[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, you were the investor? I'm starting to get into the world of investors myself. Not so much because I want to be one myself, but because learning about how they operate is very useful to my line of work. How did you get started, and where did you raise your capital to invest in this idea of yours that you have apparently done well with? I hope you don't mind the questions, but you seem like a guy that doesn't mind sharing things, so...

No, I came up with several connected ideas, hired a couple engineers to find a way to make them work together, and then acquired multiple patents for it all. Then I mortgaged everything, we designed the product/service, implemented it to show that it worked, then sold it all LS&B to someone else. Since then I've mostly been a casual investor; Apple, Google, and Tesla have been good to me, at one time we owned ~1% of the last.

Spending at least a couple hours each day coming up with linked ideas is the most vital part of creating wealth. Then you have to build and manage it, which are two completely different functions. Most people can be good at one, some can often handle 2, but for 3 you have to reorganize the way you think and react, sometimes frequently. The way I explain it is; you train your senses and instincts to be as acute as they possibly can be, while at the same time being relaxed enough that you could nap while skydiving. A "eureka" moment was when I found that it's identical to what stuntmen learn so they don't become tense during high speed car wrecks. Their BP and heart rates don't change substantially, even when their vehicles hit barriers at 80mph.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ebuddy, I explained multiple times including a few posts above how Bieber made his cameo into this thread.

So... D it is.

Never mind that he was already winning singing competitions at 12 years old, taught himself how to play piano, drums, guitar, and trumpet and eventually had both Usher and Justin Timberlake in bidding wars over him. Or that he's been working on albums and/or touring for the past 6 years, he's had it handed to him. You don't think it's fair that he would be so wildly successful and base this on false assumptions of the kid or the industry he sought for no other reason than to pull him off the pedestal you've put him on.

*Hint: I was looking for a logical answer, something other than class envy.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Of course, but there are plenty of musicians that write their own songs and understand their music well enough while also having money to have these sort of choices available.

Actually, no: there aren't "plenty" of musicians who write their own songs and have the fincancial means to make these kinds of choices.

In any case, it is not relevant who wrote the songs. Sinatra and Tom Jones never wrote a song (actually, Jones may have, one or two). Pink's greatest hits were written for her.

Most people in the pop business who are really good at writing songs end up writing them for other people.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Actually, no: there aren't "plenty" of musicians who write their own songs and have the fincancial means to make these kinds of choices.

In any case, it is not relevant who wrote the songs. Sinatra and Tom Jones never wrote a song (actually, Jones may have, one or two). Pink's greatest hits were written for her.

Most people in the pop business who are really good at writing songs end up writing them for other people.

^^ This, not to mention this particular genre of music in which it is extremely common to have x-musician featuring ______.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*Hint: I was looking for a logical answer, something other than class envy.

Keep looking, because besson ain't got that answer.

-t

[besson3c]

Subego: who said that the pop star was not a winner of the free market?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... D it is.

Never mind that he was already winning singing competitions at 12 years old, taught himself how to play piano, drums, guitar, and trumpet and eventually had both Usher and Justin Timberlake in bidding wars over him. Or that he's been working on albums and/or touring for the past 6 years, he's had it handed to him. You don't think it's fair that he would be so wildly successful and base this on false assumptions of the kid or the industry he sought for no other reason than to pull him off the pedestal you've put him on.

*Hint: I was looking for a logical answer, something other than class envy.

I'm not an arbiter of what is fair and what isn't, you don't need to defend your beloved free market. I'm just exposing Bieber's success for what it is: once again, a shortcut to wealth. I never said that he didn't have skills that could have translated to eventual success in the music business. I'm not jealous, this isn't a matter of what I think is fair and what isn't, this is just a matter of what is and isn't.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Actually, no: there aren't "plenty" of musicians who write their own songs and have the fincancial means to make these kinds of choices.

Sure there are, unless you mean this statistically?

In any case, it is not relevant who wrote the songs. Sinatra and Tom Jones never wrote a song (actually, Jones may have, one or two). Pink's greatest hits were written for her.

Most people in the pop business who are really good at writing songs end up writing them for other people.

