the new classes of society

[97guns]

the new classes of society are slaves and slave drivers

the middle class is gone, there will be wealthy and poor, the 99 and the 1%, the slave drivers and the slaves. think about it, if you must work to pay the mortgage and every other essential for life you are a slave. if you do not work the 9-5 and pay your bills you will be imprisoned, disciplined, go hungry and homeless i flat out refuse to be a slave.

[bjl584]

So, should we all take up arms and start building fall out shelters then?

Rather extreme. I really don't envision a future that resembles Mad Max or Terminator.

[anna_chronistic]

Originally Posted by 97guns

think about it, if you must work to pay the mortgage and every other essential for life you are a slave.

Um, I think I'm confused. Are we supposed to be able to get housing, food, medical care, clothing and transportation for free? Why is the fact that we must work to pay for our needs a horrifying prospect? I'm honestly not certain what the OP is intending to convey.

[Nightfly]

97guns' view is a bit extreme, but the facts are pretty ominous. Last week I read about the CEO of Starbuck's making over $65 million last year, while the vast majority of his employees make around $25k per year. The hogwash we read about having to "pay for top talent" gets a little tiresome since every time I do business with Starbuck's, I never care who the CEO is - but I do interact with the $25k per year employee every single time.

Starbuck's is but one example - and I don't begrudge Mr. Schultz (the current CEO) high pay for his job. But $65 mil? At some point CEO pay gets a bit ridiculous. He also got a $12 mil bonus just to stick around Starbuck's. C'mon, folks - that's excessive, even in a world of excess. AND I'm a political conservative, not an "Occupy" type. Corporate boards should provide some bonuses to rank-and-file employees, who interact with paying customers as CEOs do not. I would argue that Starbuck's (and many other companies) owe their success as much to the corner barista as the CEO.

While we're at it, let's stop rewarding CEOs when their companies fail. Stock price plummets? So does your CEO pay rate. After all, the rest of us get fired, with no golden parachute.

[bjl584]

Originally Posted by Nightfly

97guns' view is a bit extreme, but the facts are pretty ominous. Last week I read about the CEO of Starbuck's making over $65 million last year, while the vast majority of his employees make around $25k per year. The hogwash we read about having to "pay for top talent" gets a little tiresome since every time I do business with Starbuck's, I never care who the CEO is - but I do interact with the $25k per year employee every single time.

Starbuck's is but one example - and I don't begrudge Mr. Schultz (the current CEO) high pay for his job. But $65 mil? At some point CEO pay gets a bit ridiculous. He also got a $12 mil bonus just to stick around Starbuck's. C'mon, folks - that's excessive, even in a world of excess. AND I'm a political conservative, not an "Occupy" type. Corporate boards should provide some bonuses to rank-and-file employees, who interact with paying customers as CEOs do not. I would argue that Starbuck's (and many other companies) owe their success as much to the corner barista as the CEO.

While we're at it, let's stop rewarding CEOs when their companies fail. Stock price plummets? So does your CEO pay rate. After all, the rest of us get fired, with no golden parachute.

It just isn't CEO's. Look at the ridiculous salaries that actors and sports stars receive. But, there isn't nearly the public outcry over that.

I've read that high salaries for CEO's, actors, and sports stars are more a means to lure talent and to make people feel important. If this guy is making $50 million to run a company, make a movie, or catch a football, then I want $60 million. It goes from there.

[photo]

There is a lot of gray in there. We also buy products that create billionaires. Many complain about the profits of oil companies and scream about our dependence on oil. Yet, Steve Jobs died an extraordinarily wealthy man from what some may describe as our dependence on technical toys.

We have more power than we think we do.

[97guns]

Originally Posted by anna_chronistic

Um, I think I'm confused. Are we supposed to be able to get housing, food, medical care, clothing and transportation for free? Why is the fact that we must work to pay for our needs a horrifying prospect? I'm honestly not certain what the OP is intending to convey.

the idea is to work to generate funds that make wealth not to merely survive. anyone can save $500 an month but to make your money really compound, rehypothecate and work for you is the key, money in any bank is doing you nothing.

imo the times of savings are slipping away to inflationary forces. has your wage gone up in the past 5 years to reflect the real cost of living increases. soon inflation will be much more rampant than what we have seen, yall think those boxes of ice cream are getting smaller just wait, your dollars are gonna shrivel up.

[YLTL_Dan]

Originally Posted by bjl584

It just isn't CEO's. Look at the ridiculous salaries that actors and sports stars receive. But, there isn't nearly the public outcry over that.

I've read that high salaries for CEO's, actors, and sports stars are more a means to lure talent and to make people feel important. If this guy is making $50 million to run a company, make a movie, or catch a football, then I want $60 million. It goes from there.

The crazy part is I think you can justify paying an actor/athlete large amounts of money more than you can justiy a CEO making it! A movie with Tom Hanks will have a much better chance of making it than a movie with a cheaper C list actor. Also, look how sports franchises have turned around with the addition of one player (Dodgers - Manny Ramirez).

However, I think most companies would be in pretty good shape if they fired their CEO. Most companies have a huge number of qualified employees that do the work; it can help a company to have a good CEO, but I don't think they're worth that much more.

[GREENBACK]

I honestly don't really know what a CEO does from day to day or why a company decides he's worth as much as he gets paid but like actors, athletes or anyone else earning millions they must have a remarkable talent or everyone would be doing it. I sure would.

[nck4857]

“Disappearing middle class” actually moving up: a fact check on mass media - Fort Collins Republican | Examiner.com

[kork13]

Originally Posted by bjl584

So, should we all take up arms and start building fall out shelters then?

If you don't already have your shelter built and stocked, you're WAAAAAAY behind already.... not even worth bothering.

Originally Posted by bjl584

It just isn't CEO's. Look at the ridiculous salaries that actors and sports stars receive. But, there isn't nearly the public outcry over that.

I've read that high salaries for CEO's, actors, and sports stars are more a means to lure talent and to make people feel important. If this guy is making $50 million to run a company, make a movie, or catch a football, then I want $60 million. It goes from there.

OCCUPY HOLLYWOOD!!!!!

[/sarcasm]
(for clarity's sake)


Believe it or not ::gasp!!:: , 97guns is taking the extreme perspective. People have always worked for other people. That's how capitalism, socialism, and fascism, monarchies, democracies, tribalism, and so on all work. It's a principle from 6th grade social studies called "social contracts." Why is the "middle class" supposedly disappearing? Because the media ignores it -- people in the middle (aka "average") are boring, and don't sell. Wake up and stop caring what everybody else is doing. Live your own blasted life and be happy! .......seriously, some people......

[Shewillbemine]

LOL first of all, I actually love what I do for a career. When you actually enjoy your job, you don't feel like a "slave".

Second, with enough planning and fiscal responsibility, you can build enough assets and liquidity to work because you choose to, not because you have to.

I'm careful not to fall into the American model of dichotomy: always an US vs. THEM mentality. Fitting especially in an election year.

[glycemic]

There has always been the 99% and 1%. Honestly the myth to me is how things have changed -- there's been remarkably little change (and there will always be extreme variances of wealth).

Inflation I agree is on the horizon, but it's been a remarkably non factor for the past recent years. Surprising actually.

Slaves though? What else is new.