Do you believe that children from lower socioeconomic circumstances are doomed to lives of educational & socioeconomic poverty, even becoming members of a permanent generational underclass w/no educational & socioeconomic prospects? Do you also believe that ONLY upper middle & upper class children will become highly educated &socioeconomically successful?
Yes. All studies show that.
Essentially, success in life is determined by resources. In countries where resources are provided by government (western Europe), everybody has a good chance of doing well. In countries, where there are few (or non-existant) resources, the struggle of just merely surviving takes up all the time and energy.
Those of the older generation forget that during the 50s and 60s, the world was heavily socialistic with government providing massive assistance to those starting out. Tax on the rich was anything from 50% to 90%.
Studies also show that the human brain shuts down all creativity when it is in a perpetual struggle to survive. This means that people living on subsistance wages (that's barely enough to survive) don't have the ability to be creative.
When people speak about examples of successful people who weren't rich, they are invariable speaking about people like Bill Gates who came from an upper middle class home and who went to a school that had massive resources like computers at a time when most people hadn't even heard of them.
Other people who have come up from extreme poverty were generally drug pushers who used criminality to get them out of there and later 'found the Lord." However, they would not have achieved their millionaire status had they been willing to be honest and legal.
I believe that unless we succeed in instituting a Universal Basic Income (European countries are looking at this), we will face massive social upheaval resulting in a Dystopian world.
With the advent of robots and artificial intelligence, there is going to be even less work with between 50% and 80% of jobs disappearing between the next 5 and 20 years.
This study also shows that Obama did not increase the number of jobs available to people.
http://www.investing.com/news/economy-n … ork-449057
I also believe that it is impossible for any government to increase the number of jobs. That is because humankind have been in a state of over production since the 60s. Ironically, there simply aren't sufficient humans to consume all that stuff. And fewer and fewer of them have the money to buy them.
Capitalism can only work through constant expansion. It is a pyramid system. It is the process of collapsing as many are realizing. As it collapses, more and more people will find themselves out of work with the upper middle class being the last to fold. Unfortunately, the upper middle class suport the view of the uber rich, and until that bastion falls, we cannot create an economic system (a system of production and distribution) that works for us all.
Excellent statement, welcome to the post, Tess. Continue the discussion.
This is a very good answer that describes what I feel and think. I would only like to add something that I find pertinent. If we think about educational system, the one that should open doors for us all, we can find that usually, public education is not so well organized as private education. There's no fairness on reaching high cultural levels. If you come from lower and hard working classes you usually have not much time with children to stimulate and motivate other issues then those that feed you. Upper classes have it all.. time and money to do better.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-both Tess and Marg are correct in their premises. The book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell authenticated the premise that lower & working class parents spend less time w/their children, leaving their children to their own devices while solidly middle, upper middle, & upper class parents have the physical, emotional, & socioeconomic resources to spend time w/their children.
Also solidly middle, upper middle, & upper class parents, on average, are better educated & have smaller families. These variegated factors transfer into more monies for educational & socioeconomic opportunities for their children to go far educationally & socioeconomically. Parents from lower socioeconomic echelons-the lower middle, working, lower, & underclass, on average, are the least educated. Another factor is that such parents have larger families. As we all know, parents in large/very large families aren't involved in their children's lives. Their main concern are the rudiments, nothing beyond that. Such children are left to their own devices very early in life. Life for children in the lower socioeconomic echelons is precarious at best & perilous at worst. These children end up to be THE LEAST EDUCATED & POOREST as adults. As parents, they will be continuing the impoverished socioeconomic legacy for yet another generation.
That is as correct assessment as you have ever stated. Plutocracy, Trumpthink and the GOP House of Lords are taking us down this road with ideas that threatens the foundation of democracy and the prosperity of the middle class.
success is an ambiguous word. For instance as "analysis of observable evidence": Success to my mother was much different than success to my father.
In the end they were both successful in their own ways. Sadly, they couldn't recognize it in the other.
No, it has to do with the individual himself. Some do not have the karma to become rich, some do.
We might as well discuss the whole picture while we're at it. For instance I am not rich, but I feel rich.
