It seems to me that the author here is drawing the conclusions that he wants from this data. While there does seem to be a correlation between intelligence and

It seems to me that the author here is drawing the conclusions that he wants from this data. While there does seem to be a correlation between intelligence and income, this correlation has nothing at all to do with whether or not these smart, wealthy people are indeed exploitative of the poor or not. It is in many cases advantageous for CEOs of large companies to use their wealth and political influence in ways that are detrimental to their workers, the environment, and/or our economy. Second, "productivity" in this article seems to be a vague metric (this is probably because I'm not well versed in economics). As someone asked above, does productivity increase as you move up an organization's hierarchy? The CEO of Nike has likely never sewn a shoe together, yet he pays the welders on the assembly line; is he more productive? If the amount shoes created is a function of the amount of workers hired, and the amount of workers is a function of how much each worker is paid, doesn't it stand to reason that productivity for those at the top of the hierarchy correlates directly to how exploitative their wages are?