They bill it as "The US is more of an oligarchy than democracy" because those very few >0.1% of Americans have a greater political say than the rest of us.
If Coke is earning so much money and misbehaving, let's patronize other soda companies!
If Yahoo is doing the same, let's spread out to other mail and search providers!
Not really. If you earn $120k a year (just over 6 figures) you're in the top 10% of income earners in the US. The fact that you think they're 'middle class' (and relatively speaking, I don't think you're wrong) is indicative of how bad the wealth gap has gotten.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class#Academic_...
Still, I think your source really just proves my point: by no means is anyone earning 120K a year "solidly middle class". By pretty much all of the definitions you listed, 120K a year would either be "upper middle class", or "the rich" (e.g. find me a homeowner in SF who doesn't have >1 million in home equity).
I was with you until this part. You can't just tell people they don't need their current resident city or country or what schools they(or their children) need.
Running away from a problem is almost never the right solution.
And it is absurd to claim that I am advocating running away from a problem. I absolutely want you to tackle the problem head-on. But by voluntarily enriching the aristocracy, you are part of the problem. So I find it painfully hypocritical to complain about your bosses earning too much, while at the same time choosing to be their employee.
I agree with that sentiment, it's the advice I generally give people who are in a bad situation. But if you look at it from the country's perspective it feels like avoiding the problem, and isn't a solution.
This is a suboptimum outcome, in our opinion. Watching inequality rise dramatically over a few short decades only bolsters the belief that these are suboptimal outcomes.
And watching these unmeritorious fools perform poorly while being paid thousands of times the average pay of their own staff is disheartening. It's obviously not a meritocracy. It's obvious that the extravagant, suboptimal pay scheme isn't buying quality leadership, nor is it rewarding any kind of out-sized risk on the part of management. Tiny risk compared to venture or entrepreneur, small or negative benefit, massive reward.