I live simply, yet elegantly ... knowing the race to obtain MORE will only complicate my life. I love freedom and free time more than money. That may change and when it does, I will end up sacrificing what I love most: Freedom.
"Some do not have the karma to become rich, some do."
So you're saying that as a result of actions in a previous life, some will be destined to become rich and some won't?
"it has to do with the individual himself"
So you're saying that child born HIV positive in the middle of the Congo where one tribe is murdering another is 100% responsible for whether he gets wealthy or not, and that his journey to that wealth faces exactly the same challenges as someone born to a family of great wealth in a first world country who goes to the greatest schools there are?
Are you also saying that that child was born into the Africa jungle with HIV because in some previous life he did some things that earned him that?
The individual picks where he is born. He knows the situation he is being born into. A child born in the congo with HIV pretty much knew he would not become wealthy. He accepted other challenges. Perhaps the challenge to love where there is hate. That could become a wealth no one can take away. A different kind of challenge. A different kind of wealth. There is no money in heaven but we can bring heaven to earth. There is money on earth, but we can't take it to heaven. So which is a more realistic goal in the final analysis?
That all sounds so lofty and flowery. How does that play when you are on the margins of survival while there are people that you and I both know who boasts of sitting on solid gold commodes? What you say flows from those for whom it is easy to talk. Would you really trade places with the afflicted? I am forced to believe the adage that will apply to man into the forseeable future as it was true as far back as one chooses to retreat " we will always hunt and and we are always hunted.
So, if you are born into poverty you should accept it? If we were all content with such inequity, we would have no need for war. Everybody would simply be content with their relative stations in life, sit down and be quiet? Not a chance!!
I understood from GM William's question that the answer was to be rational, i.e. based on reason (analysis and evidence). Your response is based on belief. Have I got something wrong here?
Without the whole picture … the metaphysical aspect of our existence, life cannot be fathomed. If you do not want the whole picture you are doomed to ramble on and on without any answers. If that's what you want, go right on ahead.
I will not stand in your way any further.
… but my brother did have Mars in Capricorn and now owns his own house and the house next door. He started with absolutely no money from my father who believed people should work for what they get in life. So work my brother did.
I have Neptune in the Second house, which is not good for dealing with money realistically. I have a feeling I will get my share of the inheritance, seeing how I have Venus in the eighth house and all …
No one is born into wealth without having achieved it himself in some past lifetime. Who can handle the amount of money Trump handles? I couldn't. Those who win Lottery money usually end up squandering it. They do not know how to manage it or spend it wisely.
If my daddy gave me several millions of dollars, I sure that I could do great things as well. Trump is an aristocratic clown no more deserving of credit for his station in life anymore than Marie Antoinette could take credit for hers.
You are guessing.
What would you do with money your father gave you? If you cannot answer this question immediately it is because you haven't given it much thought. The first brother was an entrepreneur from the time he was ten with his own paper route delivering papers at four in the morning on his bike. I remember waking up at when it was still dark and he would be folding and rubber banding those papers ... Oh whoops.
If I am guessing, so are you.
Why do I have to answer the question about what I would do with my father's inheritance immediately? The wise man would ponder carefully about how to apply such a sum.
Yes, and so what? I had a paper route at 12 years folding papers and delivering them on a bike. I was of an entrepreneurial spirit but I did not end of wealthy. There are any people who work just as hard and all are not successful in having riches showered upon them. For a matter of fact, that is most people.
Vast inequity and subsequent injustice guarantees war and strife, if you are interested in self preservation, we better start leveling the playing field.
So, let me understand this.
According to my star chart, I was born a child prodigy, with the gift of genius in writing, a connoisseur of the arts, born with complete knowledge of mass and depth psychology with no need for further learning, an ability to work in the world of spirit the way others work with their hands in the real world. According to my supposedly 'rare chart,' I have some ability in healing others, am a hard worker, am competent in many things, am capable of seeing trends for the future, am beautiful to look at, have a lovely speaking voice, was born for love and will only be complete when I partner with another. The destiny for this lifetime is to understand and understand the material world. I was supposedly born for greatness but don't like to get my hands dirty so give greatness a miss. Oh, yes, and while men will fall all over me, I have no interest in passion. Oh, yes, least I forget, I was a queen in another life time.
