About the author
Mark Perry Tweets
What’s New on AEI
What if we could confiscate 100% of CEO compensation for all S&P 500 companies and redistribute to average workers?
View related content: Carpe Diem
As I’ve reported before on CD, the AFL-CIO Executive Paywatch website decries the fact that in 2013 the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 331:1, based on a comparison of the average compensation of 350 CEOs in the S&P ($11.7 million) to the $35,239 average annual pay for the 94.5 million workers in the BLS employee category “production and nonsupervisory workers.” According to the AFL-CIO, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased from 46:1 in 1983, to 195:1 in 1993, to 301:1 in 2003 and to a record 331:1 last year. Further, we learn from the AFL-CIO that:
America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, a country where hard work and playing by the rules would provide working families a middle-class standard of living. But in recent decades, corporate CEOs have been taking a greater share of the economic pie while wages have stagnated and unemployment remains high. Today’s ratio of CEO-to-worker pay is simply unconscionable. While CEO pay remains in the stratosphere, production and nonsupervisory workers took home only $35,239 on average in 2013.
OK, let’s assume that the AFL-CIO is correct that corporate CEOs have been gobbling up a greater and greater share of the payroll pie over the last 30 years. Well then what would happen if we could either: a) confiscate 100% of the compensation paid last year to all of the S&P 500 CEOs and redistribute that money to the 94.5 million production and nonsupervisory workers, or b) cap the 2013 CEO-to-worker pay ratio at either the 1983 level (46:1) or the 1993 ratio (195:1) and confiscate and redistribute the excess CEO pay above those caps to the 94.5 million workers? The table above summarizes how that confiscation of CEO pay and redistribution would affect the average worker’s annual income and hourly pay rates. Here’s a summary:
1. The AFL-CIO reports that CEOs of companies in the S&P 500 received $11.7 million in total compensation last year on average, based on an analysis of available data from 350 companies in the S&P 500. Assuming that $11.7 million was the average pay for all S&P 500 companies, the CEOs as a group would have generated $5.85 billion in income last year. If we could confiscate that total amount of almost $6 billion and redistribute it equally to all 94.5 million workers that the AFL-CIO uses for its “average worker pay” calculation, each worker would have received $61.90 in extra annual pre-tax income last year, or about 3 cents per hour for a 40-hour workweek and about 3.5 cents per hour for a 35-hour workweek (see first row in the table above).
2. If we could impose the 1983 CEO-to-worker pay ratio of 46:1, the average S&P 500 CEO compensation last year would have been only about $1.6 million, and the 500 CEOs would have earned only $810 million in 2013, instead of $5.85 billion. Distributing the approximately $5 billion in excess earnings last year to the 94.5 million workers would have increased their annual pay by $53 and their hourly pay by about 3 cents, before tax (see middle row in the table above).
3. Imposing the 1993 CEO-to-worker pay ratio of 195:1 would mean that the average CEO compensation last year would have been only about $3.4 million, generating nearly $2.5 billion in excess CEO pay to redistribute to average workers. Each of the 94.5 million workers would have seen an increase in their annual pay of less than $26, and their hourly pay would have gone up by less than 2 cents, before tax (see last row in the table above).
MP: Even if the AFL-CIO could have engaged the services of a magic genie (or the federal government) to confiscate 100% of the compensation of all US CEOs in the S&P 500 last year, and then redistributed that $6 billion of executive compensation to America’s 94.5 million middle-class workers, the average worker’s income would have only increased by about $1 per week – and that’s before taxes. And if the AFL-CIO could have capped CEO compensation last year at the 195:1 ratio of CEO to average worker pay that prevailed 20 years ago, and redistributed the excess above last year’s actual CEO pay, the average worker would have seen his or her pay increase about 50 cents a week. Big deal.
There might be a lot of reasons that average worker pay has stagnated over the last decade – intense international competition, an increase in fringe benefits as a share of total worker compensation that has slowed monetary wage increases, the Great Recession, the jobless recovery, the new two-tiered wage systems of autoworkers and other industries — but the increased compensation for America’s top executives certainly isn’t one of them.
