RE:[tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire, Part 2
I apologize for not having time to write dissertation type responses so I will be brief. [snip] MP: Note that 4.5% of this group have doctorates. In previous posts on this topic, estimates of the percentage in the general population were calculated using the Census* Community Survey data. In retreospect, this is the wrong calculation to do, that is, one should not take the number of Ph.D. estimated in the population and divide it by the total number of people in the sample. This does give one the percentage of the general population that have Ph.D. but for purposes of comparison, the denominator should the number of people between 24 to 94 years of age, that age range of the richest groups. Children, which would be included in the total sample number will inflate the denominator and not provide the appropriate number for comparison. In other words, to determine whether the 4.5% of Ph.D.s in this richest group is an *overrepresentation* or *underrepresentation* requires one to compare 4.5% to the percentage of Ph.D.s in the age range of 24 to 94 (excluding the richests). JC: The tables Mike and I used earlier DO limit the denominator to adults (18 and over or 25 and over in the case of Mike's earlier estimate of .0125). So the earlier estimates hold. In my calculation of 1.25%, I'm pretty sure that I used total population as the denominator. I don't have the time right now but can anyone confirm or identify what the percentage of Ph.D.s are in the 24-94 range? JC: As Mike correctly notes, this is an excellent dataset for making some good points in statistics (and other) classes. One such point might be about restriction of range. As noted by Rick, we are looking at a tiny proportion of the population defined by the very, very highest of incomes. Is it reasonable to expect any relationship with such a restricted sample/population? I briefly thought of restriction of range but consider the following: range of education level for Non-Richest: probably from some grade school to Ph.D. range of education level for the Richest 400: probably from some grade school to Ph.D. So, the educational levels for the two groups are quite similar though the overall frequency distribtuions may differ. range of networth in $Bil for Non-Richest: 0 to $1.3 Billion (there may be some negative networth individuals because of liabilities exceeding income/resources/investments/etc). or $1.3 Billion range of networth in $Bil for the Richest 400: $1.3 Bil to $57 Bill or $55.7 Billion. The ratio of the range for the Richest networth to the Nonrichest networth is 55.7/1.3 = 42.85, that is, the range for networth of the Richest is about 43 times that of the non-rich. Yes, there is restriction of range but it is with the Nonrich, thus any correlation based only on the Nonrich suffers from restriction of range. NOTE: it could be the case that any relationship between Networth and any other variable might involve discontinuous regressions, that is, one type of regression holds for the relationship over one range of value (e.g., below $1 Billion in networth) and another regression model describes the relationship over other ranges of values (i.e., greater than $1 Billion). Perhaps someone should try to get the Forbes people to make their data on the richest people across the years publicly available (I don't know whether they do or not but can understand why they might not). It could make for some fascinating analysis. Again, thanks to Mike P for taking the time. You're very welcome. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
Hi Mike asked about what denominator was used to arrive at 1.25%. If you go to the tables he linked to you will find that total column gives value of 196,305,000 for 25 years and over. This is the value Mike used in the denominator below (in thousands, the same as the numerator). The ENTIRE population of the USA was about 300,000,000 in 2008. So the percentage PhDs in the population 25 and older is 1.25%, as Mike indicated. The percentage among billionaires is much higher. James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Department of Psychology University of Winnipeg Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 CANADA Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu 01-Sep-09 10:44 AM The percentage I've calculated from CPS 2008 (Detailed Tables) which is available at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html is 1.25% (=2,472/196,305) and this number has sampling error associated with it. Is 1.25% significantly different from 3.96% (i.e., 4/101)? Take care Jim --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire, Part 2
