Brains bring ever larger rewards

"As technology advances, the rewards to cleverness increase. Computers have hugely increased the availability of information, raising the demand for those sharp enough to make sense of it. In 1991 the average wage for a male American worker with a bachelor’s degree was 2.5 times that of a high-school drop-out; now the ratio is 3. Cognitive skills are at a premium, and they are unevenly distributed."

This is the most interesting paragraph, in my view, and this kind of competition will only get more intense.

Napoleon I. once expropriated a rich man. It took him one year to become as rich as before. Money is what you know and who knows what you know or what you may know. But it doesn't end here, as Hobbes assumed (your worth is what your power might be worth to others). If you have knowledge on the knowledge of others of you, you instead of the market set your price to others. Geld ist Geist. The stupid are bound to be poor.

The vast majority of stupid people are that way because of the failure of the education system to address their particular learning needs when in school. At the moment teaching styles are the same for all children. And children who do not focus are not helped to focus. This leads to lack of intelligence in adulthood.

Otherwise if it is purely genetic and only intelligent people gave birth to intelligent children then the human race would go into some kind of reverse evolution.

There needs to be a revolution in educational standards. We are still teaching kids the same way after hundreds of years. I prospered despite the education system (not because of it). Many of my peers were not so fortunate.

Maybe I'm just a little tiered over here, or else not destined for preordained success. But would anyone be good enough to clarify the syllogism in the last paragraph?

"The cost of higher education has contributed to plummeting birth rates among pushy parents in other rich countries, too. Greens may rejoice at anything that curbs population growth, but the implications of these trends are troubling. Demography makes it harder for people who start at the bottom of the ladder to climb up it. And that has political consequences."

I don't quite understand how the costs of higher education and plummeting birth rates for the elite leads to 'demography making it harder for people who start at the bottom of the ladder to climb up'. Even though I see the merit of each of the sentences in itself, I fail to see any causation. So as a final conclusion it's a bit frustrating.

- I agree, teaching/education needs to be re-designed & improved.

- More accurate information needs to be make available and shared...especially information relating to the best practices of doing things...accepting that justice and fairness is applied.

- More control immmigration should be encouraged & allowed.

- Gini Coe. should be made(by policy and Law) to trend towards zero.

etc

I hearken to a quote attributed to Albert Einstein: Education is that which remains when one has forgotten everything learned in school." And then another attributed to Amadeus Mozart: Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.

Both men in possession of extraordinary cognitive abilities and passion as the driving "life force" in their existence agreed on one thing: Education (the kind you go to school for) is overrated as a means to the end of achievements.

It does seem to me the only thing a fromal education is good for is enabling the conditions to develop the mind. Sometimes, and that may even be a case of more often than not, the enabling is accomplished by negative stimuli. History abounds with exmaples of flunk-outs who do better than thier incurious and unquestioning peers.

It seems to me as well that educational aside, high cognitive abilities have litte to do with the accruel of wealth. There a love for wealth as a test of one's ability to achieve is equally important.

But of course if one is stupid to begin with, the world, as we know it, is a cruel place. But then there is the saying: No brain; no pain.

I read the article more carefully a second time and realize my previous post was quite off the subject. Apologies. Got carried away with my spiel about the relationships between cognitive abilites, education and the attainment of wealth.

Upward mobility is not nearly so important as making sure that those in the bottom half to three-quarters can lead happy, fulfilling lives. That is where we are falling down.

Good article. A the son of an uneducated farm worker, born during the Great Depression in western Canada, I was fortunate to have two older sisters (10 and 12 years older) who instilled in me a great desire and love of learning. I was the first child of the four to graduate high school with a university entrance qualification, as a result of MY choices of courses! I obtained two post graduate degrees and three professional designations. At 39 I discovered by accident that my IQ was in the top 1%. Today I am long retired, and happily divorced, and in that Swiss bank group that is worth in excess of $1 million. That would not be possible in any socialistic country, unless my parents were staunch Communists and survived various purges. Democracy is the answer, as usual.