I'm not all that familiar with Pink, but Sinatra and Tom Jones succeeded before the maturation of the manufactured pop star machine funded by big record conglomerates. Capital Records, which Sinatra recorded a number of records under, wasn't bought out by Universal until 2012:

Capitol Records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and EMI got involved in 1955, again before the pop star machine days, and partway into Sinatra's golden years.


I take it you disagree in this premise of the modern day record label conglomerates perfecting a pop star machine, so to speak?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

^^ This, not to mention this particular genre of music in which it is extremely common to have x-musician featuring ______.

I don't have a problem with musical collaborations.

What are we even talking about anymore? A number of you are just reading into this thread what they want to, and making claims about what I've said that are completely off-the-mark. Just read my earlier posts. If you did, you'd know that what I'm writing has NOTHING to do with class envy. I don't have a problem with wealth in music in and of itself, at all. In fact, I admire it.

I just admire it even more when it comes about organically, like the Thriller album, for example. I even admire the workings of the modern day pop star machine, I'm just not surprised by its outcomes, and appreciate these outcomes less.

[besson3c]

I remind you guys once again the point of all of this: shortcuts to wealth.

Again, none of you seem to be disputing that Bieber's success came about in an extremely compressed amount of time (and Bieber was just an example I came up with, there are others I could have picked instead). The manner in which he achieved his wealth as quickly as he did (on the backs of powerful entities in the music business) was indeed a shortcut, by definition. Some of you are reading into this shortcut = bad, I did not say that. I said shortcut = shortcut.

Since it seems that we are not disputing this anymore, perhaps you don't disagree with this argument that there are shortcuts to wealth, but I thought I would check, because this thread has gotten rather weird.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I remind you guys once again the point of all of this: shortcuts to wealth.

I know you don't like to hear it:

Everyone in this thread DISAGREES with you that Bieber is a valid example of "shortcut to wealth".

Your arguments were not convincing, but rather, showed a lack of understanding of how the music industry works
You also show a lack of appreciation of how much team work and relying on other people's skill is a valid and normal process in the music industry.

What you made utterly clear is that you don't think Bieber has much talent. We get your disdain.

Can we move past Bieber now ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I know you don't like to hear it:

Everyone in this thread DISAGREES with you that Bieber is a valid example of "shortcut to wealth".

Your arguments were not convincing, but rather, showed a lack of understanding of how the music industry works
You also show a lack of appreciation of how much team work and relying on other people's skill is a valid and normal process in the music industry.

What you made utterly clear is that you don't think Bieber has much talent. We get your disdain.

Can we move past Bieber now ?

-t

Turtle, until you can make reasonable statements I don't think you get to steer the direction of conversation.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle, until you can make reasonable statements I don't think you get to steer the direction of conversation.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

I'm sure I'm just striking a match while covered in gasoline, but I'll try to mediate here. besson, when you say Bieber got a shortcut to wealth what do you mean? Do you mean he got rich early or he got there easily or more easily?

Is playing basketball a "shortcut to wealth"?

I get the feeling the disconnect here is while singing or playing a basketball can/will require some intense training and dedication, the traditional route to riches requires hard work/schooling, monetary investment, and work that most of us consider a lot less fun that practicing threes and training the ol' vocal cords. The former rely's on natural physical talents to be cultivated, while the latter requires a different, more complex set of skills.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

-t

Don't bother replying to me any more in this thread and expecting a response from me.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Don't bother replying to me any more in this thread and expecting a response from me.

I'll do whatever I want to do.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm sure I'm just striking a match while covered in gasoline, but I'll try to mediate here. besson, when you say Bieber got a shortcut to wealth what do you mean? Do you mean he got rich early or he got there easily or more easily?

Is playing basketball a "shortcut to wealth"?

I get the feeling the disconnect here is while singing or playing a basketball can/will require some intense training and dedication, the traditional route to riches requires hard work/schooling, monetary investment, and work that most of us consider a lot less fun that practicing threes and training the ol' vocal cords. The former rely's on natural physical talents to be cultivated, while the latter requires a different, more complex set of skills.

Thank you for helping bridge this disconnect.

What I'm saying is that Bieber developed a set of skills, I don't take that away from him, or his work put in to develop these skills.

