[besson3c]

If America continues to fall apart at the seams and the population finally becomes receptive and demanding of significant changes that are really broad in scope, could there be an opportunity to create an America 2.0?

If so, thinking really big and broadly, without constraining this thread to nit picking at whatever is in our daily news cycle (i.e. big picture - even unrealistically so), what do you think should be done differently that would reflect what we have learned for the past several decades?

You know how outspoken I am about money in politics and the current healthcare system, I'm sure the thread will gravitate there, but let's start with some smaller issues...

- I think border security theater (i.e. being harassed at border crossings) sucks. It makes me feel like I'm entering a police state, IMO mining for the super low percentage of individuals that pose a threat deters travel and bringing in possible economic stimulus, and I can't see how this is effective anyway. I say the government eases up on this considerably instead of trying to "protect" us. At times I feel like we need protection from them.

- I question a number of regulations/restrictions: drug legalization, speed limits, the drinking age, etc.

- Being a secular society (i.e. not run by religious rule) has served America well, but perhaps its constitution needs a clearer definition of where religion and government shall intersect.

- The constitution needs a clearer definition as to where monied interests and politics intersect.

- The country needs a different approach to wealthy disparity and poverty.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If America continues to fall apart at the seams and the population finally becomes receptive and demanding of significant changes that are really broad in scope, could there be an opportunity to create an America 2.0?

No. If the US reaches a breaking point the country will divide into smaller unions of states. Getting the 13 colonies to agree to band together took a lot of effort even with England's treatment. A similar compromise isn't possible now.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No. If the US reaches a breaking point the country will divide into smaller unions of states. Getting the 13 colonies to agree to band together took a lot of effort even with England's treatment. A similar compromise isn't possible now.

This is inevitable. I see the South, California, and New England being separate countries within the next century, maybe something like this:

[OreoCookie]

@Captain Tightpants
I'm fairly certain Texas would be its own country rather than joining the United Republic.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

They were, but then it was proposed that the capital of URAS could be in Dallas, then it was on like Donkey Kong. Oh, I want to add that western Iowa and southern Illinois are hotly contested between the Republic and Canada.

[Waragainstsleep]

Maybe Apple would buy California and call it iState.

[BadKosh]

Sure lets not have actual borders. And lets make sure no door locks on your houses either.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- The country needs a different approach to wealthy disparity and poverty.

We have that. We don't guarantee success, as some folks are too stupid, lazy, or have other issues that prevent them from earning anything like a living, and they end up being taken care of through welfare type programs. The problem with most hand outs is corruption.

If you started a company and because of your smarts, the product/service you invented or improved upon, and luck you became very successful. Why would you let some arbitrary formula, or law dictate how much of your success/profits you could keep? You may still have employees who did jobs for the minimum wage when they started, because that's all the job was worth. Rewarding ambitious employees with higher wages is an incentive for others.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We have that. We don't guarantee success, as some folks are too stupid, lazy, or have other issues that prevent them from earning anything like a living, and they end up being taken care of through welfare type programs. The problem with most hand outs is corruption.

If you started a company and because of your smarts, the product/service you invented or improved upon, and luck you became very successful. Why would you let some arbitrary formula, or law dictate how much of your success/profits you could keep? You may still have employees who did jobs for the minimum wage when they started, because that's all the job was worth. Rewarding ambitious employees with higher wages is an incentive for others.

I have to agree. The country's laws don't need to change, it's its attitudes towards work and entitlement that are askew. Instead of turning to the gov't for benefits when they want more, they should be looking for opportunities that provide better wages. Yeah, they may have to relocate, that used to be common, they'll likely need to learn a new skillset and take risks, Zeus knows I've done both. But if they do those things they will place themselves in better positions to succeed and prosper. As my grandfather crudely used to say, shit in one hand and wish in the other, and see which gets filled first.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

This is inevitable. I see the South, California, and New England being separate countries within the next century, maybe something like this:

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I have to agree. The country's laws don't need to change, it's its attitudes towards work and entitlement that are askew. Instead of turning to the gov't for benefits when they want more, they should be looking for opportunities that provide better wages. Yeah, they may have to relocate, that used to be common, they may need to learn a new skillset and take risks, Zeus knows I've done both, they will place themselves in better positions to succeed and prosper. As my grandfather crudely used to say, shit in one hand and wish in the other, and see which gets filled first.

