Nick Hanauer, Pitchforks and the Minimum Wage

In 2014 at a TED talk and then at the on line website Politico, Nick Hanauer (image one) made the case for a big rise in the minimum wage. The case was made on the basis of economic justice but also of self interest. Hanauer essentially said that it was in the best interests of the very rich to drastically increase salaries, since without  doing so there might be pitchforks out to get them.

Here is a quote from that opinion piece,

"...If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out...."

This week, a report emerged that one of Hanauer's companies, which is the "Pacific Coast Feather Company" (he is the Chairman), hired workers recently at about the federal minimum wage in Gaston County North Carolina (actually the minimum wage was $7.25 at the time and they were hired at $7.50) and doing so while getting a State subsidy (image two is the company getting a ceremonial State Flag). 

Now there are a few things that could be keeping this from being hypocrisy.

The first is timing. The opinion piece is from June 2014. 

The opening of the company's North Carolina operation (third image) may have preceded the opinion piece (interestingly, about the time plant was opened, a company plant in Nebraska was severely damaged by a tornado). 

The second is also timing. Hanauer's pitchfork theory may only mean that the very rich have X years to fix things and that he plans to raise the wages at the NC operation before the X year deadline. 

The third is knowledge. Hanauer, although Chairman of the company, might not actually know what people were going to be paid at the NC operation.

Of course the most likely thing is that Hanauer was just spouting fluff at the TED talk and in the opinion piece as most of his companies are high tech and pay above the minimum wage as a matter of course. Also Hanauer is active in left wing politics, including managing 'dark' money contributions.









Hanauer's opnion piece in Politico is here.

Report on Hanauer's company is here.

Gaston County's report on the company's opening is here.

Article tying the Nebraska disaster to the North Carolina plant opening is here.

Vox Defends De Caprio from Hypocrisy Charge

In late February 2016, at the Academy Awards (first image), Leo DiCaprio, who received the Best Actor Award, made the following statement,

 “Making The Revenant was about man’s relationship with the natural world. A world that we collectively felt in the 2015, as the hottest year recorded in the history. Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to find snow. Climate change is real. It’s happening right now. It is the most urgent threat affecting our entire species. And we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating. We need to support leaders around the world… Who do not speak for the big corporations, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people who are most affected by this, for our children’s children and for those people out there whose voices have been drowned down by the politics of greed.”

Of course it was pointed out that DiCaprio has, to say the least, a huge carbon footprint.

For example, in 2014, DiCaprio bought a mansion (7000 sq feet, 6 BD 7+ BA) in Palm Spring (see second image). 

DiCaprio also is known to be a frequent traveler on private jets (in one six week period he took a private jet 5 times and he is known to have used a private jet to go to Brazil for the 2014 soccer world cup). In addition, as of 2014, DiCaprio owned two condos (or maybe coops) in Battery City Park, NYC and one in Greenich Village, NYC
  Vox defends DiCaprio by stating that voluntary reduction of carbon by DiCaprio would be insignificant in combating world carbon emissions and that even virtuous action by all celebrities would be insignificant and that DiCaprio gives money to Green charities and organizations. The Vox piece says that DiCaprio is advocating Government action to reduce carbon emissions and that voluntary reduction (or consumption) by DiCaprio is irrelevant to that advocacy. 

Vox could have, but did not, also point out that in 2013 DiCaprio sold his Malibu beachfront (third and fourth image - from Zillow) mansion perhaps being afraid of sea level rise (DiCaprio made about a $10M capital gain on this).

This defense lacks in several ways.

First, DiCaprio's big carbon footprint is a major public relations issue for groups seeking the kind of legislation that DiCaprio advocates. Second, legislation in the U.S. restricting only corporation based carbon emission (as seems to be the DiCaprio wish) would also be insignificant since the US only is one country and, anyway, corporate carbon emissions is only a part of the country's carbon emission  (it seems to me that DiCaprio is part of the Hollywood industry and he probably has incorporated part of his fortune but I'll pass on that).  Third, DiCaprio says "...we need to work collectively together..." which seems to imply not just government action but also volunteer action.

Still, if one assumes that DiCaprio believes government action will cure the problem and that the 'collective' work is only to get legislation and that DiCaprio's private contributions to green organizations offset his consumption and don't cause a PR problem for legislation (a lot of assuming), then you could conclude that he is not a hypocrite.
s



Vox analysis piece is here.
Report on DiCaprio speech with extensive quote is here.
Daily Mail report on DiCaprio homes is here. 
Zillow site with images of DiCaprio mansion in Malibu is here