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)
