The protests which began as and are identified as “Occupy
Wall Street” are protests against social and economic inequality, high
unemployment, and greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of
corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government.
The protesters' slogan We are the 99% is how they refer
to what they perceive as a growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the
wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.
Those patriots in the Occupy (insert location) movement have
inspired a critical look at those whiney, rich fat cats on Wall Street and in
corporate America that the protesters despise so.
Here are some examples of the excessive salaries these
people are paid: Philippe P. Dauman, CEO of Viacom, made $84.5 million last
year. Leslie Moonves, of the CBS Corporation, got $56.9 million; Michael White
of DirecTV was paid $32.9 million; Brian L. Roberts of the Comcast Corporation and
Robert A. Iger of the Walt Disney Company, $28 million; and Gregg W. Steinhafel
of Target, $23.5 million.
Who needs that much money, anyway? All that those people do
is run businesses, and all businesses do is take people’s money, right? They
are the 1 percent that OWS so patriotically protests against.
It’s just so unfair that these corporate bigwigs rake in
millions when the rest of us struggle along barely making ends meet. Contrast
those astronomical salaries and the conspicuous consumption that they allow,
and then contrast it with the plight of those poor athletes, entertainers and
journalists who are in the 99 percent.
Leading all athletes in total compensation with $62,294,116,
of which $60,000,000 is in endorsements, is golfer Tiger Woods. On the Sports
Illustrated Fortunate 50, leading the list of salaried earnings is the Atlanta
Falcon’s Matt Ryan with $32,250,000, while the lowest on the list is Chris Bosh
of the Miami Heat, with piddling $14,500,000 in salary.
According to Vanity Fair magazine, the list of people
working in the salt mines of Hollywood lists James Cameron as the richest man
in that hellish ghetto in 2010 with total earnings of $257 million, mostly from
the box office and DVD sales of his Oscar-winning movie.
“The Tourist” star Johnny Depp grabbed the second spot on
the Top 40 list of top-earning stars, directors and producers. The list
estimated Depp's haul for the year at $100 million, excluding other
non-film–related income.
And what about those fabulous folks who sing for a living? Forbes.com
has published a list of the highest earners in the music world over the last 12
months, and in that group are: U2 at $130 million; AC/DC - $114 million; Bruce
Springsteen - $70 million; Britney Spears - $64 million; Jay-Z - $63 million
and Lady Gaga - $62 million. Seventeen year-old teeny bopper heartthrob Justin
Bieber banked a cool $53 million last year.
Katie Couric made around $15 million a year when she anchored
“CBS Evening News,” leading television news people. Diane Sawyer is raking in
$12 million a year for her anchor job at “Good Morning America.” NBC “Today” co-anchor
Matt Lauer draws $12 million while his co-host Meredith Vieira and NBC’s Brian
Williams make about $10 million a year each. However, MSNBC anchor Keith
Olbermann is dissed with a measly $4 million.
And how much do those high-profile liberals make – other
than the aforementioned news folk – who are so good at telling the rest of us
how to live?
Actor Alec Baldwin has a net worth of $65 million, and makes
$300,000 per episode of “30 Rock.” Morgan Freeman gets $5-10 million per picture
and has net worth $150 - 200 million. Gadfly movie producer Michael Moore has a
net worth of $50 million. Tom Hanks earned $35 million last year, “Saturday
Night Live’s” Tina Fey, $13 million, while Joy Behar, the co-host of “The View”
and host of “The Joy Behar Show,” has a net worth of $8 million.
Relative to political party affiliation, those greedy
Republicans lead the way in net worth, right? Well, no, according to Forbes magazine’s Top 20 list. Seventeen
of the top 20 are Democrats, including Bill Gates, 56 billion; Warren Buffett,
$50.0 billion; Wal-Mart’s Jim Walton, 20.1 billion Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg,
$13.5 billion; Lawrence Ellison, Oracle co-founder, $39.5 billion; Googles’ Larry
Page, $15 billion.
So, big salaries aren’t restricted to Wall Street and
corporate fat cats; there are lots of other fat cats, too. And when you add up
all the athletes, entertainers and others making big bucks, Wall Street and the
corporate world come in a distant second. But maybe it’s just how they make
their money that makes it obscene when they collect a huge salary.
But why is it a bad thing warranting scorn and hatred to run
a large company that provides jobs to thousands of people, and provides income
to thousands more who own stock outright or in a retirement program or other
investment?
We can hold different opinions on which of these folks
contributes the most to society: the person that runs a company that provides
jobs to thousands of people; the actor that plays the lead in an Oscar-winning
film; the rock and roll screamer who sells millions of records. Whichever we
might think provides the greatest service, we need to recognize and admit that
each of them does something that people willingly spend their money on, and
that is how they got rich. They made a good movie, a good CD, or a useful and
desirable product. They didn’t just wake up one day and find a pot of gold
beside their bed.
Economist Dr. Walter Williams defends one of the liberals’ most
hated American icons, Wal-Mart. “Look at how Wal-Mart Stores generated wealth
for the Walton family of Christy ($25 billion), Jim ($21 billion), Alice ($21
billion) and Robson ($21 billion). The Walton family's wealth is not a result
of ill-gotten gains, but the result of Wal-Mart's revenue, $422 billion in
2010. The blame for this unjust concentration of wealth rests with those
hundreds of millions of shoppers worldwide who voluntarily enter Wal-Mart
premises and leave dollars, pounds and pesos.” Wal-Mart and its owners were
made rich voluntarily by the other 99 percent.
And, in closing, a question: If the GOP is the party that
exists to serve its Wall Street masters, then why does Wall Street give most of
its money to the Democrats?
No comments:
Post a Comment