What part is of this bioligical??? There's now 6.5 BILLION folks of the planet...Fully a THIRD of those are unable to meet basic daily needs... The hoarders of resources among us are just trying to party like it's 1999 until the crash comes and that looks like it will happen in this generation or the next...Either we shift our current paradigm to meet the needs of everyone including the entire planet or the correction comes at at a horrible price...It's good to be a lemming heading toward the cliff. Note to Billionares...There is no escape. LOL

William Hazen

"Every one has a plan...Until you hit them in the mouth." Mike Tyson

What happened to this view from Krugman, "it's OK to make money as long as it's not based on exploiting insider status, and as long as you pay your proper share of taxes."? 

Or, "My fee for overseas talks was usually $40-50K"

Or, "I won't tell you my salary at either Princeton or the Times. But they are both very nice. Combined with royalties on my textbook with Maury Obstfeld, International Economics, which is in its 6th edition - it's the leading textbook in the field - and my wife's salary (she also teaches at Princeton), I am definitely comfortable."

but he says since taking his job at NYT, "I do very little paid speaking now, and no consulting, because the New York Times has quite strict rules: basically I can only get paid for speaking to nonprofits that have no possible interest in influencing the content of the column. .  .it meant that I took a substantial income cut to work for the Times."

http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/Strangelove.html

So I've no idea what he gets paid at either the Times or at Princeton, but I'd say it's safe to assume that its $250K each for he and his wife as full professors, plus his column with the Times, plus the royalties on his books.  He's clearly in the top 1% already, and if he quits his job at the Times, he'll be comfortably in the top 0.1%.  From where, exactly, is his Power derived?

And your point is?

It's no accident that the vast majority of presidents came from the upper class - that's where the power is.

I have to assume you mean "born into" otherwise your point is blown away.

20th Century Presidents from the Upper Class:

Bush II - yes

Clinton - no

Bush I - yes

Reagan - no

Carter - no

Ford - no

Nixon - no

Johnson - no

Kennedy - yes

Eisenhower - no

Trumann - no

F. Roosevelt - yes

Hoover - no

Coolidge - no

Harding - yes

Wilson - yes

Taft - yes

T. Roosevelt - yes

That's 8 out of 18.

With very few exceptions, Presidents have come from the ranks of the very rich ever since U.S. Grant. Money rules because the people with the money get to make the rules. Sure, they will invite you to their parties and will be nice to you, but you are fooling yourself (and obviously you are) if you think your good education puts you in their class, at least in their minds.

And you derived this list from?...  And you define upper class as?...

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that their are 2 classes: those who have lots of money (enough to live in a house with ten times more space than they really need) and those who don't. Every President since U.S. Grant is in group 1. We're reduced to arguing about how rich do you have to be to be rich, but I promise that it's way above what 99% of Americans have.

Dr. Krugman complains about the Oligarchy of which he's a member.  Both he and Dr. Sawicky imply that the only way in is through power and privilege.  Yet I don't think (although I don't know) that Dr. Krugman was born into his current income status, so instead of complaining about it, why doesn't he just write about the secrets of entry?  After all, as he so aptly points out, it couldn't possibly be merit. 

Dr. Sawicky states, "Privilege derives from wealth, race, and gender.  It biases decisions in college admissions. . ."   I was of the belief that SCOTUS upheld minority racial-status being used as a positive factor in college admissions, making the process less meritorious than the complaintants sought - and moving college admissions in the direction I assume Dr. Sawicky feels is appropriate. 

There are a lot of things to unpack in Max's post (I would say Krugman's column, but I can't read it).  First things first, I would start by saying that the single biggest development in the meritocracy myth is statistical.  The Economist states it succinctly:

A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.

 

The past couple of decades have seen a huge increase in inequality in America. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, argues that between 1979 and 2000 the real income of households in the lowest fifth (the bottom 20% of earners) grew by 6.4%, while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%—and that of the top 0.1% or 0.01% grew even faster. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth.

This is pure sociology/anthropology.  While the meritocracy myth is certainly bandied about in politics, I think it's important to clearly state the undisputed, scientific numbers.  Having convincingly shown that the meritrocracy myth is, in fact, a myth, you can move onto the next part of the argument, which focuses on addressing the problem.

The second point I'd quibble with is Max's attack on "education as the solution."  I hate to break it to you, Max, but spending money on education is the only solution we've got right now.  Short of large scale social upheaval, the "upper class" is not going give up power anytime soon.  And considering the pathetic amount of money this country spends on education, I think it's a bit premature to say spending more on education won't make a difference.  The only thing we do know is that inequality is accelerating and our educational system sucks.  So why not fix the second problem as best we can?  Maybe it will help.

Next, from a rhetorical perspective, I don't think we want to lump race, gender, and wealth together in our analyis of the meritocracy myth.  Sadly, the Republican Party has successfully tainted any policy prescription designed to fix racial or gender inequality as "liberal."  Joe Sixpack will be more supportive if the issue is framed as one of wealth - rich folks cutting the line based on privelege. 

Finally, I would say that the meritocracy myth discussion ties in nicely with the Republican corruption story.  One thing Americans hate is the notion of people getting a free ride.  In fact, blind opposition to "free rides" for minorities is one of the strongest pillars of modern conservatism.  If a connection can be built between the free rides Republicans are handing out in Washington and the free rides rich people get throughout the country, you might have something.

