actually
less than it was before.

- Come on. You want to see the rest?
- Yeah.

ln the United States,
42% of kids born into poverty

will not get out.

Compare that to Denmark,

where only 25% of kids
born into poverty stay there.

Even Great Britain,

a country that still has
an aristocracy,

has more upward mobility
than we do.

You know, people occasionally say to me,

"OK, Reich, if you think
it can be done better,

what nation does it better?

Whom should we emulate?"

And the answer is...

...the United States.

ln the three decades after World War ll,

a period that l call
"the Great Prosperity,"

the economy boomed,

but not only did the economy boom,

but you had very low inequality.

We made education a national priority,

particularly higher education.

By 1 940, only 5% of adult Americans

had a four-year college degree,

but that percentage began to explode.

The Gl Bill paid college costs

for those who returned from war,

and the subsequent expansion
of public universities

made higher education
affordable to many.

By the late '50s, we had
the best-educated workforce

of any country in the world.

We also had labor unions.

By the mid-1 950s,
more than a third of all workers

belonged to a union.

This gave average workers
bargaining leverage

to get a larger share
of the growing pie.

We created the largest middle class

the world had ever seen.

And that middle class

was part of a virtuous cycle.

The wider their prosperity,

the more people were included
in that prosperity,

the more that prosperity
generated more prosperity.

Hello.

OK, now,

they're gonna be calling in momentarily.

From American
Public Media, this is Marketplace.

America's already making it harder

for young people of modest means
to attend college.

41 states are cutting spending
for public higher education,

and tuition and fees
are rising as a result.

One of the things
we've learned about inequality

is that it's clearly
linked to education,

including higher education.

More than anything else,
that's what lifted people

out of poverty and into the middle class
during the Great Prosperity.

But starting in the late 1 970s,

our college graduation rates
began to flatten out.

Countries that kept focusing
on higher education

were able to deal
with globalization better

by creating a highly skilled workforce.

Look at South Korea.
Look at the Netherlands.

Look at Germany.

They've invested substantially
in education,

in skill building
of all of their workers.

Even though their wages are high,
it's worth it to make stuff

that goes into the iPhone from Germany

because it is so well made
and is so precise.

Basically, every other
industrialized country,

Japan, Germany, France,
they are investing per capita

much more public investment
in all of the areas:

roads, bridges, public education.

That's what we're not doing.
That's what we have to be doing.

We're almost out of time...

We can't do it, not with new taxes.

For years,
l have been writing

about the importance
of investing in people,

in our workforce, so that
our people could compete

in this new global economy.

And then in 1 992, l thought l finally

might be able to do something about it.

Today l proudly announce my candidacy

for president
of the United States of America.

Bill Clinton told me
he had read all my books.

They must have influenced him,

because it formed the backbone
of his 1 992 campaign

about putting people first.

lf you put people first,
if you do what works,

what we know works
in the global economy,

you'll do what the Germans do;
you'll do what the Japanese do.

You'll put your people first.
You'll expand the middle class.

l mean, here was,
you know, somebody l'd known

from the age of 22,
and he called me one day

and said, "Look, Bob,
what l really want you to do

is come down to Washington right now.

l need you to run
the economic transition team."

l didn't even know what
an economic transition team was.

You can't imagine
the headiness, the excitement.

l mean, the chance
to actually take these ideas,

put them into practice...

l named my economic plan
Putting People First

to highlight my belief that our nation

can only become a high-wage,
high-growth economy

if we make a commitment
to invest in the American people

to make the American economy prosper.

That is why l'm naming today
one of my most trusted advisors

and closest friends
to the position of Secretary of Labor.

Well, modesty aside,
l have assumed for months

that l was on Bill Clinton's short list.

- You can step up on that, Bob.
- There is a step.

Oh, there is a step here.
OK.

lt was a dream job

for somebody like me,
who had worried about

and fretted about
and studied and taught about

and wrote about what was happening
to the American workforce for years.

That long decline in median wages,

the wage of that person
smack in the middle

of the wage scale,
that decline started in 1 978.

Those wages began to decline

in terms of the real purchasing
power of the dollar...

You know, on the one
side, it was pretty clear

that wages were flat for most people.

The flip side was that
some people in this country

were doing extraordinarily well.