The fight for economic liberty and the battle against cronyism and over-regulation of business: Middle East vs. USA edition
View related content: Carpe Diem
In today’s WSJ, Hernando de Soto argues that the cure for terrorism in the Middle East is capitalism, economic empowerment, and private property rights to help rescue “extralegal entrepreneurs” who have become trapped in their own countries as “economic refugees” by cronyism and burdensome over-regulation of market activity. Here’s an excerpt of “The Capitalist Cure for Terrorism” (emphasis mine):
It is widely known that the Arab Spring was sparked by the self-immolation in 2011 of Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian street merchant. But few have asked why Bouazizi felt driven to kill himself—or why, within 60 days, at least 63 more men and women in Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt also set themselves on fire, sending millions into the streets, toppling four regimes and leading us to today’s turmoil in the Arab world.
These suicides, we found, weren’t pleas for political or religious rights or for higher wage subsidies. Bouazizi and the others who burned themselves were extralegal entrepreneurs: builders, contractors, caterers, small vendors and the like. In their dying statements, none referred to religion or politics. Most of those who survived their burns spoke to us of “economic exclusion.”
Bouazizi’s plight as a small entrepreneur could stand in for the frustrations that millions of Arabs still face. The Tunisian wasn’t a simple laborer. He was a trader from age 12. By the time he was 19, he was keeping the books at the local market. At 26, he was selling fruits and vegetables from different carts and sites.
He was on his way to forming a company of his own and dreamed of buying a pickup truck to take produce to other retail outlets to expand his business. But to get a loan to buy the truck, he needed collateral—and since the assets he held weren’t legally recorded or had murky titles, he didn’t qualify.
Meanwhile, government inspectors made Bouazizi’s life miserable, shaking him down for bribes when he couldn’t produce licenses that were (by design) virtually unobtainable. He tired of the abuse. The day he killed himself, inspectors had come to seize his merchandise and his electronic scale for weighing goods. A tussle began. One municipal inspector, a woman, slapped Bouazizi across the face. That humiliation, along with the confiscation of just $225 worth of his wares, is said to have led the young man to take his own life.
Tunisia’s system of cronyism, which demanded payoffs for official protection at every turn, had withdrawn its support from Bouazizi and ruined him. He could no longer generate profits or repay the loans he had taken to buy the confiscated merchandise. He was bankrupt, and the truck that he dreamed of purchasing was now also out of reach. He couldn’t sell and relocate because he had no legal title to his business to pass on. So he died in flames—wearing Western-style sneakers, jeans, a T-shirt and a zippered jacket, demanding the right to work in a legal market economy.
I asked Bouazizi’s brother Salem if he thought that his late sibling had left a legacy. “Of course,” he said. “He believed the poor had the right to buy and sell.” The people of the “Arab street” want to find a place in the modern capitalist economy. But hundreds of millions of them have been unable to do so because of legal constraints to which both local leaders and Western elites are often blind. They have ended up as economic refugees in their own countries.
In an interesting complement to de Soto, George Will makes a similar argument in today’s Washington Post that America’s “teeth-whitening entrepreneurs” are being denied the right to earn a living, and have become “economic refugees” in North Carolina because of cronyism capitalism, protectionist rent-seeking, and the burdensome over-regulation of market activity. Here’s an excerpt of “Supreme Court Has a Chance to Bring Liberty to Teeth Whitening” (emphasis mine):
On Tuesday, the national pastime will be the subject of oral arguments in a portentous Supreme Court case. This pastime is not baseball but rent-seeking — the unseemly yet uninhibited scramble of private interests to bend government power for their benefit. If the court directs a judicial scowl at North Carolina’s State Board of Dental Examiners, the court will thereby advance a basic liberty — the right of Americans to earn a living without unreasonable government interference.
The board, whose members are elected by licensed dentists and dental hygienists, regulates the practice of dentistry in North Carolina. To the surprise of no one acquainted with human nature, the board wields its power for the benefit of fellow members of the cartel of licensed dental practitioners.
Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation says the board protects the economic interests of those who elect it, by pretending to protect North Carolinians from the supposed danger of unlicensed people participating in the business of “teeth whitening.” In this simple procedure, a peroxide-treated plastic strip is placed on teeth for a few minutes, brightening them.
