Why isn't the middle class earning $156,000 a year?

Why isn't the middle class earning $156,000 a year? - Jul. 1, 2015

 

I posted this in another thread, but it was buried pretty deep.

 

Pretty fair to say over the past 30 years or so there has been a war on the middle class. May be the only war our country has truly won.

I have always thought that the Left despises the engine that drives small business.....Capitalism. Small business is the engine that drives the middle class. The Left, in my opinion HATES the fact that any "uneducated idiot" can earn a good living in a Capitalist, free market.

Alinsky rule, wipe out the middle class...

Though each party often fights for the middle class vote, no party represents the middle class. I've always said no one represents me.

Though each party often fights for the middle class vote, no party represents the middle class. I've always said no one represents me.

 

Both do a lot of pandering but never really accomplish anything.

I'd say corporate CEOs making 400% more than their workers has something to do with it, along with the ability to move jobs overseas and pay slave wages. The absolute desire of shareholders for always increasing profits makes it almost a necessity that the middle class be thinned.

I have always thought that the Left despises the engine that drives small business.....Capitalism. Small business is the engine that drives the middle class. The Left, in my opinion HATES the fact that any "uneducated idiot" can earn a good living in a Capitalist, free market.

 

This version of Capitalism has been working great for 1% of the nation.

I'd say corporate CEOs making 400% more than their workers has something to do with it, along with the ability to move jobs overseas and pay slave wages. The absolute desire of shareholders for always increasing profits makes it almost a necessity that the middle class be thinned.

 

Your last sentence is spot on. There are some perverse incentives that have grown out of our system which has led to unrestrained executive compensation. It's something I normally wouldn't be bothered by, but the compensation appears so thoroughly detached from the performance of the companies that I find it hard to imagine it will be sustainable. Executives are leaving companies with millions of dollars in bonuses even when the company sees slower growth, fewer sales, and less profits. It's madness.

 

A lot of the problem is born out of the Wall Street culture of "immediate" results. Companies are routinely incentivized to make short-term decisions at long-term costs because investors are impatient or demand immediate results. Downsizing and getting rid of large chunks of their workforces can be a simple gimmick to temporarily raise cash and the perception of the value of the stock (and executive compensation), even if it as the expense of the company's long-term growth plans. And when many companies are doing the same thing, demand slumps in the economy as a whole, which creates something of a vicious cycle.

 

I was reading this yesterday and it addresses a related issue with executive compensation. This seems like a small but worthwhile rule.

 

Rule From S.E.C. Would Allow Companies to Take Back Executive Bonuses

I have always thought that the Left despises the engine that drives small business.....Capitalism. Small business is the engine that drives the middle class. The Left, in my opinion HATES the fact that any "uneducated idiot" can earn a good living in a Capitalist, free market.

You've been watching too much TV from the '50s.

Your last sentence is spot on. There are some perverse incentives that have grown out of our system which has led to unrestrained executive compensation. It's something I normally wouldn't be bothered by, but the compensation appears so thoroughly detached from the performance of the companies that I find it hard to imagine it will be sustainable. Executives are leaving companies with millions of dollars in bonuses even when the company sees slower growth, fewer sales, and less profits. It's madness.

 

A lot of the problem is born out of the Wall Street culture of "immediate" results. Companies are routinely incentivized to make short-term decisions at long-term costs because investors are impatient or demand immediate results. Downsizing and getting rid of large chunks of their workforces can be a simple gimmick to temporarily raise cash and the perception of the value of the stock (and executive compensation), even if it as the expense of the company's long-term growth plans. And when many companies are doing the same thing, demand slumps in the economy as a whole, which creates something of a vicious cycle.

 

I was reading this yesterday and it addresses a related issue with executive compensation. This seems like a small but worthwhile rule.

 

Rule From S.E.C. Would Allow Companies to Take Back Executive Bonuses

 

This is a step in the right direction. I thought with the 2008 meltdown changes in corporate Americs would occur, but they haven't.

This is a step in the right direction. I thought with the 2008 meltdown changes in corporate Americs would occur, but they haven't.

 

When the same people who caused the problem got to write the punishments and new rules, it's hard to expect much change.

So to clarify you guys want to regulate through the government how much a company pays their CEO and why they are paid ?

 

Let's ask the government to interfere even more in the private sector. This is an insane notion.

So to clarify you guys want to regulate through the government how much a company pays their CEO and why they are paid ?

 

Not quite. Sometimes you can look at an issue and say "that's a problem" without having any answers for it.

Not quite. Sometimes you can look at an issue and say "that's a problem" without having any answers for it.

 

Why is it a problem ?

Why is it a problem ?

 

I think it's illogical, unsustainable, and is a major contributor to the topic of this thread, which is the erosion of what has been a mainstay of well-being in this country: the middle-class.