Asymmetrical Information

I don't really disagree with you, but I do think it's worth considering some related questions.

First, the state-run welfare agencies did, originally, evolve in a climate of social disapproval for those accepting their help. To my parent's generation, being on (any) welfare was shameful. That shamefulness went away as welfare rolls went up; probably a feedback loop there. In any case, these days nobody bats an eye at accepting the middle-class entitlements, and the only shame in accepting any help at all from the government is that it makes clear you are poor.

The question then becomes, can you expect any tax-supported agency to hold the line on shame if the surrounding culture does not? Perhaps you expect the private sponsoring organization to continue to impose its values on the agency; but once the old purse strings are cut (in favor of new taxpayer-funded ones), why should that be?

In other words, why do you expect private agencies to accept the money of the government but not its judgement-free methods? Won't essentially the same social forces that operate on the government welfare agencies operate similarly on the semi-private ones?

Or to put it the other way around, assume that we grant the idea that to prevent bad behavior, no help should be given out without "nagging". Why can't we have "our" government nag its dependents? Do we really need semi-private agencies to do this? Can we cut out the middleman here?

"You get corruption whenever other people's money is coercively redistributed and I don't know why Arnold thinks churches and NGOs will do worse than the agencies currently involved with such distribution, or worse than those organizations do currently."

I think Arnold's concern is that if tax money is routed through churches, the churches will become as corrupt as the government. His other point is that the government is inevitably going to be corrupt and terribly inefficient, so we should be trying to shrink the role of government, not expanding. And of course, that the Shrub is a betrayer of conservatism...

If the welfare state is here to stay, which it looks like it is, then perhaps one way to reduce its pernicious effects is to channel the money through nagging, paternalistic Church groups and NGOs.

But nagging paternalism would likely be forbidden by the conditions of the contract under which the government awards the money to the church group or NGO. The Mormons can be nagging and paternalistic because they don't have to answer to a 'higher authority'.

That's the goal, destroy the family.

Destroy the family, destroy the backbone of America.

Capitalism is hard, wouldn't you rather be taken care of?

If the welfare state is here to stay, which it looks like it is...

...until it collapses because of its inherent weaknesses. Then we'll have Soviet-style collectivist repression with a ruling clique of corrupt masters a la Castro until eventually society comes completely apart into Road Warrio-style anarchy, and then, hopefully, eventually a new generation of Washingtons, Franklins, Adamses, and Jeffersons arises.

France is already leading the way down.

The problem is that the free market rewards individualism, not family values. I'm a single male, and the last thing I want to do in our society today if I want to succeed is start being a father. Be single. Be flexible. Be able to re-train on a dime, change careers whenever necessary, follow opportunity anywhere, work 14-hour days . . . this is what a free-market rewards.

For a male, the way to succeed is to wear condoms, and avoid long-term relationships. For a female, easy access to abortion is critical; you sure don't want a little one around making it hard to weather those 6-month layoffs, or interfering with going back to school for that second degree when the first one becomes obsolete.

"The Mormons can be nagging and paternalistic because they don't have to answer to a 'higher authority'."

I take it you're not Mormon. :-)

Charles Murray's new book "In Our Hands" has some important reflections on this question from a libertarian / realist / moralist perspective.

The problem is that the free market rewards individualism, not family values.

Phil, you need to define "rewards". If your goal is to have the most toys when you die, then staying single and childless is certainly the way to go. In that sense, I suppose the free market encourages individualism.

But if you want to have a dozen kids, or live in a log cabin, or retire before you're forty, the free market will allow you to do that as efficiently as possible.

Most people want more out of life than a bigger paycheck; hence all these immature humans we pay school taxes for.

How's this for a higher synthesis: Instead of funneling gov't money into private charity, funnel more private money into private charity.

Create a new type of organization like a 501(c)3 whose mission is primarily social service, and allow people to take double write-offs for any donations. This would increase the funds available to private organizations acting on private principles. Planned Parenthood and the Church of LDS would benefit equally to the extent that they win people to their cause without compulsion.

Phil, do you really think staying single and childless is economically advantageous? I think the opposite may well be true.

Double-teaming has a whole range of benefits. One of the most important is moral support -- including love, consideration for others, and even nagging. Of my entering class in graduate school, ALL of the married men with children graduated faster than ANY of the singles. We got jobs faster, too. We had to!

