Birthright is defined asa 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 politicalleaders 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 tofind away to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.[/align][/align]
"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.[/align][/align][/align]
Sounds like a lot of jealousy to me. Do some have advantages over others? Sure, life"™s not fair. Does one"™s birthright guarantee where one will end up later on in life? Nope. Could we gain by eliminating the benefits our leaders have given themselves? You bet. We need to start a whole new thread. Should we have a say what private corporation pays it"™s CEO? No, only if you own a piece of stock in that corporation.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
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 politicalleaders are not intelligent.
You made a massive (and completely inappropriate)leap in your logic here. In order for this leap to work, you simply ASSUME that one doesn't have to be intelligent in order to inherit wealth and, therefore, most people who inherit wealth are not intelligent.
Quote:
They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright.
Quote:
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 tofind away to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.
[/align]Are you suggesting that if I manage to accumulate a bit of wealth during my lifetime, that I shouldn't be able to leave it to my son? Because if that's what you think, I'll answer with a resounding "up yours, buddy". If I should happen to accumulate wealth, it's not your, or society's business who I leave it to.
[/align]
Quote:
"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.
I would bet that most corporate executives (of large publicly held companies) are notin that positionbecause they inherited it.
Ever heard of the term "a fool and his money soon depart?"
In most cases, fools do not become execs. The last thing you want in the leadership of a company is one who lacks "intelligence," as you put it.
This is especially important if you are the common factory worker, and your livelihood depends greatly on the competenceinleadership of your company.
That is why they are paid so much.
Enron is a better example of whyit's best tohave the most talented and honest Executive your company can afford.
C. Davis
__________________ Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
JOEBIALEK: Just to show how ridiculous your underlying hypothesis is...
You mentioned Enron. Here's a little background on Enron's former CEO, Ken Lay:
Quote:
Kenneth Lay was born into a poor family in Tyrone, Missouri. When he was a child Ken delivered newspapers and mowed lawns and cemeteries. His father, Omer, was a Baptist preacher and some-time tractor salesman. Early on he moved to Columbia, Missouri and attended David H. Hickman High School and the University of Missouri where he studied economics. He served as president of the Zeta Phi chapter of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity at the University of Missouri. He obtained his doctorate in economics at University of Houston in 1970 and went to work at Exxon Mobil Corp. predecessor Humble Oil & Refining upon graduation.
Lay worked in the early "˜70s as a federal energy regulator. He then became undersecretary for the Department of the Interior before he returned to the business world as an executive at Florida Gas. By the time of the Reagan administration, when energy was deregulated, Lay was already an energy company executive and he took advantage of the new climate when Omaha-based Internorth bought his company Houston Natural Gas and changed the name to Enron in 1985. The much larger, better capitalized and more diversified Internorth was then used as an asset to propel his efforts at Enron.
So, as you can see... He was born poor. Thus, his ascension to the rank of CEO was not a matter of birthright. Further based on your assumptions since he was not an heir (who are all stupid according to you), he must have been "intelligent", and therefore, he was the perfect guy to have runnning the company. BUT... What happened to Enron? Oh. That's right. Your "intelligent" person, who was born poor and worked his way to the top, got caught with his hand in the till and bankrupted the company.
By the way, C. Davis... The saying is "afool and his money are soon parted."
JOEBIALEK: You have been beat up about every possible way on this thread. Regrettably, I am going to pile on, but I am going to try to be pleasant and not insulting. Also, I'll try to sympathize with you just a little.
Economics is not a democracy. The leadership of corporations is not something the public has any legitimate choice in, other than through voting their shares in the company, if they happen to own any. And of course, their votes are weighted by their proporational share in the company. My vote of 10 shares isn't going to perturb the ultimate election of officers in a company with 1,000,000,000 shares outstanding.
Your ultimate conclusion deviated a little bit from your original premise. You said that good looks, intelligence, and wealth are largely inherited. But then you said there was no linkage between inherited wealth and intelligence. I wouldn't count on establishing a statistical relationship between low intelligence and established family wealth.
It may be that poor business decisions have less to do with low intelligence than some other failing, such as an excess of pride, a vulnerability to enjoy and listen to the psychophantic blandishments of one's lackeys. This may be a moral character issue rather than intelligence. I'm just speculating, I'm not expertin this territory.
Finally, the promised sympathy. I too feel that CEOs are too highly compensated. I don't buy that the only way to find good CEO help is to pay them $50 M. I'm guessing you could find good help for $25 M. In fact, I'm betting you could find good CEOs for less than $25 M. The suggestion that you can't get good help for less is BS. It is a crap shoot, to some extent, how a CEO is going to perform. Why risk $50 M on a "proven performer" who may be just as likely to strike out and whiff as a hungry, hard charging unproven guy who has the right credentials and background? Maybe the reason why the boards of corporations go for the high dollar, proven quantities has more to do with the directors wanting to take a safe path or to shore up their own interests and agendas in other public stock companies where perhaps they are CEOs or they sit as a director with the CEO? It is an incestuous community. Of at least it seems so to an outsider like me. So I'm with you on the excessive pay for CEOs issue. But it leadership of corporations is not a democracy.
birthright