Now I"m willing to bet you anything you like that there isn't a single person alive who will tell you I was a child prodigy. What they will tell you is that I was dumb as dishwater, etc. And as I'm constantly accused of not understanding others, have never had a relationship (and I'm now 65), and I've struggled with money as regardless of how hard I work, I have to ask you if I was born with the wrong natal chart.
According to what you've said, I should have a really amazing life because I've achieved all these things in past lives. Technically, I should be a genius aristocrat billionaire alongside the love of my life going around healing people.
With all due respect, the reality shows otherwise.
Well, Donald Trump certainly squanders money.
No one is born for greatness. They are born for great purposes. If you have no purpose, then … Greatness for the sake of itself alone does not last long. Without a purpose, no one is willing to get their hands dirty.
In that case, please explain to me why natal charts supposedly gives a purpose, and why I was told that what my purposes were. During the 18 months that I studied astrology, I had many people do my chart (including Matrix - http://www.astrologysoftware.com/index.aspx), the company that Nancy Reagan used to help Ronald Reagan make decisions for the USA.
You've just said that only people who were millionaires in previous lives can be millionaires in this life. Using the same principle, only people who were great in a previous life can be great in this one.
This reasoning, of course, has a big hole in it. It says that one can only achieve something in one's current life if one has achieved it in a previous life. So the only way anyone can be rich is if they were always rich in their previous lives.
Of course, this is Hindu reasoning, and it's why the masses of India are left to starve. Cows are treated better than humanity in India.
One is not under the direction of the stars. One is under the direction of one's self. What one has done in a past life is revealed in a chart. What opportunities present themselves are shown in a chart. What one does with their opportunities and talents developed in last lives is always up to one's own choosing. If you could come up with a purpose you would succeed easily. For some reason you sabotage your purposes and/or choice of purposes. I wonder why?
According to the latest findings in brain science (neurology), there is no such thing as free will. We make decisions long before we've actually thought the problem through.
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/0 … sm/485234/
"For some reason you sbatoge your purposes and choice of purposes. I wonder why?"
Please provide evidence for your statement. You have never met me. You don't know me. You do not have one iota of proof for that statement.
I do, understand, however, that you are 'fitting the evidence' to your belief. You have to explain all events in terms of your belief. The rational and objectve way is the other way round. One looks at the evidence and see where it leads.
So we've come full circle. The evidence shows that people who grow up in countries where there are limited or no resources means those people remain poor. Where people grow up in countries where there are resources for them to help themselves, they flourish.
You might like to read "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. Thomas Petty in his book, Capital in the 21st Century' alsho demonstrates that the propensity for success has a direct correlation between being born into a rich family or been born into a poor man.
Here are some videos that back this up.
So you do not sabotage your own potential for greatness?
I haven't sabotaged myself in any way. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I work extremely hard, that I have overcome challenges that few have been able to. I always made the best decisions I could based on the information available to me at the time.
What is true is that I have always been motivated by service to the community, providing safety and well being for humanity.
Again, though, I shouldn't have to answer questions about my own life because you cannot provide rational evidence for your claims. Anecdotal (that means one uses one's own life as evidence) incidents are not accepted as evidence. One has to take the big picture and see if the same holds true for everybody. One must then be able to prove it by rational deduction based on observable facts.
Rational observation indicates that people who do well in life had resources while growing up that others didn't have.
Then why do you say you are not "great?" Sounds great to me!
You have purpose and you have a strong will. All revealed in your chart.
My pont is that money is not everything.
Not too much, not too little.
What is wrong with that?
Is it better to be born with little or not born at all?
Ask the person who is born. They find joy. They are joy ... no matter how much money they have as long as they have fresh water, food, love and a roof over their heads.
If one cannot not provide those things they should not be having sex with anyone.
The problem is that you said that karma was responsible for the state of poverty or wealth whereas all evidence pointsto the fact that a state of poverty has to do with the economical system of the state.
You havenot supplied a rational answer to thw OP's question - only a mystical one.
