Paul Krugman Isn’t a Hypocrite

[DonViejo]

A $225,000 salary for the critic of inequality is more than fair.

By Reihan Salam

Paul Krugman may be America’s foremost public intellectual. He’s certainly a contender for the title. He has done more than any other thinker to sound the alarm about rising income inequality in the United States, and in doing so he has shaped the worldview of a generation of liberals. Krugman’s influence reflects more than just the stylishness of his writing or his reach as a widely read columnist for the New York Times. It also rests on his sterling academic credentials. Among other laurels, Krugman has been awarded the Nobel Prize and the John Bates Clark Medal, the highest distinctions available to a living economist. The esteem in which Krugman is held among his fellow scholars lends his arguments an authority that delights those inclined to agree with him—and drives those disinclined to do so, myself very much included, up the wall.

So when Gawker reported that Krugman was offered $225,000 to join the faculty of the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, at least some of Krugman’s critics saw an opportunity to knock “Krugtron the Invincible” down a peg or two. Was he not aware that CUNY is a publicly funded institution that pays bona fide full-time professors far less than Krugman was being offered to essentially serve as a mascot for the school’s new inequality initiative—a mascot with a truly minimal teaching load? If Krugman cares so much about income inequality, his detractors wondered, why would he accept such a sum for doing so little work? And as someone who has done so much to draw attention to the evils of “the undeserving rich,” how could the offer not leave him feeling like at least a little bit of a jerk?

But this is one case where I think Krugman is in the right and his critics are in the wrong. Not only should he have had no compunction about accepting CUNY’s offer—he would have been entirely justified in asking for more. And doing so should have no bearing on his credibility as a scourge of rising inequality.

When Krugman announced he was leaving Princeton to join the CUNY faculty back in February, it was a big deal. Princeton, one of the country’s most storied, selective, and elite private research universities, was losing its most celebrated social scientist to a public institution that prided itself on its inclusiveness and its democratic spirit. Krugman emphasized that though he’d very much appreciated his time at Princeton, he was attracted by the opportunity to devote more time and effort to the study of income inequality.

more
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/paul_krugman_offered_225_000_salary_that_s_a_bargain_rate.html

[JEFF9K]

1. What a dumb article by the Slate columnist! ...

How is Paul Krugman's personal income relevant?

With all he's done, Krugman has got to be a multi-millionaire, but Krugman supports higher taxes on the wealthy, including himself.

The Slate writer admits to not being a fan of Krugman, but offers nothing to show that Krugman is wrong about anything.

[seabeckind]

2. Now if he did something to benefit society

like being a football coach ... he can stay in the "non-profit" collegiate environment even.

Or he might branch out and be on Mornin Joe, like Donnie or Barnicle or even be Joe himself...then he'd be worth something.

But just a common economist? Why just this morning I was reading in the local rag that economists aren't good for anything cause they don't know anything about really running a bidness...never wrote a check or had an employee. What could they know about the world economy?

I'm sure Ben Bernanke and Freidmann were more than happy to live on much less.

</sarcasm>

[PoliticAverse]

3. Consider this Krugman working to prove his own contention. n/t

[madinmaryland]

4. Huh? $225k in NYC is chump change. There are IT department managers that

make that amount of money.