According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers, the answer is no.
Gladwell showed repeatedly that whether people who succeeded or not, depended a great deal on how much wealth and education their parents had. For example, children who have the benefit of a private school learn a lot of things that children who attend schools in ghetto areas do not. Gladwell also shows that children who had the opportunity of developing expertise during their childhood and adolescence as a result of parents who could afford to pay for that expertise, were far more likely to succeed.
Examples would be the difference between children who were given computers from a very early age and children who never had access to them. The children who were online and had access learnt far more and developed far better skills than the children who did not have access.
The myth that people who have made a lot of money are smarter and work harder is just that – a myth. Gladwell shows that there is a direct correlation between the circumstances of one’s parents and the success of their children. Sure, there are one or two exceptions to that rule. However, if one examines those exceptions individually, it will be revealed that at a certain point, that person had access to various resources – even if it was a mentor or teacher.
Wealthier people have different priorities than poor people. The former are proactive and think about their futures. Poor peoples tend to consider present pleasures over future ones. Wealthier parents are participants in their children's educational structures. They are active in PTA meetings and other school events. Poor parents usually are passive regarding the educational system. Some of them are even hostile towards teachers and other authority figures.
The mindset of many poor parents is that society and the world is against them. They have a victim's mindset. They believe that they are insignificant and pass that philosophy to their children. Many poor people do not care to supply their children with educational paraphernalia, instead preferring to use the monies on useless status symbol items such as $500.00 sneakers. Dr. Cosby has eloquently elucidated that poor parents can become more proactive in their children's education and prioritize intelligently.
Many poor people have a culture of poverty mentality. They have no concept of delayed gratification i.e. thinking about the future outcome of something instead of living for the present. Wealthier people plan, strategize, invest, and organize. Many people are wealthy because they strategize and make sacrifices. They think long-term while the poor think of short-term or nothing.
Like it or not, wealthy people are SMARTER and WORK SMART. There is no denying the facts in this matter. Wealthy parents work to make their schools and neighborhoods better while poor people just DON'T CARE and expect to be rescued. Yes, I SAID IT-rescued by THE POWERS THAT BE! The reason why schools in poor neighborhoods are the way they are is that the parents adamantly refuse to participate in bettering the schools. They believe that their children's education is not THEIR problem and responsibility. Let us TELL THE TRUTH in this matter. If more poor parents cared about their children and were more proactive in their children's educational processes, more poor children WOULD SUCCEED! Poor people have to learn to take responsibility for their lives and STOP PLAYING THE VICTIM GAME!
Your contempt for your fellow man shines out like a beacon!
Not contempt. People love to give lame excuses as to why they "cannot succeed". One can smell the bull and lack of responsibility miles away. People need to man up, woman up, and face their responsibilities as to why they are not successful- it is not THE POWERS THAT BE, it is THEM!
True we all have our own problems, but if you really want to succeed you would find a way.
You OBVIOUSLY can't read as you are addressing my name to soconfident's post, not mine. Read and respond to the CORRECT NAME!
You are making ASSumptions about me. You DO NOT know me! At least, I am not immature like you are. I have been around and I am quite a prolific reader of many books. I also had great jobs and was never homeless! I have great survival skills and KNOW HOW TO TAKE CARE of myself. I am EXTREMELY RESOURCEFUL! I have encountered various wealthy, middle class, and poor people. I am not envious and obsessive of rich people as you are! I GREATLY ADMIRE the wealthy and affluent among us. I do not need to be rescued. I believe in taking responsibility for my life, either good or ill. THAT'S MATURITY!
You also do not like America, well, America is for us successful people! You must be so unhappy with your life. Ha, I am NOT! I have a life, apparently, you DO NOT! Good day, ma'am!
"America is for successful people."
Except for the 47% cited with contempt as leeches by Mitt Romney. Apparently you feel the same way about them.
No, I'm just not following the entire thread, and I only caught the last one. I just couldn't have been bothered to go backwards through the tread to find where you had posted.
No, I don't know anything about you in terms of who you are. You can claim what you like, though, because there is no photograph of you and nobody can check anything you say about yourself.
As you are so successful, are you generous as well?
I need sufficient money for air tickets, getting my stuff out of this country, and setting up elsewhere. If you have any humanity left in you, I would appreciate the donation and then I would think differently about people like you.
I can't, though, for the life of me, understand why someone who is as rich and successful as you say you are, would be doing on a site where people are struggling to earn a living.
I did not say I was rich. I am quite comfortable through savings and investments. I am retired with a pension. I love to write that is why I am on Hubpages. There are many people on Hubpages who earn sizeable incomes. That is none of my business how much people earn! I have MY OWN LIFE to live! If you need extra money, there are jobs around! Needing to be rescued and handouts, how shameful for someone who is as intelligent and well-read as you! There are avenues to gain the extra money- JOBS!
When I was struggling when I was much, much younger, I did not go to my parents although they would help me. I worked at temporary typing jobs to pay MY OWN WAY until I DID MUCH BETTER! There are jobs around, they may not be the idea jobs but they are jobs nevertheless! Donations, lady, GIVE ME A BREAK! My advice- YOU'D BETTER WORK!
What can I say?
I'm a failure, and obviously what I considered hard work is nothing of the sort. I am also obviously ignorant, lazy, totally responsible for the fact that I made a thousand stupid decisions in my life, including coming to a country where I thought I could find a job.
And, no, I'm not being sarcastic.
You're obviously a lot smarter than I am.
If I was struggling, had no savings and/or investments, I would HAVE to get a job. I would not even be choosy as to what job. There are many job assistance centers to assist people in obtaning jobs. I know that if I did not have any savings and/or investments, I would NOT be spending a lot of time writing for Hubpages. I would be working- HAVE TO- just to live and survive. Anyone who has been to the unemployment office can testify that the counselors at those offices do get people jobs and that is often the condition of one receiving an unemployment check. If the counselor offers one a job, one often has to take the job, no ifs, ands, and/or buts in the matter!
Funny you should say that. I gave my resume to the job center. They told me that they weren't equipped to find jobs for 'people like me.'
Why don't you google my me and see how much writing I actually do?
A lucky guy stepping on the faces of the less fortunate.
I'm also curious why someone like me is considered not have to have made every effort...
http://bestebookstories.blogspot.com/20 … words.html
I disagree that the statement was contemptuous. He is merely pointing out difficult truths.
gm williams, I read the first two lines and I want to respond. I'm not going to bother to read the rest because I've read too much of this sort of things from you. You've let your private schooling go to your head. I haven't let mine go to my head -nor the fact that on occasion I went to movies with a European princess and dated British Lords, and more rich men than I can remember.
Firstly, the reason those born to rich people have different priorities is because they are taught different priorities. The reason poor people supposedly put pleasure ahead of their priorities is because their parents and their societies never taught them anything else.
This proves Gladwell's point that it all has to do with the resources of children growing up. Solid information is an immense resource. Poor kids don't get it.
Well said. My parents both had some college but they were children of the Great Depression. They thought that I high school diploma was a "good education", so I had to fight hard to get my first college degree when they refused to sign for student loans for me. They signed them for my brother to keep him from being drafted into the Vietnam War. He never used or appreciated the edcation. So I guess you appreciate more what you work for.
Like it or not... not everyone will become wealthy. No matter how hard they work.
Are you saying that everyone who goes into a career that will not make them rich are wasting their lives, that they are lazy, that they don't work hard? Most artists do not become rich, are you saying they are lazy because their whole aim in life is not to make money?
So many generalizations in one post...
And parents might not be so involved in their children's schooling because they have three jobs and don't have time to visit the school. Ever think of that?
And please stop yelling...
Sure, the environment someone's brought up in does have an impact on who they eventually become, but it's not just about that.
Sometimes it's about who you know, not what you know. Wealthy parents are likely to be better connected than poorer parents. So even poorer kids who work hard (some do exist you know) are still at a disadvantage because they are starting from absolutely nothing. They have no contacts, no network, no support.
The fact is if Johnny's dad is the CEO of a bank, his chances of starting a career in banking are much higher than if his dad drives a truck. It's also more likely that he will have been exposed to confident, influential people in his formative years, with all the benefits that brings.
So his success may not be because he is smarter or harder working. A poor version of Johnny may be just as smart and hard working. The only difference is that wealthy Johnny had a head start.
Saying poorer people are less smart, and less hard working is a dangerous generalisation. It implies that poorer people are somehow lesser people. That's the beginning stages of dehumanisation, which is not a good road to go down.
A poorer person has to work twice as hard just to survive let alone be 'successful'. What you are doing is comparing two runners, while failing to realise that one is running up hill, the other is running down. You need to put them on a level track, then see what happens.
I agree with your response. Another problem with poor people is that they have more children than they can afford. Raising a child in this society is expensive. Yet, poor people continually pop out more children than they can support. I don't know if this is cultural, as most poor people seem to have too many kids despite their race.
Despite their race? What does that even mean?
It means that most poor people, regardless of race, have too many children. White poor people, Black poor people, Latino poor people all have more children than they can afford.
Hence the phrase, "despite their race".
Interestingly, in 3rd world countries that is very much the opposite. The more children you have, the more you are able to produce and sustain. This is especially true in farming communities. This can be seen in Africa, Asia, South America... The more family you have, the more your household can produce (for yourselves and to sell), and thus, the better off you are.
Many of these minorites you speak of have roots in such countries, and having many children can be very traditional. It is unfortunately their downcoming in a society where households don't produce their own goods, but instead have to buy goods from others. That may be why you see large families in poverty, and likely contributes to their poverty as well.
At last, a person with sense, good old commonsense! Most people do not want the truth regarding the situation. Many poor people in the United States WANT to be that way. There are opportunities but they prefer to be in the recurring role of victim as it is much easier. The pity game......well, people are responsible for their actions, like it or not! No more excuses! Thank you, ElSeductor, for being real. I knew that in college, particularly in a sociology class about the class system. Yes, many poor people have more children than they can afford. Many poor people are just plain fatalistic and passive regarding life.
As half of Americans are poor, do you honestly believe that half of Americans are lazy and stupid and just want to be pitied?
And this is the nation who boasts that the are greatest nation in the world? I don't think so.
Lazy, no. Less intelligent, yes. The skewed bell curve derived from IQ studies proves that the average American has less-than-average intelligence. However, I am not convinced that IQ is always linked to income. I am below the poverty line yet have scored in the 99th percentile on nearly every standardized test I have ever taken. Also, just because we boast that we are the greatest nation in the world does not mean that we are. There are so many factors by which the quality of a nation is measured, and while the U.S. is on top or near the top in many categories, we are near the bottom in others.
Exactly its real easy to lay down and play the scratch off lottery. This is the life that some people have choosen.
If you really think many people have chosen to live unable to regularly afford food and/or shelter (as about 16% of the population are) then I fear you are horribly misinformed.
That's the product of having no opportunity, the majority of those people are actually employed too.
This is true. The poor in America are that way because of their fatalistic mindset and they CHOOSE to be poor. They do not want to acknowledge their RESPONSIBILITY pertaining to their dire socioeconomic situation. Even though I am a liberal, I do not believe in making excuses and using the blame game and victimology to address problems. If one is able bodied, THERE IS NO EXCUSE as to why HE/SHE CANNOT DO! Pure and simple, that's it! Stop this babying of the poor and allowing them to use the victimology stance. This is getting tired.
SO SO WEAK! No one wants to be poor, 16% of the population don't want to go hungry and/or without shelter, most of them do all the work they can find but there isn't enough and that's as simple as that.
There are MANY poor people in America who want to be thus. They have a fatalistic mindset that society should rescue them and owe them a living. Well, it does not go that way! If you want something, work and better yourself! You are not a baby, so man or woman up and FACE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. The only poor that I advocate helping and would help in a heartbeat are our precious elderly, children, teens, and the physically and mentally disabled. The able bodied and able minded adults are ON THEIR OWN.
*sigh* The simple fact is if there is no work then people will stay poor, if the economy is bad as it is then it's nigh impossible for untrained people to start a business and expect it to survive, let a lone getting the funds to start one, it doesn't matter how hard they work the vast majority will stay poor.
I worked as a coal miner for decades, underground in hellish conditions, for terrible pay and with the likely prospect of black lung related painful death as a retirement package, I am yet to meet anyone rich or otherwise who works as hard as those people did and do and they are almost universally poor, working hard doesn't make people rich (exceptions that prove the rule aside), having starting capital and or getting lucky (as I did) give people the opportunity to become wealthy, then hard work definitely plays a part but it's the less important factor.
Sigh, pity party. When I graduated from college and there was a recession, I worked temporary typing jobs. I did not bitch or whine. I knew that I was going to do much, much, much better- and I did. Even at the lowly typing jobs, I did not have the poverty mentality, I had the success mentality. I wanted to get out and did! Excuses are lame, Josak. If there is a will, there is a way!
Continue to chant slogans and ignore the facts. For the average poor American with no work available (and there is no work available for a long period fewer jobs were created than there are new people entering the prospective workforce) and with an economy where even established businesses are collapsing there is no way outside of your imagination for any significant portion to escape poverty.
Those are simply the facts.
People want to be poor?? Where did you get that ridiculous idea?
I think it's unfair to suggest that people with less money think about only present "pleasures". While I agree with you that people who have more education, access and bankroll have the luxury of pondering their future goals and desires more often than their less fortunate counterparts, people who live check to check are more likely considering immediate needs for survival. It seems naive to call them "pleasures". Shelter, food, sleep and money are survival basics. Sure they can be pleasurable, but when you aren't sure where your next meal or dollar is coming from their capacity for making you feel good in highly diminished. It's no longer about doing what one dreams to do to feel alive but doing that which allows one to continue to actually be alive. I do think that what separates the haves from the have-nots contributes to the ability to shape ones future, but there are always those that fall out of type on both ends of the spectrum.
Getting to the idea of who works harder or who is smarter is also relative to the notion of what is work and what is intelligence. A pipe layer who rises before dawn and carries 100+ pound pipe all day is certainly working harder in the physical sense than a white collar lawyer. On the flip side the lawyer may also rise before dawn, or not get to sleep at all for that matter, and spends their day pouring over legal briefs and papers, expending a great deal of mental energy on solving the problems of their clients. Who is working harder than who? A surgeon spends their educational years learning thousands of Latin terms, studying the workings of the body and memorizing the complex steps to perform life saving surgeries but probably can't change the oil in their car or fix their own flat tire. A highly skilled auto mechanic who dropped out of high school to work in their family repair shop understands the complex inner functions of a variety of automobiles and can fix not only a flat but rebuild a car from the shell up and have it road worthy in a matter of days, but most definitely can't stitch up a wound or remove a diseased appendix. Who is smarter than who? This is a loaded question because the definition of smart and hard are relative to their circumstances.
Count that as my two sense (misspelled intentionally).
What about athletes and celebrities? Many professional athletes come from the ghettos these days and have to work pretty hard to make it into the pros. Of course the ones who play football have to attend college, but usually get scholarships. Many end up supporting the parents that gave them no opportunity other than keeping them alive long enough for them to get rich.
Actors and musicians usually aren't the children of the super wealthy, sometimes they are. Many work hard and do what needs to be done to become successful. While many don't make millions, many do.
Just some exceptions. I would not say that either of these groups is very intelligent, but they definitely worked harder than others.
While I would agree that actors are not necessarily more intelligent and athletes have a reputation that may or may not be deserved, I strongly disagree with the notion that musicians are less intelligent. With the exception of those singers who buy their fame and use auto-tuners and voice overs, musical performance is the only profession I can think of off-hand that requires both sides of the brain to be used in real-time, rhythmic synchronization. This requires a much greater intelligence and discipline, and much more training, than many college majors.
People like to idolize the "hero" mythology, the sole individual who achieved greatness on their own, without the help of any other.
it's the way some people build their self-esteem. They don't like the idea that they have succeeded, partly from their own efforts, and partly from living in a civilized society with an educated populace.
If you live alone on a desert island, you don't get rich. You don't have millions from a business because there is no society and no customers. People cannot become wealthy ALONE.
I've written about this before, but I think this idea is still pervasive in American society.
I should say, wealthy people work smarter.... and their staff works harder (just kidding). I agree, easy wealth is usually passed on from one generation to the next. But there also a lot of people who became wealthy on their own.
I think it certainly helps if you come from a priviledged background. You have higher expectations, possibly better connections through school , university, parents friends etc., however, I do believe there are certain people who despite their background have a natural gift for increasing their wealth. We are all good at different things and find it easier or more natural to follow certain pathways. Determination, persistence, self believe and vision are a few of the necessary requirements.
Despite one's socioeconomic class of origin and the level of his/her parents' education, one can transcend his/her childhood environment if he/she desires to do so. The analysis in Outliers is well and good; however, those who are poor and succeed oftentimes think outside the box and stereotype of what a person in his/her socioeconomic circumstance is supposed to do and achieve. Another young man who refused to let his poverty and negative circumstances deter him from success is Farah Grey, author of Reallionaire. If more poor people stop making excuses for their lives, they, too, would succeed. It is THEIR call!
Farrah Grey is a liar.
http://streetwizeunkutt.blogspot.com/20 … ammad.html
His father was educated at Yale...
You really do need to stop believing everything you want to believe gmwilliams. I've now taken every person you've mentioned who was supposed to have got rich all on their own through their hard work and proved otherwise.
You are going to believe some internet tabloid source........please! I have interfaced with all types of people and there are many self-motivated individuals from poor families who succeed because of smart work. As my late father stated that no one OWES anyone anything and to be aggressive if one wants to succeed. He also stated that the problem with many poor people is that they are too dependent and refuse to take responsibility for their lives. He came from a poor family, immigrated to America, and worked his way up to instructor. I learned the art of success and taking responsibility for my life from my parents who rose from poverty to upper middle class status. I also had teachers who inculcated me with the same premise. I am not a whiner but a doer!
And you're going to believe the indoctrination, programming, and brainwashing that you've been subjected to throughout your life.
It has to be that... Or do you think that all those people who post stories of hardworking, smart people who are poor are tabloid stories as well?
It is not brainwashing, there are poor people in this country who succeed by their own efforts. I am out! Most people know this! The greatest things parents can give their children are independence and self-motivation. There is a saying that if you want a helping hand, look at the ends of your arms. No one OWES anyone anything- self-reliance, remember the concept!
Yes, there are some poor people who succeed through hard work, good timing, luck and help from others. No one is saying it's impossible, it's only very rare. Most poor people work a lot harder than you or I have ever had to work...and my parents struggled but I was lucky to live in a country like Canada where we take care of those who need help.
Only people with faith become rich. And only rich people have faith. Get the drift?
The reason rich people are rich and stay rich is that they already have money and don't have to spend their time in fear and struggling; the poor have to put all mental and physical resources into survival. Here's somebody who doesn't get it: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l … 3996.story
Are you saying that people get rich by having money?
Not exactly. Though, to make money, you have to have it. You need capital to put towards making more money, and you need physical security to put energy towards making more money. It is fallacious to say that wealth is the result of hard work and intelligence. It just means someone has money, and someone without money could be working very hard, be very perceptive, etc. It's obvious. Wealth is no measure of intelligence, this is certain. Above all, it says nothing of moral sense.