Having a family is awfully expensive, but it seems to tame and channel passions that otherwise can become even more expensive.

Telford Work
I think you have causality confused. It's not that married males were successfull, task oriented, and hardworking, it's that successfull, task oriented, and hardworking males got married.

wkwillis: A person needs something to work for, and "he who dies with the most toys wins" is the attitude of someone who hasn't quite grown up. If that's all you are working for, eventually you'll get sick of it and chuck it all - probably when the job is at it's busiest... Your kids are something you have to work for.

U.S. to Renew Diplomatic Relations With Libya

this pretty craziness.........

I see Glenn Reynolds has an article at TCS Daily about the social costs of parenting. Some of this is cultural, but mandatory car seats are government-caused, obviously. The Parent Trap

Welfare is based on voters getting some free benefit -- Other People's Money, with no strings.

These handouts need to be replaced by hands, by loans which are paid back. Tax Loans (where your taxes plus a loan repayment both repay the loan) would reduce the demand for freebies.

But "moral neutrality", especially on sexual promiscuity, is the main reason the state supports irresponsible behavior.

Nagging and social shame could replace most laws -- but at the cost of the irresponsible feeling ... inferior. Which I actually think they are, in terms of irresponsible behavior.

'The problem is that the free market rewards individualism, not family values. I'm a single male, and the last thing I want to do in our society today if I want to succeed is start being a father. Be single. Be flexible. Be able to re-train on a dime, change careers whenever necessary, follow opportunity anywhere, work 14-hour days . . . this is what a free-market rewards.'

That's just immaturity. Let me tell you - there's no financial motivator like a mortgage to pay, college to save for, bills for dance class and baseball registration and having to make sure you've got dependable cars and so on. That's where family values and the free market come together like ticks on a dogs ear.

The standard response to nagging is whining. Unfortunately, at this point, the whiners are winning. Perhaps receipt of public money, through whatever channel, should be accompanied by the loss of one's voting privileges. That's what would happen in a strong family:

"Yes, Johnny, you can live here until you get a job. But you have to live by the house rules."

Robert,

That's a great idea - not being able to vote while accepting government assistance. I would add, assistance of any kind. Think of the possibilities...

"there's no financial motivator like a mortgage to pay, college to save for, bills for dance class and baseball registration and having to make sure you've got dependable cars and so on. That's where family values and the free market come together like ticks on a dogs ear."

Sure, you're motivated -- by sheer terror. I'd be scared too if I was in the situation a parent faces in a free market. All these independent single folks without family responsibilties able to outlearn, out-train and outwork me . . . no thanks.

The one contributor here argued that since the free market rewards individual achievement, that same market therefore, is inimical to one's having a family - the idea being that having a family would be a "drag" on individual economic achievement. While it seems tautologous, or blatantly repetitive, of me to mention that free markets are composed of individual human beings acting as economic agents, it is apparent that some people take a reductive view of these economic agents and thereby overlook elementary and fundamental aspects of their human nature. The motives and drives propelling the actions of an economic agent, while largely both individual and private, can nevertheless be largely captured by the notions of love, fame, wealth, and respect. This list of motives, while not exhaustive, is quite arguably, largely inclusive. Additionally, while many people may focus on exclusively on just one of these four motives, at least as many take a "Chinese Menu" approach to them, and select something from all four. My point here is that characterizing economic agents as being solely motivated by the pursuit of wealth is not only technically incorrect, but betrays a lack of common-sense understanding of human nature of a tragic proportion.

-Trentamj

The other piece of the Mormon welfare system is the kind of mentoring that Jane has blogged about before. When someone comes to you with a welfare request, you get them what they need, and you talk to them about getting a new job, but you also sit down with them and figure out a monthly budget.

Well, I'm a parent, and I work in the free market, and I've found it no more difficult to be successful than when I was single -- just different. At my firm, the associates are mostly single, the partners are mostly married, and you don't have to guess who makes the most money by far. A spouse can help you up the corporate ladder, and that's true of women too, but it's especially true of men. Past a certain age, as you move up, a straight (ie his single state isn't explained by the fact that he's gay) unmarried man is viewed a little bit differently -- not quite the solid citizen, perhaps, not quite the serious guy, not quite the trustworthy article. No one says anything, and people may not even be conscious that they are making these judgments, but I've seen it again and again. I've also seen messy divorces derail an executive or partner's career to some extent -- he may not lose his job or even make less money, but he's seen differently by his peers in some subtle way that's to his detriment.

