Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by reaperman 822 days ago
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....
1 comments
JumpCrisscross 821 days ago
> 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.

link
reaperman 821 days ago
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.
link
JumpCrisscross 821 days ago
> 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"

You’re still confusing wealth with power. Plenty of people who never need work again are not elites, e.g. Steve Wozniak. And plenty of elites don’t have enough saved to survive extended periods of not working, e.g. many in television or politics.

> 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

Larry Summers.

They don’t wield wealth as power. They wield influence. Same as how a U.S. Senator need not be wealthy to be powerful; if anything, they wield their power to produce wealth.

link