You see, the same new technologies

that brought globalization
and automation

bestowed ever larger rewards on people

who had the right education
and connections

to take advantage of globalization.

Some people say to me,
"But wait a minute.

You've got technologies today
that you didn't have in 1 980."

You know, we didn't have
flat-screen televisions.

We didn't have low-cost air travel.

We didn't have Skype.

We didn't have the lnternet.

So who are
the winners and losers

from this great shift?

Consumers certainly are winning.

l mean, you guys, as consumers,

you are doing very well.

You get wonderful products.

Almost everything you're buying
is getting cheaper,

and the investors are doing well.

Here is a chart showing
the rise and fall

of the Dow Jones lndustrial Average.

You can see something here.

There is sort of a pattern.

Whoo!

You see, something happened,

and l think it happened
starting right in these years.

You see these were the...

...years l was Labor Secretary.

And investors got very excited.

l mean, we all saw
the stock market going like this.

l mean, how...
What in the world was going on?

How could that be possible?

Were companies suddenly
that much more profitable?

One of the big reasons
corporations

were showing higher profits is,
they were keeping pay down.

At the same time, corporate CEOs

were starting to pay themselves
large multiples

of what the average worker was earning.

When we, in the fourth quarter
of last year,

along with a number of other companies,
had to consider workforce reductions,

it was a difficult time.

You knew that you were impacting people

who would have a difficult time,
many of them,

in finding new jobs,
but you had to do it

for the organization to,
in that day, look to survive.

This chart shows you
the compensation

of the highest-paid executives in 201 0.

These executives
are being paid a lot of money.

Executive pay keeps going up.

Here's the ratio
of average CEO compensation

to the average worker's pay.

Suddenly this ratio goes kablooey.

Bill Clinton in 1 992,
one of his campaign planks

was that no company should be able

to deduct the cost
of executive compensation

in excess of $1 million.

Many big corporate executives
raised their own salaries

even when their companies
were losing money

and their workers were being
put into the unemployment lines.

l expect the jet-setters
and the featherbedders

of corporate America to know
that if you sell your companies

and your workers
and your country down the river,

you'll be called on the carpet.

That's what the president's
bully pulpit is for.

When it came to
actually implementing it,

the Treasury Department decided
that as long as CEO pay

was linked to company performance,

you could deduct pay
over $1 million.

Well, that was the signal
to a lot of executives

and to their boards of directors
to make more and more

of executive pay into stock options.

That's where the whole
stock option thing came from.

lt was kind of a perversion
of Bill Clinton's promise

in the 1 992 election.

Another result of all of this
is that you get

the third group of people
who are doing remarkably well.

They're the people who always do well,

particularly in times
of high inequality:

the financiers.

Between 1 997 and 2007,

finance was the fastest-growing
part of the American economy.

ln 2009, during the depths
of the recession,

the seven highest-paid
hedge fund managers

were taking in
more than $1 billion each.

Remember that government sets the rules

by which the market functions.

We deregulated Wall Street,

allowing Wall Street to engage

in more and more excessive behavior.

These are the financial sector wages

relative to everyone else's.

Does this graph look familiar?

l mean, this is our bridge graph,

our old inequality graph.

lt's the same pattern.

And meanwhile
you've got many working people

succumbing to this huge lie

that government is bad,
that the market is good,

that everything government does
works against you

and everything the market does
helps you.

Our Father in heaven,
we thank you for this food

that's been placed before us.
We ask you to bless it.

Bless the hands that prepared it.
Bless it'll strengthen our bodies.

We ask a special blessing
this day, Lord,

for those that have no food.
Bless them with comfort and hope.

Amen.
Oooh, ooh, this looks good.

l am registered as a Republican.

lt probably has to do
with our religion too,

OK, Mormons.

The majority of the Mormons are.

There are those rare Democrats,

but the majority of them
are Republicans.

Oh, l called them,
but you know what it is?

l don't look at myself as someone
that's economically troubled.

No way.
But l am worried about my kids.

We have paid for doctor bills.
We've paid for dental bills.

Two of my children right now
do not have health insurance.

Our kids without health care
was a big turning point for us.

That really got my attention.

l'm a power plant operator.

Where l work, The Geysers,
it's a renewable energy source.

Calpine is a good company.
They are.

So then why are they
cutting back on people

and cutting sick leave?