This presumes upward mobility is possible. Since the game is getting more and more rigged by the day, we can no longer count on that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I have to agree. The country's laws don't need to change, it's its attitudes towards work and entitlement that are askew.

That goes for the top and their salaries and taxes, and corporate welfare too. They think they should get huge salaries while deriding people who want a 'living wage' as entitled.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That goes for the top and their salaries and taxes, and corporate welfare too. They think they should get huge salaries while deriding people who want a 'living wage' as entitled.

I agree WRT most corporate incentives, particularly at the very top. However, most of "the rich" don't get "salaries", and if you want a higher wage, learn new skills that will make you more valuable. With 1/3 of American households on gov't assistance, it's plain to see that many Americans would rather put their hands out rather than put them to work in more creative ways.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I agree WRT most corporate incentives, particularly at the very top. However, most of "the rich" don't get "salaries",

That depends on what you define was rich. I would say once you're making several times the national median, you are definitely rich.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

With 1/3 of American households on gov't assistance, it's plain to see that many Americans would rather put their hands out rather than put them to work in more creative ways.

They're on government assistance because the the minimum wage is no longer a living wage.

We live in a time where people want to work full time but companies refuse to let them because it's not in their financial interest.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That depends on what you define was rich. I would say once you're making several times the national median, you are definitely rich.

That's not "rich", that's not even the top 1%.

They're on government assistance because the the minimum wage is no longer a living wage.

We live in a time where people want to work full time but companies refuse to let them because it's not in their financial interest.

We live in a time when no one knows how to work smarter and they refuse to improve themselves to attract a higher wage. Why should you make $15 /hr flipping burgers? How does that set you apart from a teen who's still in high school?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I have to agree. The country's laws don't need to change, it's its attitudes towards work and entitlement that are askew. Instead of turning to the gov't for benefits when they want more, they should be looking for opportunities that provide better wages. Yeah, they may have to relocate, that used to be common, they'll likely need to learn a new skillset and take risks, Zeus knows I've done both. But if they do those things they will place themselves in better positions to succeed and prosper. As my grandfather crudely used to say, ponies and rainbows in one hand and wish in the other, and see which gets filled first.

You are only looking at one end of the spectrum though.

Should corporations be able to pay a lower tax rate than a middle class worker by exploiting loopholes? Should they have access to free bailouts? Should they be able to exploit the workforce by paying less than a living wage (with no benefits)? I say that regardless of what you feel about welfare, the wealthy elite should not have these sorts of special privileges - particularly those that come at the expense of the poor. It is true that many wealthy entities contribute a lot to charity, job creation, etc. I get that it goes both ways, I'm just saying that the funny business should not be tolerated, and many of it contributes to the income disparity gap.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

We live in a time when no one knows how to work smarter and they refuse to improve themselves to attract a higher wage. Why should you make $15 /hr flipping burgers? How does that set you apart from a teen who's still in high school?

Can you agree that there is a middle ground to what Dakar and I are expressing WRT to massive abuse of power at the very top, and what you are saying?

I think we can all agree that neither the very top nor very bottom is terribly pretty, but these conversations seem to tend to get bogged down in debating over which extreme is uglier while avoiding to acknowledge the ugliness of the other extreme. If we could do this, we'd have a better chance at steering towards the middle ground.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That's not "rich", that's not even the top 1%.

That's wholly subjective. I was being generous. Mathematically speaking, once you're making more than average you're richer than most.

Under your absurd definition, people making 100k+ a year aren't rich. In what world are you living in? Oh wait, how could I forget you are so wealthy you own innumerable cars?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

We live in a time when no one knows how to work smarter and they refuse to improve themselves to attract a higher wage.

How do I put "works smarter" on a resume?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Why should you make $15 /hr flipping burgers? How does that set you apart from a teen who's still in high school?

Because we as a society agreed 80 years ago that any business that subsists on workers who make ends meet doesn't deserve to survive. “The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.”

Where we are now is that the past 30 years we've glorified the rich as being smarter, harder working, and more important to the economy than everyone else to justify giving them huge tax cuts and defend salaries inflating faster than everyone else by a wide margin. Simultaneously we've been degrading the poor as lazy and parasites, using that perspective to justify less wage increases and cutting the social safety net. Now we live in a time where the rich own as a big a portion of the US wealth as before the great recession, but its the poors fault they just can't earn it!