I know someone with two brothers. One is wealthy through hard work and the motivation to succeed. However, he has become coldhearted. He has become selfish. In fact, he wants to divorce his wife, but he won't because she will get half of their assets.
The other brother is also wealthy. His goal was to provide for his wife and family and be the best manager he could be. In all his efforts to love and provide for his family and serve his company he too has become wealthy.
They both got up and went to work and earned a lot of money. One is happy one is not. The first one has become greedy and in fact, plans to horde all the inheritance money to himself.
There is a moral to this story but I don't know what it is.
PS No one gave them money to begin with.
KH, first of all there is no real scientific basis for astrology. There are no stars or relative alignment of planets that control my destiny. There are many that give much credence to it, but it is not my cup of tea. Please don't tell me that you are so naive to believe that simple Aesop fables can explain the vastness of inequity in this world.
I am not denying that people have different objectives in life but for you to say that everybody ends up with what it is they work for or seek as an equitable outcome is a fantasy.
I can forgive Sir Issac Newton, one of the world's brightest for that belief. He lived in the 17th century, you live in the 21st and should know better. In spite of Newton' s revelation to the world of important physical laws, he could have not have understood, nor appreciate that many of his findings were to be surplanted by the theories of Albert Einstein.
I cannot realistically expect Newton to be as knowledgeable in all things in the way he was in certain areas of physics for the period of time in which he lived
So, just because he said so, does not give it automatic credibility.
Their astrological charts can be compared here to determine karma and personality. Astrology reveals what a person was in his last life. The first brother does not have a chart which reveals heart and feeling, while the second brother does. The first brother was always a bit more materialistic and not as people oriented as the second. The first brother loves things. The second brother loves people. Which loves you back?
People or things?
Not everyone even wants to be wealthy ... or do the things which gets them there.
But it is best to remember, the highest good is that which is for the sake of itself AND something else.
I think this principle is exemplified by the second brother.
In that case, I would suggest you get some more practice using your brain.
I would really appreciate an response as everything I have said counters what you have said.
I can't. There is no talking to those who believe in socialism. The ghost of John Holden is lurking. I do believe he could not be beaten by even wilderness. So I am out .…
I would suggest that you can't because I've pointed out sufficient holes in your reasoning not to be able to verify your claims.
Socialists believe that tax money should be spent on resources for people in order to ensure that people have some opportunity in their lives. Until the time of Thatcher and Reagan, America, the British Empire, and Europe were all socialistic.
In communism, the people own co-ops together. The state or government has no ownership.
In socialism, the state owns some (or all) industry, in order to provide for the people. All countries in the west which practice socialism generally have owned things electricity, phones, public transport, education, which is paid for by the taxes of the people.
In totalitarianism (the USSR and Red China), the State owns everything and has the right to tell everybody what they must do with their lives.
In Capitalism (only 250 years old), a system of unequal exchange, labour is considered inferior to the ownership class and the aristocrats and money perpetually floats upwards. There is no opportunity to break out of poverty.
The only reason people broke out of pover in the 50s and 60s was a result of socialism - that's pretty much the entire west.
But let's get back to how you rationalize that if people were born poor, that's a result of poverty in a past life. Or do you think it's a punishment?
Goodnight, KH, get some sleep and think over the true nature of your words and how they play in our discourse here.
superstitions exist in India as well as anywhere else. Reality exists however and that reality is this:
We have free will. Whatever situation we're in, we can adapt and make it beneficial to ourselves. What stops us from surviving? what ?
Our own lack of intelligence, effort, direction, determination, will to succeed, the ability to be future orientated, aware, helpful, intuitive, clever and creative. What shuts down all these abilities? NO FREEDOM which is what socialism thrives on.
Socialism requires one thing to make it work:
A money tree. But with a money tree, life would be way too easy. We wouldn't get anywhere. Life is not to live easily. It is to live by hook or crook, (without harming anyone else.) Intense effort and urgency. Willingness to die... because what is death? Death is advancement, it is rising above the earth plane. The earth plane is a sham. We need to leave. Let us leave by our best efforts, In some kind of glory, not sitting around playing cards.
Socialism requires that every person in society contributes to the well being of the community.