Responding to complaints from licensed dentists seeking to monopolize teeth whitening, the board has issued at least 47 cease-and-desist orders to small-business owners who do whitening in stores and shopping malls. The board also asked the state’s Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners to forbid licensed cosmetologists from offering teeth-whitening services.
James Madison’s Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause because he knew that state legislatures, even more than the national legislature of an “extensive” republic, were susceptible to capture by self-seeking factions. Today, factions enrich themselves through occupational licensure laws unrelated to public safety.
Such laws are growth-inhibiting and job-limiting, injuring the economy while corrupting politics. They are residues of the mercantilist mentality, which was a residue of the feudal guild system, which was crony capitalism before there was capitalism. Then as now, commercial interests collaborated with governments that protected them against competition.
The North Carolina case is an opportunity for the court to affirm an economic right — the right to earn a living. Courts have abandoned the defense of these rights, and conservatives have encouraged this abandonment by careless, undiscriminating rhetoric denouncing “judicial activism.” Tuesday’s oral arguments might indicate whether the court will at last resume a properly active engagement in the defense of individual liberty against abridgements by governments that connive with rent-seeking factions.
View related content: Carpe Diem
Here’s another innovation from the ride-sharing service Uber. Introduced yesterday in Seattle, you can now request UberPEDAL, an on-demand bike rack option. From the Uber webiste:
Seattleites love their bicycles, and so do we. Whether you’re stranded due to a flat tire, a torrential downpour (it is Seattle, after all) or consuming one too many beers, we’ve got you covered. We’ve teamed up with Saris, creators of the best American made bike racks, to get you and your bike to your destination safely. With the touch of a button and a $5 surcharge, you can request an uberX equipped with a Saris bike rack (fits up to two bicycles), and in minutes your car will arrive, ready to take you and your bike where you need to go!
This latest innovation from Uber is one more reason why the outdated, traditional taxi cartels are doomed – they’re operating the same way today as they did 60 years without a “drop of evolution” as Morgan Frank points out in an email. No family-friendly services, no bike-friendly services, no business-friendly services, no credit cards in some markets, etc. In contrast, Uber is constantly innovating and offering new services, based on what today’s consumers want – like UberPEDAL, UberFamily (for “parents on the go”), Uber for Business (“uncomplicating business travel for your entire company” now available in 45 countries), and now the first #UberDESTINATION for the exotic beaches of Phuket, Thailand.
As I pointed out in a post last week, consumers have clearly and overwhelmingly expressed their preferences – they are “evangelical” about ride-sharing for a very good reason – it’s much better, cheaper, and faster than Big Taxi with more options for families, bicyclists and businesses. Consumers have seen the transportation future, and it’s not Big Taxi. Here’s my economic forecast for the transportation industry: Expect continued and very strong hurricane-strength Schumpeterian gales, with a high likelihood of market disruption and creative destruction of Big Taxi, accompanied by huge tsunami-level tidal waves of increased consumer surplus. (Thanks to Morgan Frank for inspiring that forecast language.)
HT: Morgan Frank
View related content: Carpe Diem
….is from Ashe Schowe’s op-ed “Feminist hysteria is causing the infantilization of women” in
When did female empowerment become female infantilization?
Women once were encouraged to be strong and independent, to brush aside insensitive words and actions and to emerge stronger. But now, politicians, pundits, even celebrities are feeding an outrage machine by telling women they should be offended by anything and everything.
Add this all up and you have today’s “thought leaders” telling women they need to be spoken to gently, need the government to guard them from harsh words and uncomfortable topics, that their setbacks are always someone else’s fault and that they aren’t in control of their own lives.
This shift toward telling women they need help at every stage of their lives (remember the Obama campaign’s “Life of Julia”?) might raise funds for feminist causes or gain votes for politicians, but it’s not empowering. It’s infantilizing.
The sharing economy, Schumpeterian gales of creative destruction, and my top 10 interesting facts about Airbnb
View related content: Carpe Diem
According to its website, Airbnb is a “global community marketplace that connects travelers seeking authentic, high-quality accommodations with hosts who offer unique places to stay.” Along with ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, and home-cooked food sharing marketplaces like EatWith and Feastly, Airbnb is playing a central role in what’s being called “the sharing economy” and “collaborative consumption.” It’s one of the most exciting new economic trends, and it’s opening up promising new possibilities in the areas of domestic and international travel. You can now travel to worldwide destinations like Paris, Bangkok, Bogota or New York City and book your accommodations through Airbnb, arrange for local transportation through Uber or Lyft, and enjoy home-cooked local cuisine prepared by hosts in private homes through EatWith or Feastly.
