Stop Letting Email Control(kənˈtrōl) Your Work Day

By Paul A. Argenti

One of the very first lectures(ˈlekCHər) I give each year to new MBA students is about time management(ˈmanijmənt). By the time they arrive(əˈrīv) in my classroom, they are two days into the fall term, and I can already see that some of them are barely(ˈbe(ə)rlē) keeping their heads above water.

I see this lecture as both a reality(rēˈalətē) check and a breath(breTH) of fresh(freSH) air(e(ə)r). They will never get everything done, but they can get the important things done. Simply(ˈsimplē) giving them permission(pərˈmiSHən) to take control of their priorities(prīˈôrətē) — focusing on the “management” portion(ˈpôrSHən) of time management — seems to lift(lift) some of the tension(ˈtenSHən) from the room.

Email in particular(pə(r)ˈtikyələr) is a major(ˈmājər) contributor(kənˈtribyətər) to employees’ perceptions(pərˈsepSHən) of feeling stressed(stres) or overwhelmed(ˌōvərˈ(h)welm), according to a 2011 study(ˈstədē). In their research, the authors concluded(kənˈklo͞od) that the email inbox itself has become a symbol(ˈsimbəl) of stress and overload(lōd). Combine(ˈkämˌbīn) that with a 2012(twelv) McKinsey report that found employees spend approximately(əˈpräksəmətlē) 28%(pərˈsent) of their time in the office responding to, reading(ˈrēdiNG), or composing(kəmˈpōz) emails. The average(ˈav(ə)rij) person checks his or her email upwards of seventy times per day, and on the high end that number approaches(əˈprōCH) 350 times! Companies(ˈkəmpənē) need to pay attention. Employees who feel more control over their days are generally more satisfied(ˈsatisˌfīd) at work. And it should come as no surprise(sə(r)ˈprīz) that high levels(ˈlevəl) of stress, perceived(pərˈsēv) or otherwise(ˈəT͟Hərˌwīz), correlate with lower performance.

Clearly, we need to learn to make email work for us and re-frame(frām) it as a tool(to͞ol) for executing(ˈeksiˌkyo͞ot) on our priorities. But the first step is having clear priorities.

A real person, a lot like you

By Derek Sivers

My friend Sara has run a small online business out of her living(ˈliviNG) room for twelve(twelv) years. It’s her whole(hōl) life. She takes it very very personally(ˈpərsənəlē).

Last week, one of her clients sent her a 10-page-long scathing(ˈskāT͟HiNG) email, chopping(CHäp) her down, calling her a scam(skam) artist(ˈärtist) and other vicious(ˈviSHəs) personal insults, saying she was going to sue(so͞o) Sara for everything she’s worth as retribution(ˌretrəˈbyo͞oSHən) for her mis-handled account.

Devastated(ˈdevəˌstāt), Sara turned off her computer and cried(krī). She shut off the phones and closed up shop for the day. She spent the whole weekend(ˈwēkˌend) in bed wondering if she should just give up. Thinking maybe every insult in this client’s letter was true(tro͞o), and she’s actually(ˈakCHo͞oəlē) no good at what she does, even after twelve years.

On Sunday(-dē,ˈsəndā), she spent about five hours - most of the day - carefully addressing every point in this 10-page email. Then she went through the client’s website, learning everything about her, and offered all kinds of advice(ədˈvīs), suggestions(sə(g)ˈjesCHən), and connections. She refunded(rēˈfənd,ˈrē-) the client’s money, plus an additional(əˈdiSHənl) $50, with gushing(ˈgəSHiNG) deep apologies(əˈpäləjē) for ever having upset(ˌəpˈset) someone she was honestly(ˈänistlē) trying to help.

The next day, she called the client to try to talk through this with her.

The client cheerfully(ˈCHi(ə)rfəlē) took her call and said, “Oh don’t worry about it! I wasn’t actually that upset. I was just in a bad mood(mo͞od), and didn’t think anyone would read my email anyway.”

—

My friend Valerie was doing online dating.