Is the average worker at Walmart today worth less than the person who was working at Woolworth's back then? Do they do less work? Are they less deserving of a living wage?

Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000.00 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his company’s undistributed reserves, tell you — using his stockholders’ money to pay the postage for his personal opinions — tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry. Fortunately for business as a whole, and therefore for the Nation, that type of executive is a rarity with whom most business executives most heartily disagree.

Change the numbers and he'd be speaking about today exactly, walmart specifically.

[BadKosh]

"...Deserving of a 'living wage...' "!!!

So do you think the employee doesn't control his destiny?
Where is that personal responsibility?
Stupid is having wife and kids while still earning that minimum wage.

UNION members do not deserve what they earn.
Some people will end up with nothing for no particular reason.
Do you think sports figures deserve the amounts they are paid?
Same for entertainers.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can you agree that there is a middle ground to what Dakar and I are expressing WRT to massive abuse of power at the very top, and what you are saying?

I think we can all agree that neither the very top nor very bottom is terribly pretty, but these conversations seem to tend to get bogged down in debating over which extreme is uglier while avoiding to acknowledge the ugliness of the other extreme. If we could do this, we'd have a better chance at steering towards the middle ground.

The guys and girls buying yachts aren't affecting the bottom, they just want to play and spend money. While a few get involved in politics, most couldn't care less. You, like most, confuse wealth with special interest, and the vast majority of people in the top tax brackets couldn't care less about that. Increase their tax burden from 25% to 50% or even 75% and you still wouldn't make a dent in catching up with this country's spending, much less its huge mountain of debt. Why? Because the bottom is content to be at the bottom and few of them want to change enough about themselves to improve their lot. The stark reality is, there's a process for increasing your "stock" and making more money, and you do that by making yourself more attractive to the people who write the checks.

....

Only making $8 /hr making burgers? You can pass a test and become a production leader, that's $10 /hr. Invest 3 months and learn some new skills and you can become a shift manager, that's $12 /hr. Spend another 6 months learning more management skills and how the restaurant operates and you'll become an asst manager, that's $15 /hr. Willing to relocate and go through more training? You can be a store manager in another year and make twice as much as the assistants and take advantage of profit sharing and company stock options.

They tell you that if you're willing to get a 2 year degree in business management (that the company will pay for) and put in 3 more years at a store, you can move up to district and make 6 figures. Another 2 years of college and 5 years in district management, and by the time you're 35 you can be in a regional chair where you're calling the shots. Get your MBA, do a good job, put in a decade of work, and you're at the corporate HQ, "the big brass". You're 45, have 20 years of business experience, know how to handle people and a company, you've proven you can get shit done. Now you can market yourself and apply for a board position almost anywhere, 7 figures? No problem. 5 more years and you're 50, you get a CEO job, 8 figure salary, you're feeling gratified and all your hard work paid off.

Of course, a lot of people will hate you now. Why? Because somehow it's unfair and you're now "part of what's wrong with this country". But you've learned enough along the way to realize that you aren't, you're what can happen when someone is willing to work, adapt, and apply themselves. You're what's best about this country, and if other people could simply dig their heads out of their asses, they'd see that.

[BadKosh]

Political speech - not a true consensus:

"we as a society agreed 80 years ago that any business that subsists on workers who make ends meet doesn't deserve to survive. “The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.”"

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's wholly subjective. I was being generous. Mathematically speaking, once you're making more than average you're richer than most.

Under your absurd definition, people making 100k+ a year aren't rich. In what world are you living in? Oh wait, how could I forget you are so wealthy you own innumerable cars?

In most places, $100k most certainly isn't "rich". In some places you can't even afford a really nice apartment and a pair of nice cars.

How do I put "works smarter" on a resume?

By writing in examples of how you have.

Because we as a society agreed 80 years ago that any business that subsists on workers who make ends meet doesn't deserve to survive. “The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.”

The test of our progress is a worker learning to improve themselves and becoming more than just their job. If you, in your opinion, aren't making enough, then find out what there is about yourself that's possibly holding you back. How do you improve that? When you pick yourself up you elevate the area around you and others, if they're paying attention, will also improve. When you stop blaming others and apply pressure on the weakest area (yourself) you'll see that you can fundamentally change what's around you, and then financial success will follow, like heat from fire.

