A generation ago, there were fewer superstars and celebrities. The gap between the earnings of celebrities/superstars on the one hand, and the median middle class household on the other hand, was much narrower.
In those (good old) days, it was possible for many households to function productively with only one income. Now we have more superstars/celebrities, the compensation of these superstars/celebrities is through the roof, the gap between the median superstar's income (actor/actress, athlete, sportsperson, cable/TV talking head, etc) and the median household income (even with 2 incomes in the household) is wider than ever.
Welcome to the new (upside down) normal.
Why is it okay that on American Idol for example, only one contestant (the winner) gets $1 Million but a single judge could earn as high as $45 Million? In a better (upside up, downside down) world, a judge's salary may be no more than $5 million, but the contestants (way down to the regional finalists) would have earned more. Maybe I'm wrong - but in my own opinion, viewers don't watch these shows to see the judges, I think they watch to see the contestants. Granted, the opinions of the judges creates a part of the dynamic that makes for a good show - but, at the end of the day, if viewers are given a choice, they probably need the contestants more than the judges.
In the sports arena, the various players are well paid, many in the millions. On top of that, some of them have endorsement deals that run into tens (or hundreds) of millions.
Understand that I do not begrudge them their earnings - they are getting it fair and square according to the terms of their respective contracts. What I find fault with is the environment that has allowed this kind of upside down thinking to flourish.
The average Jane or Joe may wonder if this is not a case of sour grapes - after all, some will argue that what a basketball player earns has no effect on them up or down. Well, it does!
Season tickets cost more, cable TV costs more - this is where those salaries are extracted from. For the various (e.g. consumer product brand) endorsement deals, those costs are buried in the final cost of the products you and I buy every day. Yes, (some of) these superstars (especially in sports) have a limited window to earn this kind of money - true, but at least they remain celebrities after they retire and are probably not going to have a hard time making a headway at some other vocation (e.g. real estate). The middle aged unemployed worker, who loses his job may never get another.
Some of these sportsmen could potentially suffer injuries that would put them out of business and/or leave them disabled - true, but they have a better insurance package than the average Joe to mitigate that. That coal miner or factory worker could equally suffer an injury that leaves them disabled or incapacitated - unfortunately, that may just be the beginning of a downward spiral because they have no similar safety nets.
It seems to me that for a very tiny slice of the population (CEOs, sportsmen, actors, celebrities), wages/salaries/benefits are allowed to rise exponentially - and no one bats an eyelid. On the other hand, for the great majority, wages are either flat, or falling - and when (like the case of the union workers under assault from Republicans) they try to negotiate raises - insufficient to even overcome inflation - the plutocrats scream foul. Michigan is slashing benefits for the unemployed - oligarch/plutocrat interests will even kick those who are already down - in exchange for tax cuts to corporations!
This is the upside down world in which we live. When those at the top earn way more than enough, they are just going to hoard it - it does no one any good. If these celebrities are paid less, more money stays in the hands of middle class working folks, who will spend it, and in the process create more jobs.
I don't know the solution - but it is a problem that we need to think about. I don't think the solution will come from the political parties or the government - indeed, one newspaper columnist captured the current state of affairs when she wrote
"It used to be that [politicians were] meant to tend to the issues that mattered most to voters. But now voters are being called upon to tend — through their votes — to the issues that matter most to [politicians]."
That is why politicians would rather discuss cutting social security benefits (this matters to politicians, because it matters to their wealthy/corporate donors) rather than increasing government spending to create jobs (which matters to the majority of voters).
The salvation of the middle class, will have to come from the middle class - somehow!