No Subject

The Washington Post article by Phil Galewitz, "Forbes 400 Net Worth Tops $1 
Trillion," is indicative of the robber-baron era, or financial Golden Age 
(see Arrighi, 1995) in which we live.  But for my students reading this 
information, I question the misleading statement that:

"Nearly 40 percent of the list, or 149 members, got rich the easy way: They 
inherited some or all of their wealth. Their average net worth was $2.5 
billion. The 251 members who made it rich on their own had an average net 
worth of $2.7 billion."

This seems to suggest that the 251 who allegedly got rich "on their own" 
started off as poor, or middle class.  I bet further inquiry would show 
that they came from at least upper middle class households, some with 
parents who are alumni of a prestigious university, and that their college 
years were paid by their parents or someone else -- that is, they didn't 
work their way through college.

And maybe it's so elementary it need not be mentioned, but no one accumu  
lates wealth "on their own."  The norms of modern ideology persist.

I think it would be useful to contrast the wealth of the Forbes 400 (and 
the Fortune 500) as a percentage of the world-economy.  This exercise would 
suggest that "core" is becoming less of "place" than a diaspora (though, on 
the other hand, it still holds true that the cadres (labor aristocracy) are 
still concentrated in certain states as a result of the truncation of the 
labor market.)

elson

Elson E. Boles
Assistant Professor, (historical) Sociology
University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma
(405) 224-6717 ex. 243
facbolese@usao.edu
elson@azu-boles.net