Where we are now is that the past 30 years we've glorified the rich as being smarter, harder working, and more important to the economy than everyone else to justify giving them huge tax cuts and defend salaries inflating faster than everyone else by a wide margin. Simultaneously we've been degrading the poor as lazy and parasites, using that perspective to justify less wage increases and cutting the social safety net. Now we live in a time where the rich own as a big a portion of the US wealth as before the great recession, but its the poors fault they just can't earn it!

It's our (society's) fault, for letting everyone feel that they're "a'ok right where they are". "You don't need to be better, you're a wondrous unique snowflake who deserves all life has to offer, just by being you!" Ugh...

Is the average worker at Walmart today worth less than the person who was working at Woolworth's back then? Do they do less work? Are they less deserving of a living wage?

Change the numbers and he'd be speaking about today exactly, walmart specifically.

You think that money is a limited resource, don't you? That it gets accumulated in one place, trapped, and no one else will ever be able to see any of it? See, that's the type of ignorance that causes people to stagnate and ultimately fail. "They have all the monies! It's trapped in McScrooge's vault!" The extreme Left has lied to everyone for so long that they've convinced most people that something that's fluid and potentially plentiful is actually static and scarce, all for political currency, for power. Control the masses and you control the world.

Here's a fundamental truth for you. Money is exactly like broadband. You're bright, you know that when the ISPs tell you that there's a limited supply that's bogus, right? The fix is, you add more ports, now more traffic can flow. Now, apply that to finances...

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

We live in a time when no one knows how to work smarter and they refuse to improve themselves to attract a higher wage.

Costs of higher education have spiraled out of control, averaging 1.6% higher than inflation, continued for the last 20 years. Education debts tended to follow one to the grave before the "Pay as you Earn" program hit, since they generally cannot be discharged even in bankruptcy. The "Pay as you Earn" program somewhat limits this to 20-25 years. Solidly covering the mobility period when most people might get married, want their own home, and have a family.

Bettering oneself through education amounts to a personal gamble: assuming jobs will be available in your field of study when you graduate. The student must accept all the risk of the gamble. If the economy shifts and a job isn't there after graduation, their credit score from missed payments will prevent further education borrowing. The tuition debt in the US from those who have taken the gamble now exceeds $1.2 trillion, vs total US credit card debt wandering around $800 billion (latest totals from 2012).

So one can avoid higher education, and mostly stay in (at best) the lower middle class. Or go for the gamble. If they win, the upper middle class is within reach. Lose the bet, and they live saddled with debt in (at best) the lower middle class. And living in poverty if they marry, try for a home of their own, and never mind kids. That's a sucky gamble.

Improving oneself for economic mobility is not a persuasive argument. Not when higher education financing is broken. If workplace functioning requires college today, college should be part of basic education. And have less to do with a casino experience.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

In most places, $100k most certainly isn't "rich".

And in all those places it's still significantly over the median. Just because cost of living is higher doesn't change the level of privilege they're afforded over the average person. If anything it only underscores it. I can't fathom how people live in NYC working minimum wage jobs.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

In some places you can't even afford a really nice apartment and a pair of nice cars.

Why would they need two cars?!

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

If you, in your opinion, aren't making enough, then find out what there is about yourself that's possibly holding you back.

This completely ignores the fact that wage gap is a very real thing that has happened over the past 30+ years. Your advice basically boils down to "don't be in the x%" except every year the x becomes a higher and higher number as wages continue to stagnate.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It's our (society's) fault, for letting everyone feel that they're "a'ok right where they are".

Ah, but therein lies a different philosophical problem! This country is so consumed with greed and status that if you are content to make a modest living and get by you are seen as an unambitious failure!

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You think that money is a limited resource, don't you?

Oh, Walmart can pay their employees more without hurting their bottom line? Good to know.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That it gets accumulated in one place, trapped, and no one else will ever be able to see any of it? See, that's the type of ignorance that causes people to stagnate and ultimately fail. "They have all the monies! It's trapped in McScrooge's vault!"