She was half-hearted(härt) about it. She wanted a magic(ˈmajik) perfect man to sweep(swēp) her off her feet through divine(diˈvīn) serendipity(ˌserənˈdipitē).

We were at her computer, when I asked her how it’s going. She logged into her account and showed me her inbox. There were eight new messages from men, each one well-written(i), saying what they liked about her profile(ˈprōˌfīl), how they have a mutual(ˈmyo͞oCHo͞oəl) interest in hiking(hīk), or also speak German, asking her if she’s also been to Berlin(bərˈlin), or has hiked in New Zealand(ˈzēlənd).

I felt for those guys(gī). Each one pouring(pôr) out his heart, projecting his hopes onto Valerie, hoping she’ll reply with equal(ˈēkwəl) enthusiasm(enˈTHo͞ozēˌazəm), hoping she might be the one that will finally see and appreciate(əˈprēSHēˌāt) him.

She said, “Ugh. Losers(ˈlo͞ozər). I get like ten of these a day,” and clicked [delete] on all of them, without replying(riˈplī).

—

When we yell(yel) at our car or coffee(ˈkäfē,ˈkôfē) machine(məˈSHēn), it’s fine because they’re just mechanical(məˈkanikəl) appliances(əˈplīəns).

So when we yell at a website or company, using our computer or phone, we forget it’s not an appliance but a person that’s affected.

It’s dehumanizing(dēˈ(h)yo͞oməˌnīz) to have thousands of people passing(ˈpasiNG) through our computer screens(skrēn), so we do things we’d never do if those people were sitting(ˈsitiNG) next to us.

It’s too overwhelming(ˌōvərˈ(h)welmiNG) to remember that at the end of every computer is a real person, a lot like you, whose birthday was last week, who has three best friends but nobody to spoon(spo͞on) at night, and is personally affected by what you say.

Even if you remember it right now, will you remember it next time you’re overwhelmed, or perhaps never forget it again?

The Disney Institute(ˈinstiˌt(y)o͞ot)

Employee(emˈploi-ē,ˌemploiˈē) Engagement(enˈgājmənt)

There are four interconnected processes(prəˈses,ˈpräsəs,ˈpräˌses,ˈprō-) that define an organization’s culture(ˈkəlCHər): employee selection, training, care and communication(kəˌmyo͞onəˈkāSHən). Each is crucial(ˈkro͞oSHəl) to creating and nurturing(ˈnərCHər) a culture of excellence(ˈeksələns). With a rich tradition(trəˈdiSHən) and heritage(ˈheritij) built upon creating memorable(ˈmem(ə)rəbəl) experiences(ikˈspi(ə)rēəns), The Walt Disney Company has consistently(kənˈsistənt) worked to attract, develop and retain(riˈtān) employees dedicated(ˈdediˌkāt) to this vision(ˈviZHən).

Beginning with the recruitment(riˈkro͞otmənt) and selection process, some employers(emˈploi-ər) make the mistake of hiring(hīr) primarily(prīˈme(ə)rəlē) based on skills or personality(ˌpərsəˈnalitē) alone(əˈlōn). The key is to hire individuals(ˌindəˈvijəwəl) who exhibit(igˈzibit) the desired(dəˈzī(ə)r) behaviors(biˈhāvyər) that best align(əˈlīn) with your company’s values(ˈvalyo͞o). By strengthening(ˈstreNG(k)THən,ˈstren-) the selection process, you help ensure that the people you hire will support(səˈpôrt) your culture.

Once you have hired people with a propensity(prəˈpensətē) for excellence, your orientation(ˌôrēənˈtāSHən) process and training must reinforce(ˌrē-inˈfôrs) your company’s principles(ˈprinsəpəl) as well as impart(imˈpärt) new skills and knowledge(ˈnälij). The way you train individuals is a reflection of your culture, and too many businesses underestimate(e) the training their employees need to be successful. To increase engagement, you must also provide the necessary(ˈnesəˌserē) education(ˌejəˈkāSHən) so that employees can continually(kənˈtinyo͞oəlē) develop and excel(ikˈsel) in their roles(rōl).