Well, the operation
will be more profitable

if they cut back on personnel. That...

That's a given.

l've always been pro-union
from a philosophical standpoint.

l consider myself
part of the labor force.

Therefore l think labor needs a say.

The company brought in
anti-union consultants

and put on a good campaign
to counter the union.

Let me just say l came here...

Some of you were still on the fence.

Some people walked out.

There was tension in the air.

The underlying reality
is that if workers don't have power,

if they don't have a voice,

inevitably their wages
and benefits start eroding.

lt happens inevitably.

Personally, l'm a proud Christian.

l'm a proud Calpine employee.

l think they treat me more fair

than l should be treated.

lf you have a company that is
dependent on shareholders,

there is growing and growing
pressure on that company

to show better and better profits
and have higher and higher share prices.

That's just the way capitalism is.
That's not bad.

But what that means inevitably

is that there's greater
and greater pressure

to push wages and benefits
down to the minimum.

So you're a capitalist,
l'm a capitalist.

l say for these people making
their millions, that's fantastic.

l could have done the same thing

if l went to school
and had the brains for it.

l do not.
So l'm a laborer.

And there's such a burden
on the companies

in the United States now
that the cost of business

drives that...
them to go elsewhere.

But this right now is
the richest country in the world,

and we are richer than we've ever been.

Believe me,
we as a nation are doing great,

and certain people in this country

are doing better than anybody
has ever done in the world

in world history.

lt's not just Calpine.

l took a $1 2-an-hour cut in pay, OK?

My benefits are going down.

l do twice the duties.

l'll be running two plants
instead of one.

lf you have $1 0 million or
if you have a billion dollars,

why do you need
that little bit that l have?

OK?

Big companies are designed
not to generate good jobs

in the United States.

Big companies are designed
to make profits.

And thanks to the members
of the administration,

Jeff and Cass
and others that have worked...

This isn't a matter of fault.

You know, the head of GE

is on the president's Jobs Council.

l want to start off by thanking Jeff

for his continued outstanding
leadership of this Jobs Council.

Well, GE has been
creating more jobs abroad

than it's been creating jobs
in the United States.

So who is taking care
of the American worker?

Who is looking out
for the American worker

as GE and other big companies
and Wall Street

and the very wealthy,

who basically have capital
all over the world,

as they have more and more
political power,

who is actually working
in a way in Washington

and in state capitals

that improves the well-being
of the American workforce?

The answer is nobody.

So why didn't the nation
respond to the great regression

that started around 1 980?

Why didn't we take bold steps
to make the economy

continue to work
for just about everyone?

Because we figured out three ways

to cope with flattening
or declining incomes

without reducing our
relative standard of living.

Remember, starting in the late '70s,

the typical wage is flat.

But a lot of people are buying.

How did they do that?

How does the middle class

manage to keep on spending

when wages are flat?

The first coping mechanism,
starting in the late '70s,

is, women go into paid work.

Young mothers went into work
in huge numbers.

We haven't seen anything like it,
a social revolution.

"Nine to Five."

Dolly Parton?
1 980.

Dolly Parton, you know,
she is only five feet tall.

They didn't go to work
because there were

all these wonderful professional
opportunities open to women.

Some of them did,

but that's not the major reason
women went to work.

They went to work mainly
because they had to prop up

family incomes that were dropping
because the men in the family,

their wages were going nowhere.

But there's only a limit
to how many young mothers

can go into work.

And so the second strategy
used by the 1 990s

was that families,
both men and women,

worked longer hours.

When l was Secretary of Labor,
l remember looking at the data,

and l was amazed, and then
l'd go out into the field,

and l'd go to various cities,
and l'd talk with people,

and people were working,
you know, all hours.

l mean, second jobs,
third jobs, overtime.

lf they were professionals, billable
hours coming out of their ears.

We were working 300 hours a year
more than the typical European.

l mean, we were working harder
than the industrious,

enormously industrious Japanese.

But there's a limit
to how hard you can work.

When those were exhausted,
the third coping mechanism

was borrowing, going into debt,

which seemed easy because
housing prices were going up.

For 1 3 years, Americans
have enjoyed a housing boom,

the longest ever.

This a great time
to buy a house in Delray Beach.

You can make, if you have some cash,

an unbelievable deal.

From the
mid-to-late '90s onward,

you have this huge rise
in housing prices.