In the days of kings, taxes were used to enhance the lifestyle of kings.
When republics were introduced, taxes were supposed to be used to make the lives of people easier. It was supposed to be used to construct those things which were common to all people - like roads, bridges, dams, public transport, medical services, etc.
I find it a far better use of one's earnings to pay tax to the goverment to have them take care those things which most people could not afford to build themselves. Its a much more sensible solution to send people to a state funded school, for instance, than for every mother to stay home and repeat the same effort.
I think you're confusing a welfare state with socialism. In a welfare state, the state provides money for people who don't work. However, that is simplistic because there is no such thing as an entire state comprised of people who do not work.
Of course, within the next 5 to 20 years, between 50% and 80% of us will be unemployed and without income. According to your reasoning, this will be the result of karma from a previous life. According to economists and others, this will be the result of Artificial Intelligence and robots taking our jobs.
Death is the end of life. We rot. I have no evidece (and nor has anyone else) that there is life after death. It's one of those belief systems that are comforting because it rationalizes failure, poverty, and anything else that is unpleasant. It also comforts the ego that it doesn't matter if we die because we will live again.
May I remind you that the indigenous lived here for eons off the land and used little money.
What has that to do with the price of eggs?
Do you wish to become an indigenous person without access to health care, modern amenities like running water, access to hubpages via a computer, etc?
Please be my guest if that is what you wish. Hoowever, I do not see how that connects to the question which is, "Do people who are born in poverty have the same opportunity as people who are born into wealth?"
opportunity for happiness?
opportunity for what else is important?
we live on the astral plane @ 500 years before coming back. This life time is quite short.. seven or so decades? compared to five centuries?
what can be gained in a handful of decades? not much, if you don't TRY.
not much at all.
There is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever. That is a belief system that you choose to belief. The OP asked for rational responess, i.e. not based on belief, but on analysis of observable evidence, i.e. using the scientific method.
I would rather be an Indian living off the land rather than be labeled poor or homeless. Yes, they were poor and homeless in our eyes. But they had dignity and love. They had strength, power and freedom. They had a lot which we took away and replaced it with what we call wealth and civilization. We give them a false God when they had a real God. They respected Great Spirit in nature. We imagine a being who punishes or rewards us in heaven and you talk about scientific methods? I am all for wealth when it is generated within a system of free market enterprise within appropriate boundaries. The boundaries are what we need to be discussing. Freedom within boundaries.
Health is also very important. Learning how to manage one's diet without pharmaceutical drugs is of utmost importance.
In a nation as large as this one it won't work. It is impractical.
It's not about size, Katherine. It's about organisation. Anything can be organized. If you look at the history of the British Empire, they were tremendously organized.
Also, the fact that a a system is corrupt doesn't mean that it has to be corrupt. When government mispends taxes, it doesn't mean that taxes shouldn't be paid. It means that the government needs a strong oversight from we-the-people in order to spend taxes correctly. We should all be more involved and watch our leaders like a hawk watches its prey.
I can see from your involvement in the spiritual world that you would not want to be so unkind as to see children starve and have less opportunity because their parents couldn't provide. Like me, you would want the best for everbody.
Would you honestly mind is $10 of your year's taxes went to help a needy family take the first step to a solid life? I know that I wouldn't.
I think the difficulty comes when people had different opportunities due to the resources of their parents, plus different abilities due to their DNA code.
When you consider the massive evidence that has come about during the past decade that poverty is caused by economic systems that promote inequality, I think it's time we put our brains together and come up with something new for mankind.
What say you?
To all, great points made. Discussion is interesting-continue.
The 21st century will be an arduous & a cutthroat one, particularly for the poor. The poor will become increasingly marginalized in this century as services will be exorbitantly expensive. Even the solidly middle class will feel the pinch. Not only when the poor become increasingly marginalized, they will be locked out of 21st century culture & society. They will exist at a more primitive, even barbaric level than they have ever existed before. In poor communities, there will be a strict law of the jungle. Poor communities will be reminiscent of the early Dark Ages in medieval Europe or in more modern terms, analogous to the Nazi concentration camps in World War 2.