Thanks to the sharing economy, here’s my economic forecast for the travel industry: Expect continued and very strong Schumpeterian gales, with a high likelihood of market disruption and creative destruction, accompanied by huge tidal waves of increased consumer surplus. (Thanks to Morgan Frank for inspiring some of that forecast language.)
Here are my Top Ten Interesting Facts about Airbnb, collected from its website with some additional assistance from an Airbnb representative.
1. Number of cities served by Airbnb: 34,000 and growing
2. Number of lodging listings worldwide: 800,000 and growing
3. Greatest number of Airbnb reservations ever booked on a single night: 425,000 worldwide on a peak night in August 2014
4. Airbnb’s largest market: Paris, followed by New York City, based on average guest stays per night
5. Percent of Airbnb properties that are located outside of main hotel districts: 76%
6. Average stay for Airbnb guests vs. typical visitors: 5 nights vs. 2.8 nights
7. Average spending per trip for Airbnb guests vs. typical visitors: $978 vs. $669
8. Percent of Airbnb guest spending in neighborhoods where they stay: 50%
9. Number of Airbnb guests during the 2014 World Cup in Brazil: More than 100,000, which generated more than $38 million for local hosts
10. Number of unusual properties available through Airbnb: 4,000 castles (see example above in photo), 2,800 tree houses (see photo), 1,000 islands (see photo) and 9,000 boats
There are also current Airbnb listings for lighthouses, shipping container homes, underground homes, private properties inside national parks, geodesic domes, homes of famous authors, stone houses, handmade homes, gypsy wagons, traditional yurts, homes or apartments with pianos, windmills, retro trailers, fairytale cottages, European villas, and buses, see samples photos above.
View related content: Carpe Diem
1. Chart of the day. The US was more energy self-sufficient through June of this year (85.2%) than in any previous year since 1987 – thanks mostly to the twin revolutionary technologies of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.
4. Highway Robbery. Virginia cops seized $17,550 in cash from a small business owner traveling to DC to buy equipment for his restaurant. He was never charged with a crime so he sued and got his money back 14 months later. It took a jury only 35 minutes to rule in his favor, but by that time he had lost his restaurant. Source.
5. Warrior Coppery. Does your local police department need some armored tanks or assault rifles from the Department of Defense? If so, they just have to call 800-532-9946. That’s the toll-free number (no joke) for the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), the government initiative tasked with redistributing excess military equipment to civilian police around the country. LESO gave more than $449 million of military equipment last year alone. Source.
6. Senate Control. Betting on Iowa Electronic Markets is now predicting that the Democrats will lose control of the Senate with a 90% probability.
7. Global Warming Statistical Meltdown. Mounting evidence suggests that basic assumptions about climate change are mistaken: The numbers don’t add up. Says Georgia Institute of Technology Professor Judith Curry in today’s WSJ.
8. Video. Silicon Valley pioneer Marc Andreessen criticized billionaire investor Carl Icahn in an interview on CNBC, likening him to an “evil Capitan Kirk.”
Memo to ‘Businesses for a $10.10 an hour minimum wage’ — You don’t have to wait for Congress, you can act now!
View related content: Carpe Diem
I took this picture a few days ago at an Ace Hardware on Connecticut Avenue in Washington, D.C. and found out that it’s part of a campaign spearheaded by an organization called “Businesses for a Fair Minimum Wage” — a “national network of business owners and executives who believe a fair minimum wage makes good business sense.” Here’s the organization’s mission statement:
As business owners and executives, we support raising the federal minimum wage to strengthen our economy. … We support gradually raising the federal minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour, and then adjusting it annually to keep up with the cost of living. It’s good for business, customers and our economy.