People said, "Well,
l can take out a loan

against my home."

l could use my home as collateral,"
or, "l can refinance my home."

And that kept the middle class going.

Homes were like piggy banks.

Americans have
been using their home as an ATM,

cashing out more than
$500 billion in home equity

from 2001 to 2005 to cover
expenses like health costs,

student debt, repairs, and credit cards.

We had a debt bubble
prompted by middle-class America

trying to maintain its living standard
in the face of stagnant wages.

We're seeing more clients
every day that,

very sadly, they've gotten
into a debt hole

that is very difficult to dig out of.

But there's a limit
to how far you can do that.

You know, that was a speculative bubble,

and it burst in 2008.

We know what happened.

And so all of the coping mechanisms

that the middle class has used

to avoid the inevitable reality

that their wages
have gone nowhere for 30 years,

adjusted for inflation,
are now exhausted.

When the middle class
doesn't share in the economic gains,

you get into this downward
vicious cycle.

The problem is,
for the last three decades,

nothing has fundamentally changed

in terms of inequality.

And it wasn't until
the Clinton administration

that there was an opportunity
to reverse all of this.

And that was what was
so damn frustrating.

The Senate, l believe,
is on the verge of passing

the jobs program.
Things are going well...

l mean, we had budget surpluses.

We might have been able
to take those surpluses

and invest them in education
and job training,

change the structure,
ultimately, of the economy.

But there wasn't
the political will to do that.

Before l leave, l also want to say
a special word of thanks

to my longtime friend Secretary Reich,

who's carried on this fight
for the minimum wage.

This was an especially sweet day
for him as well,

and l thank him for his efforts.

l should say something
just so it's not misunderstood.

You know, Bill Clinton did preside

over one of the best economies
we've had in this country

in living memory.

The wages of most people went up.

Poverty actually declined.

But we didn't do enough.

We didn't really alter
the underlying trend.

l became a true pain in the ass.

l mean, looking back on it,
l'm embarrassed.

ln meetings, l would sound off about,

you know, inequality,
and, "Are we looking

at the distributional impacts
of this policy or that policy?"

l mean, l became predictable.
People would roll their eyes.

l'm surprised Bill Clinton
kept me around.

l did want to bring you up to date
on a couple of matters.

First of all,
the president was reelected.

The second is that l'm going home.

l am so glad you did not clap.

ln the end, l left.

Partly, l was frustrated.

Partly, l just hadn't seen
anything of my family.

l hadn't seen the boys.

l said to Bill Clinton l had to go home.

l... l do ask myself...

...whether l've been a total failure.

l've been saying much
of the same thing for 30 years.

And some of the trends
have grown worse.

lnequality has become worse.

The danger to the economy
and democracy have become worse.

But here's what l tell myself

in my quiet moments.

l say, close to home,
you know, nuts and bolts,

over the kitchen sink,
dining room table,

you know, this is what counts
for most people:

good jobs, good wages,
a good opportunity

and set of opportunities for their kids.

This is where people live.

Detective Conan O'Brien

and Detective Former Secretary
of Labor Robert Reich.

l am a cockeyed optimist.

l ask you,
do l look like big government?

l wouldn't have spent
so much of my adult life

banging my head against the
wall if l didn't think

that ultimately it would pay off

in terms of social change.

No!

That's why l teach.

Now, people who are worried
about widening inequality

are also worried about something else.

lt's not upward mobility.

lt's not even trust.

They are worried about

the undermining of democracy.

When so many resources,
so much money, so much wealth,

so much income
accumulates at the very top,

that with money comes the capacity

to control politics.

There's nothing sinister
the way it starts.

Usually they bring in somebody
you haven't seen for a few years.

You know, they're paying them ten grand.

Might be the best man in your wedding
or a guy you played football with.

You say, "Eddie, hell,
l haven't seen you..."

And then they say,
"Now, l'd like to turn it over

to old Freckles here..."

And then they give you the whole load.

But money...
l mean, do the lobbyists come in

and obviously the unspoken reality is,

"We can help you win
your next election

if you cooperate with us"?

There's a guy in every office

to say, "So-and-so wants to see you.

He's from the American
Shoe Leather Company.

They have maxed out,"
meaning they gave you

the maximum in your primary
when you first started.

