<p>TheDad, I knew you would be spluttering through your Latte foam as soon as you read that article, in fact I was surprised you didn’t post it first. Looking forward to the rest of the series. All the NYT “in-depth” series read like parody anymore. The sidebar about Nantucket could easily have appeared in “The Onion.”</p>
<p>I agree with Driver re: the Times…still addicted to it, even as a Republican. Old habit die hard, I guess. The Nantucket article was sheer entertainment for me, but obviously’s ruffled some feathers.</p>
<p>Thedad, the world is not safe for Paris Hilton. As another in the series cemented, education is the measure of class in America. Even the new money is snickering at the fashion school dropout.</p>
<p>I happened across “Air America” on my AM dial today for the first time, by accident. The host, Randi Rhodes (sp?) alluded to both of the NYT series, conflating them to arrive at the conclusion that Dick Cheney’s secret plan was coming to fruition, specifically: that he was cutting off college money and funneling it to the upper class, so that he would have more uneducated destitutes to use in the military for his diabolical plans for world domination. At first I thought CC Parent’s Forum had taken to the airwaves :)</p>
<p>It is undeniable that hyper-richness is under strong Republican protection. </p>
<p>My community has a ton of the hyper-rich. Yes there are the Gateses of the world who have innovated & created-- but there are also a huge number of “failing upwards” Hollywood one hit wonders, Wall Street CEOs, and the like-- “I will dismantle this company and sell it off for parts, fire a bunch of people, take my stock, and jump ship.” "I will find a way to deny worthy medical claims, falsify hospital billing, push my stock up, cash in a bunch of it, and leave in disgrace (but hyper-rich!) Two real life examples from my 'hood-- both worth over $30 million in RE alone.</p>
<p>Good old fashioned rich people did make something. Old fashioned CEOs were often the very people who had started a company from scratch and had a personal pride in it and an emotional investment in employees. The ultimate health of the company was the driving force rather than stock market valuations. Now the B school mentality reigns, it is completely different. </p>
<p>The hyper rich are not just not building companies, they are sometimes strip-mining them. It is beyond belief how people who create nothing but temporary paper profits skim so much!!</p>
<p>“The host, Randi Rhodes (sp?) alluded to both of the NYT series, conflating them to arrive at the conclusion that Dick Cheney’s secret plan was coming to fruition, specifically: that he was cutting off college money and funneling it to the upper class, so that he would have more uneducated destitutes to use in the military for his diabolical plans for world domination.”</p>
<p>The part he got wrong was the business about “secret”. ;)</p>
<p>SBmom, if I remember right, you are selling real estate in what Forbes recently rercognized as the second most wealthy town in America. Are all of the buyers corporate scum? What you have to keep in mind is that the job of CEO is to get a good return on investment for stockholders. While a few have tried to do so dishonestly, the vast majority are just doing their jobs. When people found companies and own them, it is their preogative to run them towards any end they choose. Onece they sell stock share #1, their job becomes return to shareholder.</p>
<p>What is interesting when you look at the charts associated with the story you find that the share of total income earned by the top .1% actually sky rocketed under the Clinton administration and has actually tailed off during the Bush years. Yet the article would have you believe the opposite. Typical NYT slight of hand reportage.</p>
<p>zagat, the thing is you can generate a good return for shareholders by building the business (& thus profits) or by firing/dismantling, or by bogus accounting. Method #1 to me is the old fashioned way. The underlying value/growth of the company is also important to shareholders, not just this month’s price. </p>
<p>BTW I only work with nice corporate scum. ;)</p>
<p>Driver, your taste in cliches is showing, I don’t drink lattes often. These days the regimen is coffee, cream, no sugar…when coffee is seemingly required. A good Chardonnay…or a Chassagne Montrachet, I’ll plead guilty to, but not with quiche.</p>
<p>And there was nothing in the article to sputter at because it’s not exactly news. Cf., Mini’s “he got wrong the business about being ‘secret’”.</p>
<p>Zagat, education is only one measure. One which, given my prejudices, I’m somewhat inclined to, not always with pretty results.</p>
<p>SBMom, oddly enough, we know some of the same kinds of people. Or perhaps it’s not so odd. The two very rich…I dunno about hyper-rich…that I’ve met more than once in person are definitely old school: Peter Norton and Stanley Sheinbaum. I give them great credit for not being ostentatious and for wealth being more than personal aggrandizement and counting coup…in both cases, they want to do something socially useful with their wealth. Neither plays the Hollywood-style “let me impress you” game.</p>
<p>If it weren’t for the return to the Gilded Age we are now experiencing, I doubt that the college admissions process would be the rat-race it has become. Yes, I know all about the echo boom. It’s more than that.</p>
<p>
That would be fine if their compensation were directly linked to shareholder value. Unfortunately, there are far too many situations where the CEO compensation and stock price /profits are inversely proportional. The classic case for a CEO bonus was back in the 80’s when AT&T was feeling the pain of deregulation and for the first time being forced to lay people off in large numbers because of sinking profits. However, the board gave the CEO a huge bonus. The rationale: he went through so much personal angst having to order the layoffs that he deserved extra money! I’m not Jewish, but I think the word for that is chutzpah.</p>
<p>
I see I forgot the tin-foil hat cliche.</p>
<p>
LOL - good one!</p>
<p>Look, what’s there to hide? Less college aid. Fewer taxes on wealth. More “left behind” by NCLB (if everyone passes the test, how rigorous could the “standard” possibly be?) More poor folks enlist for “opportunities”. None of this is secret. It is all government policy. No diabolical plan.</p>
<p>Driver - I’m surprised at you - I thought you would embrace it publicly, like millions of other good Americans.</p>
<p>Yes, what’s puzzling is that those who support the current administration’s policies re taxes and social programs appear to be attempting to deny that these policies exist, or that they have consequences.</p>
<p>I thought enlistments were down? Must be right wing media manipulation. Darn that Murdoch. Cheney’s Uruk-hai factory is actually in full gear, I guess.</p>
<p>Sbmom, thank goodness. Where is Atherton, 94027, #1? I mean you have Oprah, the very picture of wealth without attitude!</p>
<p>Well, at some point the “opportunities for death” begin to outweigh what are perceived (by the ill-informed, of course) to be the "opportunities for advancement.</p>
<p>Look - I can easily make an argument for embracing the Administration’s policies. Folks should pay for their own college because they perform better when “fully nvested in their studies”. If they need money, they can perform military service and get ahead, like millions before them. We don’t want “lower standards” in the schools, and the only way we can ensure higher ones is by making sure enough kids fail. And our economy desperately needs those failures in our “high growth service industries.” The wealthy earned every one of those hard-earned dollars, and they should be allowed to keep them, and drive the economy to new heights. Driving the economy to new heights literally means hefty supplies of fossil fuels - both foreign and domestic. We need to safeguard supplies from abroad, and drill our own. Everyone will be better off as a result. </p>
<p>What’s not to like? Come on, Driver, get with the program!</p>
<p>zagat, </p>
<p>Atherton is a tony suburb in the vicinity of Stanford-- Southern SF Bay Area. Patty Hearst’s childhood stomping grounds.</p>