With regards to walmart and other publicly traded companies, it's fairly accurate. The Waltons have accumulated a massive amount of wealth at the expense of their employees.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The fix is, you add more ports, now more traffic can flow. Now, apply that to finances...

It's not like someone can just order those ports, however.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And in all those places it's still significantly over the median. Just because cost of living is higher doesn't change the level of privilege they're afforded over the average person. If anything it only underscores it. I can't fathom how people live in NYC working minimum wage jobs.

Why would they need two cars?!

This completely ignores the fact that wage gap is a very real thing that has happened over the past 30+ years. Your advice basically boils down to "don't be in the x%" except every year the x becomes a higher and higher number as wages continue to stagnate.

Ah, but therein lies a different philosophical problem! This country is so consumed with greed and status that if you are content to make a modest living and get by you are seen as an unambitious failure!

Oh, Walmart can pay their employees more without hurting their bottom line? Good to know.

With regards to walmart and other publicly traded companies, it's fairly accurate. The Waltons have accumulated a massive amount of wealth at the expense of their employees.

It's not like someone can just order those ports, however.

I've said all I want to say about this, from here on out it's just the usual running around in circles combined with BS political posturing. If people are too damned stupid and entrenched in their statist mindset to understand that money is NOT a limited resource, and aren't willing to change themselves to improve their lot, then so be it. You know what I'm talking about, or at least I hope you do, but if you still choose to blame someone else, then it's on you. If you aren't where you want to be, "The Man" isn't keeping you down, you are.

I pay my assistant a good salary, she could live a decent middle-class life with it. But she's motivated, she doesn't accept that some things are "out of her control". In 3 years she's gone from living in a two room apartment in "the hood" and driving a disintegrating station wagon, to a half million dollar home and an S-Class Merc, all without a scrap of debt while increasing her net worth by an order of magnitude, year-over-year. That's impossible, if you believe in the rhetoric taught by the welfare state, someone's to blame if you don't have what you want! Well, that's true, and usually you can get a glimpse of the bastard every time you look in the mirror. I've not given my PA anything, except advice and encouragement. She's earning her way and is becoming who she wants to be, and neither you, nor any special interest can stop her.

It's well past time that people stop blaming the "rich bogeyman" that's been created to sow fear and mediocrity for the purpose of consolidating power, and for people with any common sense at all to work and push for what they want. It all begins with the conviction to change, and that starts with you. Are there bad people out there who will take advantage of you? Hell yes. Do you have to let them cause you to fail? Hell no.

[osiris]

Sounds like your assistant is also a drug dealer.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I've said all I want to say about this, from here on out it's just the usual running around in circles combined with BS political posturing.

Ok, man, good to know you have answers but won't share them with me.


BTW, your story about your assistant is what we call anecdotal evidence, and further as someone who takes care to pay generously, is an unrealistic description regarding class mobility. Based on what you described, I guess a sure-fire way for all those people on government assistance to make headway is to grab their bootstraps and find other kind millionaires who need assistants and are also generous with their advice.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by osiris 

Sounds like your assistant is also a drug dealer.

She was lucky a few times, overextending herself more than I suggested, and could have hit some bad beats, but she's (mostly) calmed down now. In some ways she's more fearless than I've ever been, which is good and bad.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ok, man, good to know you have answers but won't share them with me.


BTW, your story about your assistant is what we call anecdotal evidence, and further as someone who takes care to pay generously, is an unrealistic description regarding class mobility. Based on what you described, I guess a sure-fire way for all those people on government assistance to make headway is to grab their bootstraps and find other kind millionaires who need assistants and are also generous with their advice.

I gave you the answers, if I were a prof in a class on test day, it would be the equivalent of me writing the solutions on the blackboard. I'm not going to sit here and go tit for tat, running around with you in circles. You can swallow the shit about rich people hoarding your money, you can accept what the people you follow (who profit from you being underprivileged) have to say, or you can act.

Listen, I get it, doing something is harder than doing nothing, I know that. But, once you start moving and breaking that initial resistance, putting one foot in front of another towards what you want, it gets a hell of a lot easier. Can everyone be a billionaire? Of course not, but they can be a hell of a lot more than they are now. The space for growth is elastic, not preformed, there's room for everyone who wants to excel, because the limitations are placed by us. Decide what you want, find out how to get there, make calls, go where you need to be, don't stop. One of the key habits of successful people is to always keep up with your ideas, spend time every day seriously thinking about how to reach your goals, then earnestly explore those ideas. When you stop worrying about what someone else has ("Oh ma gerd, the wealth divide!") and instead focus that energy towards what you can do, your life will change.