Nobody is saying that all it takes is hard work and intelligence.
But those are ingredients to success. Very often, they are the main reasons why people become wealthy.
Take the billionaire chick who made the spanx garments. She started that part time with a $5k investment. Hard work, and the intelligence to find a product niche and work toward it the best she could.
Honestly, there are millions of Americans who could start a business with the money they spend on beer, cigarettes, soda, chips, lottery ticket, or any other number of, essentially, wasteful expenditures. That's both intelligence and hard work.
Jaxson, you believe in CAN while they believe in CAN'T! People can transcend their circumstances if they wish to do so. It is called assessment and taking responsibility for one's life. There is NO NEED to convince those who believe otherwise. Do not even waste your breath, it seems to be a losing battle.
Well, I am trying to be optimistic... We're in that position where we are putting the extra time and extra money that we can afford to into a business. I wouldn't do that if I didn't believe in the American Dream.
God bless you, may your business be a success. I, too, believe in the American Dream. It is possible to achieve if one puts one's energy to it! Nothing is wrong with being optimistic. It is better to be that than a whiner who sees only negativity and being a passive victim in life instead of being a proactive participant!
It's called a dream for a reason; you have to be asleep to believe it. Being greedy is no measure of intelligence. Funny stuff. The amount of misery caused by the system you support is tremendous. It's merely a system of exploitation. Trying to be clever about how to compete and acquire is about as good as an animal and has nothing to do with intelligence. And most poor people work hard their whole lives and end up with a broken mind and body, still dreaming about the value of hard work. Not very intelligent. Then the rich jump out of windows as soon as they lose their fortune. That's either sad or funny, I'm trying to decide. They all just fell in line instead of paying attention.
And what if you don't want to be a businessman? You see it is corrupt, it goes against everything you feel, it's rigid, divisive, painful; What if you are more into taking care of people? Well, the answer is, you will struggle, be poor, and so on. Wealth just means you acquired money, you are conformed to the social order, and you are greedy and competitive; the most base of human so-called qualities.
Of course, not everyone wants to be or is cut out to be a businessperson. However, there are jobs especially in the hard sciences, medicine, and mathematics which are quite lucrative to say the least. There are some in the caring professions who are paid quite lucratively e.g. psychologists and the upper echelons of nursing such as nurse practictioners who are akin to doctors. You are correct in the average caring jobs, one does not paid much. American society does not value caring professions as much as it does technical and business professions. The former is viewed as nonprofit while the latter is view as profit making. The bottom line in American as well as in many postindustrial societies is the dollar.
What is corrupt about being a businessman?
What is corrupt about creating jobs so other people can earn a living?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … iPads.html
This isn't work. This is wage slavery
http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/20 … -pays.html
In the United States the average CEO earns 827 times what the person at the bottom does. In the rest of the world it's 40 times.
This means that workers are very, very underpaid. It's not a livable wage. This is not a choice.
it's a threat - either they work at jobs so appalling that their health and wellbeing is impaired, or they starve and resort to crime. Oh, yes, and welfare is an option.
I'm not asking you what is corrupt about "Company X". I'm asking you what is corrupt about being a businessman. You are using a very broad brush, and one that is actually including myself, so I take offense at it.
Don't point to examples, because that doesn't show why every businessman is corrupt(unless you can prove that every businessman is).
Let's say in the future I hire an employee for my store, and pay him/her $15/hr plus benefits. Is that a threat?
Jaxson, you are witnessing socialism in action. The United States is not and never will be a socialist nation. The American people will never stand for it. To reiterate to those who do not or refuse to know, wealthy people create jobs which are beneficial for the economy. The name of the game is now to demonize the wealthy while glorifying the poor. The anti-achievement mentality is alive and well here.
Indeed wealthy people create jobs that are good for the economy, just somebody else's economy and not that of their homeland.
So, if I hire someone, I'm not helping my economy?
Where is the logic in that?
If you hire somebody in China or Korea, sure you are helping the Chinese or Korean economy but doing precious little for your own countries economy.
1 - What if I hire somebody in the US?
2 - Anti-outsourcing arguments completely ignore the principle of comparative advantage.
1- No problem if you hire somebody in the US, unless they are beyond being a school leaver and you only pay them $9 an hour.
2 - what? Comparative advantage to whom?
1 - No, if I hire ANYBODY in the US for $9/hr, I am helping them and the economy. Unless you think $9/hr is worse than $0/hr. So, if I hire somebody in the US, am I helping the economy? Am I stealing from that person?
2 - Comparative advantage is an economic principle that explains why outsourcing and trade can be very, very good for all parties involved.
How can $9 an hour be good for the economy? It is a subsistence wage if that.Certainly it would leave no disposable income that might just benefit the economy.
It is far more likely that somebody earning $9 an hour would still be in receipt of welfare and would most certainly not be paying their share of taxes.
It creates a job. The job-holder spends that money.
It decreases unemployment and increases the flow of money(which is the lifeblood of an economy).
In many areas, including where I live, $9/hr is enough for a student to put himself through college.
So again, I fail to see, and you fail to explain, how adding a job to the economy, and giving money to someone who otherwise wouldn't get it, is a bad thing.
I would consider a student to be a school leaver, not a family man with all the expenses of raising a family.
The status of my employee doesn't change the job's effect on the economy.
If a job is good enough to put a student through college, it's good enough for any single person.
Do all jobs have to be able to provide what you consider a 'livable wage' for the largest of families?
You are moving the goal posts!
Until I brought it up you gave no indication that you would only offer $9 an hour to young single people and every indication that you thought that should be enough for everybody.
No, not at all. I asked you if my creating a job helps my economy, or someone elses. I never made any claim about the social impact other than $9/hr is enough for a student or single person.
So, where did I claim what you claim I claimed?
And when you are done with that, let's go ahead and move the goalpoast back to their original position. Do jobs help the economy or not?
By not specifically stating that you would only pay $9 an hour to young single people you gave the impression that you would pay that to anybody. You only suggested a student or single person after it was pointed out how low that was.
Low paid jobs do not help the economy for numerous reasons that have already been expounded on this thread.
I've never said I would only pay $9 an hour to young single people... You keep moving the goalposts, yet you call me out for your own movement?
I said that any job I create, even if it is only $9/hr, helps the economy. I never said anything about who it wouldn't help from a social standpoint. I never said it would be enough for a family to live off of. Try to stick to the topic at hand.
As for low-paid jobs not helping the economy... ok... wow. If we disagree with that... there's really no hope for a continued conversation.
Also, why should someone put all their time and energy into a system which betrays and degrades them?
Angelique, it seems like you read a different book than I did. Gladwell never mentioned the advantage of wealth in those terms.
There were two things that he focused on the situation where he spoke about the children of wealthy parents vs poor.
The first is that wealthy parents tend to better instill assertiveness into their children. He called it a sense of entitlement, but in essence it meant that their children tended to not be intimidated by authority and were able to voice their opinions clearly in most environments.
The second area he spoke about was focused on the gap in educational achievement. He brought a case that the gap mainly appeared after summer breaks. The reason was simple.
Affluent families were more likely to design activities for their children during the breaks that stimulated their mind, while poor families generally allowed their children to run wild.
In both cases, it is not the wealth that matters. Even a poor family can set the same conditions by encouraging their children to be vocal and assertive and ensuring that they are learning and applying new information during school breaks.
In other words, the parents in wealthy families had better education and knew how to do things in a better way - including how to bring up one's kids.
He also mentioned that one needed 10,000 hours to learn to do something well, something that, as a result of a lack of resources, kids from poor families don't have.
Perhaps we interpreted what he had to say in a different way?
+1, also read Outliers and read the same synopsis, KBEvolve. Gladwell stated that while affluent parents are not intimidated by authority, poorer parents tend to be more submissive towards authority. He also stated that affluent parents teach their children to assertive themselves. He also stated that affluent parents tend to be more interactive with their children than poor parents who were less interactive with their children, leaving them to their own devices. He further added that because of poorer children being left to their own devices, they were often more independent!
But surely this tells you that there's a reason that kids who come from wealthier homes tend to be more successful. It has nothing to do with them having a better character.
It comes from their resources - what they are taught. If they are not taught things and not shown things, they don't do as well. One doesn't blame the child for this. There has to be an educational system that catches the fall out!
My response to the original poster is "mmmhmm, tell me something I don't know."
Sophia, I think it depends on the individual. I've known rich, college educated people that have lost their fortunes through gambling, drink and sheer stupidity, and I've seen poor individuals that didn't have higher educations make fortunes for themselves through sheer ambition.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in agreement- Mark Wahlberg is a noted example of a working class person who attained great wealth through smarts. Mr. Wahlberg knew how to market himself and quite well I might add. Oprah Winfrey rose out of poverty to become a billionaire mogul through effort and so did other poor people. Sometimes being born poor makes one VERY HUNGRY for success!
Please note that the OP is no longer with HubPages. Even though this thread is an old one, it does contain some well thought out points thus it was resurrected as it is a timeless thread in addition to being one of the MOST INTELLIGENT forum threads. Recycle, recycle.
If you have heard Warren Buffett speak on the subject he believes very much that trust children are usually less aggressive in trying to earn a living and he has already given away half his wealth in the process. Bill and Melinda gates are of the same opinion. Phillip Seymour Hoffmann left all his money to his companion to take care of the children and left a small portion in trust to the children for health and maintenance problems that may arrive.
Sting also ISN'T leaving his money to his children. He indicated that this would impede their work ethic and make them lazy. He further stated that he will leave his money to charities in addition to SPENDING it! Anderson Cooper, scion to the Vanderbuilt fortune, asserted that his mother, Gloria Vanderbuilt, did not give him an inheritance and he is GLAD she didn't! Many millionaires assert that they AREN'T about to leave their children an inheritance; they want their children to EARN money the way THEY did. Sad really, not to leave a child an inheritance, oh ....WELL.
Smarter is always better than harder in anything I have seen. Smarter helps you cut time out of the equation which almost always rewards the person with better results. How many times have you heard "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", by George Santayana? I think smarter plays into this incredibly and it does not help with a little start up money from your family either.
Yes, I'm reminded of Sir Richard Branson who dragged himself up by his own bootlaces (and a helping £25,000 from his family. Worth nearly £400,000 in today's money).
What about Oprah Winfrey, Larry Winget, and Mark Wahlberg. They came from poor to impoverished families and became multimillionaires. They TOOK responsibility for their lives, instead of saying that they cannot succeed because they came from either poverty or near poverty. They CHOSE not to BE VICTIMS. People can be what THEY want to be if they worked smart and STOP PLAYING THE VICTIM GAME! GET OFF the excuses, now!
I'm going to quote from a biography on Winfrey...
"Winfrey said her father saved her life. He was very strict and provided her with guidance, structure, rules, and books. He required his daughter to complete weekly book reports, and she went without dinner until she learned five new vocabulary words each day.
Winfrey became an excellent student, participating as well in the drama club, debate club, and student council. In an Elks Club speaking contest, she won a full scholarship to Tennessee State University. The following year she was invited to a White House Conference on Youth. Winfrey was crowned Miss Fire Prevention by WVOL, a local Nashville radio station, and was hired by the station to read afternoon newscasts."
In other words, her father taught her!
People who aren't taught, don't know.
With regard to Larry Winget, it appears both his parents were entrepreneurs in retail and he went from school to university - highly unlikely for someone who came from a very poor home. That said, there's very little information about him, and my source might be wrong as I couldn't double check it two or three times.
Nobody, nobody, nobody gets to be successful without input and guidance from others during their growing years.
That's the hard science of it. Your opinion of that is just that - misinformed and not related to the facts.
I've often said that I grew up with parents who never asked if I wanted to go to College, but what College did I want to go to. To me this summed up what their priorities for their children were.
I didn't realize for quite some time that we were the exception and not the rule.
Larry Winget admitted himself during a speech that he came from a lower middle class home. In one of his books, he recalled an incident during junior high school where a classmate jeered him because he only had one pair of jeans which he wore every day. Mr. Winget indicated that from that moment on, he vowed to become wealthy.
Yes, there are some very poor young people who attended college and university despite what you may have believed. I attended college with many people who came from extremely lower socioeconomic circumstances. As my mother who advanced to upper middle class status in adulthood from impoverished beginnings stated IT CAN BE DONE, NO EXCUSES TOLERATED! She did not play the victim game, she went out and worked for what she wanted- she did not whine and complain about being impoverished. She decided for herself at the age of 9 that she wanted more out of life than to be an impoverished child of sharecroppers in the South during the Great Depression!
She did it herself, worked her way through high school and nursing school and made straight As. being a salutatorian twice. She also worked her way up to Nursing Supervisor at a prestigious hospital. My maternal uncle worked his way up to the position of Director in an agency. My youngest maternal aunt graduated at the top of her university class and her last position was that of an executive. Yes, people can give you some assistance but the rest is UP TO YOU!
I would like to add that Dr. Ben Carson, the gifted neurosurgeon, came from impoverished beginnings; however, he did not let such socioeconomic circumstances deter him from becoming highly successful. While many poor people do not succeed, there are those who do because they do not succumb to the victim and blaming mentality and decide to assess and improve their lives. One has to work for success! While wealthier children do have it easier(that is common sense and not hard to deduct), those who are less wealthy. even poor can achieve success if they are willing to strategize and work smart for it!
While reading Outliers is good, I also haveread the book, I also have encountered both wealthy and poor people in my life from elementary school until the present time. I know several highly successful people who came from extremely poor circumstances. Coming from a wealthy background does not necessarily make one highly successful. One has to be hungry, aggressive, and strive for success! There are many programs which poorer children can take advantage of; however, it is up to the parents to do research on these programs. Being impoverished is not an excuse to be ignorant as to how to improve your and your children's environment. If there is a will, there definitely is a way! I have said enough!
To Quote about Mark Wahlberg...
"Born on June 5, 1971, in Dorchester, Mass., Mark Wahlberg grew up the youngest of nine children. After a 45-day jail term at 16, Wahlberg turned his life around via the music world with the help of his brother Donnie, a member of New Kids on the Block. "
In other words, he was assisted in turning his life around by a very famous, powerful money.
So far, neither Oprah nor Mark Wahlberg magically 'pulled themselves up by their bootstraps." They had guidance and assistance from others.
These things are resources. Over and over again, Gladwell shows that there is a direct correlation between people being successful and resources in their childhood.
Okay, let's google the last person you mentioned.
In my opinion it's not so much that wealthier people are more pro-active, future oriented etc. It's that people who are pro-active, future oriented etc tend to become wealthy. Sure, wealth enables someone to enact those attributes more easily (it's easier for someone born wealthy to think ahead and plan for the future) but wealth does not determine whether someone has those attributes in the first place. There are lazy, incompetent, stupid wealthy people too.
Again are wealthy people smarter, or is it that smarter people tend to become wealthy? There is an important difference. Also, it's not just about being smart. There are a host of variables (including chance) that determine if a poor person is able to become wealthy.
But more important than any of that, who said financial wealth is the indicator by which success should be measured? Who said that the dollar amount in a person's bank account is the number by which they must be valued? Would Oprah somehow be less of a person if she were not wealthy? Do you think Oprah is more of a person than you because (I assume) there are more digits on her account statement than on yours? That seems to be the underlying assumption in this, and some of your other posts. I'm wondering how you arrived at that way of thinking.
Don, normally I want to slap you sideways anytime you open your m--er, tap your fingers, but right now I want to hug you.
You don't fool me with that little passive-aggressive backhanded compliment. I think you're just reaching out for a hug. Come on Z don't be shy, bring it in . . .
C'mon now, HUG, HUG, HUG, it's SO GOOD for the SOUL. This is so sweeeet........
About two decades ago, I had this same argument with a boyfriend. He told me of several women who were very successful and who had 'started from nothing.'
He went back to check. It appeared that the 'started from nothing' for one of the women meant the capital she borrowed from her father and, for the second one, the substantial divorce settlement, she had received from her husband.
For the next week, my ex looked for just one woman who had actually started without capital and he couldn't find a single one.
It's a myth!
Branson went to Stowe, an expensive fee paying school.
I always liked the quote I read in some book of fiction a long time ago. "He was too intelligent too make money".
Or our own Ernest Marples contribution "Most people are too busy earning a living to make money"
That is actually true. Ethics have to do with understanding the outcomes of certain actions. People who are highly intelligent won't do certain things because they can see that it affects human beings negatively in the medium to short term.
As per the research in this article, people with power and money tend to have sociopathic profiles. They are able to make the amount of money they do because they trample people in the process. The irony is that they completely unaware that they are doing so because they don't see these people as people...
http://www.cracked.com/article_18777_5- … -suck.html
I do believe wealthy people tend to apply their knowledge in fields that give them the best return on their investment.The poor people might follow in the same situations and circumstances that keep them from earning more money and letting their investments pay for themselves.The smarter investor neither richer or poorer will come out ahead.There are many foolish rich people who have lost millions because of bad choices and decisions.We just here about the ones that hit the news where the people with less income have limited resources until they follow the right steps to succeed.There are many people with little money who are very smart and can make it last a very long time.I think it is how much you are willing to learn and learning from our mistakes that makes the difference not richier or poorer.
I'm not at all sure that I'm understand the connection between a better education, for instance, and working harder after school.
Having that education will not get a lazy person rich. Unless you are one of the few to be given the wealth, you will have to earn it yourself, and you don't do that on a 40 hour work week. Look at the home life of wealthy CEO's and other VIP executives and compare it to that of a poorer person (not the poorest, just the average American). People making astronomical salaries typically work very long hours and are very often away from home.
Same with "smarter". Stupid people don't accumulate vast wealth. While there are innumerable examples of smart but poorer people, you won't find but a very few wealthy stupid people that have worked their way to that wealth. The obvious conclusion is that the average intelligence of the wealthy is higher than that of the poor. And no, I can't make it any clearer that the term "average" is a very key word here.
Wilderness, I went to school with wealthy people and my parent's could afford to send all of us to exclusive schools, plus we traveled extensively. I don't think we were poor. Neither of my parents worked that hard. Certainly, my father still had time to be president and chairman of the astronomical and engineering societies, write articles for various newspapers, dance, and exercise every day. My late mother worked, but she also had time to breed dogs, travel be a stock car racer, be a philatelist, and more.
Most of the mothers of my peer group didn't work. Many of my peers were the children of farmer's who had had the farms in their family for 8 or 9 generations. The same with business. I still know a lot of these people. They work no harder than anyone else. It's a blatant untruth that they work that hard. I'm not blind. I actually moved out of those circles when I was 25 because their contempt for others appalled me.
I'm curious. Have you ever hung out with these people day in, day out for a large chunk of your life, gone into their homes as if they are family, heard them talk about 'white trash? (that's you and me), etc."
And I actually give up at this point. You must all believe what you want to believe. It's just a justification for something inside you. I don't know what it is, but it's not nice. Bye. Not talking about this again. It's knocking one's head against a stone wall. I hope, one day, when you lose it all, you relook at this.
I have known and counted as friend only one really wealthy person. He was retired at the ripe old age of forty something. Nor was he of the ilk you mention in their fake "better than thou" attitude. Although I don't know what that has to do with either working hard OR being smart. It seems almost a necessary part of being rich and hobnobbing with the rich.