Hi First, thanks to Mike for taking the time to track down this information. Just a couple of points ... I've reordered relevant parts of Mike's posting (prefaces by MP:) before my comments (prefaced by JC:). [apologies if this is duplicate or triplicate or ... I've had to send it a number of times because of some computer glitch] MP: Note that 4.5% of this group have doctorates. In previous posts on this topic, estimates of the percentage in the general population were calculated using the Census* Community Survey data. In retreospect, this is the wrong calculation to do, that is, one should not take the number of Ph.D. estimated in the population and divide it by the total number of people in the sample. This does give one the percentage of the general population that have Ph.D. but for purposes of comparison, the denominator should the number of people between 24 to 94 years of age, that age range of the richest groups. Children, which would be included in the total sample number will inflate the denominator and not provide the appropriate number for comparison. In other words, to determine whether the 4.5% of Ph.D.s in this richest group is an *overrepresentation* or *underrepresentation* requires one to compare 4.5% to the percentage of Ph.D.s in the age range of 24 to 94 (excluding the richests). JC: The tables Mike and I used earlier DO limit the denominator to adults (18 and over or 25 and over in the case of Mike's earlier estimate of .0125). So the earlier estimates hold. MP: (3) Given that this dataset represents that richest 400minus2 people in the U.S. in 2008 and under the assumption that is exhaustive, this group is not a sample but a population. Consequently, the usual tests of statistical significance would not apply (e.g., testing whether the correlation between networth in $billions and educational level is zero or not would not be appropriate since we are dealing with the population rho and not the sample r). Bootstrapping and re-sampling techniques can be used to estimate standard errors for various statistics/parameters but one would do so under specific explicit assumptions. Note also that the usual formula for the variance and standard deviation which correct for sample estimates/sampling error would provide overestimates of the true variance and standard deviation JC: But some statistical tests would be valid, such as the likelihood of getting 18 or more PhDs among 400 billionaires if p = .0125. Although the current proportion of .045 is close to that of the earlier 100 billionaires, the statistical probability is MUCH reduced because of the larger group. Below is the exact probabilities of 0 to 20 or more PhDs in a group of 400 if p = .0125. The likelihood of 18 or more PhDs is extremely small, .011. Indeed the chance of just 9 or more PhDs is less than .05. I used SPSS to generate these exact probabilities, but it might be interesting to use the normal approximation as well. xpx cpx upx 0 .0065289 .0065289 .9934711 1 .0330579 .0395868 .9604132 2 .0834815 .1230683 .8769317 3 .1401926 .2632609 .7367391 4 .1761281 .4393890 .5606110 5 .1765740 .6159630 .3840370 6 .1471450 .7631079 .2368921 7 .1048375 .8679454 .1320546 8 .0651917 .9331371 .0668629 9 .0359425 .9690796 .0309204 10 .0177893 .9868688 .0131312 11 .0079837 .9948525 .0051475 12 .0032760 .9981285 .0018715 13 .0012377 .9993662 .0006338 14 .0004331 .9997993 .0002007 15 .0001411 .403 .597 16 .430 .833 .167 17 .123 .956 .044 18 .033 .989 .011 19 .008 .997 .003 20 .002 .999 .001 MP: (3) Mean Networth in $Billions for each level of education: using the Degree.2 above (separates MA/MS from MBA), here are the descriptive statistics (standard errors are provided but they may not be meaningful): Estimates for NetWorth$Bil Degree.2 Mean Std.Er 00 High School 6.076 0.776 10 Associate 2.600 3.680 20 Bachelors 3.330 0.404 30 Masters8.817 1.227 31 MBA3.545 0.575 40 MD or JD 3.389 0.855 50 Doctorate 3.189 1.227 JC: As Mike correctly notes, this is an excellent dataset for making some good points in statistics (and other) classes. One such point might be about restriction of range. As noted by Rick, we are looking at a tiny proportion of the population defined by the very, very highest of incomes. Is it reasonable to expect any relationship with such a restricted sample/population? Again, thanks to Mike P for taking the time. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Department of Psychology University of Winnipeg Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 CANADA --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire, Part 2
In summary, what can one say about the richest 400minus2 people in the U.S.? I can say that the probability of a person living in the US being one of them is approximately 0.013 so you might not want to choose your educational goals based on your dream of becoming one of them. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3055 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu (479)524-7295 http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman Forwarding any part of this e-mail to the White House is strictly prohibited. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire, Part 2
Another way to express the issue is that your chances of being one of the 400 richest billionaires are slightly less than playing in the NBA. Ken Rick Froman wrote: In summary, what can one say about the richest 400minus2 people in the U.S.? I can say that the probability of a person living in the US being one of them is approximately 0.013 so you might not want to choose your educational goals based on your dream of becoming one of them. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3055 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu (479)524-7295 http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman -- --- Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. steel...