[Waragainstsleep]

Its certainly true that an awful lot of people who don't have much don't get anywhere because they have the wrong attitude, but its also true that if they all woke up tomorrow with the right attitude, they couldn't all get where they want to be. Money is finite to an extent, and since the 1% have increased their share of the wealth from 20% to 40% or whatever it is nowadays, clearly it must be getting more difficult to change your circumstances than it used to be, regardless of blame.

[besson3c]

Shaddim: capitalism picks winners and losers, and sometimes there is an element of luck involved to both. Sometimes there are built in obstacles: being handicapped, not able to think a certain way, emotional trauma, serious financial liability (such as health care expenses), racial/gender/age based issues, being in the wrong geographic location, certain family situations, etc. There is good luck involved with success too. At the extreme end of things, Mark Zuckerburg had sort of the perfect storm of things go right for him. Something out of his control like somebody close to him dying, him getting really sick, etc. would have changed his story dramatically.

Not everybody has the opportunity to succeed or be significantly more than what they are - some can, some can't. The question is, for those that can't but are still doing everything they can to get by, should they have access to a living wage?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

**** the goalpost moving. If you aren't mentally or severely physically handicapped, yes, success begins and ends with you. It isn't luck, that's shit that you've been told to keep you dependent on others for your well being, it's about your habits and motivation. Even becoming a billionaire isn't tied to luck, it's about priorities, the right decisions, and tenacity. You screw up, you get up, and you keep going. I'll say it again for those who still aren't getting it, money is NOT finite. Period. You've been taught that, because it's an effective control tactic, but it isn't and never has been.

Although I'm addressing wealth, this also applies to your whole life. Nearly everyone is a financial toddler, and just like a small child who's learning to walk, if you stop paying attention to what you're doing and focus on other people you will fall. All the fear mongering about the 1% and wealth distribution is a distraction designed to keep you where you are, dependent. Because if you're too busy fretting about what rich people are doing with the "limited" money available, you're frozen and unable to act on your own. The wealth gap has widened because indoctrination methods have been nearly perfected. "It's not your fault, someone is keeping you down. It's the those damned rich people, it's their fault. They're hoarding up what should belong to everyone." That's not reality, it's what you've been sold, and if you block out the noise and place your will on what you want to be, you can't fail. Opportunities are made by you, not for you.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

BTW, your story about your assistant is what we call anecdotal evidence,

Shaddim somehow has an extremely relevant, wildly unlikely anecdote that proves his point perfectly while remaining entirely improbable and completely unprovable? THIS IS A FIRST!!1!

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

... capitalism picks winners and losers, and sometimes there is an element of luck involved to both.

BS! The person has the potential to become successful.
A system doesn't pick winners and losers.

Just more stereotypes and fantasy world concepts you believe? You still don't see your pattern?

[besson3c]

Shaddim, I said there is an element of luck, not that success is luck.

[besson3c]

BadKosh: most startups fail, statistically speaking. Sometimes these failures relate to competition. This is what I meant by there being winners and losers. Capitalism being about competition is not some sort of arguable concept.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The wealth gap has widened because indoctrination methods have been nearly perfected. .

OMG I just read this.

[besson3c]

My approach to economic growth is this:

Focus on broadening the middle and upper class and the opportunities that exist, but don't do so at the expense of others, and don't stigmatize those living in poverty (both of which are happening in America today).

Yes, there are unquestionably unscrupulous individuals relying on welfare, this element will always exist, but there are many with legitimate life reasons to be depending on welfare temporarily. It is better to focus on lifting these people up rather than trying to filter them out by playing armchair quarterback with their lives. We can lift them up by providing the help that is needed to become independent - "help" not necessarily meaning checks, but counseling, mentorship, help with substance abuse, emotional support, etc. The stigmatizing does nobody any good, you don't guilt people who have had bad luck in their lives (e.g. death, divorce, trauma, bad health, curable mental illness, etc.) out of these conditions, this doesn't work and is unfair, especially those that have been dealing with unspeaking trauma that would kick anybody's ass.