Angelique, there is likely confusion as to what "wealthy" means - I envision someone earning a half million+ per year and a net worth of many millions. Not earning a measley few hundred thousand. Although I have known people in that income range (just not well or intimately) I have never known any of them with a 40 hour job. More like 60-80 hours a week.
Do you really think that the upper echelons of corporate power have reached their level of power and wealth by being lazy or working the same schedule the rest of us do? Do you not realize that your father's participation in various societies is a part of why he had a high income job? These things are not all play - they are a necessary part of being recognized as part of the power and influential group of people that are paid the highest salaries.
Do you think Bill Gates went home 5 days a week and spent the evening playing video games? My wife used to work for a husband and wife physician team; at least one of them was on the job nearly 24 hours a day, every day. Wealthy, yes, but they worked for it, and far harder than I ever have.
Eventually some of these people recognize that they have enough and slow down, but most don't. They keep playing the game, working themselves into early heart attacks, divorces and other physical and/or social problems.
And finally, yes, I find that nearly all of the wealthy people I have had the misfortune to have been acquainted with are not pleasant to be around. Which is probably at least a part of why I haven't known many and have only counted one as a friend. That distaste for their lifestyle and attitudes in no way means that those that have actually earned their wealth did not work very hard for it, though.
If your purpose in starting this thread was simply to bash rich people for the way they choose to live their life you picked a poor way to do it. Had you chosen other topics (lack of empathy, lack of generosity, inability to actually care about anyone but themselves, etc.) I would probably have jumped on your bandwagon, but not for being lazy or stupid. Those two things just don't fit with my (admittedly limited) observations of those at the top of the money pile.
Being rich and living comfortably are two different things. Also, it is not that the rich are more intelligent than the poor. If intelligence equaled riches, then professors would rule the world. Wealth comes with focus. One has to focus and work towards being rich to become rich. If hard work equaled riches, then blue collar workers would all be rich. Construction jobs, for example, are hard work. Digging ditches for example is hard work. So, it isn't that working hard leads to riches. It is working hard at the right jobs/careers that will lead to riches.
I believe that work ethics have failed in the last thirty years. You hear young people say, I will not do that work, being selective in which jobs they want. Work two jobs..heavens No! I was raised in the military. My dad received his GED and joined the military at 17. He never went to college. My father was a saver and paid cash for everything. He also saved any pay raise that he got so when he retired... my parents paid cash for their home. He took a little job working in the commissary as a stock boy. He retired as a first Sgt and many of his friends admonished him for taking such a little job. He said I will get my foot in the door for civil service. It was not long before he moved up and retired a second time as a GS 12 in civil service. My point in all this is...I do think if you work hard, learn to be frugal, not wanting instant satisfaction then you can gain riches..I would call this wise.There are many levels to being wealthy...One mans junk is another's treasure... it is all in the eyes of who is looking at the wealth. I feel wealthy when I see the starving children on TV...I do not feel so wealthy when I watch the houses of the rich and famous. I think my dad was smart...he knew how to mange what he had...I think that is the key.
Wealthy people often are inherently more intelligent, or more educated, or they took more of a risk.
Not always, but it is often the case.
When you're expending most of your energy on staying alive, there's not a whole lot left to investigate a way of life you have no firsthand experience with, but think maybe one day you'd really like to have, then figure out on your own (cuz no one in your world is living that life) how to navigate the many obstacales in your path to get there.
If you can't rely on education to lift you up (which it appears we all agree is a likelihood for poor kids), then you've got to be extra smart to figure out how to bust out of the mold.
So I would argue that someone poor who is able to become wealthy (or even well-to-do, or comfortable) is smarter AND has to work harder.
Look at it this way.
From 1996 to 2005, the following movement happened(Listed quintile to richest quintile)
Bottom 20% - 5.3%
Second 20% - 7.9%
Middle 20% - 12.5%
Fourth 20% - 30.2%
So, 5.3% of people who were in the bottom 20% of earners in 1996 were in the top 20% by 2005. 8% of the second-lowest group of earners made it to the top 20%, and so on.
A lot of people make their way up without being born into priviledge. These numbers represent 117 million taxpayers, so that means
1.2 million moved from the bottom to top quintiles.
1.8 million moved from the second to top.
2.9 million moved from the middle group to top.
7 million moved from the fourth 20% to top.
It CAN be done, all people have to do is TO STOP MAKING EXCUSES and STOP SAY CAN'T! You can if YOU REALLY WANT TO, NOBODY is STOPPING YOU but YOU! It is called assessment and taking responsibility and stop playing the blame and victim game, folks!
And as of 2008 all those gains except those at the very top were reversed.
Downward mobility rules!
It is a bit naive and sweeping generalization to think that poor people don't work hard that is why they are poor or vice versa
You have some good points. Work smarter although some luck behind it such as wealth being passed generation to generation will get you an easy life too.Your social connections from your rich parents help you more than you can imagine. (I knew 2 realtors who list/sell multi-million dollar properties because of their parents - still successful in today's economy.)
You also have some kids who are poor but are exceptional athletes. I know the odds of making it in professional sports are less than 1% or becoming a famous actor in Hollywood. (I did know 2 such people about 25 yrs ago. One was a lead actor who was truly a good guy in real life, great personality, drove here from the mid-west, made $7/hr at a cafe, did auditions, drove a real beater and is at least worth $20mil today)
Then you have some middle to lower income young adults who pitch an idea to a venture capital company. Or the guy who started cliff bar. Or the guy who imported coconut water from Brazil a decade ago. Kimbo Slice a wannabe MMA fighter but made a few million for 10 seconds in the ring. There truly are not many excuses. Simply solve each obstacle.
Yes, work smarter is the way. Creativity and Perseverance.
The World's richest woman tells the world that the poor have no one but themselves to blame for their poverty.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … arder.html
About half the people in the USA are poor, and getting poorer
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-573 … ow-income/
Once middle class, hardworking people are now dirt poor and doing a rethink as to why their hard work and smarts didn't prevent them from joining the poor...
http://insidedateline.nbcnews.com/_news … verty?lite
Now the important thing here is that the GOP wants to win the 2012 election. Do they honestly think that people who are poor are going to vote for them when they are told that the reason they are poor is because they are stupid and lazy? Maybe it wouldn't matter if it was only 10% of the population, but when it's half the population and increasing, why on earth would they vote Republican?
I predicted that Obama would win 2012 for a variety of reasons. Now I'm going to make another prediction. As a result of the above type of attitudes and a couple of other things, the GOP will lose the next three or four elections, and then, they will either disappear completely or they will regroup with a more relevant set of policies - about 2024 or 2028.
I read that article about the richest woman in the world last night, and I , or course, was disgusted by her arrogant remarks; easy to make such claims as she does when she was born rich. Just plain dumb. I like your reasoning in terms of the elections and I'd like to see it happen. The playing field has leveled in America, maybe they'll see the light.
It's bizarre to me reading all these posts confidently declaring that wealthy people earned their money, and poor people are lazy.
All my school chums worked their buns off. Most held two jobs while in school, and spent over a decade after getting out of school paying off student loans, so that they had to pay rent all that time and were always struggling to make ends meet. They were frugal, hardworking, poor, but couldn't save because they had to start out in such big debt to get started in life: their families couldn't afford to send them to a good college, so they did it themselves. Once they got out of school, they couldn't invest or save much because they were paying off student loans, paying rent, paying off car loans, and then paying for children.
They WORKED. They were smart.
Meanwhile, someone born with a silver spoon in her mouth didn't have to pay for college because of a wealthy family. Didn't have to work. Could start investing and saving in high school, and could be adding up interest and capital gains and dividends while everyone else was paying off student loans. Net result? Miss silver spoon wound up with wealth, while the hard workers did not. Plus, if miss silver spoon ever needed help with buying a home or medical expenses, there was always a wealthy family to chip in, so she never had to worry about unexpected or large debts like everyone else. And, oh, by the way, miss silver spoon pays less in taxes, because capital gains aren't taxed like wages. So the kid who inherits money ALWAYS has an advantage.
The idea that poor people work less hard is baloney. In the current economy, the wealthy get wealthier while the middle class struggles. Anyone who doesn't believe that is fooling themselves.
Totally. Thanks for expressing it so well. I get so frustrated with these people, but last night when I was thinking about it, I realized that they had been brainwashed to believe this. When one hears a thought all the time, the human brain believes it, even if it is completely untrue.
Saying poor people are lazy and/or stupid is like saying, christian's are pedo's, muslims are terrorists and atheists eat babies!
For one thing, my landlady is both lazy and stupid and she is rich! Her dad was a hard worker who built up a portfolio of London properties (owning property here means millions literally). He left everything to his daughter and she obviously doesn't know the value of money. She hardly ever fixes problems with this property if she doesn't actually have to, even tho it over time makes this building more and more in disrepair, reducing it's value. When she does have to fix something it goes to the lowest bidder, often meaning the 'fix' breaks again within months. The idea 'you get what you pay for' seems too complicated for her to understand .
Then you can take someone like Nikola Tesla, my current favourite scientific mind. His theories and inventions were almost all stolen from him, he died alone and penniless and forgotten by society. If you use electricity today, you have Nikola Tesla to thank for that, if not for him a power plant would need to be pretty close to your home in order for you to have any. He was too busy working hard inventing to protect himself from smear campaigns and the theft of his ideas and work. Poor but smarter then all of us put together. Kinda makes me think sweeping statements aren't likely to ever really be worth paying attention to.
gmwilliams, you need to visit some places - in Asia where I came from poverty is rampant and people work really hard. Women go to rice field with babies at their back, they are pregnant and sometimes even give birth in the ricefields. They don't even have the luxury of seeing a doctor before they give birth, imagine the risks they are into. I am sure as a sociologist, you agree with me that you have to factor in government, economy and economic opportunities.
I am not talking about poverty in Asia and Africa. These people are indeed poor and do need governmental assistance, social, educational, and other outreach programs. To state otherwise about the poor in those countries would be totally insensitive to say the least.
I am discussing the poor in the United States. There are many poor people in the United States who have the premise that the world owes them a living, victims in life, and constantly wanting to be rescued. Those are the poor people I am discussing, not the poor in Asia and Africa, those poor people are often exploited and oppressed.
The poor in the United States are far different from the poor in Asia and Africa. Yes, there are some needy poor in the United States and they should be helped, there are others who could help themselves as there are free programs and educational opportunities available. However, they want the easy life and do not wish to put in the necessary effort in order to go beyond their impoverished status! To reiterate, my parents came from poor families. My mother always stated that if she could pull herself by the bootstraps, there is absolutely no excuse that others cannot do the same.
Even here in the US, all you need to do is open your eyes and look at the people who are wage earner, they work hard
The sweeping generalization you are saying here is disturbing!
"My mother always stated that if she could pull herself by the bootstraps, there is absolutely no excuse that others cannot do the same."
Your mother 'pulled herself up by the bootstraps' when there were a lot of resources and facilities available in the United States to those who couldn't help themselves. She used those, and whether you admit it or not, you would have taken advantage of them as well.
They don't exist anymore.
Yes, I agree that 30 or 40 years ago, people could rise from poor to relatively prosperous in the United States. That isn't possible or probable anymore. Times have changed.
Quote from article below.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/06/144789990 … ty-no-more
"Recent reports say America now lags behind Canada, Britain and some Western European nations in terms of economic mobility."
Also quote from
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47337260/US_Is_L … ty_No_More
"“There is structural unemployment in the United States as a consequence of globalization. Those are jobs that have gone away and are not coming back. There are large numbers of Americans that just don’t have opportunities—they’re not college educated and they’re not going to get jobs in this environment,” Bremmer said on 'Squawk Box Europe."
Obviously, you are so set on considering yourself superior because you consider yourself successful that you wouldn't dream of admitting or thinking that there were other factors involved, and that those factors are no longer available to people in the USA.
Yes, it is! There may be "less" opportunities but THEY ARE THERE if one looks hard enough for them. Excuses, excuses ad infinitum. Stop with the excuses, pity parties, and start with the elbow grease.
gmwilliams, has it ever occurred to you that a lot of people aren't moaning about having less money than you and god almighty have. What they find contemptible is your attitude of arrogance and disdain. I, personally, would never want to associate with you, regardless of how much money you have because I find you lacking in all the meaningful attributes of life, like wisdom, compassion, logic, critical thinking, education, knowledge, and a bundle of other things.
It's not a pity party here. It's an objection to your conclusion that people who have less than you have or who are poor are in some way guilty of a terrible sin - being stupid and lazy.
By the way, are you a troll?
OK gmwilliams, I'm going to make your day!
This weekend I'm going to fly over your great nation and sprinkle pixie dust over all the people struggling to get by on what they earn.
On Monday morning every one of them is going to wake up full of entrepreneurial zeal and crying "I'm not going to take this any more" throw in their jobs and pursue the get rich quick scheme I instilled in them with the pixie dust.
They will all go off and pursue their dreams of riches, but wait, why is that CEO gently weeping, and why is that other one about to jump out of that window?
Could it be that with this new zeal amongst the poorly paid there is nobody left to do the menial low paid jobs? Nobody answering telephones, filing paper, making tea, cleaning offices, minding machines! No police, no ambulance workers, no fire brigades, no street sweepers, nobody serving in MacDonalds or Walmart?
An as you watch over the anarchy, the street fighting, the bankruptcy of your country you can feel proud that you did it your way.
Come on, you really do know that the system that you love can not survive without the people you despise, without the filing clerk earning $10 an hour there is no way that the CEO can take his $1000 an hour. Without those millions of wage slaves there is nothing for the wealthy to steal and they will just have to watch their wealth dissipate.
Hmmmmmm! The file clerk wants to be where he/she is. No one is forcing him/her to be a file clerk. If he/she wants to do better, he/she CAN! Please stop the pity parties, it has become tired. If you want more, get off butt and work for it! Capitalism rules! God bless America!
It must be an established assertion that some people are born rich. That notwithstanding, any form of riches that comes the way of a person requires certain natural commitments to be upheld to. Maybe the need to instil self discipline, cultivate a habit of love for money, desist from cheating rather than those acts which look money yielding and so forth.
Because conditions of human beings and their various locations on the globe may suggest to be an influencing factor, no two ways about that... but...
Just be focus, determined, and then 'Respect' money, and never be in a rush to be become rich; since it may elude you if it comes !
I think the answer is that rich people definitely are not smarter. But there are certain behaviors that people who grow up with wealth have that can help them succeed. An expectation of success is a big advantage in itself. If you grow up around successful people, you expect to succeed. Going to good schools, having connections, having money to back you up in whatever venture you decide to take, these are all big advantages.
People who are born into middle class families learn that they should get a job and go to work every day to support their family. These are the people who tend to work hard at a job which will support them, but probably not ever make them wealthy. Only if they learn to go beyond that mindset will they attain wealth. They are no less intelligent than the rich people, they just learned to have different expectations for themselves.
People who are born into poor families and are surrounded by people who do not have financial success often have low expectations for where they will go in life. If their parents have also come from this background, it will be hard for them to help their children escape this mindset. You can blame them for being unambitious, or say they are dumb or lazy, but if you placed those same children in wealthy homes as infants, they would probably do as well as the rich kids. So it's not some inborn defect. They are not naturally dumb, they just didn't have the opportunity to learn how to dream a bigger dream.
Of course there are some in each of these groups who will not follow that pattern, some kids born wealthy will end up living on the streets, and some of the poor kids will make millions.
You make some great points. I also agree that poor people are not dumb. Unfortunately, they just don't have the support of their parents. Most poor people do not support education. They do not involve themselves in their child's education. They do not see the importance of getting an education, so their children do not see it either.
Do Wealthy People Work Harder and Are they Smarter?
I don't believe I have ever heard a 'wealthy' person ask that question...
Are there no work houses... are there no prisons...
As a generality comedians seem to be the most intelligent, or their writers.
Well, children of wealthy parents are likely to be wealthy. Children of poor parents are likely to be poor.
There are many successful rich people that started their lives out poor! Eminem grew up poor, and didn't finish high school. He's pretty loaded now. A friend's parents I know both dropped out of high school to become truckers. They now own the trucking company, and are very very well off. I am sure we can all think of rich and successful people who are that way because they worked their butts off!
Also, people born to rich families aren't neccessarily going to become rich, either. Anyone who is jobless and still lives with their parents well into their 20s (or 30s, or 40s, or forever) is pretty poor themselves; they just happened to have the nice circumstance of people paying for their cereal and cable bill. Also, I suspect Lindsay Lohan is about to become pretty poor, too. She started out wealthy, but now nobody will hire her because of HER mistakes. Now she owes a hotel $80,000, last I heard, and she can't get a movie or TV role if it kills her.
Life is all about what you make of it. I have lived very comfortably in low incomes before. You may not need to be smart to get wealthy, but you certainly need to be smart to STAY wealthy.
Stories like Eminem and Lindsay Lohan are the exception, not the rule. I think plenty of people who were born rich stay that way by just not doing anything extremely stupid. It doesn't take a genius.
You don't have to be a genius to be smart and resourceful. Anyone can make money if they try hard enough. Isn't that why we are on Hubpages? I have met people in NYC who make a very good living (as in, better than minimum wage) off of street performance. Quarters in a guitar case. They are resourceful. (And they probably don't pay taxes on that money)
That's fine, they probably get by, but I doubt they get rich. Just like you and I will not likely get rich here on HubPages.
In order to continue this discussion, I think we need a definition of what "rich" actually is. When I worked for minimum wage, I considered people making $16 or $17 dollars and hour to be rich. As a college student looking for post-graduation jobs, I considered anything over $35k/year to be well-off. Then there are people that make over 6 figures, and I kind of consider those people rich now. But what is rich? Is it how much you spend, or is it how much you save?
I'm sorry, but no.
I'm starting a business. If it happens to grow and I need a worker in the future, I will decide on a wage I will pay that person and advertise the position. People who will accept that wage for their time will contact me. If we both like each other, we will enter into a contract with each other. An open contract, between consenting individuals capable of making their own decisions.
CEOs aren't stealing from their employees. They are providing compensation for work, at agreed-upon rates.
Class warfare is so stupid.
Note "I will decide" and "people who will accept". Not exactly equal partners in the contract!
It's nothing to do with class warfare, that is just a distraction thrown in by the wealthy to demonise the workers.
Totally agreed! Yes, there are a few CEOs and CFOs who DO steal from their employees but NOT ALL! There are corporations who ousourced their jobs overseas. This, of course, was immensely beneficial for the upper echelon of business while the middle to lower echelon are left jobless which further impoverishes them.
There was one CEO rewarded himself with a bonus while employees were laid off , all on a pretext "to save company costs". This action was egregiously unnecessary and illogical. In addition to that, it is unethical but par for the course in many businesses in the postmodern era. While I view nothing wrong with wealth, greed is another matter. Those employees DID NOT have to be LAID OFF. That CEO did not need the bonus as he was more than amply paid. While a few CEOs, CFOs, and other highly placed executives are unethical, the majority are not but are conscientious, hard working people!
Of course an employee isn't an equal partner with an employer! Who would expect such a thing?
