[barelyauser]

The mistake you make (and a lot of people also do) is to assume the purpose of the system is to somehow cater to your (the consumer) needs. The purpose of the system is to fulfill the needs of the elite (those who benefit from the system). Average people having a car is a thing because then people will be more productive. But make no mistake, if the rich don't get what they want FIRST then your whole economy goes into recession and what not.

[JumpCrisscross]

You’re conflating the rich and elite, which the nuance on which entire systems of government are built.

[barelyauser]

Can one achieve elite status without wealth?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Can one achieve elite status without wealth?

Absolutely. AOC became an elite before she became wealthy. Same for J. K. Rowling and most academics at the top of their fields.

[reaperman]

Essentially no academics are part of the upper (ruling) class, except the ones that were born into it (e.g. Jeffrey Laurie or Élisabeth Badinter), or those who moved into academia after retiring from their primary career (e.g. Hillary Clinton becoming a professor of practice at Columbia)[0]

0: https://president.columbia.edu/news/hillary-rodham-clinton-j....

[JumpCrisscross]

> no academics are part of the upper (ruling) class

Every one that achieves cultural relevance or an administrative post absolutely is. Some of those are born into it. Most are not.

[reaperman]

Can you give examples? I believe most of those would fall between "still needs to perform labor for a living" and "could live purely off of accrued capital, no longer needing to perform labor". But I don't know too many university presidents / deans / provosts who personally control enough wealth to have the power to change the direction of their society - they control truly large amounts of power only through their official appointments, and they themselves serve at the whims of those that rule them.

[jamesgreenleaf]

If the elite are defined as those who benefit from the system, then we are all the elite.