These remarks about the salary of the last percentile of the population only serve to raise controversy.
If you want to see how people's well-being has evolved, you have to make somewhat more intelligent comparisons: for example by looking at what people can afford today compared to 50 years ago, or through quality of life indexes. The only thing that has changed for the worse seems to me to be the cost of real estate in the big cities, because of an obvious concentration of the population in them and not because the 1 percent of the population has bought everything.
But outraged people will always find something to be outraged about.
How likely are the odds their proposed solutions will result in better pay for workers? Rather than just higher tax rates?
Only one mentions workers pay:
> setting corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation
Even that doesn't seem like a good incentive to pay workers more.
It's also not clear how the IRS is going to evaluate CEO pay -> yearly tax rate when this study uses 'realized gains' which often happen well after the fact, since CEOs are paid with stock/equity. The study mentions almost all of the growth has been via the % of stocks CEOs now get, not their actual salary.
If you want to see how people's well-being has evolved, you have to make somewhat more intelligent comparisons: for example by looking at what people can afford today compared to 50 years ago, or through quality of life indexes. The only thing that has changed for the worse seems to me to be the cost of real estate in the big cities, because of an obvious concentration of the population in them and not because the 1 percent of the population has bought everything.
But outraged people will always find something to be outraged about.