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.
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]
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.
> 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.