If I work for 5 years to make my business successful, and then need an employee, should that employee have the same rights in the business as I do?
It's an equal contract because nobody is forced into it. You can't say that I am stealing from my employees by paying them what we both agreed upon. That's the point I was addressing, employers aren't stealing from their employees. They owe their employees nothing beyond the contract of their employment.
Of course an employee isn't an equal partner in the business but he is an equal partner in his life!
You say that nobody is forced into it then you've obviously never been in the position where you would take any work rather than live off welfare. Try telling your employer that you want $5 an hour more and see if you still get the job.
Of course employers are stealing from their employees, the whole system is based on the abuse of the vulnerable.
Yes, I have been in a position where I would take any work, and I have. I've worked cold-calling for magazine subscriptions for $9/hr, and I was happy to do so. I was grateful that the job was there. My employer wasn't stealing from me, he was providing me with a job.
Why would I tell my employer I want more than he is offering? If it's negotiable, we can negotiate, but if he has a position for $9/hr, I'm not going to try and change his mind. You make it sound like employees should be able to set their own wages...
So what are employers stealing from employees?
In a level playing field, that works.
When the system is rigged, eventually it leads to class warfare.
You might regard class warfare as stupid. There are many throughout history who lost their lives because they thought if they made the people so poor that the poor would be desperate to accept crumbs when it was offered them in return for their labor that it was an acceptable contract.
No, it's not.
And I'm disgusted that, in world, where we all have access to history, those that should have learnt the lessons of history, have not.
The system isn't rigged. The system is open. That's exactly why millions and millions of people pull themselves up out of every level of wealth into the category of 'rich'.
What you are describing isn't happening, and it's ridiculous to claim so. Yeah, things are bad now because we don't have enough jobs, but that's not the fault of the employers. Things will get better, and the standard of living for everyone, including the poor, will continue to rise.
Jaxson, do not waste your breath. They have their opinions and you have yours. I am finished, have a good day, Jaxson! There are people who do not understand no matter how well things are explained.
gmmilliams, you are mistaken. You believe in myths.
+ a multillion times! I would like to add that many people become wealthy and/or highly sucessful because they took intelligent risks where others feared to do because the latter want socioeconomic security above all else. There are fearless people who are unafraid to take calculated and intelligent risks to make their dream come true.
The average person is bound by the premise of job security i.e. they want better but are loathe to take the risk to become what they want to be socioeconomically because the job is their security blanket so to speak. Many times, in order to become wealthy and extremely successful, one has to tread unknown territory and try new things and many people have been inculcated with the premise of job security above all!
There was a news story which an extremely beautiful policewoman in New York City was offered an extremely lucrative modelling contract. She turned it down because she preferred the security of her civil service position. In other words, the average person prefers security, the comfort zone, and the known over that which seems to be insecure, being uncomfortable, and the unknown. Sometimes, venturing into the unknown has lucarative benefits.
Most wealthy families had some clever individual at some point in their histories. Someone who invented something notable. Or more likely someone with a little capital and the ability to recognize that someone else had invented something notable that was worth exploiting.
Those individuals found the dynasties. And from those dynasties come Joe Averages with fine expensive educations who may or not make a contribution to the countries they live in. Some will at least do some work. Some will do the basic stuff and make sure that the help isn't stealing and that the accountants are keeping tabs on the financial advisers.
Some will just busy themselves with their hobbies (collecting art, polo, whatever). The worst will interfere in politics. Probably the least reprehensible will squander the family wealth on drink, gambling, drugs etc (at least the money goes back into circulation and they are not undermining the democratic process).
Sadly, the number of self made billionaires in any generation is very small. We do not live in meritocracies.
No, we don't live in a meritocracy.
No child left behind... mm hmm.
Affirmative Action... mm hmm.
Our government just keeps taking away personal responsibility more and more...
Shhh, responsibility is now a 4-letter word, Jaxson, haven't you heard? It is more convenient and chic now to be a crybaby and victim who loves pity parties! WAH! WAH! WAH! WAH!
No, personal responsibility is not a four letter word, and never has been. However, what you and yours are trying to say is personal responsibility is nothing of the sort.
The people who get as rich as God don't do so because they're super intelligent and hardworking, but because they're crooks, thieves, and without conscience. The reason many hardworking people don't get rich is because they draw a ine at certain actions.
For instance, I have seen so many sales people lie in order to sell products. I personally know quite a few who are tremendous 'success stories.' In fact, one of them could probably buy half a country with the amount of wealth he accumulated by the time he was 35. I asked how he started and he said sales. I asked (but I didn't have to) whether he had ever actively set out to influence someone to buy a product that s/he didn't really need. He freely admitted it - not a problem in the world.
And that's where the difference is.
People with consciences don't have money as a motive; they have the good of mankind as a motive.
I don't know if you saw this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -them.html
However, over and over again, it's coming up that people with mega wealth and mega power got there because they trample on other people.
Far from having a lack of personal responsibility, people that work hard and remain in poverty are probably the good guys. It's the jerks who make money out of them that are the evil ones. And they have no responsibility towards mankind.
I will be honest and say that the very wealthy people I have known fall into 2 categories. One is the very able and talented crooks. The other is the worthless inheritors.
In the latter, sits the only multibillionaire I have been personally acquainted with. He was one of two brothers who sold up Mercedes back in the seventies. I went out with one of his maids for a while (an Italian Art History student). He had his place in Chelsea, London with a Titian over his bed, drawers full of Rolex's, a Marquessa as a wife, ex-SAS guards to keep away those people who still remembered his families connections with the Nazis, photos of himself with Presidents, Prime Ministers and members of the Royal family. And best of all Picasso line drawings in his downstairs toilet.
What did he do for a living? Well, nothing, obviously, but he did like collecting German Romantic Art, holidaying with the Aga Khan and firing his servants for not wearing absolutely spotless white gloves if he happened to come across them in that condition.
The other guy that comes to mind immediately (self made) illegally ran the haulage trucks of the company he was working for on his own account and got rich. He made the mistake of buying himself a Porsche while the company directors were struggling to keep afloat, got sacked, got sued, won his case (he was too clever to leave a trail) and took away a couple of million in compensation.
He used that money well and now has a large multinational construction business.
I'm not saying these people are representative of their respective classes, but it is food for thought.
The most stable are the upper middle classes. They tend to be professional and still have some decent values as they mostly come from the professions. However, this has also been fading for the past two decades as the competition to 'be successful' drives people to cheat. There is little integrity left these days.
Essentially, honest people can't make much of a living. People who are in marketing and sales tend to make quite a bit. However, in my experience, they don't have much in the line of integrity and honesty. They don't have any qualms in telling people whatever it is that will sell people the product even if they are blatant lies. They also don't have much respect for people's time and energy. One will say no, and they will repeatedly 'try again.' They are trained to believe this is persistence and determination. It's just plain rude and a lack of respect for others.
Many of these types of people become very 'successful.' They're jerks.
As gmwilliams so often does on the forums.... + to the above post you made and to the rest of the stuff you've said on your thread here - not that I presume my "approval" matters to anyone. It's just that it's good to see some objective reality and perspective on a forum thread.
This is true. Of course, there are many people in the lower middle, working, and upper lower classes(working poor) who are exploited by the rich, corporate class. This is unethical of course. Yes, the former are good people while the latter are evil. There are instances of CEOs and CFOs and other highly placed executives who routinely terminate "useless" workers and they, in turn, increase profits to themselves. No, that is not right at all. In many companies and corporations, it is of little use for the employees and/or workers to go to the union because in many instances, the unions and executives work together in some insidious deal. Totally agreed! Of course, there should be a working environment in which lower level employees can thrive and appreciated at work.
Then, gmwilliams, I would like you to define for me exactly these people who are lazy and stupid and who have nobody but themselves to blame for being poor. I'd also like to know exactly what the percentage of them is, and I would like a well researched source for these figures, because while I know that there are a small number of people that may be possibly be lazy, what I personally see are a lot of people who can't personally help themselves. They either don't know any better, or they weren't taught any better, or they've worked their buts off the best way they know how, or they were some of life's unfortunates as a result of events completely out of control...
Please do explain because I can assure you that this attitude of calling the poor lazy and stupid is going to cost the GOP this election and a lot of others...
I will be glad to do so. There is the underclass i.e. the hardcore poor who are either on welfare for generations and/or extremely poor people who just do not care. The working poor such as the lower middle class, working class, and the upper lower class are neither lazy nor stupid but struggling. They are in the game but have not yet found their way so to speak! These people are doing the best that they know how under the circumstances but at least, they are trying to make a better life. Many of these parents do care about their children and work hard to see that their children have a better life than they did. However, the harcore poor just feel as if they are victims of society. They feel that they have nowhere to go and inculcate this idea to their children and their children in turn inculcate this to their children and so on. I am talking about such poor in the United States only.
I, a bleeding heart liberal, recognize that the people you are describing do exist. However, it galls me when politician use this group as justification to end social programs that have been shown to help many, many people. The right has gone too far with their labeling and their willingness to cast aside the poor and helpless who have little voice in our political system in favor of the rich, who have almost all of the voice.
And the left has gone too far in deciding that anyone and everyone, poor or not, disabled or not, able to work or not, is somehow entitled to the luxuries (defined as anything beyond food, shelter and clothing) that other people earn for themselves.
Somewhere in the middle is where we should be. Not providing total support for generations of welfare Moms, not denying basic living help to those that need a helping hand up.
The left (speaking in very general terms) has decided that they have an innate right to take whatever they want from those that have, to do with as they see fit. The right (speaking in very general terms) says "Oh no you don't" and retreats ever further into a shell blocking them from reality. Both sides denigrate the other for their respective attitudes, both sides vilify the other with good reason, and the country goes broke while people go hungry.
"And the left has gone too far in deciding that anyone and everyone, poor or not, disabled or not, able to work or not, is somehow entitled to the luxuries (defined as anything beyond food, shelter and clothing) that other people earn for themselves."
This is a complete mischaracterization of the position of "the left." I know of no one who wants to unconditionally hand out luxuries.
In fact those on the true left don't even agree with welfare, we would much rather that jobs were provided for every body and that nobody had to suffer the humiliation and contempt chucked at them by the chattering classes.
Were that true, welfare funds would be used to build and staff day care centers (giving jobs as caregivers to mothers with children and to laid off construction workers) and freeing up more mothers to work.
They would be used to pay people to sweep roads, build or repair streets and clean public buildings.
But that kind of thing is "slavery" and "demeaning"; it gives rise to "humiliation and contempt" as the welfare recipients earn their way through life rather than taking handouts.
Before you exclaim that some of the poor can't work or provide a useful service to the country, I fully understand that. Those people, however, are extremely limited in numbers and the fast majority of welfare recipients can give something in return for their free lunch.
But the reason why that doesn't happen is because it would be socialism!
Without the unemployed there would be no check on wages and inflation.
Your system really needs the unemployed.
Someone with logic presenting a sound premise. Couldn't have agreed with you more. In tlhe United States, people can transcend impoverished conditions if THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for their lives and STOP BEING VICTIMS. Well said, Wilderness! I am NOW out of here, have a nice weekend and Labor Day!
Agreed, Wilderness, you cannot teach some people logic and sense. That would be analogous to a Roman explaining the virtues of aqueducts and infrastructures to a Hun!
Hogwash - the easiest and simplest example is the cell phone tax on your phone to provide cell phones for the "poor". Cell phones are an absolute luxury, in no way necessary even today. Very nice, yes, but not necessary.
Barracks can provide housing; individual apartments our houses are a luxury.
Ever take a hard look at what some of the food stamps issued are purchasing?
As far as unconditionally - have you heard the uproar over proposed drug testing to obtain welfare? It's called a "condition" and will not be tolerated.
Easy to stop all these arguments - just provide everybody with a job.
Let them starve!
But who wouldn't want to work?
There are a lot of people who don't want to work. There are people who are unemployed, even though I could point them to half a dozen call centers that would hire them no problem.
I don't want to go off on this tangent though, you have a hard enough time sticking to one subject.
No, there are plenty of people who don't want to be exploited by somebody who has more wealth than they can ever dream of.
Not the same as not wanting to work.
If you think people receive those things unconditionally, then you are misinformed.
True. There are conditions to receiving these free luxuries. You must be under the federal guidelines in income received. I couldn't get one, for instance, even though I bring home less in income than many do in welfare payments of one kind or another.
The point though was that the country provides a great many luxuries to the poor, far beyond what is necessary to live, and is an example of what the right views as crossing the line in "helping the poor" at the expense of the "rich" (anyone that has a cell phone in this case).
This is, IMHO, one of the places where the "right" has every right to irritated as the "left" demands that they pay for an unneeded luxury service. There are very, very few people in this country that can't provide $10 worth of monthly service of some kind to provide their own cell phone but the funds are obtained through forced contribution of others instead.
When I worked at a grocery store, the amount of women on WIC who had iPhones in their hands was sickening.
I'm not even kidding on this one. They are starving, and need federal help to buy food, yet they have smart phones. Why?
kathleenkat, it demonstrates the American mindset. You can live in poverty, with a car, a house, fancy electronics, new clothes...
Many Americans don't appreciate hard work, personal responsibility, or the amazing opportunities they have.
So true, Jaxson, many Americans would rather complain about what they DON'T HAVE then to be thankful with what they have and LEARN how to CREATE opportuniities if they desire better. The American poor are extremely RICH in comparison with the poor in Asia and Africa, now that is REAL POVERTY! The poor in Asia and Africa are the ones who are downtrodden, exploited, and have little or no opportunity for getting out of poverty. The American poor by contrast can get out of poverty or near poverty if they really wish to do so! Jaxson, have a good night, good weekend, and a good Labor Day!
A couple years ago, in National Geographic, I read that "middle class" on a global scale starts a $9000, per year. $9000! That is $4.32/hour at 40 hours per week. People survive on a LOT less outside of this country. That little income would make you homeless, here in the States.
Ok, here we go again speaking outside of what is relative! I do not disagree with your comments that American poor are almost wealthy by the standards of other countries, but they live in America and are in poverty by the standards of this country. All this talk about people being able to get out of poverty if they really tried hard enough is frustrating and dangerously ignorant. I have two masters degrees and I can't find a job as a secretary right now, so how is someone who didn't have the luxury of getting that much education supposed to? Are you considering the people who had to drop out of school to work to care for siblings, or sick relatives, or just themselves because they had no responsible adult in their life to do so? How can you tell them that their pay is substandard because they aren't trying hard enough? Sounds to me like you have never struggled with or known anyone who struggled with making ends meet or else you would have more sensitivity to the reality that it isn't that easy to just try harder and you will earn more.
My mother was the oldest of ten siblings of impoverished parents. She worked her way through high school and nursing school. She refused to let poverty stop her from bettering herself. I can cite many real life examples from my extended family. Many of them were born impoverished yet they are upper middle income today. If you want something, it CAN be achieved no matter what your socioeconomic origin is!
If that is your personal story then I don't understand how you can say that it's all up to people to "LEARN" how to create opportunities for themselves. That sounds like Harold Hill telling the townspeople to think real hard and the instruments would begin to play themselves! Many, many people from humble or adverse beginnings are able to create their own destiny and rise above, but they are the exception and not the rule.
Not being overweight is the exception in America... does that mean that people are forced into being overweight and have no choice?
We are approaching having obesity be the norm, rather than the exception... why are people obese?
Because a) they choose to eat too many Big Macs and because b) the manufacturers of said Big Macs fill them with delicious, fatty poison and market them to the poor and undereducated. It's a two way street is all I'm saying.
Negative eating habits. People who are obese elect to eat foods that are detrimental to their bodies. They also refuse to exercise. Many obese people portend that they are obese because of either "genetic background" or "their glands". The real reason for obesity is that they CHOSE incorrect eating habits plus lack of exercise. Life is a choice, either positive and negative with either rewards and/or consequences. Jaxson, it is quite plausible that intelligent adults do not want to face this, preferring to think in the victimology mode like children who yet do not know any better!
I agree, we are in a prescription mindset. Do you have a pill to make me skinny?
I don't believe that people actually think the food they are eating is healthy. I just think they don't want to face the music.
I bought an apple one day at the grocery store for a snack. It cost me $1.19 out the door. In the same parking lot as the grocery store is a McDonalds where I could get 4 pieces of bread, 2 beef patties, 2 slices of cheese, 4 slices of pickle, and a smear of ketchup and mustard for the exact same price.
When cost per calorie equalizes, arguments about choice will work better.
If you cook, you can get your cost per calorie down below fast food crap.
"It's cheap" is not an excuse to eat that dollar-menu junk.
It is when you have $8 and three people to feed for the next two days.
It becomes even more so if the grocery store that sells fresh fruits is a thirty minute walk away (or a $1 bus ride) and the McDonalds is on the corner outside the apartment complex. Yes, you could walk, but time is money too. And who is going to watch your kids? Or do you bring them? Which is fine as long as none of them have to be picked up or dropped off at school. Oh, and, to your point, cooking does matter, but that requires energy. I guess I should have added in some gas and electricity costs for cooking on the side of the apple. And probably the cost of dish soap to wash the pots and utensils. Oh, and water bill. And garbage to dispose of containers, etc. Oh, which would also require going to the store, which, again, is a half hour away (yes, I could buy at the liquor store or the mini-mart, but, selection and quality are low, and price is even higher than discussed.)
I'm not saying you don't have a point. But you are ignoring mine in a way that makes problem solving impossible.
You're right. I have an extensive knowledge of food and using food as a healer. When i came to the US 9 years ago, I was stunned at how expensive food was. I had always heard it was dirt cheap. Only what I was accustomed to calling food was not even on the menu here.
Everything has starch and sugar in it. When one wants to buy organic, grass fed meat - the only meat one should be eating, $8 is not going to cut it. It might buy a bite, but more than that? Not.
Grains shouldn't be eaten at all. One slice of bread per day is all the starch one can get away with.
Well, I'm not going to get into a conversation about whether or not grains should be eaten, etc. as that would railroad this topic right off the map. My point is that in the U.S. it's expensive to eat "healthy" in the four food groups as commonly understood by Americans, and which can be consumed in perfect health by most people. Fresh fruits and vegetables (and healthy grain products and meats as well) are not readily available in some communities, and the poorer the community, the less readily available they are. Worse, the less money you have, the more time you have to spend in travel.
So where I can hop in my car and shoot to the grocery store that is four miles from me and be back home in under and hour, someone walking to a bus stop, sitting at the stop, riding the bus (which stops often), getting off and walking to the store, shopping, walking back to the stop, waiting for the bus again, riding back (stopping often), walking back home again could take them two or three hours. Worse, they can only buy what they can carry. I can jam my rig full of as much crap as I want, and can therefore shop for two weeks at a time easily, thus eliminating the need to go back. The bus rider will have to do all that again several times. And this assumes they are not harassed or robbed along the way etc. (yes, I admit I'm going to an extreme there, but hey, some poor communities are dangerous).