…

IN THE LOOP

Jony Ive on Apple’s new HQ and the disappearing iPhone

By Nick(nik) Compton(ˈkämptən)

Anticipation(anˌtisəˈpāSHən) was higher than usual – and it always runs to feverish(ˈfēv(ə)riSH) – when the press(pres) and other interested parties made their way to California’s(-nēə,ˌkaləˈfôrnyə) Silicon(-kən,ˈsiləˌkän) Valley(ˈvalē) last September for the latest Apple keynote presentation(ˌprezən-,ˌprēzən-,ˌprēˌzenˈtāSHən). The most titanic(tīˈtanik) of the valley’s tech(tek) titans was due to unveil(ˌənˈvāl) its most significant(sigˈnifikənt) update to the iPhone since its launch, ten years previous(ˈprēvēəs). In that time the iPhone has upended(ˌəpˈend) industries(ˈindəstrē) and transformed how we do just about everything. The update was a big deal(dēl). But most of the golden(ˈgōldən) ticket(ˈtikit) holders were as excited(ikˈsītid) about where they were as what they were about to see.

This was the first up-close mass(mas) sighting(sīt) of the most talked-about new building in the world, a $5bn, or so it’s said, Foster(ˈfäs-,ˈfôstər) + Partners-designed(dəˈzīn) loop of glass(glas), aluminium(əˈlo͞omənəm), limestone(ˈlīmˌstōn) and concrete and Apple’s new HQ. Guests(gest) worked their way up an artificial(ˌärtəˈfiSHəl) hill(hil), part of 175 acres(ˈākər) of undulating(ˈəndʒəˌleɪt) new landscape(ˈlan(d)ˌskāp) where once was dead-flat(flat) parking facility(fəˈsilətē) and dull(dəl) corporate(ˈkôrp(ə)rət) sheds(SHed), most of it owned by Hewlett-Packard. This engineered topography(təˈpägrəfē), a fantasy(ˈfantəsē) of California, gentle(ˈjentl) and abundant(əˈbəndənt), was borne(bôrn) of the earth removed to make way for the new building’s earthquake(ˈərTHˌkwāk)-proof(pro͞of) foundations(founˈdāSHən), and has been planted with 9,000 trees, including cherry(ˈCHerē), apricot(ˈapriˌkät,ˈāpri-), apple, persimmon(pərˈsimən) and pear(pe(ə)r).

All those trees, as was the intention, mean that the 2.8 million sq(skwe(ə)r) ft(feet) new building never fully reveals(riˈvēl) itself(itˈself). You see only sections(ˈsekSHən) and its giant(ˈjīənt) curve(kərv) is never apparent(əˈparənt,əˈpe(ə)r-). Nor, given the elevation(ˌeləˈvāSHən), are two of its four storeys. Drones(drōn) have buzzed(bəz) over this site(sīt) during much of its construction(kənˈstrəkSHən), and of course there were renders(ˈrendər). Still, nothing prepares you for its audacious(ôˈdāSHəs) mass. Or its sci-fi drama(ˈdrämə). It is, as was promised(ˈpräməs), a giant(ˈjīənt) starship landed in Cupertino(ˌko͞opərˈtēnō).

Two Paths for Small Business Success(səkˈses)

By Steve Pavlina

On my path as an entrepreneur(-ˈnər,ˌäntrəprəˈno͝or), I realized(ˈrē(ə)ˌlīz) there were basically(ˈbāsik(ə)lē) two paths that would lead me to some level of business success.

Path #1 was to get really good at marketing and selling. If I could become an expert(ˈekˌspərt) at persuading(pərˈswād) people to buy, I could earn plenty(ˈplentē) of income that way. This path would involve(inˈvälv) things like copywriting, conversion rates(rāt), and search engine(ˈenjən) optimization(ˈäptəˌmīz). I might not create a lot of products, but maybe I’d only need a few, and then I could learn to market and sell the heck(hek) out of them. Lots of Internet marketers use this strategy(ˈstratəjē). Sometimes their material(məˈti(ə)rēəl) is pretty generic(jəˈnerik), weak, or even inaccurate(inˈakyərit), but they know how to sell, sell, sell.