Obvious question: If these business owners believe so strongly in government legislation that would force them to legally raise their minimum wage to $10.10 per hour because it would “strengthen our economy,” then what are they waiting for? Why don’t they raise their minimum wages right now to $10.10 per hour? In other words, if the business owners believe that a forced, government-mandated minimum wage of $10.10 is good for their businesses, then they should voluntarily and eagerly raise it now to $10.10 for their employees. Why wait for government legislation when they can accomplish their ultimate goal on their own?
I think a more honest and credible statement for the sign above would be “This business supports a federal minimum wage of $10.10 an hour so strongly, that we’re not waiting for Washington to enact legislation — we’ve already voluntarily raised our minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.” Or as somebody on Twitter suggested “This business understands nothing about economics or business.”
This reminds me of wealthy billionaires like Warren Buffett who says that he thinks the “super-rich” and “guys like me” should pay more taxes, or more accurately “be forced by the government to pay more taxes.” Back in 2008 on CD, I reminded Mr. Buffett that if he thinks that he should pay more in taxes, he doesn’t need to wait for Congress to change the tax laws. He can voluntarily pay more taxes right now in any amount that he thinks is fair by making a gift to the United States Government at the address below:
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D17
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Update: Today is 10/10 and a good time to remember that the proposed $10.10 per hour minimum wage is equivalent to a $5,700 annual tax per full-time unskilled worker.
Despite China’s new status as the world’s largest economy, the US is still 74 years ahead of China on a per-capita basis
View related content: Carpe Diem
The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) latest “World Economic Outlook” was released this week and the IMF estimates that China’s GDP (on a purchasing-power-parity [PPP] basis) this year of $17.632 trillion will exceed US GDP in 2014 of $17.416 trillion by 1.2%. According to IMF data, the US produced more economic output last year (on a PPP basis) than China by 3.8% ($16.768 trillion vs. $16.149), but China’s economy is expected to grow by 9.2% this year compared to a 3.9% growth in US GDP, and that will move China’s economic output in 2014 ahead of the US by $216 billion. By next year, the IMF estimates that China’s GDP will grow by another 9% and exceed US GDP by more than 5% and by almost $1 trillion ($19.230 trillion vs. $18.286 trillion). These IMF estimates means the US has officially lost its status as the world’s largest economy, a position it has held for 142 years, going back to 1872 when the US economy first surpassed the UK’s economy.
The Drudge Report has a link today to the Business Insider article “China Just Overtook The US As The World’s Largest Economy,” which starts out like this:
Sorry, America. China just overtook the US to become the world’s largest economy, according to the International Monetary Fund.
MP: Well, there’s really nothing that the US has to feel sorry about, we’re still almost 75 years ahead of China when we consider economic output per person. China and the US are both producing about the same amount of economic output this year, but China’s population is more than four times the size of the US population (1.367 billion vs. 319 million). Therefore, on a per-capita basis the IMF estimates that the US will produce $54,678 in economic output per person in 2014, which is more than four times the expected per-person GDP in China of only $12,893. The chart shows that the US produced that amount of GDP per capita (about $13,000) back in 1940, almost 75 years ago!
Assuming that China’s per-capita GDP continues to grow at its current rate of about 8% per year, it would take another 10 years before China’s per-capita GDP would reach $27,835 and equal the GDP per-capita the US achieved back in 1965. Another 20 years of growth at 8%, and China’s per-capita GDP would be roughly where the US is today.
China has made phenomenal economic gains over the last several decades to become the world’s largest economy, and it’s a remarkable economic success story that only happened after China adopted market-based reforms. They should be congratulated. But before breaking out the champagne and cigars to celebrate China’s new status as the “world’s largest economy” the chart above helps to put this in perspective — on a per-capita basis the US is still 74 years ahead of China.
Update: Without making an adjustment for purchasing-power-parity, the IMF estimates that China’s GDP will be $10.355 trillion this year, which will be more than 40% below the IMF’s estimate for US GDP of $17.416 trillion. On a per-capita basis, China’s economic output per person will be only $7,572 this year, equivalent to America’s GDP per capita back in 1900 (see new chart above).
If Silicon Valley is pressured to hire more blacks and women, should the NFL be pressured to hire more Asians and women?