The path to success and wealth as a pop star or musician is either to:

1) Continue to cultivate these skills over the long haul, building an audience over time via organic grassroots type growth, perhaps using a small record label to help build/maintain/grow an audience over time that increases incrementally until it becomes something substantial

2) Latch onto a big record label conglomerate, use their platform to pair your skills with a massive audience that such a company can provide, and to do so with musical projects backed with massive financial resources

Sometimes musicians that take route #1 do so until they can take route #2. There is nothing wrong with route #2. Route #2 is the equivalent of your business being offered massive investment. With any investment comes a relinquishing of some control, and the expectation that you'll satisfy the investor.

Most musicians take route #1 indefinitely, or route #1 until they can take route #2. Thus, the normal path for a musician and their wealth accumulation is a much longer process. Bieber took route #2 very early, so therefore his wealth came about in a compressed time compared to the norm. Therefore, he took a shortcut, or if you'd like this put in different ways that doesn't sound like I'm criticizing him: he was allowed to take a shortcut. Still, it was a shortcut.

Does this make sense now?

As far as your basketball comparison, the equivalent would be taking a player right out of high school and putting them in the NBA, giving them LeBron James' salary. However, where this comparison falls apart is that Bieber doesn't have to perform by playing well on the court, he has to make his record label/investor money (which in turn usually comes about when fans think that the performance was there, but it's less tangible than scoring baskets which is undeniable). So, it probably doesn't make much sense to make these sorts of comparisons.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'll do whatever I want to do.

-t

Remember what I said about you being unreasonable? Reading what I just wrote as a threat to you or some sort of request is an example of this.

You are one strange dude, and this is coming from the poop guy.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Most musicians take route #1 indefinitely, or route #1 until they can take route #2. Thus, the normal path for a musician and their wealth accumulation is a much longer process. Bieber took route #2 very early, so therefore his wealth came about in a compressed time compared to the norm. Therefore, he took a shortcut, or if you'd like this put in different ways that doesn't sound like I'm criticizing him: he was allowed to take a shortcut. Still, it was a shortcut.

Does this make sense now?

For me, sure.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

For me, sure.

Is there a way I could have expressed this in a clearer way?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I remind you guys once again the point of all of this: shortcuts to wealth.

There are none. Riches != Wealth

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Subego: who said that the pop star was not a winner of the free market?

You said "winners sometimes don't deserve their title" whilst bringing up examples of winners who deserved their title.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

You said "winners sometimes don't deserve their title" whilst bringing up examples of winners who deserved their title.

I'm confused. What is the context here again? What is the point of this?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There are none. Riches != Wealth

I get your point that many with riches do not keep their riches and therefore have lasting wealth, but in order to have wealth you have to have had riches at some point, so can we continue this conversation referring to wealth as wealth with this disclaimer applied, or would you prefer we use the word "riches" for greater accuracy?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm sure I'm just striking a match while covered in gasoline, but I'll try to mediate here. besson, when you say Bieber got a shortcut to wealth what do you mean? Do you mean he got rich early or he got there easily or more easily?

Is playing basketball a "shortcut to wealth"?

I get the feeling the disconnect here is while singing or playing a basketball can/will require some intense training and dedication, the traditional route to riches requires hard work/schooling, monetary investment, and work that most of us consider a lot less fun that practicing threes and training the ol' vocal cords. The former rely's on natural physical talents to be cultivated, while the latter requires a different, more complex set of skills.

First, I want to apologize again for being a dick earlier.

Second, what you say above applies to the point I'm trying to make.

Simply put, if you can get fired because you're not hitting three-pointers, practicing them stops being "fun".

The roadie thing is relatively new for me, my longer term gig has been in film. Watching a movie is work for me. It's impossible for me to watch one without subjecting it to rigorous analysis. What worked? What didn't? Why did it work or not? What do I want to steal? Where did they put the lights in this scene? Was that a dolly or a Steadicam?

I'm sure you've heard the idea that doing something professionally ruins the enjoyment. In my experience, that's been the case.