Look at all the lost time for that person. In that time, I can look for a better job, or write a hub article that adds to my online earnings, etc. Time = money. Poverty has a cycle to it, and it all relates to itself. Not saying it's impossible to come out of it, but I am saying, it's a bit simplistic to ask if wealthy people work harder or smarter. It may be a matter, at least to some degree, that they have time to work harder on things that bring greater returns (which seems smarter). But where did they begin? That is an essential question missing from the OP.
Sounds like you and I have a similar viewpoint on the issues raised here. While I enjoy engaging in debate about the issues raised by the original question that has inspired this thread, it also frustrates me to see just how divergent we are as a society (represented here by the difference of opinion I and gmwilliams are having) because it means we are no closer to solving the problem than we are to riding around on rainbow colored unicorns. I agree that we have to take personal responsibility for our choices and that we can create a better destiny if we put in effort, but I also know that that is much easier said than done and that society does not always make it easy for us, especially for those who have less and rely more on the system.
Yes. In the end, we are all responsible for ourselves, and we must count on our own effort and discipline to make what we can of our lives. I totally believe that. I do think, however, that where one comes into the world plays a huge part in that. I don't think anyone should have to apologize for the accident of a fortunate birth, but I do think everyone needs to recognize that it is much easier to reach the summit of you are born half way up the mountain.
Because they choose to remain in their negativity and be victims. My mothers and other relatives who succeeded chose to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR LIVES, ASSESS THE SITUATION, and BECOME PROACTIVE. My mother constantly inculcated me with the premise not to complain, work for what one wants, and there are no excuses that can interfere with the ability not to achieve; if you do not achieve something, it is YOUR fault, not outside forces. I am to talking to people who rather make excuses than to assume responsibility for their lives! I am out! As my late father, who was also born to impoverished parents and worked his way up to upper middle class status, YOU make YOUR DESTINY, no one else!
You keep saying "good night", "have a nice weekend", "I'm out", but you respond to each post. It would seem as if you are unable to control your circumstance and rise above to do what you have said you were going to for over an hour. Your own actions illustrate just how hard it is to employ a mind over matter strategy in our lives. This is only an online discussion where the stakes are zero and you can't motivate to follow through on your own plans. In instances where the stakes are life and death the ability to just have a mental switch and improve your life is even harder to cultivate. I am happy that your parents instilled in you the belief that you can do anything you set your mind to. I also know that in reality many people, whether they were told that they could overcome obstacles or not, whether they saw loved ones do it or not are unable to succeed, so patterns of low achievement are destined to be repeated.
If those people with so-called low achievement psychology were given a choice of either being self-sufficient and get a job or all their benefits and other types of financial asistance would be abruptly discontinued, they would without hesitation choose the former!
No duh! And I don't totally agree with you. How do you account for homeless people who were told precisely that and chose to live on the streets? Giving an ultimatum of either work or loose your benefit isn't stimulating people to rewrite their own destinies. They didn't come up with that on their own, it was forced upon them. Which might be a good thing. It's obviously a difficult problem for American society to solve. It reminds me of the Dez Bryant situation in Dallas. Is it helping him take control of his own life if he is followed 24/7 by a security detail and completely banned from drinking and adult "dance" clubs or would it be better to leave him up to his own devices and hope that he chooses maturity over vice? Some say the babysitting will lead him to the path of responsibility and some say it creates a co-dependent incapable of making lasting change because the change is not organic. Our whole human construct is built on the dichotomy, Yin and Yang, moon and sun. We are both right and we are both wrong.
gmwilliams, I think you don't see family as a resource. Probably the biggest resource in the world is family. If one has a family that is behind one, it goes a long, long way.
I am reminded of a story someone told me in San Diego. There is a very successful Korean businessman here. Apparently he and his wife came here with absolutely nothing. However, that nothing included an uncle who had a very successful grocer. Naturally his uncle gave him and his wife jobs when they arrived and they both worked in the store. In order to be able to save on rental, they asked their uncle if they could sleep in the store so that they didn't have to pay rent. While completely illegal, their uncle permitted them to do that, and they worked there for 5 years saving every penny that they had until they had enough to invest in a store.
So while one could say that they came here with nothing, that is not actually true. They had family who provided them with a job and accommodation.
I was actually speaking to a professor about my situation and the fact that I had no resources except that which was inside me and he said to me, "The Asians come here with nothing... then, again, they have very supportive families that are already here and they get a substantial amount of support from them. You don't have that."
It sounds like you had a great family, and I think they were probably more of a resource to you than you realize.
Having no family is not a legitimate excuse!
If you want a family and are self-motivated, you can go out and get yourself one!
No one who truly wants a family can be restrained from achieving success!
People who do not have families have only themselves to blame!
They are in poverty *because* they live with that stuff.
I know people with far less money than I that still pay a monthly cable bill. Why do they need cable? I don't, and I save a $100 bucks a month.
Unfortunately, the liberal mindset is such that all too many can have these luxuries and still be in such poverty that they need foodstamps, free medical insurance and subsidized housing.
In actuality, of course, the welfare is not paying for food - they have plenty of money for that - they are in fact providing these luxuries that many middle class cannot afford. Can't afford themselves (I would love to have a G4 phone but get by with a tracphone that runs about $10 per month) but can somehow afford to buy for someone else.
It is just this kind of thing that has so alienated so many people that would otherwise be more than happy to open their wallets to help someone in need.
Damn, I THOUGHT I was FINISHED with this but was drawn back in! Totally agree with you,Wilderness. Some of the concepts explained here are the definitions of utter insanity at its highest level. Socialism and communism has reared their heads again! Wilderness, remember the concept of inverse logic. That is what is practiced here. HOPEFULLY I AM OUT OF HERE THIS TIME. HAVE A BLESSED DAY!
Then, how, gmwilliams, do you consistently say that the poor have no one but themselves to blame for because they are stupid and lazy.
I have met people on welfare. They are bipolar. They have ADD. They have numerous disabilities that other people don't see. Just how big is this underclass that you see? What are the figures?
Yes, there are some people who have been on welfare for generations. In Northern England, there are no jobs. In Detroit, there are no jobs.
That said, in the UK, one can qualify for welfare on that basis; in the US, one cannot. One has to prove a disability, and it is virtually impossible to do that unless one truly has one. The only other option is that one is a single mother with school going children.
In any of these situations, the only way out is an excellent education provided by the state. Cultural norms are passed down by parents. How can young people learn responsibility if they don't pick it up from their peers?
It's called a poverty trap for a reason...
Don't you think it's a bit short sighted to go around blaming poor people for their poverty? You have done this consistently ever since I first read your posts.
I can give you a 100% guarantee that that is one of the attitudes that is going to cost the GOP this election.
My mother, as a nurse, has interfaced with patients, some from the extremely lower class. Some of these people have willingly been on welfare for generations. These people view welfare as a lifestyle instead of temporary assistance to help one socioenomically until they find a job. In many inner city neighborhoods, especially in New York City, there have been people who stated that they would not work for anyone because they would receive more money on welfare than they would working. There have been news documentaries of those who con the welfare system in order to live a seemingly affluent lifestyle. These are the people who feel that the world owes them a living.
In the United States, there have been and still are opportunities for people to better themselves. The road may be onerous for some but it can be done. There are poor people who refuse to take advantage of the programs available. Many local and state agencies have programs that would help the poor better themselves. There are free and/or low cost programs for poor children to gain computer and related skills if only their parents would avail themselves of such programs.
Never said that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds i.e. the poor were lazy and stupid. I said that many of them are passive and fatalistic regarding life. I further stated that many of them feel as if they are victims. No matter what a person's station in life is, unless he/she is extremely challenged either physically or mentally, he/she has the wherewithal to change his/her life for the better if he/she elects to do so. I am talking about the United States now.
Or these are people who feel that if paid work gets them less than the government thinks they need to live off then blow paid work.
If anybody is to blame for this situation it is those who think that people should work for next to nothing (while doing all right themselves).
If anybody is to blame for this situation it is those who think that people should work for next to nothing (while doing all right themselves).
Yup. Wage Slavery.
Offering people a choice of working themselves to death for pittance or starving is not a choice. It's a threat.
In the United States, there is workfare. Workfare is that welfare recipients must either work if they wish to receive their welfare check or if they refuse to work, all benefits cease. Many mayors, notably Rudolph Giulani of New York, had implemented the program in order to get people off welfare and working again.
Give people proper jobs with real pay and I'll go along with that all the way.
Give people jobs but expect them to do them for welfare payments, no way.
The premise is that no work, no pay! The purpose of the program is why should able bodies adults live off the taxes of working people which is considered to be parasitic and unfair. The average working person maintains if he/she gets up in the morning to go to work, then those on welfare should do likewise because no able bodied adult is owed a living by anyone!
I have been on many of those courses that 'teach' these people skills. They are not worth the paper they are printed on. I have been on them in South Africa, England, and the USA. They are designed by entrepreneurs who milk the government for the fees and teach the people nothing that will get them out of the poverty trap. The kind of jobs that they will get will pay them less than is possible to live on.
When the cost of transport (getting to work), extra costs for food, clothing, etc are added, then it is simply cheaper to live on welfare. This is especially so for young mothers who have to now pay for child care. Very often, the child care costs as much as they are earning.
The education system in this country has got a lot of vested interests in making money.
Also, if when one goes to work, people treat one like dirt, why would one want to expose oneself to that if one has the option of being on welfare?
That said, you still haven't given me percentages of these people. Until you do, I suspect, you're speaking about less than 1% of the population. I also think that probably about 5% who don't qualify should qualify. Rather than take away money from welfare, I think the welfare system should be better run, and that education should be focused on giving people real marketable skills.
I'm not among the group of "hard-core poor" you mention, but I've known (to some extent) many people in that group. The fact is (and it IS a fact) that group can often be divided into two sub-groups: a) those who ARE victims of society and who don't even recognize that they are, and b) those are ARE victims of society, who at least recognize that they are, and who either will talk about having been victims or have learned that they should keep what they've experienced as victims to themselves (because "the world" is so often so ready to attack them for even saying they've been, or are, victims).
I've known kids (teenagers) from that group who don't even have a clue about how smart they are because their families "aren't into" "smart", or else because their families have been brainwashed into thinking that "smart" has to always equal "educated" or "academic achievement". I've known kids/teenagers from that group who have been labeled "special needs" and/or otherwise inappropriately diagnosed because they get pulled into a system (through no fault of their own) that offers less than the best professional assessments to people who get free services (including public schools, where kids from some types of backgrounds are automatically assumed to have issues they don't have because of their backgrounds. I heard, for myself, when I was covering school committee meetings for a newspaper, how one school official commented on "what kids who are wards of the state need" when, in fact, not all foster kids "need" some of the stuff that school system automatically believed they did.
I've known "working poor" people who don't even realize how smart their own child is because, again, they have been "brainwashed" into thinking that "smart" is always about academic achievement. In general, we live in a society that has (now more than ever, maybe) had a whole lot of trouble seeing what's RIGHT about children and people-in-general. People don't see potential. A lot of people of all walks of life don't know how to nurture it.
There are "losers" and idiots in all walks of life. The difference is that people who have the money to fool others into thinking they're not "losers" get to do just that. People who don't have the money to fool the shallow-minded folks who think money and academic achievement are the measure of a man don't have that luxury.
All the large and small ways in which people can be victimized make up a complex thing that only those who have been close to - or in - that kind of situation could ever see. Nobody can really reasonably be expected to walk in the shoes of someone else or to understand what the person has gone through - sometimes from the day he was born - which is why there remains so much disgusting ignorance about "poor people" .
There's nothing wrong with not understanding the situation of others. I know there's a whole lot about being "hard-core poor" that I'll never understand. Where there's something very wrong; however; is when people THINK they understand others but are clueless - and yet pipe off about them or lump them as if they're not individuals as if they were not clueless.
It's one thing - in discussions - for people to say; "Here's what I think may be the problem." It's another for people to present what they - in their narrow and clueless lack of personal understanding; and we all have it about anyone/anything other than our own little "shoes" - think as if it's fact. The good thing is; though; that when people think they know what goes on in someone else's shoes it's obvious. ....my comma key isn't working - hence; the weird punctuation here.
People who are severely disadvantaged are at the bottom of the social totem pole. People just slightly higher up than they are get to live it up putting them down because it's in the nature of SOME people to want/need to feel better than at least some others. Their potential; intelligence; and character is often underestimated even by those who care about them and think they respect them as human beings. That can be the best treatment they get from a lot of people; because actually having contempt for them or hostility toward them is another common thing some people do. So I think a lot of disadvantaged people learn to shut up in "real" life/discussions. Many don't have the advantage of having good writing ability to at least be able to put their experiences in writing. So... the hard-to-see/understand things that go into how people can be victimized or why they remain in disadvantaged situations remain "a big and unspoken secret" to a lot of other people.
Encouraging a culture that would also encourage disadvantaged people to feel free to just say what they've lived with would be a first step in promoting a better understanding of where the deeper real roots of severely disadvantaged situations really are.
Some of my favorite lines from a song is from the Pocahontas song "Colors of the Wind": "....Well if I'm an ignorant savage; how can there be so much that you don't know?" and "...you'll learn things you never knew you never knew". When it comes to other people's "shoes" there's a whole lot that every one of us "never knew we never knew". The best way to at least start to learn a little more about what we "never knew we never knew" is to listen - not pipe off in all our cluelessness. I find the number of people who are willing to engage in blanket generalizations of groups of people - regardless of what group of people it is - mind-boggling and disturbing..
Right, rich people are all crooks....
My brother bought a failing telecommunications company, saved it, and sold it for a lot of money. Does that make him a crook or thief?
I worked with the founder of Kiddie Kandids.... is he a crook and thief for creating a chain of photography outlets?
depends on what you define as rich, and it depends on what you define as ethical.
Not paying people a living wage is unethical.
Telling sales people that they have to reach a target otherwise they will lose their job is unethical because it means that they are put in a position that they either lie and get the sale or they lose their job.
Putting staff into positions where they are treated as lesser beings is unethical.
And as virtually all companies do it today, until I know the specifics of a company, I'm going to go with what I have experienced - to become wealthy in today's world, one has to trample on people, underpay staff, and manipulate, connive, tell lies, sell low quality products and more.
Not necessarily! While there are some wealthy people who exploit others for their gain, there are plenty of wealthy people who ethically and humanely use their companies for the common good i.e. Bill Gates of Microsoft. Wealthy people create jobs which are necessary for the economy.
In the last 30 years, I have not worked for one ethical company - no matter where I have lived. At the same time, internationally, the middle class has shrunk and it's during these past 30 years, that the wealth has gravitated upwards. The figures support what I'm saying.
The work place has changed during the past 30 years and it's not nice.
Wow. Every successful business, and every successful individual, is guilty until proven innocent.
Amazing point of view...
There's a difference between saying there's been a general and major cultural shift over the last 30 years and saying that every individual who is financially successful is "guilty". I saw the shift beginning to take place when I was working at a good sized company and at the corporate level. It wasn't just a reflection of society. It helped mold the overall cultural shift. I didn't like it but I had to go raise my children. So I got out of it all and started freelancing.
It sure seems to me that it happened around the time people who had reached adulthood in the 70's had reached the point where enough of them were in power that their values; many of which were "Yuppy-type" values meant the overall cultural shift went in that direction. That's when the most able people started to take a back seat to those who could put on a nice big phony smile and develop an "impressive" handshake; and who got the jobs or the business started to change. In the last 30 years a whole big "house-of-cards" type of thing has been built in - at least- the American workforce picture. I know there are other factors contributing to the economy; but I can't help but think the "house-of-cards" factor has played in its own kind of role in a lot of ways.
Is this in any way relevant to what I said? lol.
Of course, the average self-made millionaire, multimillionaire, and billionaire are clever. They have to be to order to reach the top of the socioeconomic class ladder. It is oftentimes the succeeding generations of wealthy persons who become quite indulgent and dissolute so to speak. However, there are exceptions to this e.g. the Kennedy clan. Each succeeding generation becomes even more ambitious. No slackers there! You sir have stated the obvious. It is sad that you had to spell it out as there are some people who cannot use inductive and deductive reasoning in that regard!
All business owners are not corrupt. Most are good people.
I will say that a certain mindset has become prevalent among small business owners that did not used to be so widespread. That mindset is that if I can get a college graduate with ten years' experience to do the job for $9/hour, why should I pay more, even if I can afford it? I know many will say that's just business. It is a mindset that puts profit above all else. It used to be prevalent among small business owners to believe in the value of community and that their employees were part of a greater fellowship of human beings all working together for the betterment of all. Now, more often than not, a small business owner feels "entitled" to treat employees like chattel just because they can. They will justify it by saying it is "my" business and people should feel privileged to work for me for peanuts rather than nothing at all.
"Greed is good" used to be considered an immoral philosophy.
You know what though, it is their right to do so. There is no other way to look at it, it is the right of a business owner to run their business how they choose.
When we have 23 million unemployed people, every $9/hr job should be welcomed. A business that is run well and has profits can expand and create more jobs.
Not to mention, by far and away the largest group of unemployed people is, and always will be, young, low-skilled, low-experience workers. Creating low-wage jobs for low-skill workers is something that is always needed.
If I can afford to do so, I will pay workers more(if they work hard and show they deserve it). But that is my choice, not anyone else's.
+ 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ! This is common business practice. Those who have studied business administration and business management know this! However, this should be common knowledge, I learned this in high school economics class. Why is this concept so foreign to some people?
Yep, just what I said. Just because it is your "right" doesn't make it morally right. I'm arguing that values have changed and it has resulted in deterioration of our economy. Our priorities are screwed up and people are suffering for it. Those businesses that could afford to pay more and don't just because they can are morally corrupt. I know you don't agree and that's okay, but more and more people are waking up to the concept of socially conscious entrepreneurship. The tide is changing.
The big unknown is whether or not we can reclaim our economy and our values or if it is too late to wrest control from the moneyed interests whose greed has no bounds.
Edited to add: I work with small businesses on a daily basis and I see employers who will not pay their workers more if they work hard and deserve it, because they know they don't have to, even if they can afford it. They think that's good business practice because that is what the prevailing cultural attitude among business owners has become.
So, you are saying it is morally wrong to create a job if it only pays $9/hr? Every job created helps the economy. Every job created increases the leverage of workers.
This hasn't resulted in the deterioration of our economy... the crash had nothing to do with low-paying jobs, it had to do with a bubble and people living far outside their means. The standard of living has been steadily increasing, not deteriorating.
Let me ask you this PP, what is better: 1 job at $18/hr, or 2 jobs at $9/hr?
The crash had to do with many things, most of them driven by greed.
Two jobs at $9/hour are not necessarily better and here is why. A person making $18/hour can afford to spend money on more than just food, housing, and basic transportation. A person making $18/hr will have disposable income and that money will be distributed to a wider variety of businesses and industry further stimulating the economy. The extra money will mean that person can probably afford a trip to the ER even if they don't have health care. Two people making $9/hour will result in two people who will likely need government help, whether it be for health care, child care, or food stamps. Their money will be spent mostly on food, housing, and transportation with very little distributed to other industries.
Two jobs at $9/hr will likely stimulate the economy more than 1 at $18/hr. The two jobs, probably every last dollar, or close to it, will be spent, and recirculate. The jobs at $18, probably some money will be saved. Money saved helps an individual, but it doesn't help the economy.