Path #2 was to get really good at creating. If I could become a prolific(prəˈlifik) creator of value(ˈvalyo͞o), I could afford(əˈfôrd) to be very generous(ˈjenərəs). I could give away copious(ˈkōpēəs) amounts of free content and let word of mouth do the rest(rest). This would create an interesting relationship with my audience(ˈôdēəns) too. My focus would be more on supporting others rather than selling them. If I excelled(ikˈsel) at this, I wouldn’t need to sell much at all. I could attract(əˈtrakt) a sizeable audience and only need to sell a little here and there. Even a really poor conversion(kənˈvərZHən) rate could still produce enough income to cover my costs, so I could afford to be very selective and only sell in ways that felt good to me. I wouldn’t have to push people to buy.

Of course it’s possible(ˈpäsəbəl) to do both simultaneously(ˌsīməlˈtānēəslē), and many larger companies do, but I felt I’d be better off if I focused primarily(prīˈme(ə)rəlē) on one side or the other. I think that was a wise(wīz) decision(diˈsiZHən) in retrospect(ˈretrəˌspekt).

Lessons(ˈlesən) from Daily(ˈdālē) Practice(ˈpraktəs)

Here’s what I’ve learned:

If you’re studying something, you forget less. It’s great to study for a couple(ˈkəpəl) hours, but if you don’t study for a few days after that, you’ll start forgetting. Daily study sessions, even if they’re short, interrupt the forgetting process(prəˈses,ˈpräsəs,ˈpräˌses,ˈprō-). Therefore it’s more efficient(iˈfiSHənt), as you don’t slip(slip) backwards but keep making forward progress.

If you are weak, you get stronger without injury(ˈinjərē). It’s hard to get stronger when you’re weak (at yoga(ˈyōgə), running, chinups(CHin), whatever). But small regular(ˈreg(ə)lər,ˈregyələr) doses will get you stronger, slowly. If you give yourself big doses, hoping for faster progress, you’re more likely to get injured(ˈinjərd), burn(bərn) out, or get demotivated(diˈmōtəˌvāt) because of the difficulty(ˈdifikəltē) level(ˈlevəl). Slow and small is better.

Progress isn’t noticeable(ˈnōtisəbəl) in the first week, but it is after a couple of weeks. If you’re just giving yourself small training(ˈtrāniNG) or study doses, you won’t see any difference at first. That’s OK, keep doing it. After a couple of weeks, you’ll notice some solid(ˈsälid) progress, and a month into it, you’ll see major(ˈmājər) improvement. Keep at it.

Small doses make it easy to do daily. If you want to train for an hour a day, that is only sustainable(səˈstānəbəl) for awhile. Eventually(iˈvenCHo͞oəlē) you’ll run out of energy(ˈenərjē), or things will get busy and you won’t have the time for your hourlong session. Maybe you’ll miss 2-3 days in a row — now you’ve lost motivation(ˌmōtəˈvāSHən), and you’re discouraged(-ˈkə-rijd,disˈkərijd). It’s better to do it in small doses, because it’s easier to get started when you know you’re just doing 10-15 minutes, and it’s easier to find the time and motivation for small sessions.

Make sure it’s fun. Doing a chore(CHôr) is boring and hard, and you’ll put it off, even if it’s just a 10-minute session. Instead, don’t make it a chore that you have to get through. Make it a game that you look forward to doing. Or a mini-meditation(ˌmedəˈtāSHən) session that brings peace(pēs) to your life, a time to relax(riˈlaks). Or a moment of magic(ˈmajik) and loveliness. Create an activity(akˈtivitē) that you’ll look forward to.

Bring the magic of small, regular practice to your life.

There’s precedent(presəˌdənt) for Amazon(-zən,ˈaməˌzän) competing(kəmˈpēt) with so many companies. It doesn’t end well.