@appstate.edu Professor and Assistant Chairperson Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu 01-Sep-09 10:44:08 AM On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:43:36 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu 31-Aug-09 2:12:45 PM On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:18:52 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: These lists, especially by themselves, do NOT allow the kinds of inferences Mike appears to make. I'm not sure I understand what kind of inferences you're referring to. ... JC: I was referring to inferences like Mike's in the next few lines. Unless you're psychic or can see the future the text you quote cannot be the inferences you were referring to in your post because these comments were made in response to your inferences comments which, of course, were posted AFTER your inferences comment. Either you have amazing powers to warp the space-time continuum or you either neglected to use the inferences I made in some prior posts or I actually hadn't made such inferences in earlier posts and you decided to use statements AFTER your inferences comment. JC: What I said was inferences Mike APPEARS to make ... for example, in drawing such conclusions as Do not get a PhD. You then chose to make those implied inferences explicit in a later message. JC: My earlier posting presented evidence that in fact PhDs are over-represented in Mike's list, being about 1% or less in the general population and 4% in the list. The percentage I've calculated from CPS 2008 (Detailed Tables) which is available at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html is 1.25% (=2,472/196,305) and this number has sampling error associated with it. Is 1.25% significantly different from 3.96% (i.e., 4/101)? Maybe, maybe not. If the proportion of people at different levels of educational attainment is same for both the richest 101 US citizens and the rest of the population, then this suggest that educational achievement has nothing to do with becoming the richest persons in the U.S., unlike the situation with, say, Nobel Laureates. If one want to say that 3.96% of a group represents an over-representation relative to 1.25%, I'll grant that but remind one about the difference between statistical significance and practical significance. JC: Assuming population p = .0125 (it would be lower in years prior to 2008) and sampling 101 people, one gets the following binomial probabilities for number of Xs (people with PhDs). px = probability of that number, cpx = cumulative probability, and upx = 1 - cpx. UPX is the relevant value. The probability of 4 or more people with phd is .009. x pxcpxupx 0 .2807 .2807 .7193 1 .3589 .6396 .3604 2 .2271 .8667 .1333 3 .0949 .9616 .0384 4 .0294 .9910 .0090 5 .0072 .9982 .0018 As to the difference between statistical and practical significance, that would be a trickier question. We know, for example, that effect size can be a misleading indicator of practical significance (as in the classic aspirin study). I guess we could do something like getting the probability of being a billionaire given PhD and no PhD, both of which would be extremely small probabilities, and then taking their ratio. If having a PhD makes it 3x (hypothetically) more likely to be a billionaire than not having a PhD, is that of practical significance? For those over 65, people not completing HS were UNDER-represented in Mike's list compared to the over 65 general population. JC is assuming that educational attainment in the group of the richest people should mirror the proportions in the general population. It is not clear to me why this would be the case given that we know that the richest people are NOT a random sample from the general population and SHOULD differ from them in systematic ways -- afterall they are the richest and should differ on a number of dimensions though educational achievement does not appear to be particularly relevant. JC: No Mike, I am TESTING the assumption that HS nongraduates are equally or over-represented among billionaires. That assumption only makes sense relative to some comparison group. Take care Jim --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu 31-Aug-09 2:12:45 PM On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:18:52 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: These lists, especially by themselves, do NOT allow the kinds of inferences Mike appears to make. I'm not sure I understand what kind of inferences you're referring to. ... JC: I was referring to inferences like Mike's in the next few lines. Mike: If it is reasonable to expect Nobel prize winners to have advanced academic degrees, why isn't it reasonable to expect that the richest people in a society should also have an overrepresentation of people with advanced academic degrees? ... If Ph.D.s and other advanced degrees are not overrepresented in the richest segment of a society what does that say about intellect and its cultivation and the attainment of power and influence in a society? ... Perhaps the best way of thinking about the role of education and attainment of an advanced degree is that it allows most people with educational acheivement to enter the middle class (though there are individuals for who this is not true) and maybe the lower rungs of the upper class but might actually serve as an impediment to becoming truly rich and powerful. JC: My earlier posting presented evidence that in fact PhDs are over-represented in Mike's list, being about 1% or less in the general population and 4% in the list. For those over 65, people not completing HS were UNDER-represented in Mike's list compared to the over 65 general population. So Mike's inferences from JUST the list were incorrect. Of course, even this association does not say anything about causality given people from wealthy families are more likely