Snob,

Your plan is very close to one I have had for years. Mine is to take charitable deductions out of the tax paid, not income. This means one dollar to charity is one dollar less in taxes. Presumably, we could shift government programs into private hands. All that would be required of the private charity is the current proof that they are indeed a charity. This would eliminate the inneficient funnelling through the fed that goes on with "compassionate conservatism", and it would eliminate the fed's ability to dictate the terms of the program.

The idea of non-voting for those on public assistance is not far in spirit from the Founding Fathers' notion of restricting the vote to propertied males and banning the income tax.

The general feeling was that unrestricted democracy would just lead to an expansion of the state, redistributive transfers, increased central power, and class warfare.

How foolish they were. What makes them think an income tax would undermine republican democracy...Oh wait??!!... Unh... Hmm....

'Sure, you're motivated -- by sheer terror. '

Nah - there's this thing called responsibility.

If the welfare state is here to stay, which it looks like it is, then perhaps one way to reduce its pernicious effects is to channel the money through nagging, paternalistic Church groups and NGOs.

This is only a good idea if you don't care about
the Church and the NGO.

Welfare is bad for the person who receives it.
Welfare for a Church or a NGO will ruin it.

Kling assert: Strong families and free markets go together. Morse argues that a combination of weak families and free markets is much less likely to persist.

As usuall his view of history only seems to include a very narrow slice -- as if there has never been anything but post WW II USA and Northern Europe. But if you look at the long run history and/or the nature of markets in most underdeveloped countries you find the exact opposite. Through most of history and in many countries most people could not trust markets, or others to be honest. Because people had a special more trusting relationship with their family memebers their business and other relationship suffered-- observe Tony Sporano.

So if you look at history or across the world you will find exactly the opposite to what Kling claims. It is exactly the developemtn of free and trustworthy markets that has generated a major decline in the role of the family in most peoples lives. Moreover, this decline in the role of the family is an intrinsic element in the development of free market capitalism that Kling professes to believe in. In study after study of why countries do not develop the inability of people to develop trusting and/or
business relationships with nonfamily memebers or strangers has been found to be a major drag on economic development.

In recent years people have turned to government to provide the security that family provided in more traditional cultures. But it is free market capitalism, not government that caused the original decline in the role of the family.

All people are trying to do is replace the security blanket that free market capitalism has destroyed.

"non voting for those on public assitance"
How about no voting or lobbying for those entities on public assistance!
Oil, Tobacco and Defense execs. disenfrachised!!! This really could balance the Federal budget in a hurry.

I'll stake out the middle-ground here. A la Virginia Postrel, one of the prominent virtues of market societies is their dynamism and fluidity. They change so quickly and by doing so, may expose all that they touch to radical change as well.

Because markets societies create so much change, some of the change probably will weaken the background institutions necessary to create a well-functioning market economy.
For instance, market economies create large urban areas, whose greater anonymity means less fear of getting a bad reputation as a partner-in-trade. This erodes trustworthiness and trust, which are key background institutions in a market economy.

Governments have provided trust-substitutes: contract law, court systems, criminal charges for fraud, etc. This seems to have worked well without major damage to people's freedoms.

I suspect the economic development that market economies create greatly erodes clans/extended families and mildly erodes nuclear families. If nothing else, a higher level of income makes us willing to sacrifice the economies of scale of larger families under one roof. (4 nuclear families vs. 1 nuclear family per dwelling, 2 parents vs. 1 parent per dwelling)

Markets (formal insurance) and Governments (social insurance) have provided substitutes for the informal insurance that happens in clans, extended families and nuclear families. By doing so, they have probably sped the decline of all three.

Informal, formal, and social insurance schemes all try to minimize moral hazard/free-riding. Mormon or government workfare, nagging by your mother-in-law or your welfare case worker, deductibles, administrative hurdles at your HMO... they all have this basic function.

So it looks to me like we can have informal/government insurance with paternalism or we can have formal market insurance with monetary sanctions.

What this comes down to is the reduction in shame for receiving government handouts/being a single mother/etc. Shame is an effective tool to influence behavior.

