Posted by Leonard Steinberg on April 3rd, 2011

In 1980, the average CEO earned 42 times the average worker, according to the Institute for Policy Studies. In 2009, the multiplier had skyrocketed to 263. Has the disparity in wealth and incomes between the very rich and the working classes become a global hot button issue that will come back to haunt us? Would it be imaginable 30 years ago that Snooki would earn more than a Nobel prize winner ($ 32,000) for giving a speech at Rutgers University? Have the levels of greed spiraled upwards in recent years to the point of tipping?

Western mass culture is more obsessed with the glorification of the super wealthy and the famous than ever…. The press is mostly interested in celebrity, even when it comes to reporting on real estate. Celebrity trumps all. Then come the super high priced items bought by the super-wealthy, non celebrities. Most CEO’s have a responsibilities that impact the livelihoods of hundreds if not thousands: the world becomes angered however when their compensation is paid regardless of performance. Many celebrities on the other hand are paid huge sums of money for doing rather simple tasks, regardless of how brilliantly they do them.

Manhattan real estate has been a huge beneficiary of this intense wealth disparity. While many may argue that should this disparity shrink, pricing of high end real estate would be negatively impacted. I doubt this: Most of the very wealthy would still be extremely rich if their incomes and assets were half.  Clear evidence of this is the volume of dollars donated by the super rich. Think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg….these guys understand that age old philosophy: you cannot take it with you. And to those that have left huge fortunes to their kids, the lesson has mostly been painful as those kids lives are often destroyed if they have not been fully prepared for the role.

There will always be a huge disparity between the very rich and the very poor, however right now the levels are rather astronomical. Imagine taking the disparity down by 20%, and paying those dollars to the masses who would actually spend those dollars and pay taxes on those dollars (remember, the very wealthy know how to avoid paying taxes and save LOTS amassing fortunes that are mostly never spent)……Some may call this re-distribution of wealth or worse: socialism/communism. I don’t think that would be accurate at all. I think cutting someone’s income who earns $ 20million annually right now, to $16million would not qualify as either, and those $ 4 million dollars paid to stock holders in a dividend or to other or more employees would benefit this planet. It would certainly not stop them from paying for a prize apartment. And it certainly would raise the volume of tax payers. I’d bet we would reduce the national debt dramatically, and the economy would boom. But hey, that would benefit everybody and lots of lobbyists and politicians would be out of work….