By Michael J. Coren

Perhaps no other company in history has sold so many different products (354 million) while competing against so many other companies (hundreds). In the past, that power hasn’t lasted. Amazon is betting(ˈbetiNG) it will be different.

Amazon today is a retailer(ˈrēˌtāl), a logistics(lō-,ləˈjistiks) network, a book publisher, a movie studio(ˈst(y)o͞odēˌō), a fashion(ˈfaSHən) designer(dəˈzīnər), a hardware maker, a cloud services provider, and far, far more. The private(ˈprīvit) equity(ˈekwitē) firm(fərm) Pitchbook(piCH) estimates(e) the company Jeff Bezos founded in 1994 competes head-to-head with at least 129 major(ˈmājər) corporations(ˌkôrpəˈrāSHən) just in major markets. That number grows higher as it adds new business units(ˈyo͞onit) such as fashion, food, and analytics(ˌanlˈitiks).

The company so far has escaped(iˈskāp) serious(ˈsi(ə)rēəs) antitrust(ˌantēˈtrəst,ˌantī-) scrutiny(ˈskro͞otn-ē) by US regulators(ˈregyəˌlātər) in part because it can point to so many commercial(kəˈmərSHəl) adversaries(ˈadvərˌserē) with a piece(pēs) of the market. Even in its primary(ˈprīm(ə)rē,ˈprīˌmerē) business—e-commerce(ˈkämərs)—Amazon only took in 23% of the $395 billion Americans spent online last year, and far less when that spending is broken down into individual(ˌindəˈvijəwəl) markets. The one exception is books, where it controls about 65% of the e-book market.

But Amazon’s unprecedented(ˌənˈpresəˌdəntid) logistics and delivery(diˈlivərē) infrastructure(ˈinfrəˌstrəkCHər), paired with access to personal data about Americans’ purchasing(ˈpərCHəs) habits(ˈhabit), means it is unique(yo͞oˈnēk) in the history of global commerce. No company has ever wielded(wēld) this combination(ˌkämbəˈnāSHən) of consumer insight(ˈinˌsīt) and infrastructure, say historians(hiˈstôrēən) and legal(ˈlēgəl) analysts(ˈanl-ist), which means the company grows stronger and less assailable(əˈsāləbəl) with every purchase.

The seed(sēd) of Bezos’s vision(ˈviZHən) of a store that could sell everything was planted long ago. Bezos told shareholders(ˈSHe(ə)rˌhōldər) (pdf) in 1998 that Amazon “may make decisions and weigh(wā) tradeoff(trād) differently than some companies…At this stage, we choose to prioritize(prīˈôrəˌtīz,ˈprīərə-) growth because we believe that scale(skāl) is central(ˈsentrəl) to achieving(əˈCHēv) the potential(pəˈtenCHəl) of our business model.” Not much has changed. This year’s $13.7 billion Whole(hōl) Foods acquisition(ˌakwəˈziSHən), and Bezos’s personal purchase of The Washington(ˈwäSH-,ˈwôSHiNGtən) Post in 2016, are merely(ˈmi(ə)rlē) stepping stones in Bezos’ globe(glōb)-spanning(span) ambitions(amˈbiSHən).

Regulators are starting to size up whether Amazon is on the verge(vərj) of becoming a monopoly(məˈnäpəlē). Amazon may find it doesn’t like the answer.

Candide

By Voltaire(vôl-,vōlˈte(ə)r)

I

HOW CANDIDE WAS BROUGHT UP IN A MAGNIFICENT(magˈnifəsənt) CASTLE(ˈkasəl), AND HOW HE WAS EXPELLED(ikˈspel) THENCE(T͟Hens).

