wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Laura from NJ October 08, 2007 - 11:20AM

  Why are women not representing a bigger proportion of the wealthiest 400 when they are working more and more! This makes me want to quit my job.

  
  
• [2] eric fluger from jersey city October 08, 2007 - 11:27AM

  have the guests looked at dishonest or predatory business behavior as factors in success?

  
  
• [3] Brian from Manhattan - SOHA October 08, 2007 - 11:28AM

  I'm in the camp of disagreement about "luck" being responsible for success. Not to be cliche, but the adage that "we make our own luck" rings true for me.

  The best opportunities have come to me in a random or fortuitous way only at first glance. Upon reflection, I realized that had I not done this or that, had I not followed previous instincts--even contrary to the status-quo, I these opportunities would not have "found me."

  There is no luck--only the fruits of the pursuit of personal authenticity.

  
  
• [4] George Showman from Red Hook, Brooklyn October 08, 2007 - 11:35AM

  How do we measure "success"? How many of these people, through their evident drive and ambition, have actually driven the market-obsessed thinking that has destabilized the world?

  In one way you might argue that these people have hopelessly failed -- they have risen to the point where many things are done in their name over which they have no control, of which they have no knowledge, and for which they can take no responsibility.

  The great failure of the Ivy League is that it has promoted this attitude towards success, at the expense of contemplation, etc. I say this as an Ivy League product myself.

  
  
• [5] George Showman from Red Hook, Brooklyn October 08, 2007 - 11:36AM

  "Personal Authenticity" is a great term, by the way. The problem is to maintain that authenticity (which is really 'the ability to take responsibility for your actions and your capital', I would argue) in the face of an exploding career. In general the rich seem to fail at this.

  
  
• [6] Erin from Manhattan October 08, 2007 - 11:40AM

  Are the 400-listers interested in reading a book such as this? Is this a way they might spend their time? Does reading a book like this merely represent another form of distraction and money fantasy for the rest of us as we continue to struggle in our daily lives, a step and a half behind those who are offering new innovations year after year?

  
  
• [7] CH from NYC October 08, 2007 - 11:49AM

  As the segment ended, there was a short discussion on what the rich buy for themselves (aside from business oriented spending and philanthropic enterprise):

  Private Jets

  Helicopters

  Yachts

  Large private homes

  There is an underlying common theme here, and it isn't the size or cost of the items. These wealthy people seem to be trying to buy one "thing" that their wealth denies them: personal privacy.

  While we may be struggling to pay for essentials like housing, food, heat, and education, I think many of us with smaller incomes have a "luxury" of personal privacy that money cannot buy... well, at least as much privacy as our government will let us keep.

  
  
• [8] Nik from Astoria October 08, 2007 - 11:55AM

  Hey, how come there's no Forbes 400 Happiest People? I'd be WAY more interested in which schools happy people graduate from, how much tax they pay, and what they spend their (considerably smaller) incomes on. The country's ever more polarized along wealth lines, and yet you continue to celebrate and analyze the [sour] cream at the top, with little critical consideration of what [once again], success really means. Thanks again, mainstream media, for doing the thinking for us. I'll be sure to measure myself against these "winners" in the years to come.

  Glad to see a few other commenters here feel the same way about this ridiculous and useless report. Is this sour grapes talking? Not at all. My wife and I had our first child on Saturday, and I wouldn't trade the moment little Huck came out for all of Gates's billions.

  Next time, please focus on the 400's philanthrophy -- it's the only merit on which they should be judged and lauded. All their other net worth is worthless.

  
  
• [9] Pavel Gurvich from Norwalk, CT October 08, 2007 - 05:45PM

  I think Brian's question about motivation was not answered correctly. Annalyn Swan said the motivation is "Work". However work itself needs motivation. The answer is rather "Status". As any animal in a herd is fighting for a higher status within the herd. Any human animal is trying to achieve the higher status within human herd. The only thing for animal it is always resolved with physical force. Humans have many choices to satisfy their Alpha instinct. They can accumulate money, build huge houses, run for office of president, make scientific discoveries, or organize criminal gang and become a leader of it. Any satisfaction of Alpha instinct gives us burst of dopamine to our brain. Look just at winners in tennis, hokey, football and any other sport.

  People who accumulate money also addicted to success that brings them pleasure. Money, houses, planes, etc. are signs of status. The same addiction to power that is type of status is described in “Lucifer Effect” by Philip Zimbardo. Power over people also gives some of us pleasure and this pleasure is also addictive.

  We can not get rid of our instincts. They are programmed in our genes. Probably different people have different genes' composition and therefore tend to pursue Alpha position more or less vigorously.

  We will evolve into true humans when we will be able to recognize what moves us and be able to control our desires. E.g. Gnothi Sauton (know thyself).