to go further in school AND more likely to end up wealthy themselves. Finally, I also presented links to a few of the many many sites that would show a robust association between education and income in more representative samples (sometimes populations, as in the Census). Take care Jim --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:43:36 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu 31-Aug-09 2:12:45 PM On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:18:52 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: These lists, especially by themselves, do NOT allow the kinds of inferences Mike appears to make. I'm not sure I understand what kind of inferences you're referring to. ... JC: I was referring to inferences like Mike's in the next few lines. Unless you're psychic or can see the future the text you quote cannot be the inferences you were referring to in your post because these comments were made in response to your inferences comments which, of course, were posted AFTER your inferences comment. Either you have amazing powers to warp the space-time continuum or you either neglected to use the inferences I made in some prior posts or I actually hadn't made such inferences in earlier posts and you decided to use statements AFTER your inferences comment. JC: My earlier posting presented evidence that in fact PhDs are over-represented in Mike's list, being about 1% or less in the general population and 4% in the list. The percentage I've calculated from CPS 2008 (Detailed Tables) which is available at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html is 1.25% (=2,472/196,305) and this number has sampling error associated with it. Is 1.25% significantly different from 3.96% (i.e., 4/101)? Maybe, maybe not. If the proportion of people at different levels of educational attainment is same for both the richest 101 US citizens and the rest of the population, then this suggest that educational achievement has nothing to do with becoming the richest persons in the U.S., unlike the situation with, say, Nobel Laureates. If one want to say that 3.96% of a group represents an over-representation relative to 1.25%, I'll grant that but remind one about the difference between statistical significance and practical significance. That is, about two more Ph.D.s are among the richest 101 than expected by random sampling from the general population (though the richest Ph.D. is ranked 33 and has a net worth of $8.70 billion while college dropouts and people with high school degrees rank among the richest: Bill Gates at #1 and Larry Ellison at #3). This still leaves the question of why aren't there more Ph.D. among the richest people while there are so many in say, Nobel Laureates? If we limit our focus to the top 25 richest people, there are no Ph.D.s at all (just one JD which many would not consider on par with a Ph.D.). For those over 65, people not completing HS were UNDER-represented in Mike's list compared to the over 65 general population. JC is assuming that educational attainment in the group of the richest people should mirror the proportions in the general population. It is not clear to me why this would be the case given that we know that the richest people are NOT a random sample from the general population and SHOULD differ from them in systematic ways -- afterall they are the richest and should differ on a number of dimensions though educational achievement does not appear to be particularly relevant. So Mike's inferences from JUST the list were incorrect. Of course, even this association does not say anything about causality given people from wealthy families are more likely to go further in school AND more likely to end up wealthy themselves. Bill Gates parents were lawyers and Mr. Gates dropped out of college. All swans are not white. JC would do better to examine the educational achievement of the people on the list and comparing it to their parent's educational level. Indeed, one could argue that that because of regression toward mean, parents with higher educational level will have offspring with lower levels of educational achievement and parents with lower educational achievement will have children with higher educational achievement. Bill Gates is consistent with this though it does not apply when comparing his net worth with that of his parents. Finally, I also presented links to a few of the many many sites that would show a robust association between education and income in more representative samples (sometimes populations, as in the Census). I think you are confused about the questions being asked, namely, it is NOT about whether there is an association between level of educational achievement and net worth IN THE GENERAL POPULATION, rather, it IS about whether people with high net worth also have high levels of educational achievement, suggesting that achieving high net worth is associated with high levels of educational achievement. Clearly, among the very richest, there is no association. Considering that among the top 5 richest people, 2 of them are college dropouts, this raises interesting questions about how a college education is related to becoming the richest person(s) in the U.S. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill
Re: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:18:52 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: Hi Howdy, These lists, especially by themselves, do NOT allow the kinds of inferences Mike appears to make. I'm not sure I understand what kind of inferences you're referring to. I do NOT assume that this is a random sample from a population, indeed, taken as a group, these individuals define a population or the set of the richest individuals in the U.S. at a particular point in time. I am not making inferences about the richest people at other points in time (though Forbes does provide historical data to allow such a comparison). Just as one can focus on, say, all Nobel prize winners, and ask what are the characteristics that define members of this group. Members of a group like this is most likely to systematically differ from the population at large and other select group. Indeed, for Nobel prize winner, one would expect an overrepresentation of people with doctorates and other advanced degrees (though not all Nobel prize winners hold doctorates -- a point that I'm making without evidence). If it is reasonable to expect Nobel prize winners to have advanced academic degrees, why isn't it reasonable to expect that the richest people in a society should also have an overrepresentation of people with advanced academic degrees? Being among the richest people in a society also confer enormous power in other areas (e.g., political power, media influence, etc.) as well as influence over the lives of millions of people (e.g., Bill Gates will probably help more people with AIDS in the world through his charitable organization than any single doctor -- his choice to do is fortunate for those with AIDS because he is under no obligation to spend his money this way though one could make such an argument on ehtical or moral grounds, nonetheless, such arguments have been ingnored by the rich in the past, in the present, and probably in the future). If Ph.D.s and other advanced degrees are not overrepresented in the richest segment of a society what does that say about intellect and its cultivation and the attainment of power and influence in a society? If we're so smart, why aren't we all rich? Or does obtaining riches and power rely upon other qualities, such as being ruthlessly opportunitic and machiavellian in our dealings with others? If the richest are not also the smartest (by standard measures) then how will the smart but less powerful correct their mistakes? Will we speak truth to power or simply suffer the consequence of being too aware of why things are going wrong but being powerless to do anything meaningful about it? The list looks at (a) a tiny fraction of the relevant population (100 people or even 400) and (b) ONLY those with enough wealth to be billionaires. Only a small group of people can be the richest which by definition makes them the power elite of a society. There are various degrees of being rich but even today the threshold for such a designation is changing (being a mere millionaire hardly qualifies as being rich, especially in the centers where the power elite live, work, and play). Perhaps the best way of thinking about the role of education and attainment of an advanced degree is that it allows most people with educational acheivement to enter the middle class (though there are individuals for who this is not true) and maybe the lower rungs of the upper class but might actually serve as an impediment to becoming truly rich and powerful. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu Coming from NYC, the financial capital of the World. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:39:26 -0700, Dr. Bob Wildblood wrote: I think what it means when the most educated are not also found to be at least among the wealthiest in a culture is that the people of that culture value many other things more than knowledge and education. Is that why the wealthiest make such large donations to colleges and universities? For example: Leonard Stern, #132 on Forbes Billionaire list, NYU BA MBA, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_Leonard-Stern_LQKX.html NYU Stern School of Business http://www.stern.nyu.edu/ David Gerren, #49 on Forbes Billionaire list, UT-Austin Dropout http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_David-Geffen_ES8B.html UCLA Davd Geffen School of Medicine http://dgsom.healthsciences.ucla.edu/ And so on. Not to mention the number of these people who serve as trustees and on the boards of colleges and universities (e.g., at NYU Kenneth Langone whose donation got him the medical center named after him; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Langone ). More ruthless opportunism and machiavellism or some other form of cynicism trying to make up for inadequacies in other areas or a sincere expression of their values? I'm sure that college administrators don't care as long as they get the money. I wonder how much William James paid Harvard to get that hall named after him? -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu Mike Palij wrote: If it is reasonable to expect Nobel prize winners to have advanced academic degrees, why isn't it reasonable to expect that the richest people in a society should also have an over representation of people with advanced academic degrees? Being among the richest people in a society also confer enormous power in other areas (e.g., political power, media influence, etc.) as well as influence over the lives of millions of people ... If Ph.D.s and other advanced degrees are not overrepresented in the richest segment of a society what does that say about intellect and its cultivation and the attainment