If there is anybody out there with decent Internet search skills (mine aren't very good), there was an issue of Policy Review from about ten to fifteen years ago about the Mormons and their system of in-the-faith help and assistance, and perhaps some one would be kind enough to find it and link to it. It was quite enlightening.

I'm a Mormon, and what impresses me most about the church welfare program is that it was developed during the depression to help with the unemployment and neediness that occurred. One of the prime principles was to re-enthrone work and avoid the evil of the dole.

The church owns hundreds of farms and factories producing food, processing it, and distributing it. Members are taught to fast on the first Sunday of each month and donate the cost of the meals skipped to help the poor. They also are taught to store food and clothing for up to a year; at the very least have a 72 hour kit. Members used to be asked to contribute labor in these welfare farmes and canneries, but now, it's more efficient not to rely on it. However, a lot of people are called on missions to do this work and deliver humanitarian services around the world and at home.

The Church owns a system called Deseret Industries that works like Goodwill Industries, as well.

I have only two children, but Mormons generally have more. One of my sisters had 8 kids. The other has 2. Both my brothers had 6 children. Non-LDS residents of Utah are always complaining about the large families.

"Sure, you're motivated -- by sheer terror. I'd be scared too if I was in the situation a parent faces in a free market. All these independent single folks without family responsibilties able to outlearn, out-train and outwork me . . . no thanks."

Terror / responsibility similar enough; since I've had children the responsibility as terrified me periodically. Of course,for me marriage and kids is well worth the extra stress.

Also in the "Case for Marriage" they layout the stats that show that married folks on average are financially better off than non-married. Pick your reasons why - but for me its that I don't worry about alot of things - home, kids, eating my wife takes the lead on those things.

Zeke, you really shouldn't be eating your wife.

"All people are trying to do is replace the security blanket that free market capitalism has destroyed."

No, Spencer, you've got it backwards. Free market capitalism gives people choices, whereas in dysfunctional societies, people are trapped and have nothing but family to count on. Societies with a very strong focus on family are those where nothing else works, so that people can't rely on the law or on a basic sense of fair play on the part of others. They must be close to their family, or they have nothing.

Free market capitalism allows people to support and take care of themselves. That's not destructive, it's liberating. The complaint against free market capitalism is that with freedom comes responsibility, but that's a simple fact of life. Someone has to take responsibility, and it's both safer and more efficient overall if that responsiblity is spread widely and is tied to specific outcomes, even though this requires people to bear some risk. The alternative is far riskier overall.

Liberals want to pay most of society to sit down and shut up, while the "enlightened" get all of the power. And the beauty of their system is that they buy off most of the population with someone else's money.

Hi Ann:

I think you make good points, but I'm with Spencer on this one.

It is entirely true that in societies where individual rights are not well protected, your family is all you have to support you. Being freed from this as individual rights are strengthened is liberating, but it *also* weakens family bonds simply because family is not as important to how you do personally.

You may be more willing to tolerate an annoying relative when your well being depends on them, and more willing to stop seeing them if you can get on just fine on your own.

Family pressure can be positive as well as negative. Certainly there are some people who would be better off if they were in an environment that had more constructive norms rather than destructive norms.

-winterspeak

The difference between handouts from a government agency and from a church is this: the recipient feels that the gov't "owes" them somehow, while there is no pretending that what they get from a church is indeed an unearned handout.

There seems to be a corollary with the leftist notion that cutting taxes "robs" the poor.

I helped adminster welfare in my Mormon congregation several years back. There are a couple of things worth noting (I hope they are not too tangential):

* The Mormon Church has declined to seek faith-based initiative money, at least in part for one reason already pointed out here: It would corrupt the Church.

* My experience adminstering welfare was that the greatest obstacle to doing it right was the government. The member who didn't like the "nagging" often had an alternative that required much less of him. There were legal obstacles as well, such as a tendency for the government to view cash assistance as a salary subject to taxes and withholdings. Of course, there are other good reasons to avoid giving cash directly to a welfare recipient, so we generally took a rent check to the landlord or supplied food and household goods rather than cash. The former could be problematic when the landlord was in California, the apartment complex was in New Mexico, and the check was drawn on a Utah bank.

"I'm a single male, and the last thing I want to do in our society today if I want to succeed is start being a father. Be single. Be flexible. Be able to re-train on a dime, change careers whenever necessary, follow opportunity anywhere, work 14-hour days . . . this is what a free-market rewards."

