Birthright
JOEBIALEK
Posts: 9
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.
"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.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i remember starting a thread about the 419:1 issue and was shocked to see ppl defend it so...ppl don't like talking about these things you mentioned in your post b/c it shatters their image that there's a level playing field and equal opportunity throughout the country and there's just not, not even close. it comes down to who you know, what you were born into....
and not only should enron, and other corporate crooks, get longer sentences, the ppl who aided them...like citigroup and arthur anderson...just pay a fine or settlement, if that....
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Hahaha
That's a fallacy and it's not what he means in that statement. Just because intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth does not mean that most wealthy people are unintelligent. It means there is no causal relationship between being intelligent and being wealthy. Otherwise the only rich people would be the people with the highest IQs.
My oh my.
-Enoch Powell
I don't think anyone is trying to imply that most wealthy people are unintelligent. What is being said is that many wealthy people have been wealthy since birth. Therefore, they have had only to maintain, as opposed to obtain their status. It's simply a reminder that the notion that we are all born with the same opportunity to become President and CEO is not a black and white as we sometimes paint it to be. It also puts forth the idea that the most powerful people in our culture may not have gotten there by being the best/brightest/most hardworking. Case in point (and I know some of you are sick of the bashing, but he is a good example): does anyone, even his most loyal supporters, really believe Bush would be president had he been born into the middle class?
Just because someone with wealth obtained via birthright is intelligent does not make that person the most qualified or equipped to hold the most important . At any rate, this is not about wealthy people lacking intelligence. It is not from some smelly, weed-smoking hippie who only gets a job when his VW van needs repair and is trying to say "rich people are morons."