"They gave you the maximum
in every general.

You've run three times now,

and they were there for you
at every point."

And what for?

Access.

This is actually
where there is blame,

and l think the blame is justifiable.

lt's not that people are rich.

lt's that they abuse their wealth

by lobbying for bailouts

and subsidies and taxes

that are going to entrench their wealth.

That's the reason why the rules
have changed so dramatically.

Look at history.

lnequality and top tax rates

have had an inverse relationship.

When inequality was lowest,
top tax rates were higher.

When inequality was highest,
tax rates on the wealthy went down.

Under Dwight D. Eisenhower...
you know, he was a Republican;

nobody dared call him a socialist,

the top marginal tax rate was 91 %.

l mean, even when you consider
all deductions and all tax credits,

they were still paying way over 50% .

l, John Fitzgerald Kennedy,
do solemnly swear...

l will faithfully execute...

The office of president
of the United States...

So help me, God.

Taxes on the top
were never below 70%

until Reagan dropped
those taxes on the top.

Read my lips:

No new taxes.

l, William Jefferson Clinton...

l, George Walker Bush...

Do solemnly swear...

Do solemnly swear...

l, Barack Hussein Obama,
do solemnly swear...

ln fact, most of the very rich
in this country

don't even pay close to that

because most of their income
is in the form

of capital gains,
which is now taxed at 1 5%.

My total taxes paid,

payroll taxes plus income tax,
mine came to 1 7.7%.

The average for the office was 32.9% .

There wasn't anybody in the office,

from the receptionist on,
that paid as low a tax rate.

The taxation system
has tilted toward the rich

and away from the middle class
in the last ten years.

lt is dramatic, and l don't
think it's appreciated.

What's the effective rate
l've been paying?

Well, it's probably closer
to the 1 5% rate than anything.

Mr. Romney's income taxes
were finally posted,

and he paid 1 3.9% .

Nancy and l paid 33% or more.

lt was in the 30s,
and l find that atrocious.

l paid 1 1 % last year
on an eight-figure income.

- Wowzers.
- So less than Mitt Romney.

When you give rich
businesspeople tax breaks

all in the name ofjob creation,

all that really happens
is that the fat cats get fatter.

And, of course, that's what's happened
over the last 30 years.

That's the signature feature

of the economy over the last 30 years.

Look, nobody wants to pay taxes.

But taxes are the price we pay
to finance the kinds of things

that we can't do individually,
that we need to do together.

There's kind of a negative
trickle-down effect,

and it starts in Washington.

l mean, if the wealthy
are not paying their fair share

and if the middle class
are basically stagnant

and are not paying much in taxes
because they're not making much money,

then you're gonna have a budget crisis
somewhere along the line.

That means less revenue sharing
with the states.

That means the states
have to pull in their belts.

They cannot support
public higher education.

As state funding to institutions
of higher education went down,

tuitions went up to compensate.

l mean, at Berkeley, where l teach,

in the 1 960s, tuition was free.

ln the 1 970s, it was $700 a year
in today's dollars.

But now it costs $1 5,000

for in-state residents.

Next week, members of Congress

are gonna have a chance to vote
on what we call

the Buffett Rule, and it's simple.

lf you make more money...
more than $1 million a year...

...not if you have $1 million

but if you make more
than $1 million a year,

you should pay
at least the same percentage

of your income in taxes
as middle-class families do.

He is killing the economy,
and this is class warfare.

l think Barack Obama is a socialist.

lt'll only be a minimum tax
on people who make lots of money.

More class warfare
from an affable billionaire.

ls he completely a socialist?

ls Warren Buffett a socialist?

You really have no
clue what socialism is, do you?

CEOs and Wall Street have been doing
terribly... you know, enormously well.

Why should they get continued tax cuts

when, in fact, we have a huge
deficit way down the line?

Robert Reich.
You know Robert Reich?

- l do indeed.
- He's a Communist.

- You know that, right?
- Communist/Socialist.

- OK.
- Confused. He's a confused.

The guy secretly adores Karl Marx
and is up there in Cambridge...

Can l just be clear about this?

l am not, nor have l ever been,

a member of the Communist Party
or a Communist.

A lot of people are watching Fox,
and l like Fox.

l like appearing with you,
and l like you personally.

l used to be on O'Reilly's show.

ln fact, l even substituted
for Bill O'Reilly a couple of times.

