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.

[InfiniteNow]

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.

While I agree that many people take positions of authority due to familial or social ties, I disagree with the leap you take in your conclusion that "most business and political leaders are not intelligent." First, you have no basis for making such a claim. Second, you have failed to identify what you mean by the term "leader." Third, you have not described your criteria of intelligence in this context.

 

Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest?

Perhaps because the country is not inhabited by the best and the brightest.

 

Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest?

How is their salary relevant to your conclusion that they do not have the intelligence? Could the factory workers do the same strategic planning and consensus building that is required of a successful project?

 

What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals?

This, I concede, is a brilliant question. There is little tangible measure of the contributions of a top exec. Their contributions are measured by the success of those around them, and the success of the projects they lead, and this seems a poor method of identifying quality leaders and contributors.

 

Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves?

Because car thieves choose not to pool their money in such a way as to influece the parameters of jail sentencing and punative laws to the extent that executives do.

 

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}.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. I think the intelligent leader would still attempt to ensure maximum compensation for minimum effort. It's evolutionary. Why would you waste energy spending 3 weeks on a hunt if you could achieve the same reward in 6 minutes?

 

t 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.

Oh! I just realized it. You're talking about the current President. Now it makes MUCH more sense.

 

Don't forget to add that he's also malleable to the requests of those with vested interests. :artgallery:

 

 

Leading businesses as the chosen one because of my birth mark...

[PuGZ]

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.

 

Talk about strenuous leaps of logic made to support a pre-conceived conclusion! "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth" means that not all extraordinarily wealthy people are extraordinarily intelligent or that not all wealth can be attributed to intelligence. This in no way implies that "most" business leaders are unintelligent -- I suspect the truth of the matter to be contrary to such a proposition.

[jackson33]

most of the giant US corporations are run by there founders or worked there way up to the CEO-CFO level through a variety of ventures. additionally there is a process to become the leader, involving boards of directors, stock or bond holders and the financial institutions which have the most at risk.

 

then there are just so many of these people to choose from. its not something you pick up at Harvard, or learn from your Dad. the only proved teacher is experience. IMO; of the 5000 larger publicly or even privately held companies, maybe 500 heads have superior qualities, 2000 are run of the mill but somewhat effective and the rest in the process to learn or work their way up.

 

in politics, the story may be a little different. for starters you have to desire power w/o gratification, in a democracy. you go in knowing half the people will agree in most cases and half will never agree on any issue. then the pay by most of the lead up jobs to higher power are not that good. then there is only going to ever be one top job in the effort. why would the brightest or most intelligent ever choose to go that route.

 

in politics, there can be a desire to serve, which most historians understand. the basic formation of the US and the constitution implied a duty to serve.

 

all in all, our corporate and government leaders are the brightest, well educated and the important factor--have the desire to do the job.

[JOEBIALEK]

good points

[Boerseun]

What irks me is the knee-jerk reaction to give more creedence to the public opinions of those with money as opposed to those without. Regardless of intelligence.

 

Paris Hilton being a case in point. She's the heiress of the vast Hilton empire, yet she's as thick as a brick upstairs. She's about as bright as a box of rocks. But her opinions on the US penal system will weight more than regular people with brains' opinions will, and her criticism of conditions in US jails will result in quicker action than the complaints of thousands of other inmates.

 

Also, Bill Gates gets a big philantrophical kick out of donating money to poor countries, provided they do with the money what he says. That's all good, it's his money, after all. But Bill Gates might be bright when it comes to software and programming, but he's not exactly Mensa material in the international politics sector. Yet he comes to Africa with completely unworkable pipe-dreams, and his opinions on these matters are lauded as 'visionary' and 'groundbreaking'. Let anyone else come with those idiotic schemes, and they'll be laughed off. Not Bill Gates. We give creedence to his opinions based solely on the fatness of his wallet.

 

The danger lies in us worshipping money and deifying those who have lots of it. They are just as fallible as we normal folks are, but they can afford bigger screwups than we can.

[jackson33]

On Paris Hilton, think she represents a diversion from reality. I'll hold this opinion when it comes to any achiever in the entertainment field, as personally I find very little intelligence and a great deal on money. By the way this means sports as well...

 

On the Bill Gates, Warren Buffet types, in general I agree their efforts are somewhat misguided. I do understand they KNOW, what efforts they make will get the highest percentage of cash into the objective program. This that government, generally will throw money at an issue, which the actual program may receive very little of the money and in some cases, none ever gets to the people or program itself. On these two and their 165 Billion Dollar Charitable Trust Fund, knowing its based on avoiding income taxes, the money would be better spent on factories, homes, infrastructure and opportunity in the areas they have chosen to help.

 

Now in general, I don't think WE, listen to money over substance. The folks that have spoken and acted with this substance are destined to achieve from the start and many if not most will acquire money, notability and the creditability which deserves our attention.

[TheFaithfulStone]

She's the heiress of the vast Hilton empire, yet she's as thick as a brick upstairs.

 

Is she? I've come to the conclusion that Paris Hilton isn't an idiot, but she plays one on TV.

 

She's parlayed -- what, exactly? -- into rich and powerful in her own right. Basically she's created money out of thin air by being (or pretending to be) stupid.

 

It helped that she had some start-up capital in the form of Daddy's Dollars, but I don't think she's as dumb as she appears. At least, not when it comes to self-promotion. That's a pretty important skill I'd say.

 

TFS

[Buffy]

She's the heiress of the vast Hilton empire, yet she's as thick as a brick upstairs.

Is she? I've come to the conclusion that Paris Hilton isn't an idiot, but she plays one on TV.

 

She's parlayed -- what, exactly? -- into rich and powerful in her own right. Basically she's created money out of thin air by being (or pretending to be) stupid.

 

It helped that she had some start-up capital in the form of Daddy's Dollars, but I don't think she's as dumb as she appears. At least, not when it comes to self-promotion. That's a pretty important skill I'd say.

I'm not convinced by this argument. I know a few people like Paris, and the combination of sheer "look-at-me-now" ego with the papar-press's obsession with the rich and the unbelievable number of paparazzo in LA/NYC, supported by *great* PR flacks like Elliot Mintz (although since he resigned, she's picked up another super one that got her onto Larry King the other night) makes someone like Paris inevitable.

 

The line about her "Stupid Girl" act being just that happened just after Elliot quit and her new PR firm came along. Its not a bad play, but it will depend on how she holds up in public: I watched a bit of Larry King and was not impressed.

 

The data point I'd emphasize is the size of her pocket book. Only Athina Onassis and the Olsen twins are in the same monetary class, and they really actually avoid the press, but are covered as much as the pappar-press can get of them. Throw in Paris' obsession with being the center of attention and you have a perfect storm.

 

Plus you need to be Sarah Silverman to really be able to fake dumb.

 

Unbridled ambition will get you a long way all by itself...

 

And your wise men don't know how it feels to be, ;)

Buffy