Link to a credible source calling the study into question and I will consider this point.  Otherwise, it sounds like GOP spin.

There is a difference between the rich and the super-rich. Quite a few people can work themselves into the rich class by brains, luck, skill or something else. Let's say Krugman did it by brains. There are sports figures who have done it by skill who lack any sort of credible advanced education.

The super rich are something else. The number of people entering that class in any generation is a handful. In the US it has been been the likes of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Ted Turner (for a while) and George Soros. So call it 100. A hundred out of 300 million is not really good odds. The rest of the super rich are family dynasties like the Bushes and the Waltons. They have influenced the tax and inheritance laws over the past forty years so that there is almost no way they can be dislodged from their positions of wealth and power. The last remaining tool for inter-generational wealth equalization has just been removed by the abolition of the estate tax. Kevin Philips has made the rise of a permanent oligarchy his personal crusade. Read his latest books for the gory details.

Coincidentally, I just posted an entry on TPMcafe about wealth inequality which you may be interested in:

Wealth (re)Distribution 

The premise is that gross inequality is unwise for several reasons including moral and economic efficency. There is a fair amount of libertarian objection to my posting as well in the discussion.

--- Policies not Politics
          Daily Landscape

=== Yes, but aren't these things a function of wealth?  How many poor kids go to fancy schools, rub elbows with CEO's, and maintain a rolodex of connected contacts after school? ===

A fair number, actually.  Merit scholarships, donchaknow.  It just doesn't get them much in the long run.

That is the reason behind the very high list prices at the top tier universities.  The well-off just write a check.  The poor get scholarships, but no invitations to dine at Daddy's summer home (the men anyway).  It is those in between, the upper-middle and middle-middle class, who might have a claim to upward mobility who are screened out of the elite schools.

And I don't think that is a coincidence.

sPh 

Clay, what exactly is your point? That we don't elect people who haven't been great successes to the Presidency? By that criterion, even Grant doesn't make your grade. While he didn't have much money, he did kind of succeed at that Civil War thing.

And what do you expect? That people will vote for the failed and mediocre? No one is a plausible candidate who hasn't materially succeeded in American life. That's not going to change.

But I won't deny that a lot of these guys were born on third base. Eight of eighteen is misleading, since Ford and Truman were not nominated and elected in the typical fashion, and I doubt either would have had a chance of becoming President otherwise. So call it ten out of sixteen who had huge advantages from their backgrounds.

Sorry, had a typo in my post leading to imprecise language - 20% of households does represent 20% of households, just not 20% of people. 

Thomas Sowell has written on this topic many times, here is one link:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020700.asp 

Would it be simply too much to ask for the most obvious info of all on the issue of whether and how much this represents an oligarchy -- namely, who the hell ARE these people in the top 1%, or .1%, or .01%?

My guess is that a large (and perhaps getting larger) number of these people are high level management in corporations -- which WOULD suggest some kind of oligarchy in which those in power get to decide their own level of compensation.

But is this true? Only real data might tell us that -- so where and what might it be? 

The ways to wealth are numerous, but they all include knowing the right people to go to, either to pitch a business proposition or to get an introduction. Knowing the right people either comes from your family and friends or through connections made as you grow, while attending college, mostly.

The most significant effect of affirmative-action student enrollment was the opportunity for students to both compete at a high level and to make friends with the future movers and shakers. You still have to deliver, mostly (we'll excuse Bush from the discussion), but you'll never have a chance to deliver if you don't know anyone.

It stops when it is not needed. That particular program (or rather, the various versions of it) is at least in part an attempt to pay a debt to a particular population that was greviously injured by legal policies and practices. Presumably a point comes when that injury is adequately redressed. Some think that time is now, and others feel it has not arrived.

Well, actually they've come from the upper class since the very beginning.  I might point out that I did not in any way imply that a good education is a means to the upper class.  It isn't.  It has nothing to do with going to good schools, and everything to do with going to the right schools.  As much as George Bush pretends to be a good ole boy from Texas, he is not.  He's a good ole boy from Andover and Yale.  It's the social equivelant of a British prime minister attending Eton and Oxford. 

Bill Gates may be the richest man in the U.S., but he's certainly not a member of the upper class now will he ever be, although his children's children probably will be.  Why?  Because it takes at least that many generations to be accepted to the right prep schools and colleges.  The Bush family isn't nearly as rich as Bill Gates, but without a doubt they're members of the upper class.  They go to the right schools, join the right clubs and know the right people.  It gives them access and access means power.

How about this?

Washington - yes

Adams - yes

Jefferson - yes

Madison - yes

Monroe - yes

Adams - yes

and off hand, Harrison, Tyler, Van Buren, Arthur, Cleveland, Polk, Buchanan, Hayes, Pierce, McKinley, Garfield, Taylor, Fillmore and with your eight that makes, what?  27?

The class system in this country is the elephant in the room.  For some reason Americans deny that there is any such thing in this country and if they do, they think it merely a product of wealth.  Yes, it takes money to move upward in class in this society, but once you have it, it then takes a concerted effort to maintain your position and enhance it.  Franklin Roosevelt is a good example of this - yes, he came from the upper class, but it enhanced his status when he married Eleanor Roosevelt, who came from a "better branch" of the Roosevelt family. JFK is another example - he may have had wealth, gone to Choate and Harvard, but he was still Irish catholic.  It wasn't until he married jackie Bouvier whose class status was enhanced by her mother's second marriage, that truly propelled him upward.