Star Trek

I've noticed some of the other political threads often veer off to this topic.  I had started to reply to BamBam on one of those but I thought it would be better to addres the topic directly. 

It seems that many posts on several threads imply the the current state of lopsided income (also wealth which is different) distribution in the US is entirely merit based.  The 1% are better than the rest -  smarter, more disciplined, more driven.  Everyone can quote anecdotes about  idiot heiresses or welfare cheats to support their particular bias, but I'm looking for answers on a national level especially contrasting this decade with past decades.  Are we saying that the 99% have become lazier and stupider?  Apologies for the US-centric topic.

I devoutly hope that the discussion will be civil - but my expectations are low.

I don't see problem here... Some people earn more and some people earn less.  Everyone does with their money as they choose - some waste it and some invest it.

And I don't think that anyone here has said that the top 1% economically are any smarter than the other 99%.  It's just that those that actually moved from the bottom to the top were determined and did something instead of just demanding entitlements from others.

This jealousy that someone has more is just plain stupid.  There was a time when people were proud that Mr. X had created a company and hired a whole bunch of people and people aspired to be like that person.  Now, so many people just plain hate those that win.  (Participation trophy anyone?)

I think the pr problem with the wealthy these days is the perception that they are making a fortune, but not hiring many people.  That ceo's are getting multi million dollar bonuses when the company is losing money and people are being layed off.  That banks are taking people's homes, and taking big payoffs from the government, and then giving executives huge bonuses for it. 

1) CEOs getting bonuses when a company is losing money:  That depends on their contract.  Many CEOs don't get a salary at all and only get a bonus depending on certain criteria.  If it's a publicly traded company, then the stock holders can vote to do something and hold the board of directors accountable.  Many companies tie bonuses to stock/profit/etc. and the CEOs don't get a bonus at all if the company is worse off than before.

2) People getting layed off (or not hiring): Every companies goal is to make a profit - they can't exist if they don't.  Sadly, that sometimes includes cutting costs - and employees are the greatest cost of any company.  Especially in today's over-regulated world, the cost of an employee is more and more and if the work of any employee is less than their cost, it's not smart to hire them.

3) The banks are taking peoples' homes: And?  If the people aren't paying their mortgage, it's the bank's duty to foreclose.

4) Payoffs from government:  Sad but true.  Our ProRegressive government thinks they can just ignore the US Constitution and basic economics.  Propping up a private business is just plain illogical - it rewards failure and destroys competition.

I understand what I was referring to, thanks.  You seemed to have missed the point though.  It looks bad.  When people are losing thier homes, losing their jobs, losing thier healthcare, and see other people seeming to profit from their suffering it leaves a bad taste in their mouth.  As it should.

what are you on?     sure there are people who make money but for every one of them there are proably hundreds who didn't.  It isn't really a linear thing where you can make an effort and money will flow to them.  Often you can make a whole lot of effort and still not make money. 

Lets say you make a whole lot of effort, at your job.  And through no fault of your own the company lays you off.  Because of this nasty world wide recession thing that is also no fault of your own, it is virtually impossible to get a job in your field.  Do you really think that most people's response to hearing that the ceo leading the company into ruin getting million dollar bonuses will be "good for him, couldn't be happier for the guy"? 

I've been laid off before... twice actually - so I understand it.  But my being laid off (for whatever reasons) and the CEO making millions are two different issues.  If a company laid me off for unethical issues, that's one thing, but if they laid me off due to choosing a different direction and them subsequently making a profit... that's good for them.

sure it's good for them.  And we are free to think they suck because of it.

Yes, you're free to think that someone being successful at creating a product and making a profit "suck", but I'll applaud them (even if I don't like the product.)

^^ And if you come up with the next iPad and make a billion, I'll applaud you too!!!

1) CEOs getting bonuses when a company is losing money:  That depends on their contract.  Many CEOs don't get a salary at all and only get a bonus depending on certain criteria.  If it's a publicly traded company, then the stock holders can vote to do something and hold the board of directors accountable.  Many companies tie bonuses to stock/profit/etc. and the CEOs don't get a bonus at all if the company is worse off than before.

Missing the point again and we've discussed this before.  Compensation committees at several companies are now admitting that compensation in their industry is benchmarked to industry standards (of successful companies!!).  compensation is not tied to the executives personal performance or the performance of the company!  Further the excess compensation could have been redistributed to the shareholders which is a partial answer toward the concentration of wealth away from the middle class.  Most of us own stock only through our IRAs etc.  -- there's very little opportunity to influence the boards through voting.  Further Congress in general has been weakening the power of shareholders in favor of executives.

????????????how does that answer the question posted?