In a castle of Westphalia(-ˈfālēə,wes(t)ˈfālyə), belonging to the Baron(ˈbarən) of Thunder(ˈTHəndər)-ten-Tronckh, lived a youth, whom nature(ˈnāCHər) had endowed(enˈdou) with the most gentle(ˈjentl) manners(ˈmanər). His countenance(ˈkountn-əns) was a true(tro͞o) picture of his soul(sōl). He combined a true judgment with simplicity(simˈplisitē) of spirit(ˈspirit), which was the reason, I apprehend(ˌapriˈhend), of his being called Candide. The old servants(ˈsərvənt) of the family suspected him to have been the son of the Baron’s sister, by a good, honest gentleman of the neighborhood(ˈnābərˌho͝od), whom that young lady would never marry because he had been able to prove(pro͞ov) only seventy-one quarterings(ˈkwôrtəriNG), the rest of his genealogical(ˌjēnēəˈläjikəl) tree having been lost through the injuries(ˈinjərē) of time.

The Baron was one of the most powerful lords(lôrd) in Westphalia, for his castle had not only a gate, but windows. His great hall(hôl), even, was hung(həNG) with tapestry(ˈtapistrē). All the dogs of his farmyards(ˈfärmˌyärd) formed a pack of hounds(hound) at need; his grooms(gro͝om,gro͞om) were his huntsmen(ˈhəntsmən); and the curate(-ˌrāt,ˈkyo͝orət,ˈkyo͝oˌrāt) of the village(ˈvilij) was his grand(grand) almoner(ˈalmənər,ˈäm-). They called him “My Lord,” and laughed at all his stories.

The Baron’s lady weighed(wā) about three hundred and fifty pounds, and was therefore(ˈT͟He(ə)rˌfôr) a person of great consideration, and she did the honours(ˈänər) of the house with a dignity(ˈdignitē) that commanded(kəˈmand) still greater respect(riˈspekt). Her daughter(ˈdä-,ˈdôtər) Cunegonde was seventeen(ˈsevənˌtēn,ˌsevənˈtēn) years of age, fresh(freSH)-coloured(ˈkələr), comely(ˈkəmlē), plump(pləmp), and desirable(dəˈzī(ə)rəbəl). The Baron’s son seemed to be in every respect worthy(ˈwərT͟Hē) of his father. The Preceptor(priˈseptər,ˈprēˌseptər) Pangloss(-gläs,ˈpanglôs) was the oracle(ˈôrəkəl) of the family, and little Candide heard his lessons with all the good faith(fāTH) of his age and character(ˈkariktər).

Pangloss was professor(prəˈfesər) of metaphysico(ˈmetə)-theologico-cosmolo-nigology. He proved admirably(ˈadmərəbəl) that there is no effect without a cause, and that, in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron’s castle was the most magnificent of castles, and his lady the best of all possible Baronesses.

“It is demonstrable(diˈmänstrəbəl),” said he, “that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for all being created for an end, all is necessarily(ˌnesəˈse(ə)rəlē) for the best end. Observe(əbˈzərv), that the nose(nōz) has been formed to bear(be(ə)r) spectacles(ˈspektəkəl)—thus(T͟Həs) we have spectacles. Legs(leg) are visibly(ˈvizəbəl) designed(dəˈzīn) for stockings(ˈstäkiNG)—and we have stockings. Stones(stōn) were made to be hewn, and to construct castles—therefore my lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province(ˈprävins) ought(ôt) to be the best lodged(läj). Pigs were made to be eaten—therefore we eat pork all the year round. Consequently(-ˌkwentlē,ˈkänsikwəntlē) they who assert(əˈsərt) that all is well have said a foolish thing, they should have said all is for the best.”

How will this game end?

By Derek Sivers

Imagine(iˈmajən) I announce(əˈnouns) I am going to sell a $100 bill by auction(ˈôkSHən), and the bidding(ˈbidiNG) starts at only $1.

The only rule(ro͞ol) of the game is this: If you are the 2nd-highest bidder, you still have to pay what you bid, but you don’t get the $100 bill.

Of course I get some bids for $1, $2, $3. Why not? Hey - a chance(CHans) to get $100 for $3!

The bids keep coming in. By $51 I’m happy - I’m going to profit(ˈpräfit) now.

Once they get to $90, there’s less enthusiasm(enˈTHo͞ozēˌazəm), but reason to stay in.