To be clear, I'm not going "oh woe is me", I'm saying it's unfair to claim I'm engaging in recreation when I'm watching a movie. I'm not. I can't.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

The roadie thing is relatively new for me, my longer term gig has been in film. Watching a movie is work for me. It's impossible for me to watch one without subjecting it to rigorous analysis. What worked? What didn't? Why did it work or not? What do I want to steal? Where did they put the lights in this scene? Was that a dolly or a Steadicam?

I'm sure you've heard the idea that doing something professionally ruins the enjoyment. In my experience, that's been the case.

To be clear, I'm not going "oh woe is me", I'm saying it's unfair to claim I'm engaging in recreation when I'm watching a movie. I'm not. I can't.

This is SOOOOO true. Though, music connecting more easily on a gut-level emotional plane, it can be extremely rewarding if it's exceptionally well done. The audio engineer side of me has a tougher time, as I keep noticing mix mistakes or less-than-favorable decisions made in the mix, which, of course, sometimes leads to the musician in me noticing that the decisions were made to mask imperfections in the music...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sure there are, unless you mean this statistically?



I'm not all that familiar with Pink, but Sinatra and Tom Jones succeeded before the maturation of the manufactured pop star machine funded by big record conglomerates. Capital Records, which Sinatra recorded a number of records under, wasn't bought out by Universal until 2012:

Capitol Records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and EMI got involved in 1955, again before the pop star machine days, and partway into Sinatra's golden years.

1955 was DECADES into the "pop star machine days" — those began with radio and recorded music. Bandstands and big bands to man them were an INDUSTRY, man.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

This is SOOOOO true. Though, music connecting more easily on a gut-level emotional plane, it can be extremely rewarding if it's exceptionally well done. The audio engineer side of me has a tougher time, as I keep noticing mix mistakes or less-than-favorable decisions made in the mix, which, of course, sometimes leads to the musician in me noticing that the decisions were made to mask imperfections in the music...

"Rewarding" is the perfect term. There's too much anxiety for it to be enjoyable.

TBH, anyone who's enjoying it is a hack. If they're not worrying about it, they're not bringing their A-game.

[Spheric Harlot]

Wait - I'm talking about enjoying OTHERS' products.

[subego]

Oh... I got you. That too.

[subego]

I can still be emotionally floored by a movie, but all that's going to do is make me want to subject it to even more analysis.

[Spheric Harlot]

Of course. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying the hell out of it as it's happening.

The analysis happens later, if the piece is that good.

[subego]

I can never really get to this point with movies anymore, I'm always playing chess with the director, cinematographer, production designer, and the actors, but as you said, music connects on a different level.

Likewise, I'm not at the point where listening to music has become work. This is assisted by my background in music theory being shit.

That's something I hope to remedy, however until that happens, I don't have the ability to critically analyze music, so I'm not spending effort to do it.

I can critically analyze sound, so I do that, but that's different, and is far less intrusive. I don't consider listening to music "work" (for me) the way watching a movie is.

[subego]

Shit... often times with a movie, all the cylinders firing properly just makes me feel inadequate.

But that's more of a personal thing rather than a generalization which can be made for everyone in the industry.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

1955 was DECADES into the "pop star machine days" — those began with radio and recorded music. Bandstands and big bands to man them were an INDUSTRY, man.

They were definitely underway, but they weren't nearly as machine-like as they are today. They were arguably less adverse to risk, the importance/potential of image marketing was still being realized, and of course a lot of technology didn't exist yet (e.g. the internet, the iPod, remote track recording, etc.)

The big thing in this list is, of course, technology. It was much harder to discover Justin Bieber without YouTube.

[subego]

The point of my digression as it relates to Bieber and Spears, goes back to the nebulous "work" concept.

Let me see if I can tighten up my claim here.

When I have a movie in front of me, as someone in the industry, I have an opportunity in front of me. If I make what's supposed to be recreation into work, I'm bettering my abilities and knowledge with regards to work. I really care about my work, so I take the opportunity.

This applies to Bieber and Spears. When it comes to things like schmoozing, keeping the vocal cords loose, or any number of things which could be considered recreational, or entertaining. They could leave it as recreation, or see it as an opportunity.

Child stars who have monumental careers lasting 5 or 10 years (Bieber and Spears, respectively) without even showing the slightest sign of cracking...

These are people who have taken those opportunities. They made schmoozing their work. They were dead serious about keeping those vocal cords loose.