of power and influence in a society? --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:41:11 -0700, Joseph J. Horton wrote: If you set your sights lower and are just interested in becoming a millionaire, you might enjoy The Millionaire Next Door or The Millionaire Mind both by Thomas Stanley. There are some methodological issues such as the lack of comparison groups, still they are interesting reading. I actually have a copy of Stanley's The Millionaire Mind which I read shortly after it came out in 2000. I remember some general themes from the book but remember that I was dissatisfied with certain aspects of it. Nonetheless, it may be productive to read through it again because, if I remember correctly, it provides some hypotheses about who and how people aspire to become a certain type of millionaire (i.e., one that doesn't rely heavily on credit, lives an almosrt frugal livestyle, etc.). These folks would quiet millionaires in contrast to those folks that have reality shows based on their daily lives. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
Maybe because 1) the poor find it difficult to make such large donations and 2) tax deductions (if that isn't too cynical) It is true that they wouldn't have to make their donations to educational institutions but there is a certain cachet to education (which of course is due to the fact that education is valued to some degree in this culture although the culture seems somewhat conflicted about their attitudes toward book learnin'). Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu From: Mike Palij [m...@nyu.edu] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:33 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: Re: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire? On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:39:26 -0700, Dr. Bob Wildblood wrote: I think what it means when the most educated are not also found to be at least among the wealthiest in a culture is that the people of that culture value many other things more than knowledge and education. Is that why the wealthiest make such large donations to colleges and universities? For example: And so on. Not to mention the number of these people who serve as trustees and on the boards of colleges and universities (e.g., at NYU Kenneth Langone whose donation got him the medical center named after him; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Langone ). More ruthless opportunism and machiavellism or some other form of cynicism trying to make up for inadequacies in other areas or a sincere expression of their values? I'm sure that college administrators don't care as long as they get the money. I wonder how much William James paid Harvard to get that hall named after him? -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu Mike Palij wrote: If it is reasonable to expect Nobel prize winners to have advanced academic degrees, why isn't it reasonable to expect that the richest people in a society should also have an over representation of people with advanced academic degrees? Being among the richest people in a society also confer enormous power in other areas (e.g., political power, media influence, etc.) as well as influence over the lives of millions of people ... If Ph.D.s and other advanced degrees are not overrepresented in the richest segment of a society what does that say about intellect and its cultivation and the attainment of power and influence in a society? --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
Stanley distinguishes between the Balance Sheet Affluent and the Income Affluent. One of his main arguments is the people who give the appearance of wealth often have large income but few assets. He claims the self made millionaires tend to be frugal, but that this does not mean cheap. One of his examples is purchasing very expensive shoes but getting them resoled multiple times. There are all kinds of methodological problems with his research, but the anecdotes are fun to ponder. Joe Joseph J. Horton Ph. D. Box 3077 Grove City College Grove City, PA 16127 724-458-2004 jjhor...@gcc.edu In God we trust. All others must bring data. -Original Message- From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu] Sent: Mon 8/31/2009 5:51 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: RE: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire? On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:41:11 -0700, Joseph J. Horton wrote: If you set your sights lower and are just interested in becoming a millionaire, you might enjoy The Millionaire Next Door or The Millionaire Mind both by Thomas Stanley. There are some methodological issues such as the lack of comparison groups, still they are interesting reading. I actually have a copy of Stanley's The Millionaire Mind which I read shortly after it came out in 2000. I remember some general themes from the book but remember that I was dissatisfied with certain aspects of it. Nonetheless, it may be productive to read through it again because, if I remember correctly, it provides some hypotheses about who and how people aspire to become a certain type of millionaire (i.e., one that doesn't rely heavily on credit, lives an almosrt frugal livestyle, etc.). These folks would quiet millionaires in contrast to those folks that have reality shows based on their daily lives. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)winmail.dat
Re: [tips] So You Want To Be A Billionaire?