@Assuie7

"The vast majority of stupid people are that way because of the failure of the education system to address their particular learning needs when in school"

No, the majority of stupid people are that way because they CHOOSE to be. Yes, some simply lack the natural mental capacity. However, most are simply too lazy to put out the effort to learn. They prefer to just sit around watching tv, playing video games, or partying. They are told plenty of times that education leads to financial success and a better lifestyle, but they're too lazy to put out the work - hard work takes sacrifice and is unpleasant, but the rewards you get down the line are more than worth it.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum, where people try to blame money for why they make bad choices regarding their education. Again, this is simply an excuse to be lazy - there's plenty of financial aid, scholarships for good students (especially low income ones), and of course student loans. I've known just as many kids from poor households with parents without a college degree who went to college as I did people with parents who made more money and had gone to college.

Life is all about choices. Each person is responsible for their choices, not anyone else.

"School reform helps, but cannot level the playing field." From a paper that continually promotes school reform, this is quite an admission. Better keep it this special report than in any of your leaders.

I must be one of the more stupid, because I don't understand that last paragraph either.

To "Marcus Tullius" who wrote: "Money is what you know and who knows what you know or what you may know." That's really interesting. I'd love to read more on how to manipulate and profit from other people's perception of my talents (or lack of them).

"Parents who graduated from university are far more likely than non-graduates to raise children who also earn degrees. This is true in all countries, but more so in America and France than in Israel, Finland or South Korea, according to the OECD."

While this is obviously at least partially genetic, this is likely also caused by "dynasties" in colleges and universities; that is, if a child's parents attended that university, the university is far more likely to accept their children, even if the children are less successful.

That's obviously pretty difficult to prove, though.

@Krop

"While this is obviously at least partially genetic, this is likely also caused by "dynasties" in colleges and universities; that is, if a child's parents attended that university, the university is far more likely to accept their children, even if the children are less successful."

While that may be true for a handful of universities and a minority of extremely wealthy families, it's not true for the majority of students. I don't know a single person who went to the same college that either of their parents did, nor do I know anyone who's parents have ever donated a significant amount of money to a their alma matter.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are some children of wealthy and famous families (Kennedy, Bush, etc) that only got into the university they did (as well as graduated) due to the large amounts of money that their families had donated over the year and the concern that if their child was declines or failed that the school would lose that money. But the fact of the matter is that these things do not happen for the majority of university / college students, and thus do not explain why children of college graduates are more likely to go to college. The better explanation is that parents who went to college value education more than parents who didn't and thus are more likely to push their children harder to do well in school and promote them going to college. I'm sure you know someone (or a friend of a friend) who teaches high school or middle school. Talk to them sometime and ask them about how whether or not a parent has a degree effects (on average) how they value their child's performance in school.

I do tend to believe education on its own may push one's success a few inches further up the social/economical ladder. I have, however, a very deep distrust as to how much education can really cause one's distinguished success. I would say education is overrated as a mechanism of advancing one´s success. It is useful, but it is far from being the most important factor. Moreover, for the really brilliant individuals, formal education is probably a hindrance and a waste of time.

People who are vastly more successful than the average Joe Doe are so because they are hardwired differently than the remaining herd.

Something makes them be more focused, more capable of separating what is important from what is not that important. Education helps..., but to a certain extent.

Throughout history, examples abound of people who were incredibly succesful, then went bankrupt and shortly after were, once again, enoumously successful.

I guess the anecdote regarding Napoleon I, brought by Marcus Tullius is the example of what I wanted to say.

Success is probably resulting from being hardwired different, from getting an enormous kick out of working, from being able to correctly assess risks and gains thereof and from fearlessness.

@jfcarli:

You wrote: Success is probably resulting from being hardwired different, from getting an enormous kick out of working, from being able to correctly assess risks and gains thereof and from fearlessness.