He asked me.

l was on Fox quite a lot.

Joining us now
is former labor secretary,

our good friend Robert Reich.
Secretary, how are you, my friend?

- Good see you.
- But no longer.

They don't ask.

The football field of American politics
has kept on shifting to the right.

l just... you know,
basically l just stand here.

l've watched it move.

l used to be something of a centrist.

ln fact, my first job
was in the Ford administration.

Hello.
That's a Republican administration.

You know, you were considered
conservative in the 1 990s.

Yeah.

You almost became the
majority leader of the Senate.

l could have been king.

Our staffs were not terribly
happy that we were getting together.

My staff said, "Don't have
lunch with this right-winger."

- From Wyoming.
- "From Wyoming.

There's nothing in it."

We were approached
about doing a show.

Mm-hmm.

Hello, Robert. Good to see you again.

Good evening.
Yeah, here.

Oh, thank you so much.

You're now considered a moderate,
if not lefty.

- Commie.
- What happened?

They came in, and they brought with them

an anti-government hatred.

And you don't have adversaries anymore,
you have enemies.

There does seem to be
a strong correlation

between political polarization
on the one hand

and widening economic inequality.

Researchers measured the distance
between the median voting patterns

of one party and the other party,

and what they found is that
in times of high inequality,

you have the highest degree
of polarization.

lt almost tracks exactly.

You see how totally integrated
and connected

the issue of inequality
is to our democracy.

And you see how the ultimate
guardians of our democracy...

if Congress doesn't do it
and if the executive doesn't do it,

the ultimate guardians are up here.

ln 201 0, the Supreme Court
in Citizens United

decided that corporations are people.

And as Citizens United was interpreted
by lower courts,

it basically said that corporations,

wealthy individuals,
anybody who has a lot of money,

can flood the political system,

can basically inundate our democracy

with their money.

Uh, Mr. Wertheimer?

- Robert, how are you?
- How are you?

The idea that a corporation
could spend $1 billion

in an election to elect a president

and it would not have the capacity

to have a corrupting influence
over government decisions...

That's absurd.
l mean...

lt's a concept from another planet.

The money isn't new.

The quantity of the money is new.

ln the last
presidential election,

we saw for the first time
in this country,

billionaires...

l mean, a handful of billionaires

contributing huge sums of money
to individual candidates,

basically keeping
those candidates going.

l mean, is this America?
Not in my mind.

l think it's absolutely stupefying.

l think, if you keep going,

in the next presidential election,

it will be, "Have you got
$300 million in your pocket?

'Cause you can buy a president."

There are liberal billionaires,

there are conservative billionaires.

So if you see someone

buying a result that you like,

someone else can buy a result
that you're gonna hate

if they can give
a huge amount of money.

You cannot have government
on the auction block.

When we see the contrast
between the values we share

and the realities we live in,

that is the fundamental
foundation for social change.

You work for us!
You work for us!

The Tea Party movement

was born in the wake
of the Wall Street bailout.

We want to make sure that the government
is doing what's right for all people,

not just for some of the people.

An everyday Tea Partier
is an American citizen

that is frustrated with the direction
the country's going.

The banks got bailed out.
We got sold out.

The banks got bailed out.

The Occupy movement
has focused its wrath

on Wall Street and big corporations.

The White House is really
in the pockets of the banks.

lt's a plutocracy, basically.

lt's not about the money
and how much money people have.

lt is about people
not having their voices heard.

There's so many people
who've lost their jobs.

There's so many people
who've lost their homes.

lt's just totally unfair.

You've got a lot
of people who feel like

the game is stacked against them.

- Can you hear us now?
- The game is rigged.

Can you hear us now?

We need to get lobbyists,
Goldman Sachs,

George Soros, Merrill Lynch,
everyone out of our politics.

Whoo!

Why should they be allowed
to throw millions at politicians?

They're supposed to be our voice,
not their voice.

Losers of rigged games
can become very angry.

You don't love America.

You don't love the Constitution.

You don't love anything but your stupid,
smarmy-ass, taking little self.

Health care.

Kill the bill!
Kill the bill!

Most people are still
worried about their jobs.

They are angry.
They are frustrated.

They're looking for people to blame.

We think the Muslims
are moving in and taking over.