The money being spent on food shelter and housing doesn't help the economy any less than the money spent on xboxs, dvds, and nice clothes.
In addition, two jobs provide wages for two people, instead of one person having money and another person not having money. The talk about government benefits is fallacious, because one job leaves one person with nothing at all, so there can't be more benefits with the two jobs, but there can be more benefits with just one job.
I know plenty of people who make $9/hour and still receive government benefits. One $18/hour job would mean no benefits to one person.
You honestly believe the economy hums along just as well when fewer people are able to afford much beyond food, housing, and transportation?
Yes, people can still get benefits at $9/hour, but it is reduced. At $18, one person probably doesn't get any, but the other person gets full benefits. You keep discounting the person without the job.
I honestly believe that it doesn't matter if the money is spent by one person or two people. Economic health is all about the circulation of money. If everyone stopped spending money and just saved it, think about what that would do to the economy.
Saving doesn't help the economy, spending does.
Two people at $9/hr are more likely to spend every cent than 1 person at $18/hr.
Well, let's really think about this. $18/hr = $37,440/year. When I made that much, I had a small savings that would periodically get wiped out by things like car repairs or medical bills or school sports fees. I don't know if any statistics exist, but I have a feeling not much is saved by people who make that much.
By the way, you just made the argument against the accumulation of wealth. Interesting that you make that argument for a salary of $18/hour but not for the obscenely wealthy.
Well, let's say you save a portion of your money, and in 5 years you use it to buy a car.
In the end, you spent all that money, you just delayed the impact to the economy. So either the net effect is the same for both situations, or it is better, if only in the short-term, for having two jobs.
I've never claimed that saving money is good for the economy. It's not.
That doesn't mean I'm against the accumulation of wealth.
Also, going beyond this point brings up more and more complications for economic impacts. The impact of investments, the impact of savings accounts in banks(which changes the money supply and technically creates wealth for the country)...
But I don't like to go that deep in forum discussions... I just get ignored.
"In the end, you spent all that money, you just delayed the impact to the economy. So either the net effect is the same for both situations, or it is better, if only in the short-term, for having two jobs."
It is only the same if you believe that more people spending money on just food, housing, and transportation, while still accessing social safety nets, is better for the economy than increased spending across more diverse areas of the economy.
There is no difference. Spending money on basic necessities stimulates the economy just as much as spending it on clothes, electronics, ER visits, etc...
The effect on the social net is either equal or greater with two jobs, than with one.
Hmmm, I am not an economist. My economist friend disagrees with you on this one, though.
Take it to its illogical extreme, pay everybody $2 an hour.
How's your economy now?
If you pay everyone $2/hr, and everyone spends all that money, then you would have a drastically reduced GDP.
What I'm talking about has no effect on the total GDP or circulation of money.
Sorry, your analogy fails.
Well at what low pay level does it have an affect on GDP and the circulation of money?
Don't just say that my analogy fails, tell us why it fails.
I already explained this. If you change the total amount of compensation in the system, then you are affecting GDP and the circulation of money.
If you are changing the distribution, it has no effect(or positive effect with more even distribution).
I like it. Turn his tactics back on him. Good for you! lol
No, not unlike mine.
John tried to make a hypothetical situation which completely changes the parameters of the situation. It's irrelevant.
Even if EVERY citizen was working, John's example reduces the total income earned in the US by 90%.
My example is using the same amount of income, but distributing it differently.
Here is a better example than John's.
Would the economy be better if 1 person made $12 trillion a year, and nobody else had jobs, or if everyone was employed and made $30/hr?
No, stand your ground! Would the economy be better if everybody was paid $9 an hour.
I don't have to 'stand my ground'. I never claimed any such ridiculousness. You are trying to make me defend a position now that if we took away over 60% of the money that all Americans are paid, that the economy would be better.
It's such a ridiculous strawman, it's not even funny.
John, my example fits the situation perfectly. I am talking about the difference between two people earning $18/hr, or one person earning $18/hr.
To take that to the extreme, would the economy be better with one person making $12 trillion, or everyone making $30/hr?
See, in both of my examples, the amount of money is the same, but the distribution is changed.
This bullying of Jaxson has to stop! Adults are posting here, not preteens! Jaxson is entitled to his premise which he can adequately substantiate with sound reasoning and business logic!
Eh, it's not bullying... just strawman arguments, irrelevant examples, and other examples of poor logic.
Yeah, nice try. You haven't refuted a single thing I have said. You haven't shown anything I have said to be fallacious.
I've done that to your claims though.
I'm afraid you need to do more than just state that my arguments are fallacious which you have so far failed to do.
No, I showed how your ridiculous example was fallacious.
I was talking about redistributing the same amount of money between different people.
You presented an example that reduces the amount of money by 90%, and redistributes it. Can you not see how that is irrelevant?
No, it is totally relevant to low pay. That is what in effect the wealthy do when they accumulate money, they reduce the amount of money in circulation.
Moving those goalposts again John!
Your example was made in regards to my discussion with PP over the effects of one job at $18/hr and two jobs at $9/hr. In other words, redistribution of the same amount of pay.
Now you are talking about something else. Why can't you just keep the topic consistent?
I am keeping the topic constant.
Note, a question is followed by a question mark (?) A statement is followed by an exclamation point (!) when there is an element of surprise in the statement.
No, you aren't keeping the topic constant.
My examples were in regards to redistribution of a fixed amount of wealth.
You first tried to change the total amount of wealth. Then you changed the topic to saving vs. spending. Neither are on topic.
It's pointless, you're either trolling, or you truly can't stick to a topic.
You're starting to channel Evan G Rogers, proclaiming your arguments to be superior because you said so! lol
PP, you never resonded to my explanation of why John's example is poor. Do you agree or not that reducing the total pay in society by 90% makes the example irrelevant?
That one is between you and John. I entered the thread with a point about how cultural values have changed to such a degree that business owners feel justified in accumulating wealth at the expense of their employees. In fact, they not only feel justified, they feel glorified.
I agree that it would be better if companies that could would share more of their wealth with their workers.
I don't, however, think that decision should be made by anybody besides those who are in charge of the company.
So I guess we're good, except for the fact that you still might have called me and many of the people I care about immoral...
I don't know how you or the people you care about run their businesses, so how could I possibly be calling them immoral? If you think I called them immoral, then that is your own perception.
I'm offering my own perspective on what is wrong with a business culture that has somehow decided that glorifying greed is a good thing. Again, I'm talking "vision" while you want to count pennies in a drawer.
PP, you said businesses that don't pay employees more, but can afford to, are immoral.
I know a lot of great people who could pay their employees more, but they don't. If you stand behind that statement, then you are calling them immoral.
Your 'vision' called nearly every business immoral, including those close to me.
So do you stand behind it or not?
Yes, Jaxson, I stand behind it. Happy now? Geez. Now, you can feel offended that I called you and your friends and family immoral.
It's ridiculously stupid to say, but fine. I'll be sure to joke with my employees about how immorally I'm treating them, I'm sure they'll have a nice laugh.
Good, because that is what you wanted to be able to do, isn't it? I gave it to you. Feel better now?
In fact that has always been the way. Look at the Victorian mill owners who thought it OK to work children as young as seven or eight 60 or 70 hours a week. Given the chance many of them still would (or do if you consider work forces in other countries)
Argh! saving money is bad for the economy and yet you aren't against the saving of money!
I suggest you check the meaning of accumulate!
It's not good for the economy. (Like I said earlier, this is a simplified viewpoint, as saving money in a bank is technically an investment)
It's not bad for the economy either.
It is good for individuals, and I am very much for saving money.
Stop trying to put so many words in my mouth.
I'm certainly not putting words in your mouth, just directly quoting what you say.
You argue that saving is bad for the economy and yet praise the accumulation of wealth!
No, you aren't directly quoting me. You are changing my words.
I said 'saving isn't good for the economy'. You claimed that I said 'saving is bad for the economy'.
Those are two different statements, I never said it was bad for the economy.
I have very clearly stated that saving is good for the individual, but it doesn't do anything to help the economy(again, outside of more complex economic principles).
OK, saving isn't good for the economy but you support the accumulation of wealth, which is of course saving and by your words, not good for the economy.
RIght. As long as you understand that 'not good' doesn't mean 'bad'.
Spending is good for the economy. Saving is good for the individual.
So next time I'm caught doing something bad I can argue that I wasn't, I was just doing something not good!
Right, got that.
Nope, I didn't say that.
If you do something that harms someone, that is bad.
If you don't donate money to someone who needs it more than you, that isn't bad. It's not good, but it's not bad either.
So hoarding money and not paying fair wages is only not good by your reckoning!
What a loaded question.
What are fair wages?
What do you mean by 'hoarding money'? Saving? Yes, saving money doesn't help the economy, but that doesn't make it bad. Not everything has to have a Good or Bad effect on everything else.
Paying wages is always good for the economy. It increases money circulation. It is a form of spending.
It wasn't a question, it was a summation of your position.
Not a loaded question... just another straw man...
I think you're trolling today John.
Oh dear! Shaky ground so accuse people of trolling!
Come on, you can do better than that.
Are you really that dense?
If it's not a straw man, then quote me where I said that.
I didn't say it. You claimed I did. That means it's a straw man.
I have done nothing to troll. If you go and read, you will notice that I am providing logical arguments, asking questions, and participating in real debate. You, on the other hand, are avoiding my arguments, and lying about what I've been saying.
So it wasn't you that said "I think you're trolling today John." you must have an imposter.
Yes, I said that I think you are trolling. What's the point? That wasn't what we were talking about(again, you change the topic).
What you said about my position was a straw man.
Since you can't remember, here is what you said.
"So hoarding money and not paying fair wages is only not good by your reckoning!"
So please, quote for me, with a link, where I said that. If you can't, then your argument was a straw man.
I'm lost here! Weren't you arguing that accumulation of wealth was good?
Do you know what happens to those employers? They don't get hard-working employees.
Businesses get what they pay for. That's why not all jobs are at minimum wage, businesses want more than just the bottom of the barrel.
Businesses that reward hard work get more out of their employees.
PP, answer this. Am I being unethical if I hire a worker at $15/hr?
What about $25/hr?
What if I could afford $80/hr, but I only pay $70/hr?
Apparently, you haven't noticed how Walmart treats its employees.
You are intentionally taking my statements about values to an extreme to prove a point.
No, you are making broad sweeping statements, then you don't like when I don't apply them just to a few specific examples.
You say it is morally wrong to pay someone less than you can afford to.. so if I can afford $80/hr but only pay $70, is that really morally wrong?
No, this is what I said: "I work with small businesses on a daily basis and I see employers who will not pay their workers more if they work hard and deserve it, because they know they don't have to, even if they can afford it." That is not the same as saying it is morally wrong to pay someone less than they can afford to.
This is what I am referring to:
But really, it's the same thing. If a business doesn't want to pay more for hard work, they don't have to. There is nothing in the contract between employer and employee(unless it specifically states so) that says the employer must pay more for hard work. You just subjectively define that as morally corrupt.
Yes, you are right. I subjectively define it that way. More people used to also define it that way. We have endured a cultural shift where it is considered good business practice to pay employees as little as possible while rewarding CEOs and shareholders with obscene amounts of money, even when they fail at their jobs.
Yes, it is subjective. I am arguing for a return to principles that reinforce the value of people and community over accumulation of wealth.
Ok, so you define not paying what you can afford to pay as morally corrupt... so I assume you would apply that to me paying someone $70/hr when I could afford to pay them $80/hr.
What do you define as being able to 'afford'? Should companies be allowed to save capital, or use it for purposes other than payroll?
Sigh. No, that is what you are saying I said and it is not accurate. You keep leaving out this part: "employers who will not pay their workers more if they work hard and deserve it, because they know they don't have to."
I QUOTED YOU. Go back and read it. You're talking about a different statement than I am, and just ignoring what you said earlier.
About this other statement though, employers are not obligated to pay more for 'hard work'.
Seriously, hard work is supposed to be part of the original agreement, not some bonus. "Well, you are paying me to do my job, but if I work hard and do my job, I deserve more!". That's ridiculous!
Okay, I went back and found it and I'll say it again. You are presenting an extreme example to make what I said sound absurd. I suppose I could start listing all of the common sense qualifications to it, but I won't. And yes, businesses like Walmart are morally corrupt for paying their employees low wages and keeping their hours below 40 to avoid paying for health insurance, just because they can. I stand by that statement.
I also know small business owners who gripe about their employees staying a year or two and then leaving. Well, duh, given them a friggin' raise if you want to keep them. If you don't, then stop griping when they leave.
I presented an extreme example because your statement was absurd. It was a broad statement that literally condemns nearly every business in existence.
Well, if that is how you interpret it, then I can't help that. I've explained it here and I'm pretty confident you know that is not what I meant.
You won't define what you mean, I've been trying to get you to define it with questions.
Apparently, you think there is a certain line where it is ok to not pay workers more if you can afford it, and a line below which it isn't ok. Where is that line?
OMG, this is ridiculous. There is no line, Jaxson. I am thinking "vision" while you are counting the pennies in the drawer.
There should be a line. Apparently paying $9/hr when you can afford $10 is bad, but that doesn't apply to $70/$71 per hour...
When you make a claim that businesses that don't pay more if they can afford to are immoral, that is something you should be able to back up, and clarify.
I have clarified it and I know you're smart enough to get it. I'm quickly losing respect for this discussion due to your silly insistence on us taking your extreme example seriously while simultaneously dissing John for throwing an extreme example back at you.
I explained why John's example was poor. It completely changed the parameters of the economy. Doesn't apply.
I'm asking you, because your broad statement accused myself and most of my family of being immoral. I want to know where it changes from immoral to not-immoral.
You have never defined where that line is, so I still feel like you are calling those I care about immoral.
When is it no longer a bad thing to 'not pay workers more when you can afford to'?
Of course. You are nitpicking now, Jaxson, and ignoring an important piece of what I initially said.
It is not subjectively defined as morally corrupt, it is morally corrupt; it is exploitative, and shows a lack of regard for human beings; I worked for a company that paid me $8 an hour and made $150 an hour off my work. That's reprehensible to say the least. Under the morals of the money system it is perfectly fine; according to corrupt standards, it's perfectly fine. If you ever step outside of those parameters and look at it, you can see it's wrong. Because that person that they use to make money off of could end up homeless, goes hungry, lives in fear. If your responsibility is confined to your own petty life and conforming to the economic order and does not expand to other human beings, then overworking people and giving them low pay is morally okay.
But let them catch you carrying out a $1 widget and see how they react to that.
Ok, if it isn't subjective, then point me to the moral contract that states employers have to pay more to their employees.
If it is objective, there has to be a fixed, empirical standard to use. Show it to me.
No, just trying to understand your position.
If you can't clarify it, then fine, you can't. Doesn't mean I won't ask you to.
I believe that I have clarified it and I believe you are intentionally avoiding acknowledging that. I don't think defining an imaginary "line" has anything to do with my original point.
Of course it has to do with your point. Your initial statement condemned almost every business in America, including people that are important to me.
Vaguely, you have seem to state that it's only a big deal at the low end of the pay spectrum, but you haven't clarified at all where that line might even be close to. If at $9 it's bad, and at $70 it's not bad, then somewhere along the line things have to change.
I'm not intentionally avoiding anything, I just haven't seen you explain when it's bad and when it's not.
Just wait, he will come back and ask you exactly what you should have been paid and then ask you if the company would still be morally bankrupt if they paid you $1 an hour less.
I have no problem with people saying that they don't feel that it is the right thing to do.
But to make claims that an employer creating a job for someone and fulfilling their contract is objectively wrong... I have a problem with that. That is someone going beyond stating their opinion, and stating what they claim to be factual. Facts should be able to be defended.
Do wealthy people work harder and are they smarter? With all respect to everyone, I say yes I believe so. Actually I would like to twist the statement a bit, "Wealthy people respond differently in identical situations." Their way of thinking is different and that makes them successful in wealth creation. The difference in attitude towards making money makes them stand out from the crowd for the long-term. They may not work harder physically, they're certainly involved in huge brain-work. Another point I want to make is that generally wealthy and successful people are capable of taking more risk in life. They tend to experiment more, naturally. That's a personal experience.
Agreed! The concept that hard work gets one places is quite an outmoded one. The concept should be that SMART WORK makes one succeed. Andycool, your post is succinctly spot on and on target. Also, wealthy people do not have negative beliefs about money that poorer people have. Wealthy people know that money is an energy that could be beneficial if used in the right way. Wealthy people are comfortable with money and they view it positively. Poorer people are inculcated with the premise that money is the root of evil and is a negative thing.
Thanks gmwilliams for the reply. I think you're right when you say, "The concept should be that SMART WORK makes one succeed." Another character I see in most wealthy people is they complain less, work more. They're generally more adaptive in nature.
I"m just waiting for someone to explain to me why I'm a corrupt thieving crook for having a business...
There was a computer company in the UK that was bought out by the Japanese.
Their first action to return the company to profitability was to sack the whole top line of management.
This made absolutely no difference to productivity but reduced losses considerably.
And yet some of you will argue that the ones at the top earn their money! Rot.
I've been in a lot of low-pay workforces, from minimum wage through $15/hr.
The thing I have seen the most, is slacking off. Sneaking texts and phone calls. Taking longer than necessary to complete tasks.
Businesses understand this... you get what you pay for. That doesn't mean low-paying jobs are immoral.
Heck, we need more low-paying jobs than we need high-paying jobs right now.
Greed is subjective (when you translate it to amount) but it is still greed!
Fruit is dying on the trees in California, unpicked due to a shortage of labor. I see all these people yelling about how "if the farmers would pay workers a living wage, people would come, immigration would fix itself, and the world would be a better place, etc." and yet I have never once been to a super market and seen anyone demanding that the cost of their produce be tripled or quadrupled. I wonder how that happens.
In Georgia, there are thousands of unfilled jobs ranging from $8/hr to $14/hr...
I would take that work if I had no other option. Some people won't.
But it's a good point, people don't understand costs, but they criticize employers. Farmers make so little money, in general, it's not funny. My dad consults fruit growers... these are guys that make $50k a year and employ thousands of people, and they have a hard time making ends meet for their business. If they increased wages by $1/hr, they would go under.
Goes to show it's really complicated, and other problems operate in it. People's own desires are at conflict with one another. Throw in some hypocrisy, arrogance and laziness, and, well, it starts to grow hair.
You will have to look at their work/account sheet in detail. You can't just generalize it. Americans have came under the impression that once you own a business you should automatically be rich. The IRS says $50k can comfortable take care of a family of four. If a person makes 50K, and their employee is barely scraping by, its time to take some pay cut. Sometime a a true busiinessman makes the same or less money than his worker(s) if need be, its the true essence of business.
I believe that farm labor is a special case. Many unemployed Americans are physically not suited to working outdoors in the hot sun for 8 or more hours a day, either due to age or just being in poor physical condition. [Yes, we could pass judgment on that, but I'm not here to do that; I'm just stating facts.] Many couldn't even manage four hours a day. Also, many of those jobs are a considerable distance from where people live, so it requires gas money or some form of transportation to get there. Even if wages were increased substantially, there still might be a shortage of workers due to the nature and location of the work.