Once they get to $99, though, the person offering $98 thinks, “Uh oh. The other person isn’t backing down,” and raises(rāz) their bid to $100 so as not to be 2nd-lowest and lose the entire(enˈtīr) $98.

But now the person offering $99 raises their bid to $101. Better to lose only $1 than $99, right?

Soon they’re offering $110, $120, $150. This game could go on forever.

The real problem(ˈpräbləm): not thinking it through in advance.

When the game starts, it’s easy to think short-term and say, “Ooh! Good deal!”

Then when it’s too late, you slowly realize(ˈrē(ə)ˌlīz), ”Uh-oh(ˈə ˌō). What have I done?”

A lot of people get into life situations like this.

The entrepreneur(-ˈnər,ˌäntrəprəˈno͝or) who borrows(ˈbärō,ˈbôrō) a lot of money to test an idea(īˈdēə).

The homeowner who bought a house at the top end of their budget(ˈbəjit).

The romantic(rōˈmantik,rə-) who gets into a relationship with someone who is already in a relationship.

You can hear them whining about how they’re so in debt(det), or their sweetheart is cheating.

Oops(o͝ops,o͞ops)! Didn’t think that one through, huh(hə)?

The game was clearly rigged(rig) against them, so the smart choice(CHois) is to not play that game at all. We should always ask, “How will this game end?”

It’s hard to think through the long-term implications(ˌimpliˈkāSHən) of everything we’re doing now.

It’s hard, but it’s worth the effort(ˈefərt). I’m just posting this here as a reminder(riˈmīndər) to myself, too.

World’s witnessing(ˈwitnis) a new Gilded(ˈgildid) Age as billionaires’ wealth(welTH) swells(swel) to $6tn

Not since the time of the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts at the turn of the 20th century(ˈsenCH(ə)rē) was so much owned by so few

By Rupert Neate

The world’s super-rich hold the greatest concentration(ˌkänsənˈtrāSHən) of wealth since the US Gilded Age at the turn of the 20th century, when families(ˈfam(ə)lē) like the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts controlled vast(vast) fortunes(ˈfôrCHən).

Billionaires increased their combined(ˈkämˌbīn) global wealth by almost a fifth last year to a record $6tn (£4.5tn) – more than twice the GDP of the UK. There are now 1,542 dollar billionaires across the world, after 145 multi-millionaires saw their wealth tick(tik) over into nine-zero fortunes last year, according to the UBS / PwC Billionaires report.

Josef Stadler, the lead(led,lēd) author of the report and UBS’s head of global ultra(ˈəltrə) high net(net) worth, said his billionaire clients were concerned(kənˈsərnd) that growing inequality(ˌiniˈkwälitē) between rich and poor could lead to a “strike(strīk) back”.

“We’re at an inflection(inˈflekSHən) point,” Stadler said. “Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905, this is something billionaires are concerned about. The problem is the power of interest on interest – that makes big money bigger and, the question is to what extent(ikˈstent) is that sustainable(səˈstānəbəl) and at what point will society(səˈsīətē) intervene(ˌintərˈvēn) and strike back?”

Stadler added(ad): “We are now two years into the peak of the second Gilded Age.”

He said the “$1bn question” was how society would react to the concentration of so much money in the hands of so few.

Anger(ˈaNGgər) at so-called robber(ˈräbər) baron(ˈbarən) families who built up vast fortunes from monopolies(məˈnäpəlē) in US rail(rāl), oil, steel(stēl) and banking in the late 19th century, an era(ˈerə,ˈi(ə)rə) of rapid(ˈrapid) industrialisation and growing inequality in America(əˈmerikə) that became known as the Gilded Age, led to President Roosevelt breaking up companies and trusts and increasing taxes(taks) on the wealthy(ˈwelTHē) in the early 1900s.

“Will there be similarities(ˌsiməˈlaritē) in the way society reacts to this gilded age?,” Stadler asked. “Will the second age end or will it proceed(prō-,prəˈsēd)?”