The "everybody can do it" thing that Shaddim is on is misguided. He is basically talking about entrepreneurism, if not in business in finding opportunities in life, but it has been pretty well proven (I think) that not everybody thinks like this - you either do or you don't, and this can't be easily taught. There are people built to work at somebody else's gig, to fall in line, and are just happy to fit into existing structures. These people can't do this without the structures having built into them ladders of advancement, at least to the point of earning a living wage.

[Laminar]

There's that indoctrination speaking again.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Shaddim somehow has an extremely relevant, wildly unlikely anecdote that proves his point perfectly while remaining entirely improbable and completely unprovable? THIS IS A FIRST!!1!

Originally Posted by Laminar 

OMG I just read this.

Have you ever been of any value to anyone in your life? I just imagine you being the human equivalent of dog s*** stuck on the bottom of someone's shoe. When you want to stop the internet trolling and drop the insecurity, maybe you can make something of yourself. No one else can do that for you.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Shaddim, I said there is an element of luck, not that success is luck.

It really isn't, luck (good or bad) can speed things along, or slow things down, but it isn't a requisite for success, at all. Laminar's ignorant raving is dead-on, that's just part of what you've been told.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My approach to economic growth is this:

Focus on broadening the middle and upper class and the opportunities that exist, but don't do so at the expense of others, and don't stigmatize those living in poverty (both of which are happening in America today).

Yes, there are unquestionably unscrupulous individuals relying on welfare, this element will always exist, but there are many with legitimate life reasons to be depending on welfare temporarily. It is better to focus on lifting these people up rather than trying to filter them out by playing armchair quarterback with their lives. We can lift them up by providing the help that is needed to become independent - "help" not necessarily meaning checks, but counseling, mentorship, help with substance abuse, emotional support, etc. The stigmatizing does nobody any good, you don't guilt people who have had bad luck in their lives (e.g. death, divorce, trauma, bad health, curable mental illness, etc.) out of these conditions, this doesn't work and is unfair, especially those that have been dealing with unspeaking trauma that would kick anybody's ass.

The "everybody can do it" thing that Shaddim is on is misguided. He is basically talking about entrepreneurism, if not in business in finding opportunities in life, but it has been pretty well proven (I think) that not everybody thinks like this - you either do or you don't, and this can't be easily taught. There are people built to work at somebody else's gig, to fall in line, and are just happy to fit into existing structures. These people can't do this without the structures having built into them ladders of advancement, at least to the point of earning a living wage.

I'm not talking about building a business, it's about changing habits. Becoming better, and I'm not just talking about money, is about a lot of sacrifice and hard work, most of it mental. Sure, I have businesses, but they're the result of success, not the cause. In fact, most are a drag on resources, not a boost, but they hold value in other ways, many charitable and some personal (I like employing people, interacting with them and learning through observation, being part of their lives).

The bitterness coming from what you're saying is natural, a lot of it is pride (I've not been hoodwinked!) and some is fear of the unknown. Laminar harbors a lot of fear and insecurity, it makes him lash out like a teenager, people adopt the worst habits from the most traumatic times in their life, maybe it was a broken home when he was that age, that would explain a lot. Anyway, all of that is memory and the way you've been programmed, how you've learned to react to bad breaks in life. A good deal of what I espouse is changing to an active mindset, rather than reactive. And no, it doesn't happen overnight, but once you start learning better habits and dropping the old ones, everything in your life will undergo positive change. That's a simple fact.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

clearly it must be getting more difficult to change your circumstances than it used to be, regardless of blame.

As an abstract prediction, the more we achieve our goal of making the "bottom" of society a better existence, the more we would remove the motivation for people to flee that "bottom." Surely if the price of not excelling is a soot-encrusted Dickensian nightmare of typhoid and coal-shoveling, I will work harder to avoid such a fate than if the price is eating off-brand doritos and settling for 3G instead of LTE. The more we improve "the bottom," the more people will decide that living in "the bottom" is less onerous than clawing their way to the "middle" or "the top."