It still amazes me that so many people who aren't wealthy defend those with lots of wealth with no clear idea just how many of those people actually earned it. Gmwilliam seems to assume that most people with wealth started out with nothing. That does happen, but it's the exception, not the norm. Most wealthy people are born into wealthy families.
It's not a wealthy person's fault if they were born with a silver spoon, but it's hardly something to celebrate, and it's not as if they got it by working hard or being smart. They were just randomly lucky.
There a lazy people at all ends of the spectrum. The only difference is that if you're born into wealth, you don't have to do much more than avoid spending it all like an idiot. You don't hear that many stories about them, because it's not very sexy, but there's a breed of trust fund babies out there who are less offensive than Paris Hilton but still don't really have to work.
Again, nothing wrong with being born lucky, but it's naive to assume that most wealthy people earned their millions through intelligence and hard work. Most of them didn't.
It is the fantasies that are instilled from birth through popular culture. Every child is encouraged to fantasize that they will one day they will be rich and powerful and super, super special.
The no-hopers imagine they will be discovered on reality TV shows. The more intelligent might fantasize about inventing a new kind of flying machine. Or writing a great novel (lol).
These fantasies seem to persist undimmed through long dreary lives of toil in an awful of people. Others grasp that they have allowed themselves to be cheated by pipe dreams far too late to do anything about it.
And that's why they defend the rich. Because they think that one day they will be. Idiots!
Or, instead of trying to be discovered or hit some jackpot, they can come up with an intelligent business plan, based on sound market research, and work hard to build their own wealth.
And no, it's not a small number of people who move from the poor brackets to the wealthy brackets. Millions of people do it.
Eh, millions? Maybe over centuries, but not every year. There are only 7 trillion people in the world, it would be big news if millions were I proving their circumstances from poor to wealthy. Unless you have a low delineation of the line between wealth and not wealth.
From 1996 to 2005, 1.2 million people that started in the bottom 20% ended up in the top 20% of earners.
A similar story exists for people in the second 20%, and the third 20%, and the fourth 20%.
It's millions. I didn't say they do it in the course of a year, they do it in the course of a decade. That's not bad, if you ask me.
Exactly, from 1996 to 2005. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of those numbers happened from 1996 to 2001 (9/11). And that ever since then upward mobility has converted to downward mobility. Give me facts and figures for the past decade.
Every single one of them I've read indicates that upward mobility in the United States has been steadily declining for the past 20 or 30 years...
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/01/05/th … n-the-u-s/
"The New York Times reported today on the lack of upward mobility in the U.S., specifically citing comments made by presidential hopeful Santorum that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater … in Europe, than it is in America.” National Review, a conservative weekly, and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) have made similar remarks about economic opportunity in Europe."
While I agree that there used to be upward mobility in the United States, as a result of an unsustainable system, this is no longer so, and the figures have been steadily falling for the past 30 or so years...
Sophia, the Census study from 1986 to 1995 was almost exactly the same. Litererally, the percentages could almost have been copied and pasted.
I can' provide you data from 2006 on, because it's not ready yet. The Census will have a new study sometime in 2015-2016.
Well, that's just not true. From 1986-1995 there was the same upward mobility as from 1996-2005. I explained why comparisons are not a good idea between countries. Others also fail to account for the increasing gap between the bottom and top of the rung.
You can increase the gap, and then say that people aren't being as upwardly mobile as they were in the past, even if they are having more absolute upward mobility. Percentages isn't a good measure here.
Not really, but I"ve pointed out the problems with those claims.
JaxsonRaine, you've been reading too many success stories that focus on a few rare cases. 80% of start ups fail within the first five years. I have always believed it has more to do with a limited market i.e. there's very little need for the product, than actually people being unwilling to work hard.
Nobody, of course, wants to face that possibility.
The United States, over the last 20 or 30 years, has moved from one of the easiest places to have a success story in business to one of the more difficult. You need to google other countries and you need to google comparing the US to other countries.
No, I've been looking at statistics of the entire population. Not isolated stories.
According to the SBA, 50% fail within 5 years.
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-e … -Fail.aspx
25% make it 15 years or longer. Read that link for some reasons why. Not doing their research, not having a proper plan and model, not enough financing for their industry, bad marketing, failure to change with the market, expanding too fast...
Most businesses fail, not because of some external source, but because the business owner wasn't educated enough on how to start and run a successful business.
Knowing how to do that(education and intelligence) is probably 50% of the battle. The other 50% is hard work.
According to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7759207.stm
80% of UK businesses fail. I don't really care to look at other countries, because things really aren't that much different(except for higher tax rates in the US). There is nothing standing in the way of someone with a little capital, a little drive, and a little dream, of building their own success, except for themselves.(I generalize here, I know there are circumstances beyond control, but generally speaking this is true).
Jaxson, you are wasting your time, explaining intelligent concepts to THOSE who clearly CANNOT COMPREHEND the meaning of INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE LOGIC! Talk about CRITICAL THINKING!
I know that. I was discussing those who were self-made wealthy. There are still some around. the other type of wealthy people are of no consequence to me. They "have it made". I am talking about those newly rich who came from less wealthy conditions middle class, particularly working class and poorer backgrounds.
Of course, many wealthy people are those who were born into such circumstances. While many are idle, there are still others, like those of the Kennedy clan who are active participants in life. While there is a Paris Hilton, there is a Katherine Schwarzenegger who is working and proactive regarding her life. Naturally, such wealthy will have it easier to succeed because of parental and other connections. While the trust fund ones do not have to and/or do not want to work, there are other wealthy young people who do want to work in order to contribute to society.
P.S. I personally know a few wealthy people who were born into wealthy. They were not lazy and/or indulgent. These people were inculcated with a work ethic by their parents. They worked summer jobs since they were thirteen. One such person worked construction. Conversely, while I worked one summer, there were poor young people who constantly complained about their impoverished condition. They do not want to work but HAD to. They constantly bemoaned their fate, stating that if they were RICH or WEALTHIER, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO WORK. Talking about ingratitude,laziness, and not taking responsibility! They can help themselves but choose not to do so! GET OFF THE PITY PARTIES AND ASSESS! Crybabies!
People everyday climb into a better income situation. There is far too much emphasis on those who don't. Almost everyone I know is doing better now than they were a year ago. It has everything to do with taking positive action, and not listening to the doom and gloom naysayers. No study or 'stats' should dictate how one lives their life.
This is what most sociologists believe holds modern societies together. The perception that things are a little better each year.
I reckon so many people have such insecure lives they are just grateful the sky didn't fall on them. And on their better days hit those infantile fantasies of sudden promotion to the ranks of the blessed by commerce.
Something, has to explain why ordinary people tolerate the increasing gaps in power and standard of living in right-wing countries like the US, UK, Australia etc..
Ordinary folk are certainly not pursuing their own interests in a rational way.
What does it matter if income/wealth inequality increases? Someone else's wealth has no impact on your wealth.
The truth is, every group in America does better year after year, than their group before them. The poor, middle-class, rich. Yes, there are some years we have setbacks, but the overall trend is upward.
On an individual scale, American has tremendous amounts of income mobility.
I don't care about how rich the uber rich are. If I make $100,000/year, and some guys have $100 billion each, I still make $100,000/year. If they only have $100 million each, I still make $100,000/year. Nothing changes...
Well the Uber rich run your country courtesy of your indifference.
When you vote for President you will merely be deciding an argument between the very wealthy. Are the billionaires who have propelled Romney to the rep nomination, right. Or are those billionaires who support Obama right?
Hey, they think you are better than a coin toss!
I just disagree with you on that.
Anyway, it has nothing to do with the opportunity that Americans have to better their situation.
You should check out what Newt Gingrich said when asked why he failed to get the republican nomination. It was something like 'the other guy had 16 billionaires, I only had 1. There is a problem with the power that the very rich wield in our society.'
Of course, what any sane person has to ask is: why didn't he notice this before? He must have known how US politics works for a very, very long time.
And the point I was responding to is: 'I don't care about how rich the uber rich are. If I make $100,000/year, and some guys have $100 billion each, I still make $100,000/year. If they only have $100 million each, I still make $100,000/year. Nothing changes...'
$100,000 a year will give you no real say in the direction of your country. A few billion in an offshore account will.
Of course, I could have pointed to the millions of working poor in the US and asked what they would think of your 'I'm alright' attitude.
That's some great logic. It's a shame that it is not more commonly understood that way.
It's far better to focus on yourself than worry about what other people have.
Totally agreed, it is easier to look for EXCUSES and CAN'TS rather than assessing and analyzing the situation at hand and TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for their own lives! The keyword here is RESPONSIBILITY! Larry Winget, business author and noted speaker, has stated this premise SO WELL! Mr. Winget, known as the pitbull and no nonsense speaker, clearly elucidated that most people, especially in the United States, are in less than positive socioeconomic situations is because they WANT TO BE, pure and simple! Does not take a ROCKET SCIENTIST to figure THAT OUT! Damn!
RebekahELLE, the fact that one or two out of a million or six climb to a better situation as a result of numerous causes (including luck, contacts, etc.) does not mean that it's probable or possible for everybody. That is the fuzzy logic over here.
What I don't see over here are facts and figures.
All the examples of upward mobility go back 20 or 30 years when the laws were different and the world was a different place.
For poor honest people starting out during the past ten years or so, it has been virtually impossible.
Below I have quoted from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ … story.html
"The most comprehensive comparative study, done last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, found that “upward mobility from the bottom” — Daniels’s definition — was significantly lower in the United States than in most major European countries, including Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark. Another study, by the Institute for the Study of Labor in Germany in 2006, uses other metrics and concludes that “the U.S. appears to be exceptional in having less rather than more upward mobility.”
Sophia, comparing upward mobility between countries doesn't work, and I've explained, in depth, the reasons why before.
The difference in earnings between the bottom and top group are much larger in the US than other countries. In some countries, you can increase your income from $10k per year to $40k per year, and you have gone from the 'poorest' to among the wealthiest.
In the US, you have to have a much larger absolute increase in wealth to achieve the same increase as a percentage.
It goes even beyond that, too.
It is a rare American that doesn't have cold and hot drinkable water at the touch of a lever. That doesn't have a place to put biological refuse where it won't cause disease. That doesn't have instant entertainment and education at the push of a button. That can't educate their children (although how well is questionable ). That can't travel miles from home any time they wish, and without walking. That can't get quick medical care of some kind in an emergency.
Millions and millions of people throughout the world have none of this and never will. What is "rich" beyond dreams of avarice is still very "poor" in America. True, the massive mansions of the super rich, the gigantic yachts and other toys, the access to maximum medical care are all beyond most Americans, but we still have so much more than even 2 generations ago. I'd say we've all come a long, long way.
One question is how much further you can go when US politics is dominated by businessmen. Their only interest is in the next quarter's profits. Scientists are despised if they bear bad news.
The future will be a nightmare of rapidly diminishing resources as climate change wreaks its havoc, And. of course, it will all have been foreseen and it will all have been avoidable.
Oh, I understand that. That's precisely why upward mobility is so much harder in the US than anywhere else!
In fact, it's reaching a point where upward mobility is a myth in the USA.
It only depends on how you define it.
If you define it as an absolute change in your income(in other words, just improving your situation), it is very much alive.
If you define it by the dollar, it is more prevalent in the US than anywhere.
If you define it by class/groups, then yes, we are below some others.
So I guess, if you think the American Dream is to build success for yourself, then that dream is alive. If you think the American Dream is to join the elite group of the absolute wealthiest in society.... then you have little chance of doing so.
EDIT: I'll take improving my situation over fretting about how it compares to billionaires
You've rattled my cage...
I agree with Gladwell. The wealthy are most often a product of their environment. Wealthy children are taught from an early age that they are the chosen ones. They represent the upper echelons of society in every way conceivable. That they are entitled to be successful. That by virtue of their position and their position alone that, they deserve wealth. The wealthy use networking in a way that must be observed to be believed. It is nepotism that oils the machinery of business and confidence the glue that holds these beliefs together. Woe betide any of them should they fall from grace - to do so is not countenanced by their peers. They are shunned; for they are a stark reminder of what could go wrong – what could happen to the ‘natural state of things’, if the oil runs out and the glue fails to stick. They are in effect ex-communicated, until able to hoist themselves up to the lofty height from which they fell. And then and only then are they readmitted to the fold –anxious eyes watching, waiting for the slightest indication of a backslide.
In case you're wondering, I AM NOT BITTER. I had such a friend (for a while)- I was of some use to her and not being privy to the machinations of her society, I succumbed like the proverbial lamb, but I regress. The fact is that I admire those who look after their own. Indeed I wish that more of us less well-heeled folks would adopt the principles at play here to help lift a disaffected youth (not all, but far too many) from the doldrums that, devour what little confidence they may have had, and sap the will to fight back.
My cage is truly rattled ... thanks, I'll be back!
Not Necessarily.I have seen many examples in my daily life of people who have a relaxing life and are not smarter than an average person but they earn more money.Luck is a factor involved too!
Wealthy people are no specially born ones. But let no one lose sight of the fact that becoming wealthy itself is a craft to carve and nurture. There were and are a lot of people who were once wealthy (either by their own efforts or through inheritance from great grand fathers/ mothers or any body at all to them), but turn out to lose all those riches. That noted, wealthy people indeed have something that is in every human being that they unearth to their advantage.
It does not matter where one originates from. Wealthy people abound the world from different backgrounds so, one can conclude that they're smarter but not really hard workers.
Your hy-poo-thesis is slightly deranged and highly biased.
An originator of wealth did work hard to accumulate that wealth.
A child born to that originaltor did work hard to keep that wealth.
A grandchild in the lineage of the originator also worked hard to keep that wealth.
A great-grandchild in the lineage of the originator also worked hard to keep that wealth.
A great-great-grandchild in the lineage of the originator also worked hard to keep that wealth.
and so on and so on and so on...........
your jealousy is showing.
maybe you should start working as hard as the originator or the lineage children instead of complaining about how a wealthy child has it so good from your jealous position.
Yes, Paris Hilton is a good example. In fact, she's such a good example that her grandfather wanted to disinherit her.
I don't doubt that some of them did work hard; that's not the issue. The issue is that those who do work hard don't work any harder than people who were born without that wealth.
Also, there are a lot of playboys around. If you moved in those circles you'd know just how little some of them work.
It does not take a rocket scientist to become wealthy - just smart and hard work.
Jealousy - Jealousy - Jealousy is a never ending battle for those who want to blame others for their own failures.
Every wealthy person had to start somewhere.
Some started with nothing, like me and others started with wealth that they had to protect from the jealous ones who wanted to steal it away.
Everyone in the USA has the ability to acquire wealth.
It happens everyday.
And those who acquire it do so through hard and smart work.
The blame game is something that never will achieve wealth, because the jealous will always quit when the going gets tough.
I have been wealthy and poor so many times it is astounding to some.
However, I never let anything keep me from regaining that wealth because I know that the opportunity is always there to achieve it.
You want to throw examples, then let me give you a few.
Steve Jobs, Billy Mays, Alvin Pendergrast, Coco Channel, Bill Cosby, Marc Cuban, Jack Dorsey, Harvey Firestone, Walter Gilbert, Jim Henson, Milton Hershey, Elton John, Howard Evans, Bernard Livingston, Walter Peabody, Gloria Evans, Roy Rogers, Dale Evans, Ronnie Milsap, George Carlin, Monty Falmouth, Greg Archibault, Dominic Allard, Ralph Henderson
Why do you assume that we are all jealous of some thieving money grubbing fat oick?
Because YOU are, ha ha ha ha! John, don't be so obsessive about the rich! GET A LIFE!
Actually I'm not, and I have a very good life as well thank you.
I would have an even better life if I didn't have all these rich scroungers to support though.
Like I said, when the snotty girl in high school is called on her boorish behavior, she responds with, "they're just jealous because I'm pretty." It's much easier than admitting the boorish behavior. That might actually require some soul-searching.
Thank you; nice seeing you too. I've been a busy little liberal: dancing at rock concerts, sipping Kentucky bourbon, and eating locally grown veggies.
All in a day's work....
"inner city poor in NY some will make more on welfare than they would working."
It's incredible, shocking and depressing as you know it will at some point stop because the debts will become too much for the budget. I should not call them debts since they aren't truly owed anything. it kind of sounds like an ex-spouse to me in that they are entitled to ongoing money.
Irrespective of all that being said in the community, wealthy people are a kind of 'financial disciplinarians'. That makes them remain in that bracket as rich people. And no two ways about it that they are smarter, as recognize that secret and uphold to it unconditionally.
All the people mentioned in this article - the four richest women in the United States inherited their money and did not do an ounce of work for it.
So forget about the 'hard work' bit. It has nothing to do with hard work. They were just lucky to either marry or be born into wealth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … Texas.html
of course. Anything that contradicts your mind set, regardless of how factual, would put you to sleep. Tell me, I'm curious. I've thought you might be paid by the GOP to keep people talking so that you can garner votes? It's well known that bloggers and writers are paid to go on forums in election times and stir up controversy. Anything to get a bite.
Come on, now... Surely we can all find lazy rich people, AND lazy poor people. The amount of people who "get rich by getting lucky" isn't really a big number. Yes, it is also some luck, but I also strongly believe it is resourcefulness and hard work. You cannot say being rich has "nothing to do with hard work" because that simply is not true for the majority of successful people.
kathleenkat, why don't you do yourself a favor and do some research and find out what percentage of people on the top 400 wealthiest Americans inherited their wealth?
For instance, Donald Trump's daddy was also rich...
So you are saying Donald Trump is lazy?
I have seen you make examples of people that I really don't think qualify as lazy. You earlier mentioned Paris Hilton; did you know that she MAKES millions of dollars per year just off of promotional deals (okay, maybe not so much as she did in her 20s). Yes, her parents are obviously rich, but she has shown to ability to MAKE her own money. Donald Trump is pretty good at making money, too.
Now, you want some examples of people who don't have rich parents.
-How about Oprah? She was born to an unmarried teenage mother. Look how rich and successful she is.
-Larry Ellison was also born to an unmarried teenage mother.
-Michael Bloomberg worked as a parking lot attendant to pay his way through college.
-Ralph Lauren was born of immigrants, and raised by his older brother.
Might I go on? Like I said, we can find examples of lazy rich people, and lazy poor people. We can also find examples of hard working rich people, like those stated above, and hard working poor people.
kathleenkat, you don't know much about making massive amounts of money, do you?
so let me give you a lesson in it.
If one has capital, one can be successful. Both Paris Hilton and Donald Trump had rich parents from whom they DID get capital. It was NOT hard work that got them their initial capital.
Poor people don't have initial capital, and no matter how hard they work subsequently, they are unlikely to succeed.
Until I see your name on that list of 400 top-earners, I will consider these "lessons" nothing more than opinions and speculation on your part.
Capital has to come from somewhere. Someone, somewhere down the line in the Trump and Hilton families, made a right decision or two.
Kathleenkat, do I honestly strike you as someone who doesn't check every conceivable thing she writes? You're obviously a very bad judge of character. By the same token, obviously you could do the checking yourself?