Is that what the free-market rewards? When we ditch the welfare state, won't we lose Social Security? Then a large family of well-educated, adjusted kids could be just the safety net you need. And your incentive to invest (your time and money) in them would be clear. After all, they don't have to be your safety net.

You can bank on your savings or your 401k, just hope you don't invest in an Enron, or even a GM or IBM, for that matter.

Phil's right at least in some respects. Having a family imposes some limitations. I recently lost my job. If I were single I could cast a much wider net in looking for a new job. In particular, I would be able to move to another part of the state. As is, I am limited to searching in this town because my husband's job is here. And I can't really take a job that involves travel because the baby needs her mother.

I am happy with my choices, and of course having a family comes with great rewards, but those are largely emotional/spiritual, not economic, rewards. They are not provided by the "free market."

Of course, I also agree with what Lisa implied, which is that a lot of times for men (more rarely for women), marriage does provide indirect economic benefits. A lot of the partners at my former firm are men with stay-at-home wives. You can eek out a few more billable hours a week if someone else is doing the cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc.

Winterspeak -

I agree that one effect of a system that protects personal rights is that families ties may tend to be weakened. What I disagree with Spencer over is why this occurs. It's not that free market capitalism actively destroys those bonds, it's that dysfunctional societies destroy the other opportunities that the individual might have had, thus removing any alternatives.

People are still free to be close to their families under free market capitalism, but of course once the added coercion is gone, some choose not to be.

Would some of them have been better off being forced to listen to their families? Yes, in practice, some are better off under a benevolent dictatorship (at either the family or country level). But does that mean that we should all be trapped in a dictatorship? No, the odds are still better with personal choice and responsibility, even though some will misuse their opportunities.

Spencer: "In study after study of why countries do not develop the inability of people to develop trusting and/or business relationships with nonfamily memebers or strangers has been found to be a major drag on economic development."

Can you provide links to those numerous studies? or at least some sort of reference? Excuse me for being skeptical, but it seems unlikely researchers could find much data to support that conclusion.

If by "strangers" you actually mean "other nations", then I might be less skeptical. But it's certainly not clear from your statement that you were referring to isolationist practices of a nation.

The whole married-vs-unmarried debate that Phil kicked off is missing something.

A lot have talked about how married people are better off. In part that's a result of the fact that they tend to be older; in part it's a result of the ability to share all of your expenses with someone else who likely won't be ducking out on short notice.

What hasn't been addressed is what I think is his major point, and the one that is relevant to the underlying question: what does being married and having kids do to your prospects when you're in your twenties? It's all well and good to say that married (older, established) partners make more than unmarried (young, fresh out of school) associates, but it's somewhat telling that the associates *are* unmarried - they're spending their time getting established at the job rather than meeting, marrying, and raising kids.

I live in the Deep South, and marriage tends to happen earlier here than in most of the country (I'm 31, and haven't gotten a wedding invitation in a year or two, simply because everyone I know is already married), but even then I know only one couple with children over the age of 4. Many are just now having their first child. In contrast, both my parents and my in-laws had 8-year-old children by this age.

The nanny state may have damaged the family, but the sheer cost of raising a child to succeed has blown it away. I live in an area where public schools are not a viable educational option; adequate education means either homeschooling or $4-8k/yr/child (price difference between elementary and secondary). How many young men, facing the prospect of spending their twenties either 1) having a lot of fun, traveling places, and doing what they feel like or 2) working like maniacs to get promoted to the point that they can minimally support their wife, two kids, and home, will choose #2?

Devilbunny,

Statistics support your observation that today's women wait longer to have children, though not as long as you might suspect. A USA Today article from 2004 provided the median age of women for first childbirth:

1970: 22.1
2003: 24.8

Consider an alternate explanation for this delay: more women today graduate from college and seek professional jobs than did 35 years ago.

I haven't seen data to support this, but my guess is that basic childraising is today about the same in real dollars as it was 35 years ago. Certainly costs for food and clothing have dropped. What has changed is the opportunity cost for women considering maternity leave.

John -

You're right about opportunity costs, and about more women pursuing education. I'm just curious about a more pedestrian subject - given that large-city public schools are almost universally unattendable, and that the (tolerably) good schools must therefore either be paid for directly or in increased housing and property tax costs, to what degree are young adults simply priced out of the market for upper middle class life? (I'm not conceited enough to think that this is a universal condition. I just talk what I know the patterns of, and what I know is upper middle class and ghetto, with little in between.)