[subego]

I also want to put stress on this. You can consider all my appeals to authority of having worked in these various industries as a crock of shit. I'm just some dude on the Internet.

But, for your own good, believe me on this one thing: the industry's product is fantasy, and the currency you use to manufacture fantasy is deception.

The last thing celebrities and the industry as a whole want you to know is what being a hugely successful celebrity is actually like.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The point of my digression as it relates to Bieber and Spears, goes back to the nebulous "work" concept.

Let me see if I can tighten up my claim here.

When I have a movie in front of me, as someone in the industry, I have an opportunity in front of me. If I make what's supposed to be recreation into work, I'm bettering my abilities and knowledge with regards to work. I really care about my work, so I take the opportunity.

This applies to Bieber and Spears. When it comes to things like schmoozing, keeping the vocal cords loose, or any number of things which could be considered recreational, or entertaining. They could leave it as recreation, or see it as an opportunity.

Child stars who have monumental careers lasting 5 or 10 years (Bieber and Spears, respectively) without even showing the slightest sign of cracking...

These are people who have taken those opportunities. They made schmoozing their work. They were dead serious about keeping those vocal cords loose.

No disagrement. I don't blame anybody for taking opportunities that are in front of them or being opportunistic. I may very well do the same if put in these shoes.

Let me tighten up my claim...

Somebody that has had the big investment made in them by their record labels have a number of people pulling for them, and a number of people doing stuff for them in order to optimize that investment. If you are Justin Bieber today you have pressures to maintain productive ties with your investors/record labels so that they don't pull out, and pressures to otherwise maintain your empire, but you also have handlers doing menial things to reduce the amount work you have to do so that you can focus on what returns the greatest amount of profit to your investors. If you're Justin Bieber, you can also afford to pay for various servants with money out of your own pocket.

Before I hear it from the avid free market = always awesome believers here, I'm not saying that this is "wrong", just that this is a thing. That celebrities have handlers should not be a news flash to anybody.

Justin Bieber is also just a kid, whose development in a number of areas was probably stilted on account of him being discovered so young. It is probable that he knows very little about marketing, booking, sound engineering, and all of these sorts of things that less financially successful musicians may pick up on their own, at least in part. Therefore, if you are his record label, why would you even want him "working" doing anything other than just showing up, shaking his ass, and singing when you can have these experienced handlers protecting your asset? If you are his record label, you have an enormous amount of control over him, this is the case with any large record label, and why a number of artists (like Dave Matthews: ATO Records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) have moved to working with or owning smaller labels that grant greater autonomy. There are tradeoffs.

One of these tradeoffs, for some, is in song writing. It is pretty well documented that some number of pop stars have people that write their songs for them. Now, I probably was too speculative in suggesting that Bieber has people writing his songs. No outsider really knows whether this is so or not, no label wants this to be known (same with lip syncing), but it is certainly not unreasonable to think that he wouldn't be exempt from this pretty standard practice in the industry. Ditto for lip syncing, which is also a thing.

Whether a pop star has people writing songs for them is not always a question of that star's capability to write their own music, it is a case of whatever the record label thinks will minimize risk and maximize their profits. They are usually pretty good about knowing what makes money, but sometimes these decisions bring about a perceived plastic veneer, which is partly why many dedicated music fans don't care for Bieber and the like - he's probably well-handled in just about every way, or at least it is certainly not unreasonable to speculate accordingly. Again, I'm not saying that this is "wrong", just that this is a thing, because... It is a thing.

Better?

[subego]

The only part I think I disagree with you on is the "working" angle.

They do want him working, just not doing the same things the handlers are paid to do. They want someone who rehearses on their own without prompting. They want someone who will be all smiles at an autograph session even though their hand feels like it's about to fall off and they have to take a monster piss.

There's a chicken and egg thing here too. These cigar chompers bankrolling Bieber and Spears aren't idiots. They didn't open the floodgates right away, that would be too risky. Children can break quite badly on you. The chompers have been briefed on this phenomena.

What opened the floodgates were these people demonstrating a consistent ability to work above and beyond the others.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The only part I think I disagree with you on is the "working" angle.