Go back home!

Go back home!
Go back home!

One nation under God, not Allah!

These trends are dangerous.

We're seeing an entire society
that is starting to pull apart.

Education must be free.

No costs!
No fees!

Education must be...

Oh, my God!

At Cal Berkeley,
after being beaten by police

and cleared out of their protest site,

Occupy Cal was back with a full day
of protest activities today.

Joining us now is Cal Berkeley
professor Robert Reich.

Well, on campus,
there is a kind of mood

of restlessness and uncertainty.

A lot of the students don't know
if the police are coming back in.

The irony of all of this
is that instead of allowing people

to peaceably assemble
to express their outrage

at how much money
is now going into politics,

we've got mayors and other officials
all over the country who are saying,

"You can't assemble,
you can't express yourself,

but we are going to listen
to the money

from the big corporations
that now are basically

engulfing American politics."

We are losing
equal opportunity in America.

We are losing the moral foundation stone

on which this country
and our democracy are built.

lt undermines our democracy

when all that money can come down

from the wealthy, from the corporations.

When there are no limits
to the amount of money,

money that can infect and undermine

and corrupt our democracy,
then what do we have left?

What do we have left?

lf you can permit me a personal note.

Because l was always short for my age

and l was always very short...

in fact...

when l was a little boy,
l was even shorter.

l was always getting beat up.

When l was a kid,
the bigger boys

would pick on me.

You know, that was what you did.

That's what is done.

So l got an idea
that l would make alliances

with older boys,

you know, like, just one or two

who would be my protectors.

The summer when l was about ten,

one of the older boys who l depended on

to kind of be a protector,
his name was Michael Schwerner.

ln the summer of '64,
l learned that Mickey

had been in Mississippi

registering voters.

And he and two other people
who had been with him

registering voters were, uh...

...were tortured and murdered.

And when l heard that my protector

had been murdered by...

...the real bullies...

...l think it changed my life.

l had to protect people
from the bullies,

the people who would
beat them up economically

or the people who would subject them
and their families to real harm.

Because if you don't have a voice,
if you don't have power,

if you are vulnerable
economically in society,

you don't have anybody to protect you.

There's no single magic bullet

to solving this problem.

l mean, l've written a lot of books.

l've come up with a lot of policy ideas.

l'm not alone.
Policy ideas are plentiful.

Remember, we make the rules
of the economy.

And we have the power
to change those rules.

You've got to mobilize.
You've got to organize.

You've got to energize other people.

Politics is not out there.

lt starts here.

Today's our last...
our last class.

Whoo!

l'll try that again.

Today's our last class.

Remember the first part of the course,

we looked at the dynamics
of wealth and poverty,

and many of you...
many of you

were a little bit down after that?

And some of you worried
that that dynamic

was inevitable.

ls this going to be
just a partisan fight?

Are we just going to have
class warfare in this country?

No.

The rich actually do better

with an economy that is growing faster,

when everybody else is doing better.

This is not a zero-sum game.

History is on the side

of positive social change:

unemployment insurance,
social security, civil rights

and voting rights,
environmental protection,

the Environmental Protection Act,
signed into law by Richard Nixon,

of all people.

Any one of you who feels cynical

about the possibility
of social progress,

just consider

where we have been.

Roger. Eagle's undocked.

Which sort of comes to you.

To you.

You don't necessarily
need to be elected

President of the United States
or be a Secretary of Labor

to have a huge impact.

You can be a leader

in many, many different spheres.

There are a lot of other things
l could be doing.

But l choose to be here

in this course

because l believe in you.

l believe that some of you

are going to change...

...the community, our society,
maybe even the world.

One final word.

May your lives be filled with passion,

and also, may your days be filled
with wonder and happiness.

May you do great things
with your life,

and may you have a wonderful,
exuberant, brilliant career.

Thank you.

He inspired me, actually, personally

to really want to go out
and make a difference.

Going to Brazil to work
with an NGO in the Favelas.

l know my wife definitely...

Erika wants to go to school too,

now that she sees that it's possible.

l wanted to become a lawyer.

You know, l've thought about it a lot.
l wrote a couple of books on this stuff.

lf l knew what to do, l would...

On my weekends, l would take
a day off to start, OK,

not a revolution.

l...
But you know what?

Maybe we do need
something like that.