Although the Davis-Moore thesis is an important contribution to understanding social stratification, it has provoked criticism. Melvin Tumin (1953) wondered, first of all, how we assess the importance of a particular occupation. Perhaps the high rewards our society gives to physicians result partly from deliberate efforts by medical schools to limit the supply of physicians and thereby increase the demand for their services. Furthermore, do rewards actually reflect the contribution someone makes to society? With income of about $105 million per year, boxer Floyd Mayweather, the world’s highest-paid athlete in 2014, earned more in two days than President Obama earned all year. Would anyone argue that boxing is more important than lead- ing a country? What about members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? Facing the risks of combat, a newly enlisted private first class in the United States Army earned a base salary of only $22,000 (plus housing and food benefits) in 2015 (Pomerantz & Rose, 2010; Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 2015). And we might also wonder about the heads of the big Wall Street financial firms that collapsed in 2008. It seems reasonable to con- clude that these corporate leaders made some bad and harmful decisions, yet their salaries were astronomical. Even after finishing its worst year ever, with losses of $27 billion, Merrill Lynch paid bonuses of more than $1 million to each of more than 700 employ- ees (Fox, 2009). Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, paid himself a stock bonus worth $12.6 million (an amount it would take an army private 575 years to earn), despite his company’s falling profits during 2010, a year in which salaries and benefits in the financial industry hit an all-time high. Increased government regu- lation and lackluster performance led most Wall Street companies to trim salaries and bonuses between 2011 and 2014. Even so, as one analyst put it, “while payouts may be disappointing, they are still far higher than what most people will ever see” (Roth, 2011; Badenhausen, 2012; Moore, 2012; Goodman, 2014). Do corpo- rate executives deserve such megasalaries for their contributions to society? Second, Tumin claimed that Davis and Moore ignore how the caste elements of social stratification can prevent the development of individual talent. Born to privilege, rich children have opportuni- ties to develop their abilities, which is something many gifted poor children never have. Third, living in a society that places so much emphasis on mon- ey, we tend to overestimate the importance of high-paying work; how much do stockbrokers or people who trade international cur- rencies really contribute to the well-being of people in our society? For the same reason, it is difficult for us to see the value of any work not oriented toward making money, such as parenting, creative writ- ing, playing in a symphony, or just being a good friend to someone in need (Packard, 2002). Finally, by suggesting that social stratification benefits all of society, the Davis-Moore thesis ignores how social inequality can harm society and even promote conflict. Some amount of inequality may encourage people to reach for more—to work harder or gain more schooling so they can find a better-paying job. But too much inequality, especially with limited upward mobility, can smother am- bition and harden people’s beliefs that they will never get ahead or even gain economic security. In this way, people come to see their society as fundamentally unjust, a belief that may encourage them to seek more radical change (Kaiser, 2010). This criticism leads to the social-conflict approach, which provides a very different explanation for social inequality. Check Your Learning State the Davis-Moore thesis in your own words. What are Tumin’s criticisms of this thesis?