They do want him working, just not doing the same things the handlers are paid to do. They want someone who rehearses on their own without prompting. They want someone who will be all smiles at an autograph session even though their hand feels like it's about to fall off and they have to take a monster piss.

There's a chicken and egg thing here too. These cigar chompers bankrolling Bieber and Spears aren't idiots. They didn't open the floodgates right away, that would be too risky. Children can break quite badly on you. The chompers have been briefed on this phenomena.

What opened the floodgates was these people demonstrating a consistent ability to work above and beyond the others.

Yes, working with kids is definitely a greater risk too, since they aren't fully mentally and emotionally developed.

I'm glad that we're making good progress in understanding each other. Maybe you can help me help others understand me, because I really don't think anything I'm saying here is all that disagreeable, but I'm obviously struggling with my words (and keeping Turtle from stomping on my dick).

The word "work" is a problematic word, like we addressed, but I also don't know what word would be better. What I was trying to say earlier about work is that I think most people's mental image of it is either physical work, or spending late nights at the office stressing over how to increase profits to keep your business afloat, how to meet that crazy deadline, how to stop hemorrhaging money, etc. I'm sure we can agree that dealing with your hand falling off because of too much autograph signing is just a different kind of thing? Because Bieber is handled now, there are many areas of work and concern that he is insulated from.

That was really all I was trying to say. Was this better?

[besson3c]

How about this: Bieber's responsibilities are less than, say, Steve Jobs were in running Apple in the very early days?

[subego]

Wait... I think you misunderstood what I meant by "opportunity".

[subego]

I have to think about the Steve Jobs thing, but you misunderstand the hand falling off thing.

The extra effort isn't enduring the problem, it's continuing to do a good job while enduring the problem.

[subego]

I've thought about the Steve Jobs thing.

Bieber's responsibilities are at least an order of magnitude bigger than Jobs in the beginning. Hundreds of people go down if he doesn't hold up his end of the log.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've thought about the Steve Jobs thing.

Bieber's responsibilities are at least an order of magnitude bigger than Jobs in the beginning. Hundreds of people go down if he doesn't hold up his end of the log.

That's true, but I meant that he has fewer actions he needs to take to be responsible compared to early Steve Jobs. Never mind though, it was a lousy point on my part.

[subego]

No worries.

Before the hand falling off thing gets away from me, let me clarify.

An autograph session is another example of an "opportunity". You can just sign a picture, or you can bend over backwards to make a personal connection with each and every fan, and thus making their day (or more). That's extremely hard work. Made that much harder when your hand is going to fall off and you really need to pee.

People with careers like Bieber and Spears are putting in that hard work. They're not letting the opportunity to work their ass off pass them by. Even if it's something which appears to be no work at all, such as signing autographs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

No worries.

Before the hand falling off thing gets away from me, let me clarify.

An autograph session is another example of an "opportunity". You can just sign a picture, or you can bend over backwards to make a personal connection with each and every fan, and thus making their day (or more). That's extremely hard work. Made that much harder when your hand is going to fall off and you really need to pee.

People with careers like Bieber and Spears are putting in that hard work. They're not letting the opportunity to work their ass off pass them by. Even if it's something which appears to be no work at all, such as signing autographs.

I think I get your point, and I think you get mine (that it's pretty difficult to compare this kind of work to other kinds whether casting it in a positive or negative light), so I'm happy.

I'm rather obsessive about being understood (even if that person doesn't agree with me), even when people are jumping on my dick.

[besson3c]

BTW, is "jumping on my dick" a thing that people actually say, or did I just make that up?

[turtle777]

WTF ? If you had any Google fu, you would know it's not.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I get your point that many with riches do not keep their riches and therefore have lasting wealth, but in order to have wealth you have to have had riches at some point, so can we continue this conversation referring to wealth as wealth with this disclaimer applied, or would you prefer we use the word "riches" for greater accuracy?

Only a portion of wealth is having large sums of money, it's as much a mature attitude about your finances as it is your account balances, it's about a support structure underneath. One of the worst things that can happen to a person is suddenly coming into a large sum of cash, it's usually devastating to a person's relationships and self-perception. Without discipline and a healthy respect for it, people often (usually) end up in worse shape than they were before.