Birthright

[JOEBIALEK]

Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth. In his article "Taking Luck Seriously" Matt Miller suggests that birthright results in the "inherited package of wealth, health, genes, looks, brains, talents and family." Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright. In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth." Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent. They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright. This further begs the question: then why are they in charge? Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest? Does the merit system stop when one graduates from school? While intelligence is certainly not the only factor in determining who is most fit to lead our society, it is certainly a better measure than birthright. In over two hundred years the United States has failed at overcoming one of the biggest barriers to a just society. We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.

"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest? What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals? Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves? If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}. It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse. Perhaps someday our society will be lead by intelligent people who see their own best interest as having promoted society's best interest.

[bobsticks]

Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright. In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth." Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent.

Actually, one cannot draw that conclusion--it's flawed reasoning.

I guess they'll let anybody in this place.

[Feanor]

Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth. In his article "Taking Luck Seriously" Matt Miller suggests that birthright results in the "inherited package of wealth, health, genes, looks, brains, talents and family." Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright. In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth." Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent. They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright. This further begs the question: then why are they in charge? Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest? Does the merit system stop when one graduates from school? While intelligence is certainly not the only factor in determining who is most fit to lead our society, it is certainly a better measure than birthright. In over two hundred years the United States has failed at overcoming one of the biggest barriers to a just society. We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.

"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest? What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals? Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves? If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}. It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse. Perhaps someday our society will be lead by intelligent people who see their own best interest as having promoted society's best interest.

The wealth might not be explained by intelligence, but I agree with bobsticks that it doesn't necessarily follow that business and government leaders are unintelligent. The stupid rich tend to remain on the sidelines clipping coupons while their paid lackies doe the actually running of things. Of course, it's a very tiny minority who are so stupid that they can't tell whether this quarter's profit are up or down, so the rich keep a pretty tight grip on things in the end.

Top CEOs, Senators, Congressmen, and sure as hell the current President are paid lackies of the rich, stupid or otherwise. Nevertheless stupidest of all is the American middle class voter who lacks the brains to vote in their own self-interest or that of the county's, rather than swallowing the BS that the paid-lacky politicians fee them.

[PeruvianSkies]

Personally I wouldn't follow a genius anywhere...most super-intelligent people lack so much common sense that they can hardly function as productive members of society, let alone lead some of the largest companies and government positions. The biggest flaw is this reasoning is the definition of 'intelligence' as a whole. Leadership is a gift, a quality that someone can't really learn as much as it is inherent. Most of the strongest leaders in history were born leaders and have charm, charisma, and a leadership style that enables them to have the vision to see a task carried out through the management of people, resources, etc etc. Great leaders are the ones who know how to seek out the best in people and bring out that quality. Great leaders also know how to use the strengths in others to cancel out their weaknesses. This is what makes great leadership, not wealth, birthright or intilligence.

[noddin0ff]

"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year.

Last year? The cited article was published in 1999 (http://www.faireconomy.org/press/archive/1999/Executive_Excess/decade_of_executive_excess.html)... Try to at least make arguments pertaining to this decade!


Leadership is a gift, a quality that someone can't really learn as much as it is inherent. Most of the strongest leaders in history were born leaders and have charm, charisma, and a leadership style that enables them to have the vision to see a task carried out through the management of people, resources, etc etc.

Oh, I get it...Leadership is a birthright! :idea:

Screw Communism/Socialism, bring back abolute monarchy!

[Feanor]

Personally I wouldn't follow a genius anywhere...most super-intelligent people lack so much common sense that they can hardly function as productive members of society, let alone lead some of the largest companies and government positions. The biggest flaw is this reasoning is the definition of 'intelligence' as a whole. Leadership is a gift, a quality that someone can't really learn as much as it is inherent. Most of the strongest leaders in history were born leaders and have charm, charisma, and a leadership style that enables them to have the vision to see a task carried out through the management of people, resources, etc etc. Great leaders are the ones who know how to seek out the best in people and bring out that quality. Great leaders also know how to use the strengths in others to cancel out their weaknesses. This is what makes great leadership, not wealth, birthright or intilligence.

Our HR department recently send some of us on an "Emotional Intelligence" course; (or interpersonal intelligence if you prefer). A major theme the was that for people who rise to high position, analytic intelligence (IQ) doesn't have to be remarkable, instead it's emotional/interpersonal inteligence that really counts.

So take GWB, (please), did he get through Harvard based on birthright? Did he get to the Presidency base on interpersonal inteligence? Certainly wasn't a remarkable IQ.

[Feanor]

Last year? The cited article was published in 1999 (http://www.faireconomy.org/press/archive/1999/Executive_Excess/decade_of_executive_excess.html)... Try to at least make arguments pertaining to this decade!

Oh, I get it...Leadership is a birthright! :idea:

Screw Communism/Socialism, bring back abolute monarchy!

1999 is still this decade, viz. 10 year interval.

I don't think PS said that leadership is synonymous with birthright, (though JOE did).

The problem with the US today (and other western democracies in general), is that, though they have the form of democracy, they don't really have enough of the substance. The poor don't see voting as worthwhile, and middle class are deceive by the relentless propaganda of corporations, right-wing politicians, and other surrogates of wealthy national and gobal interests.

In the case of the US in particular, the middle class is deceived by the historical myth of the that country as a land of opportunity where anyone can make, (and implicity, anyone who doesn't is worthless), and by the red-herring of social/religious conservatism. (Consider yourself social considervative, "Christian Right", (there's an oxymoron)? Then know that the amoral back-room power brokers laugh at you every day.)

[noddin0ff]

1999 is still this decade, viz. 10 year interval. From 1998 data...your decade is up. But, my point is JOE is claiming 'last year' . Even his misinformation is not reliable.


I don't think PS said that leadership is synonymous with birthright, (though JOE did). No, but he did argue that it is an innate or inherent skill as opposed to something you can learn. Which is hogwash. Leadership is a skill like any other. You can learn it. Similarly, I don't think the stupid to moderately intelligent have cornered the market on wisdom...

[Feanor]

From 1998 data...your decade is up. But, my point is JOE is claiming 'last year' . Even his misinformation is not reliable.
...

Not last year, but likely the high/low disparity as widened since 1999, which scarcely invalidates his thrust.


...
No, but he did argue that it is an innate or inherent skill as opposed to something you can learn. Which is hogwash. Leadership is a skill like any other. You can learn it. ...

OK, but for some that learning comes a lot easier than for others.

[GMichael]

The old nurture vs nature argument huh? Both sides have merit. But the true answer is that it takes both.

Even the richest of spoiled brats will get nowhere without some brains.
Even the smartest among us will fall flat without some backing. Some are smart enough to go out and find backing. So now they need to be smart and resourceful. It can, and has been done. But there are more of the rich kids with so so intelligence that make it big.
When I worked at the research center I met some of the smartest people on the planet. Some were at Purv Skies suggested. Void of any common sense. But there were some others who not only won Nobel prizes, but also snappy people and very impressive in every way. I would have followed some of them into a fire if they said I'd be OK.

[JOEBIALEK]

good points