People from the lower classes(underclass, poor, working, & lower middle) will be locked into their original socioeconomic status. There won't be opportunities for them to advance themselves educationally nor socioeconomically. They will be the NEW SLAVE class. Also, people are becoming sick of the lower socioeconomic class because their tax monies go to myriad social programs. Social programs for the poor are being cut so the poor will be totally in a quagmire socioeconomically. In the future, only those who are upper middle & upper class will have the opportunities to live their dreams.
because you know our educational system will not help one iota.
The societal consensus now is that people are poor through their own unintelligent choices. It is believed that there is simply no excuse to be poor nowadays & that people who make educated & intelligent choices AREN'T poor. They are at the least, solidly middle class( middle-middle class). Many people contend that if the poor THOUGHT before they ACTED, they would make better choices. They would be educated, not indulge in immediate gratification, & value achievement & bettering oneself. They also wouldn't indulge in irresponsible actions such as sex w/o birth control. They would marry & have children only when they are educationally, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, & socioeconomically prepared. They wouldn't marry young. Poor people marry the YOUNGEST. They would put off marriage until their 30s like the solidly middle, upper middle, & upper classes do.
If one observes poor people, they have a VASTLY DIFFERENT consciousness, mentality & outlook than the solidly middle, upper middle, & upper classes. Poor people by the working definition includes the underclass, lower, working, & lower middle classes. Yes, the lower middle class is the "gentrified" lower class. They believe in immediate gratification, act impulsively w/o thinking of the future ramifications of their actions, have a suspicion against education & self-improvement, fearful of becoming highly successful, & marry very young before they are established educationally & socioeconomically. These are people who have a more limited view of age than the more affluent classes. While 30 is old for the poor, it ISN'T to the more affluent classes. Poor people, on average, have a more limited view of the world & they act upon such limitation.
I think you have it exacty right. There will also only be jobs for some 8% of the population. Everything else will be AI and robots.
Lawyers, doctors, all informational jobs, will be taken over by AI. They are already that advanced.
The moneyed class will continue to separate itself from those who become more and more poor. And, yes, indentured servanthood will create a new slave class as people work off their debt by selling themseles as slaves.
In addition, with the horrors of climate change, future pandemics, weapons of mass destruction in the wrong/mad hands, and increased anger by a dispossessed people, the future is not looking pretty.
To be honest, I don't think it's more than a decade away.
It's going to be a literal hell on earth, particularly for the solidly middle class to the impoverished. Lower level, less specialized white collar jobs are being phased out so the solidly middle class will sink into the lower class, becoming the new poor. Of course, lesser skilled jobs will be overtaken by A1s & robots, if not phased out. There was a book that I read two decades ago, indicating that w/advanced technology, those w/o highly specialized skills will be the new poor, even impoverished. Welcome to the BRAVE DARK WORLD of the 21st century. It isn't going to get better, folks. In fact, it's going to become.....MUCH WORSE.
we already have a social democracy and the government mismanages the money we contribute.
Lets just go ahead and move on to anarchy while we're at it.
going to bed, Tess, my eyes have had it. Thanks for steering me in the proper direction. The scientific method is something I need to work on.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 months ago
Middle class isn't a monolith. The middle class comprise of THREE levels: lower, middle, & upper levels? How would one describe the THREE levels of middle class?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 months ago
middle, upper middle, and upper class parents wouldn't think of doing to their children in terms of their children's socioeconomic success, education, and future achievement?
by Elayne 9 years ago
I was born in farm country (raising sheep, chickens and crops) and raised in lower middle class (father was a mechanic and then an uncertified accountant). Now that I am married, we are middle class citizens - upper middle class (my husband is professor in a university. I guess education made the...
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
Tax the rich and the middle class all you want. Right, Democrats?
by Ralph Schwartz 3 months ago
Billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s presidential campaign has spent more on digital advertising campaigns with Google and YouTube in the last month than President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign has spent in the last year. On Facebook and Google he has spent $18 million on ads over the last...
by alexandriaruthk 7 years ago
How do you define middle class?Many times I heard or read that middle class economic situation is the true gauge in which you can check if the economy is improving, but how do you really define middle class?
Copyright © 2020 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|