I don’t know who the author considers “elite”, but I do consider News very marginal to me already (for several years actually). To keep the analogy, Art is much more important to me than News.
But I do consider myself in the elite of my country, considering wealth and education. I am not a millionaire, but my monthly income put me in the top 5%. I only have a bachelor degree, but that also puts me in the top 20%. Is that the elite they meant?
Without diminishing your achievements, the term 'elite' often refers to individuals possessing substantial societal influence, through wealth or similar channels.
That’s an unreasonably narrow definition of “elite” for any purpose which you’d want to talk about the elite. The top 0.01% depend on armies of top 5% people. The incomes of people at the 95th percentile have continued to grow at consistent rates throughout the 20th century, while the median income stagnated: https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-pos....
For example, I’m not in the 0.01%, but as a corporate attorney I make multiples of what I would make in Europe. Is that because American lawyers are smarter? No. It’s because the sheer profitability of American companies means they have a ton of money to fight legal battles with each other. The same is true for everyone from accountants to software engineers. Why are Silicon Valley salaries so high? Because Google and Facebook have profit margins comparable to Standard Oil back in the day.
And whether they think about it or not, all of these people have a strong incentive to maintain the system that enables them to capture an outsized share of the economy. Thus, properly defined, the elites include the ordinary wealthy whose livelihoods are intertwined with those of the super wealthy. In Scandinavian countries, the top tax bracket starts around 1.5x the median income. I think that’s a pretty fair definition of “elite”—these are people who would be worse off under a more equitable system.
The term also properly includes the educational elites who staff various bureaucracies and organizations that have high degrees of social influence. If you look at the folks who exercise decision making authority over the lives of ordinary people (everyone from judges to regulators), they overwhelmingly come from a handful of elite schools. DOJ attorneys might not be rich, but they went to school with and are friends with the CEOs and hedge fund guys. The same is true for journalists at national-level outfits like the New York Times.
the term 'elite' often refers to individuals possessing substantial societal influence, through wealth or similar channels
It’s used variously. In terms of elite overproduction, it’s anyone with an education. In terms of social policy, it’s anyone with philanthropic wealth; top 1% is easily in this category. Top 5%, depending on one’s community.
Comments
I don’t know who the author considers “elite”, but I do consider News very marginal to me already (for several years actually). To keep the analogy, Art is much more important to me than News.
But I do consider myself in the elite of my country, considering wealth and education. I am not a millionaire, but my monthly income put me in the top 5%. I only have a bachelor degree, but that also puts me in the top 20%. Is that the elite they meant?
Depends on who the person saying "elite"
In the UK it means anyone a speaker doesn't like. For example:
o Someone who lives in london
o Someone who went to university (50% of 18 years olds in 2017 went to uni)
o Someone who has expressed an opinion on brexit (either way)
o Someone who _doesn't_ vote
o Anyone with a house
the list goes on
Without diminishing your achievements, the term 'elite' often refers to individuals possessing substantial societal influence, through wealth or similar channels.
This usually means the top 0.01%.
That’s an unreasonably narrow definition of “elite” for any purpose which you’d want to talk about the elite. The top 0.01% depend on armies of top 5% people. The incomes of people at the 95th percentile have continued to grow at consistent rates throughout the 20th century, while the median income stagnated: https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-pos....
For example, I’m not in the 0.01%, but as a corporate attorney I make multiples of what I would make in Europe. Is that because American lawyers are smarter? No. It’s because the sheer profitability of American companies means they have a ton of money to fight legal battles with each other. The same is true for everyone from accountants to software engineers. Why are Silicon Valley salaries so high? Because Google and Facebook have profit margins comparable to Standard Oil back in the day.
And whether they think about it or not, all of these people have a strong incentive to maintain the system that enables them to capture an outsized share of the economy. Thus, properly defined, the elites include the ordinary wealthy whose livelihoods are intertwined with those of the super wealthy. In Scandinavian countries, the top tax bracket starts around 1.5x the median income. I think that’s a pretty fair definition of “elite”—these are people who would be worse off under a more equitable system.
The term also properly includes the educational elites who staff various bureaucracies and organizations that have high degrees of social influence. If you look at the folks who exercise decision making authority over the lives of ordinary people (everyone from judges to regulators), they overwhelmingly come from a handful of elite schools. DOJ attorneys might not be rich, but they went to school with and are friends with the CEOs and hedge fund guys. The same is true for journalists at national-level outfits like the New York Times.
It’s used variously. In terms of elite overproduction, it’s anyone with an education. In terms of social policy, it’s anyone with philanthropic wealth; top 1% is easily in this category. Top 5%, depending on one’s community.