Hardwiring is without a doubt the beginning part of the equation. It is the sine qua non. Training to get to the stage of knowing, and then doing, which is a process that requires dedication, discipline and hard work, are all elements in the equation of success. The fearlessness you speak of has other names such as “courage”, “passion” - in any case, they are just words. I think the young boy who successfully got to the top of Mount Everest can explain the experience of doing what one loves best.

The original article was about “The Cognitive Elite”, the most updated face of classism in our yet-revised Brave New World. It is classism because some people just never had the opportunity of a good education where they can learn how to fully develop their hardwiring and attain the enabling softwiring.

Whether the measure of class is the presence or absence of divine right or some other forms of recognized pedigree, the same “Basic Inequality” will always remain as an inherent feature in human life.

"seems unfair to take money from those who have worked hard and give it to those who have not". Between the mega-rich and the execrably poor, are those who also work hard but are stuck on meagre wages due to the exploitative nature of capitalism.

There is an old song sung by JP Chandrababu a Tamil satirist which transalates to "If you are intelligent it does'nt mean you are rich, and if you are rich it does'nt meant you are intelligent". If you look at the intelligent people who stand on top of the rich pile. You will notice that they are not in anyway brilliant compared to others who shared the same levels of education and drive. What makes them different and eventually the winners financially is their sheer ruthlessness.
They are all led by logic and cold blooded in the way they make sure that their ideas saw financial success. Bill Gates was a ruthless lawyer rather than a far looking technology seer, Michael Dell a ruthless trader rather than a supply chain guru, Mark Zuckerberg (well we all know about him). Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Phil Knight, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch are all ruthless and big bullys.
The majority if not all the top managers who make big financial rewards often even when they fail in their tasks, invaribly reach their position because they are ruthless and hit their rivals hard both internally (especially internal) and externally and keep hitting them hard. They respect what is on paper more than the principle and where in a weak position on paper then reach out to using ethics to justify an escape plan. Often ethics is only used to chide their rivals and bully staff rather than guiding their individual actions.
Mining billionaires of which we have several in the recent years all may do a lot of charity but the lot of miners who work for them in terms of salaries and conditions they often work in are sub human if not outright dangerous. Not to mention the environmental degradation and corruption that goes with it.
So education helps yes, a rich Daddy great but individual ability to bully and get your way forward trumps above in the quest to be rich. Feelings of guilt is for the weak. That is the capitalist way.

@audiomated
"Between the mega-rich and the execrably poor, are those who also work hard but are stuck on meagre wages due to the exploitative nature of capitalism."

There is no "exploitative nature of capitalism". The nature of capitalism is that you get paid equal to what you have to offer. If you have nothing to offer, then you won't get paid much (if anything). Being alive does NOT entitle you to riches. I've spent plenty of years working minimum wage jobs and I can tell you that while it may take effort, there's no skill involved. Literally a trained monkey could do the job. There are always a countless supply of other unskilled workers ready to take your place. If you want to earn more money, you have to work and develop useful skills to earn it.

Their concept of hunter gatherers sharing food leaves a lot to be desired in the analysis. Hunter gatherers may have shared food among the group, but if you were too old or too weak to help, they didn't drag you along forever. Survival of the fittest wasn't just a line evolutionists use for fun, it's how we survived to today.

Sadly, the notion of rising inequality is routinely misused by politicians (particularly in the UK) to justify helping "smart kids" break their cycle of poverty. This just makes the world skewed in favour of the "cognitive elite" at the expense of everyone else. Using the height analogy, if our earning capacity was based on height rather than intellect, we would be disgusted that only "tall" people are considered worthy. But somehow drawing inequality along meritocratic lines makes it alright - to those elite in government in any case. Sure, it's better than Aristocracy and Nepotism, but it is by no means fair, and we need to stop justifying our own elitist intellectual positions by claiming it to be so.