Hi These lists, especially by themselves, do NOT allow the kinds of inferences Mike appears to make. The list looks at (a) a tiny fraction of the relevant population (100 people or even 400) and (b) ONLY those with enough wealth to be billionaires. To illustrate the problem, consider the 4 PhDs on Mike's list (i.e., 4% of 100 billionaires). Recent statistics, such as http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2007/Table1-01.csv indicate that just over 1% of the American adult population has a PhD. And presumably this figure would have been even lower in the past. Hence, PhDs are actually over-represented on the list of billionaires relative to their numbers in the general population. One would need similar and more precise figures to properly evaluate the role of education. More precise in the sense of adjusting for age because it might be less clear than in the case of PhDs what the historical figures would be. But even crude data show the dangers of making inferences about HS dropouts from the 15 on Mike's list of billionaires. To illustrate, the following table (if link works!) http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y-geo_id=01000US-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_S1501-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_-_lang=en-_caller=geoselect-state=st-format= shows that in 2007 16% of population 25 and older did not complete HS. But this figure increases markedly at highest age levels; a full 27% of those 65 and older did not graduate from HS. But on Mike's list, only 16% of billionaires 65 and over did not graduate from HS, far below the proportion in the general population their age. Alternatively (unless one is only interested in billionaires rather than more realistic earnings), the census provides more relevant data, or any number of other databases. Here are a few links: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/international/Intlindicators/index.asp?SectionNumber=5SubSectionNumber=1IndicatorNumber=106 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Education_and_Gender Clearly earnings increase with education, albeit with a few perturbations largely due to professional degrees. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu 30-Aug-09 5:20:55 PM If you do, were are some rules based upon an analysis of the information about 400 Richest People in the United States for 2009 (actually only data from the top 101 richest people was analyzed; even my OCD has it limits): http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html (1) Don't get a Ph.D. Only 4 people out of 101 have a Ph.D. and they are nowhere near the richest. 36 out of 101 have a B.A. but 15 only have a High School diploma (some apparently never attended college, others are college dropouts; NOTE: Richard Branson, CEO of Virgin Whatever, who is British and not included in this data apparently dropped out of high school). There are 7 people who have indeterminate levels of education. In some cases, it is possible that some of these did not have formal schooling (though they may have had tutoring; they may have inherited the money). (2) It doesn't really matter whether you complete you education. There were 12 people who dropped out of their educational studies but the mean net worth of these people is about $15 Billion (Bill Gates, as the richest man in the world, skews things) while the 83 people who did complete their studies had a mean net worth of $8.61 Billion. (3) High School graduates are richest people in the U.S. ?? Given that most college dropouts can only claim their high school diplomas as their highest certified level of educational achievement, people with only a High School diploma have a mean net worth of $13.64 Billion. Of the top 101 richest U.S. people, those with a Bachelor's degree actually have a lower net worth of $7.83 Billion. People with a Master's degree (usually an MBA) do somewhat better with a net worth of $10.65 Billion. Folks with a JD or an MD or a Ph.D. only have a net worth of about $6.75 Billion (yes, less than a person with a B.A.). This is so depressing that I'm not going to shave for the next few days. Anyway, I've attached an SPSS system data file (not an Excel file like I did earlier) of the data I pulled off of the Forbes website. I didn't include the U.S. News ranking of colleges because, quite frankly, it doesn't seem to be relevant (I'll leave it to some other enterprising soul to do so). I'm now going to have a beer and wait for the new episode of Mad Men to air. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