The cost of raising a child are much higher today than 30 years ago....if you want to raise a winner. In this winner take all society nobody want to raise a child that is near the median of anything. This nation sucks median(let alone losers) people dry!

Lets raise a winner....hire IVYWISE in 8th grad for 30k...private tutors...$1000 per week athletic camps...private personal training then comes the 200k undergrad education but that isnt enough another 150k for grad school. Having a child that is prepared to compete in this evermore compeitive society is MUCH more expensive than it was 30 years ago.

Oh yeah....I forgot a winner needs health insurance as well....in real terms that is much higher than 30 years ago.

centrist,

I'm assuming that was sarcasm...my sarcasm detector ran out of batteries today so I'm not sure.

Because I'm a parent and I just figured reading and spending time with my kids will make them "winners" regardless of what society thinks...That's NOT expensive by any means. Just have to make a trip to the local used book store and realize that spending time does not equal spending money.

centrist,

Ivy League educations are not required for "success", however you define the term. Expenses for private tutors, athletic camps, and private personal training are less important than parental guidance. I hope you discover this before its too late for your kids.

I did not expect the "we are all can be winners" rhetoric on a libertarian blog(sounds touchy feely lefty)
To the winners go the spoils. In no society is that more true than ours. Look at the demography/educational backgrounds of top bankers/lawyers ...the president.

Spending time with your child may make them nice but many nice people often end up broken in the libertarian world. You better get your kids ready for the real world because others will have a huge advantage if you don't. Don't expect any sympathy from those with advantages. I hope your love is enough to get your kid in the top 10-20% of earners!(unless you want them to face a life of declining real wages)

I live in a small town. People here are dirt poor compared to Chicago, where I used to live. People here are also nicer, happier, healthier, and spend more time with the families. There are no doubts problems, the place isn't perfect. But defining "success" as being a top wage earner, in my opninion, one of the many representations of everything that's wrong in this society.

"To the winners go the spoils. In no society is that more true than ours."

What countries have you lived in? Have you been to the Philippines? To Thailand or Malaysia? To most of Africa or Latin America? Even to Europe (where the top earners carefully hide their pay through non-monetary compensation such as month-long vacations at company-owned ski chalets)?

Granted, Western Europe may be less of a winner-take-all system than the US if you ignore the emotional toll of people being trapped outside the job market for life. But I seriously question your claim about the US relative to most of the rest of the planet. Go live with poor people in Aceh, Indonesia, then take a look at some of the rich people's homes in Jakarta (if you can get past the guards), and then tell me that "In no society is that more true than ours".

What is so horrible about being middle class in the US? Even most of our poor have electricity, a clean water supply and enough food. Most of the population in the US live safe, comfortable lives in which they can pursue their own hobbies and interests and be a part of their community. No, they're not all CEOs or movie stars, but that doesn't mean that they live horrible lives.

Poor parents all over the third world dream that perhaps, some day, their children can live the equivalent of a lower-middle-class lifestyle in the US. And sadly, most of those dreams won't be realized. Meanwhile the rich in those countries contribute far less and yet take more from society than the rich in the US. I think you'd be less pessimistic if you travelled more and got some perspective.

I did not expect the "we are all can be winners" rhetoric...[snip, etc.]...the president.

Spending time with your child may make them nice but many nice people often end up broken in the libertarian world. You better...[snip, etc.]...a life of declining real wages)

Send OUT the clown. He's overdue for a round of fresh air.

"Send OUT the clown. He's overdue for a round of fresh air."
I fully agree with anony-mouse..

"Look at the demography/educational backgrounds of top bankers/lawyers ...the president. "

"Spending time with your child may make them nice but many nice people often end up broken in the libertarian world. You better get your kids ready for the real world because others will have a huge advantage if you don't."

The top bankers and lawyers make up a very small part of the wealthy. I'm fairly certain that business owners make up a larger part. I've known a dozen or more millionaire business owners. Almost all were tough businessmen - but they were also decent, nice people. I only remember one who had an elite school education.

I think you'll find that many CEO's received engineering and business educations from state universities. A degree from Harvard or Yale is just not a requirement to lead a large corporation.

As i say about demographic situation in USA, true, that lawyers make up a very small part of the wealthy. So...

Comments are Closed.