View related content: Carpe Diem
|Race/Gender||Share of US Population, 2013||Share of NFL Players, 2013|
Based on the data in the chart above, what letter grade (A through F) would you assign for the “racial and gender hiring practices” of the National Football League (NFL)? When determining your grade, you would obviously consider the fact that the racial and gender shares of professional football players diverge significantly from the racial and gender makeup of the US population. Shouldn’t we apply the same diversity standards to the NFL that have been used recently to evaluate the racial and gender hiring practices of Silicon Valley companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Twitter?
For example, blacks were 13.2% of the US population in 2013, but were significantly overrepresented in the NFL with a 67.3% player share in the 2013-2014 season. Whites are 62.6% of the US population, but were significantly underrepresented in the NFL with only a 31% share of players. Likewise, Hispanics and Asians have almost no representation in the NFL (0.6% and 0.7% respectively) compared to their shares of the US population of 17.1% and 5.3%. And women, who make up 50.8% of the US population, but have no representation in the NFL.
To summarize, whites are significantly underrepresented in the NFL by a factor of 2 times, Hispanics are significantly underrepresented by a factor of 28.5 times, Asians are significantly underrepresented by a factor of 7.5 times, blacks are significantly overrepresented by a factor of 5 times, and women are not represented at all. In other words, the NFL players “look nothing like America.” Therefore using the typical “any gender or racial disparity uncovers discrimination and needs to be corrected” standard, as it’s universally applied to Silicon Valley employment, STEM degrees and careers, corporate boards, etc., I would have to assign a letter grade of F to the NFL for its complete lack of diversity relative to the racial and gender shares of America.
But when it comes to professional sports leagues, an apparently much different standard of diversity is applied. According to the “2014 Racial and Gender Report Card: National Football League” (recently released by the The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport – TIDES – at the University of Central Florida) the NFL actually gets a letter grade of A+ for its “racial and gender hiring practices” during the 2013-2014 season. The NFL got the highest grade possible despite the significant statistical over-representation of black NFL players and significant statistical under-representation of white, Hispanic and Asian NFL players, and no female NFL players (data in the table above come from this TIDES report).
This seems pretty Orwellian in the sense that “all racial and gender groups are equal and important for purposes of diversity, but some groups are apparently more equal than others.” For example, when women are underrepresented in STEM fields, the “disparity-proves-discrimination” standard is applied, and resources and support are mobilized to address the gender disparity. But when women are overrepresented in earning college degrees (140 females per 100 men), or 7 out of 11 graduate degrees, or outnumber male veterinarians by more than 3:1, those disparities and the “disparity-proves-discrimination” standard is abandoned. Likewise, when whites, Hispanics, Asians, and women are significantly underrepresented in the NFL, the “disparity-proves-discrimination” standard is abandoned by TIDES and the NFL gets a letter grade of A+ for its supposed “diversity.” That seems pretty bizarre.
In its NFL Racial and Gender Report Card, TIDES asks, “Are we playing fair when it comes to sports? Does everyone, regardless of race or gender, have a chance to score a touchdown?” Well, obviously women have no chance at all to score a touchdown in the NFL, so shouldn’t TIDES be advocating greater representation of women in the NFL? Maybe not, but then why does it even ask the question and why does it give the NFL an A+ for its racial and gender hiring practices that currently completely excludes more than half the US population?
Now, maybe TIDES assumes that all races and genders have an equal chance to score a touchdown in the NFL, but it’s just the objective reality that black male athletes outperform white, Hispanic, and Asians male athletes (and women of all races) when it comes to playing football at the extremely competitive professional level. But then why do we not apply that same standard to the competitive labor market for Silicon Valley tech talent when Asians and men are overrepresented at Microsoft, Google and Apple?
Bottom Line: It’s important to point out that if Silicon Valley companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple are pressured or forced to increase their employee shares of minorities like blacks and Hispanics, they would be forced to discriminate against another minority – Asians, especially Asian men. Just like if the NFL was pressured to increase their player shares of Asians or Hispanics, they would be forced to discriminate against black players. To be fair to all minority groups and to all employers, if we’re not going to force or pressure the NFL to hire more whites, Asians, Hispanics and women, we shouldn’t be forcing or pressuring Silicon Valley companies to hire more blacks, Hispanics and women.