Here the heart of the problem, to the apparent lack of worker outrage.

[n2doc]

17. 250k puts one in the top 5% of income earners

That's by definition not in the middle. But you know that. Hell over 100K puts one in the top 10%, which by statistical definition is 'rich'. The problem is, wages for 95% of us haven't kept up with costs. So having a 100k income doesn't mean one can afford a mansion, fancy luxo car and first class travel. What it usually means is being able to afford a nicer house (depending on location, forget about it in SF or NYC), a newer car every so often, and a vacation. Things that used to be 'middle class'.


I was looking at the San Francisco paper recently. They had a renovated victorian, not one of the real fancy ones, but an ok place in a good but not high end neighborhood. The sort of place that a mid to upper middle class person might have bought 30 years ago. They wanted 2 million for it.

There was also a true mansion listed. This one had it all. It was listed for 16 million and probably was worth that. But they noted that it had been bought in the 1970's for 225K. I don't think most people have had anywhere near an 80x increase in salary over that time.