But that would be too much like hard work... Much either to believe all the propaganda sent your way...
I think you are "stacking the deck" with your definition of "great wealth". You seem to have defined it at such a figure (multiple billions) that it is virtually impossible to accumulate it in one lifetime and then complain that a person can't reach those rarefied heights in their own life without previous generations to inherit from. There are exceptions, of course - Bill Gates and Paul Allen come to mind - but they are rare.
My own definition of "great wealth" would include those with a net worth of only a 100 million and there is no dearth of these people that have done it on their own with virtually no help from parents. Kathleenkat gave some examples and there are many more. Dolly Parton. Steve Wozniak. Steve Jobs. J K Rowling (yes I know she is British). Faith Hill is nearly there. Steve Zuckerberg. Larry Page. Sheldon Adelson. Fred Koch. Some of these are actually billionaires (Fred Koch started as an engineer for an oil firm and is worth some 25 billion now) but all are fabulously wealthy by my concept of wealth and earned it themselves, in their lifetime.
True, you probably won't enter the ranks of the richest people in the country by starting with nothing, but you can amass great wealth, in the hundreds of millions.
wilderness, it's easier to become upwardly mobile elsewhere so I don't want to include JK Rowling in the list. That said, 20 to 40 years ago, it was possible. Not anymore.
The point I'm making is that from about 20 years ago, it became less and less possible or probable to accumulate wealth or for young people to become upwardly mobile.
Also, if one as born to upper middle class parents, it's much easier than if one is born in poverty.
Also, one is born with artistic talent, looks, brains, etc. Not everybody is.
How can you tell if it is less possible in the last 20 years? It takes far, far longer than that to gather this kind of wealth, and those that began 20 years ago are just getting started.
Yes, a good education and upbringing makes it easier, but it is not necessary. Some of those quick examples did not begin with that upper middle class home life.
Yes, if one is born the talent, looks, etc. it is easier. Or if one simply works hard and smart, with a good dollop of luck thrown in to boot. If you are expecting everyone in the country to have the ability to earn great wealth you will be sorely disappointed - it has always taken special abilities and always will. Beginning, I think with commitment and work (or as you point out an inheritance). It is completely unrealistic to think that everyone in the country should be able to become rich.
For instance, I like to think I'm smart enough to have become rich, and I had a college education. BUT - I don't have the drive to do it. I don't want to work 80-100 hours a week. I don't want to manipulate people and am not a salesman. I'm not interested in playing the money game. My interests lie elsewhere (family, leisure, arts, etc.) and in those things I'm rich. Not with money, but with the things I value, and that was a choice I made. Not everyone wants to be monetarily rich and partially because of that never will be.
Wilderness, I'm not being facetious here, but do you read? This is not my opinion. This is the broad consensus of a great many economists and educators who have been writing about it for the past two decades. For example, internationally, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 20 years. I'm actually stunned that you have asked me this question. Robert Reich, the past secretary of state, comes to mind as do quite a few others.
Again, it seems to me that part of the problem with "mobility" is the concept of middle class. I grew up in a middle class family all the way - Mom was a homemaker with a huge garden, Dad was a truck driver. We never wanted for anything, had a car, an older 3 bed home (for 3 kids) and entertainment was an evening with friends - no TV although we did have a phone.
Now I have a home half again the size for just two people, 2 cars, an RV, a flat screen in every major room, two telephones, two computers and entertainment is a weekend 100 miles away in the woods. So much more than we had as a kid, but now I'm at the bottom end of the middle class. The definition has grown faster than general incomes, resulting in the inevitable loss of members.
If "middle class" was defined as the middle third of earnings rather by continually raising the bar in possessions to the point it is beyond that middle third to purchase you would find that it has remained static.
Wilderness, that is a very good point. However, as wealth rises, so the definition of wealth rises.
Yes, the definition of wealth rises with a nationwide rise in incomes and that is to be expected.
However, if income doubles and the definition of wealth quadruples then that definition applies to fewer people, and this is what is happening. 50 years ago the middle class (call them the middle third of earners) had a 1200 sq ft house. Now that same middle third has a 2000 sq ft home (for less cost after inflation), but to be in the middle class requires a 3,000 sq ft home. A Chevy was middle class 50 years ago - decent quality for the time and reasonable cost. Now it takes a Mercedes - high quality for today and a high price relative to the Chevy. Why isn't the same Chevy, with it's rise in quality and price, middle class now? It is the same car, relative to general income but is no longer good enough for middle class even though it's a far better car than it was 50 years ago.
Am I making sense to you? The quality and amount of goods has risen considerably for what the middle third of earners can afford and that is what we should expect to see. We learn to make better quality for less cost and improvements in efficiency result in great quantity of goods for less cost as well. Ignoring inflation that middle third should be able to afford more, and they can. Somehow, though, it isn't enough to classify as middle class anymore; the requirements have risen even faster than improvements in quality and efficiency.
The result is that the "upward mobility" you reference requires not that you double your income (as you used to have to do) but that you quadruple it. (Don't take that double or quadruple as fact, just as an appropriate concept.), If your interest is to be considered as part of a defined class it may upset you. If your interest is to live a more comfortable and interesting life than your parents, with more luxuries and goodies than they had, it shouldn't.
Curious; where do you get these definitions of what applies as Middle Class?
Just wondering, because I hear several different definitions. I have heard people refer to grocery store workers as "middle class workers." I have heard people say 35k and above for household income. I have heard individual income of 35k and above. I have heard 60k above household.
I have never heard the parameters for square footage of a house, before. Or type of car. What about the rich, cheap people? My father makes a sizeable amount of money, but lives in a smaller house (because he is single?), and owns a Honda, Acrua and Volkswagon. Yeah; he owns 3 cars...but they aren't Mercedes. So I'm just wondering, what constitutes Middle Class, now?
Hey - I could have written that! We agree on so many things outside of religion, wilderness. Thankfully, even then, we're able to friendly about it. I gotta stop with the whole 'what he said' thing...lol
Wilderness, here are just a few links to this...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/ha … wanted=all
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/au … d-mobility
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Economy/Less … or-British
http://www.prosperity.com/ This list gives the United States as 10th most difficult to get upward mobility.
A lot of what is believed was true 30 or 40 years ago, but simply has been less and less true for the past 20 years.
This is not my opinion. This is hard fact based on numerous international studies. That's why Romney is losing the election. He hasn't read. The only people who are agreeing with him are people who don't do much reading either, and who are stuck with the same opinions they had twenty years ago.
The world has changed.
Again, I think we're talking about different things. Your first link concerns upward mobility, into the top 5th of earners. The second looks at the very depths of American poverty - inner cities - and declares it's horrible. The third concerns college education of Americans - a quickly growing group that virtually anyone can join if they wish to - and declares European countries are better.
I'm not looking at any of that, but rather the ability of Americans in general, particularly the poor, to achieve what is to me a fortune. Not the top 5th, but just what I consider a fortune. Comparing America to other countries has some value, but none of the links address the difference between what America considers middle class (3000 sq ft home, two cars (or more as soon as kids can drive), multiple toys such as boats and RV's, 2,000 mile vacations etc.) and what Britain or France, for instance, considers middle class.
Nor does the "middle class" in any country have the equivalent of 100 million $$ stashed away somewhere, which is what I though we were discussing.
The problem with mobility, is comparing countries is apples to oranges.
In the US, you can go from $20,000 to $70,000, and be considered less mobile than someone in another country who goes from $20,000 to $40,000.
It's a stupid yardstick to use, because it means something different in every country.
It's as bad as saying that the people in the top 10% of (insert extremely poor country here) are better off than the people in the top 50% of America... because the people in the poor country are in a higher percentile.
Anyone who cares more about what percentile they are in than how much money they make should just move to a very poor country. Go live like a king in a hut, and ask yourself how much your percentile really matters.
And what about the fact that it's now less easy to become upwardly mobile in the United States than it was 20 years ago.
When talking about changing from one group to another, yes, it is more difficult. That was kind of my whole point.
Income inequality is greater than it was before. By definition, that means you have to increase your income more to make the same change in class.
Ignoring inflation, this is the situation(numbers aren't correct, just illustrative)
20 years ago, if you increased your income from 15k per year to 80k per year, you would have increased from the bottom 20% to the top 20%.
Today, you can increase your income from 15k per year to 100k per year, and not be in the top 20%. So a larger total change in income can result in less of a change in class.
As I've said... if all you care about is how much you make compared to other people... move to a poor country and live like a king. If all you care about is your actual situation, the US is still very very good for that.
JaxsonRaine, if you know this, then what are you arguing about?
That relative income mobility, comparing countries to each other, is a stupid thing to bring up. It means nothing at all.
When people say income mobility is dead in America, they don't understand what they are saying. It's misleading, but people believe it.
There are more ways than one of measuring mobility. Relative doesn't work. Absolute does.
America has great absolute income mobility.
Again, those people who started from nothing are more the exception than the rule.
Quite comfortable, but not rich, and not worth multi-millions. This would describe my parents.
My father had a perfect business in the 1950's through 1980's. And there are very few people who would have been able to take such an opportunity, but he made a good living from it. He did not work super-hard, but he worked smart. He seized his opportunity while the getting was good. My father was not super intelligent, nor did he finish high school. Like many kids growing up during the Great Depression, he wanted to be successful, and somehow, my grandparents must have inculcated the right attitude in him.
My father was also bilingual from the age of 3. That sure didn't hurt, and, later, it landed him a dream job with Pan American Airways. My grandparents didn't speak much Spanish, but Dad says he learned Spanish words and phrases from one of the hands who worked on the family ranch. Maybe Dad was simply an astute, observant person who was motivated to learn practical things from an early age.
My dad once said he did not like rich people, although to me, he was rich. If you look hard, you'll find more than a few wealthy people, but you wouldn't know it from their demeanor. I read The Millionaire Next Door one time. Whether you believe it or not, some of the wealthiest families in this country live some of the most unassuming lives. They do not care whether or not their house or car comes up to the prevailing standard, and they do not accumulate possession after possession that needs to be stored, insured, and maintained. And they do not go bankrupt like Donald Trump has done in some of his business ventures, because they do not believe in going into debt. Oh, and some of the wealthiest people have never been divorced (it goes without saying!).
To accumulate some measure of wealth, you have to take some risks. If you're unwilling to stick your neck out just a moderate amount, you'll end up average or poor.
One's attitude to fellow man and relative willingness to share, whether to a charity or to a church, is very indicative of character in a wealthy person.
Also, to have the right attitude while wealthy, one must develop the mindset to be thankful in all things. To quickly grieve the missed opportunities and to find a blessing in being passed over at times -- yes, this kind of humility is very important in the larger scheme of one's personal financial circumstances.
Tell you what, I'll report back in 5 years and see if our hard work and intelligent risk taking pays off!
I'm now working two jobs from home, one job and one our own business.
The nice thing about this particular thread is this.
After Romney opened his mouth about the '47%' who are lazy losers, he widened the gap between him and Obama even further - in Obama's favor, of course.
The even nice thing is that it's now openly becoming a class war. I've known about that for a while, of course. That's why I started writing my Civil War 2012 series more than a year ago.
And, of course, the nice thing about the class war is that the real issues are coming to the forefront. So I can confidently predict not only that Obama will be winning 2012, but that the Dems will be winning the following 8 years after that.
Because the rich insist on telling the poor that they're lazy and stupid. Great way to win an election. Great way to get their heads chopped off (French Revolution). Great way to lead to communism (Russian Revolution). But, of course, those who don't learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat them...
It's sad that this forum as over 400 posts when a simple, basic understanding of Austrian Economics can explain the answer in under a sentence.
"No, the wealthy see opportunities that others don't, and take risks that others don't."
Evan, everyone should KNOW this! I have known this since I was a child. My parents, especially my father told me this. I also have read many books on wealth and the wealthy mindset. Let the socialist and communist pundits remain in their state. I won't say which state because I would be banned!
If you haven't already, check out "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, and "How an Economy Grows, and Why is Crashes", by the Schiff brothers.
"One Lesson" is free online: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
However, "Grows and Crashes" is not. Schiff's father, however, wrote a similar book which is free online.
If that were true then economic mobility would be the same everywhere... but it's not, countries that invest in educating and helping their citizens have much better economic mobility, what a puzzle no?
No, your premise is false.
Liberty allows the wealthy to seize opportunity, while governments prevent this possibility. It's no surprise that the freest countries are also the wealthiest.
To learn economics is to learn freedom.
For more info, please check out "Learn Liberty"
Care to prove that statement? GDPP the US is the 20th wealthiest country in the world. Please prove the others are more "free" (which really means have a larger government).
GDP doesn't measure what could have been.
It's impossible to prove my point with statistics.
You might say that this makes me wrong, but your statistics can't prove your argument.
The only fall back is logic, and mine makes sense, yours doesn't.
On the contrary if countries with regulated economies are doing better then that is just that. (they are) As for the logic quite the contrary most processes need guidance and the economy is no different the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and G20 have both determined that the economic crash was due to a failure to regulate the banking industry for example there is no correlation between "freedom" or non regulated economies and prosperity.
What do you mean 20th?
US has the largest GDP of any nation.
US has the largest GDP by PPP of any nation.
US ranks around 7th for GDP/capita, where many of the higher nations are tiny and/or tax haven/financial centers.
Sorry Jaxson but ''the US ranks 6th or 7th in PPP behind Norway for example(depending on world bank or IMF rating)
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo … p=0&a=
and around 16th in nominal per capita
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo … p=0&a=
The 20th rating is the IMF's I believe and it's due to the debt in addition to the two previous facts.
I should have listed my sources but yours are incorrect.
The data in those links is not ranked btw so if you want it in order you can simply go to the Wikipedia pages but I won't post them even a as guide because someone will probably have a go at me for using wikipedia as a source even if I am not.
No. US is first in GDP PPP. CIA, IMF, World Bank all agree.
The story is the same in nominal dollars.
Wikipedia is fine, as long as the sources used are correct. This lets you look at many different reports.
Ok, I'll agree with that, but money is inflated in most of those countries, hence the 7th in PPP.
The IMF rates the US 14th in nominal for 2011. I'm not going to build that chart myself.
So no, my sources aren't incorrect, I just mislabled my GDP(PPP) per capita, which is the best measure for how much wealth a country creates per citizen. Surely you can forgive that mistake if I forgive you labeling the US as 20th in GDP .
I try to write this the best I can.
But I think, some people don't want to work, just want things handed to them.
I wanted to work and yeah so my family was poor, but I dream big, and actually
been working everday for the past seven years.
To work with Jackie Chan, and believe it or not, it is possible, people, said
that I just have to work for it and it can happen.
So because I wanted to learn, and grow, I sought out intelligent people,
and wanted to surround myself with them and keep doing so.
If I make money, it will because I am not on welfare, I have a job, and
I don't use men for money.
I am not perfect and learned from mistakes and to stay away from
energy sucking vampires.
..So I work a full time job...monday thru thursday, ten hours a day,
so I can work on films, and write and take horse back riding lessons,
for a film and get my own film together.
Now I have to say, wanting to work in films, it is so much harder than
people think, because a film is cut and edit to look good, you just don't
see what goes behind the scenes of the hours you can work in a day for
I believe in keeping a job, until my dream job is my only job.
I even just got my own radio show, which is broadcasted live and can
be heard anywhere on the internet around the world and it's archived,
so people can listen to it anytime they wish.
Sometimes I'm a little tired, but basically I'm content, because I work
hard, to improve myself and I try to give back in the process.
Bless you, SISTER for you exemplify the American Spirit. God keep you and yours!
This has gotten hard to follow;
But I don't understand the notion that wealthy people are lazy. It's possible, yes, and likely that they inhereted wealth from their parents. But somewhere down the line, someone had to first gain that wealth through innovation, resourcefulness, etc.
There are people whose parents have money, but it takes a certain type to continue making money. Anyone ever hear about Lindsay Lohan, Hilary Duff, or Amanda Bynes anymore? They outgrew their niche, of child acting, and couldn't find a new one. They no longer make money, at least not from acting.
I really, really, truly do not understand the notion that "rich people are lazy and handed success." If that is not the point that many of you are trying to convey, then I don't know what is. Please, inform me.
JaxsonRaine, I accomplished in three years in England what I was completely unable ever to even remotely accomplish here.
What people mean by upward mobility is that one moves from one class to another. It doesn't matter how much money is involved.
If it takes $100,000 to move from lower middle to middle in one country and it takes $20,000 in another country, it doesn't make any difference because it's what one can buy with the money that counts, not the actual amounts involved.
that said, there's still less upward mobility in the USA now to what there was 20 years ago - and this is NOT comparing itself to other countries.
It's very hard for young people to move upwards now compared to what it was 40 years ago, and it is this latter that is my point. The point about the other countries was an add-on, not the main point. The main point is that it's now more difficult than it used to be, and with each passing year it becomes more difficult
I wonder if that has something to do with the rising percentage of college graduates? My parents attended college in the 70s, and they say that having a degree was more rare, and basically insured employment. Now, there are tons and tons of people with college degrees. There is more competition, and people have to be resourceful in other ways, to move ahead (because there is less to go around).
I think the college degree is becoming what the high school diploma used to be; so common, and so necessary for even an interview.
Good for you... isolated stories don't mean anything though.
With purchasing power equalized, the story is still the same. Easier to earn more money in America, harder to be in the top 10%. I don't care, I'd rather have more money and not be in the top 10%, than have less money and be in the top 10%. I could move to many countries and be in the top 10%, but I much prefer my standard of living here.
Class to class, yes, there is less. Dollar for dollar, no, there is more.
If you care about being in the top 10%, then yes, it is more difficult now than before to do that.
If you care about earning more money, then no... it's actually easier now than it was 20 years ago.
All things being equal, equal purchasing power dollar for dollar, income mobility can say that someone who goes from $20k to $50k is better off than someone who goes from $20k to $80k.
Do you really think what 'class' you fall under is more important than what you actually earn?
Just curious. Have you ever heard the saying 'Empty barrels make the most noise?"
I think I made a decision about hubpages today.
it's simply too unpleasant.
by mio cid4 years ago
Mike Huckabee ended his show with these words the other day.He said rich people should live with poor people for a few days so they would experience how hard their life is and poor people should live with rich people...
by Grace Marguerite Williams6 months ago
When will people come to the realization that socioeconomic wealth is a good thing. Wealth means a better quality of life for one & one's family. It also grants more opportunities for one's...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
There Are MANY POOR People Who Also Have A Sense Of Entitlement! There seems to be a strong animus against the wealthy, affluent, and highly successful among us. There are folks who claim that such people...
by HuntersWhitt3 years ago
We've been having a really great discussion on tax rates today, and I've been noticing an underlying theme throughout the thread, so I'll just ask the "tough question" directly. This question has three...
by kerryg6 years ago
Funding for our country's children is being cut, but we allow a hedge fund manager to make enough money to pay the salaries of every public school teacher in New York City. Most of his earnings are taxed at a rate less...
by Billy Hicks4 years ago
There has been a lot of discussion about class warfare, and the wealthy not paying "their fair share",so my question for you, my esteemed fellow Hubbers is this:Assuming that they are complying with all...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.