In the abstract, I find a fatal flaw with measuring our success against observed mobility. In one perspective, the fact that people don't fight tooth and nail for upward mobility as they used to do, is an indication of success, not of failure.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sometimes there are built in obstacles: being handicapped, not able to think a certain way, emotional trauma, serious financial liability (such as health care expenses), racial/gender/age based issues

My impression is that in the "good ol' days," these populations were simply a lost cause; no one tried to give them a living wage because doing so was unfathomable, and it was already a challenge to bring up the standards of the working class at large to what we would now consider a living wage. The fact that we now even try to include these marginal populations at a level that's on par with the general population is a great enhancement to their situation. They haven't achieved parity yet, and I don't think anyone is saying that they have (nor will society stop working to bring them into the fold); but I feel like you are using them to say things are getting worse, decade after decade, when things are getting better, in that the "bottom" was once the domain of healthy people, and now it's the domain of people like the mentally and physically disabled, who were once completely off the radar entirely.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It really isn't, luck (good or bad) can speed things along, or slow things down, but it isn't a requisite for success, at all. Laminar's ignorant raving is dead-on, that's just part of what you've been told.

It depends on how you define success, but as I define it, meaning a profitable and sustainable company with 5 or more employees (with a particular bias to being in the tech sector), there most definitely is luck that is an element. If this wasn't so, everybody would have just invested $12219238409238409 in Facebook, recognizing its potential and early validation in the early going. Zuckerberg will tell you himself that luck had a hand in things.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I'm not talking about building a business, it's about changing habits. Becoming better, and I'm not just talking about money, is about a lot of sacrifice and hard work, most of it mental. Sure, I have businesses, but they're the result of success, not the cause. In fact, most are a drag on resources, not a boost, but they hold value in other ways, many charitable and some personal (I like employing people, interacting with them and learning through observation, being part of their lives).

The bitterness coming from what you're saying is natural, a lot of it is pride (I've not been hoodwinked!) and some is fear of the unknown. Laminar harbors a lot of fear and insecurity, it makes him lash out like a teenager, people adopt the worst habits from the most traumatic times in their life, maybe it was a broken home when he was that age, that would explain a lot. Anyway, all of that is memory and the way you've been programmed, how you've learned to react to bad breaks in life. A good deal of what I espouse is changing to an active mindset, rather than reactive. And no, it doesn't happen overnight, but once you start learning better habits and dropping the old ones, everything in your life will undergo positive change. That's a simple fact.

But now you are moving goalposts. You are now saying that success is about habits and mental outlook. I would be surprised if anybody disagreed with this. This is a different argument than saying that most anybody can be successful and not held back by the actions and behaviors of those already successful.

If you don't mind my personal feedback here, It is clear that you enjoy providing mentorship, and I appreciate that. The world needs people like you. However, saying that everybody can (and perhaps should) be like you is not an effective way to mentor. There is no one-size-fits-all, and not everybody can be a replica of you and how you think.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My impression is that in the "good ol' days," these populations were simply a lost cause; no one tried to give them a living wage because doing so was unfathomable, and it was already a challenge to bring up the standards of the working class at large to what we would now consider a living wage. The fact that we now even try to include these marginal populations at a level that's on par with the general population is a great enhancement to their situation. They haven't achieved parity yet, and I don't think anyone is saying that they have (nor will society stop working to bring them into the fold); but I feel like you are using them to say things are getting worse, decade after decade, when things are getting better, in that the "bottom" was once the domain of healthy people, and now it's the domain of people like the mentally and physically disabled, who were once completely off the radar entirely.

I'm not saying that things have gotten worse to be a minority. I'm saying that there are fewer ladders of opportunity to support the middle class.

[BadKosh]

You make your own opportunities. Most people are not observant enough to do anything about it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not saying that things have gotten worse to be a minority. I'm saying that there are fewer ladders of opportunity to support the middle class.

Can you be more specific? To me it seems like there are more ladders than ever, the internet being the most obvious example. A generation ago it was literally impossible to rise in life while sitting pantsless on your living room couch. Today it is possible. Maybe you can help me understand your position by giving an example of a ladder that disappeared?

Or is this a situation where opening the gates to minorities and women has made it seem like there are fewer ladders to go around?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You make your own opportunities. Most people are not observant enough to do anything about it.

It's amazing to me that you can be so content with some simplistic narratives, yet turn around and criticize a "liberal mindset". Is the ideal alternative this sort of 16-year old mindset?

[BadKosh]

Clean thinking instead of convoluted liberal, emotion driven BS?