Hard work is often touted as the key American virtue that leads to success and opportunity. And there's lots of evidence to suggest that workers buy into the belief: For example, a recent study found that Americans work 25 percent more hours than Europeans, and that U.S. workers tend to take fewer vacation days and retire later in life. But for many, simply working hard doesn't actually lead to a better life.
In the past, economists have acknowledged that citing hard work as the path to prosperity is overly simplistic and optimistic. Ultimately, whether hard work alone can lift people into better economic conditions is a more complex question. The formula only works if an individual's efforts are met with opportunities for a better life. According to research, it's getting harder and harder for Americans to move up the income ladder.
A new poll from the Strong, Prosperous and Resilient Communities Challenge (SPARCC), an initiative to bolster local economies, found that Americans are quite skeptical of the narrative connecting wealth with personal agency. SPARCC found that 74 percent of those surveyed believed that most poor people work hard, but aren't able to work their way out of poverty due to the lack of economic opportunities. In the U.S., 19 percent of income inequality is attributed to predetermined circumstances such as a person's race, gender, and parental income. The SPARCC report also points to past research showing that economic mobility and health outcomes are greatly affected by geography as evidence that individual hard work won't ensure success because opportunities aren't evenly distributed.
The hard-work argument also plays into the policy discussion around inequality. As Katharine Bradbury and Robert Triest, both economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, write:
Increased inequality may result from increased risk taking and entrepreneurship in an environment of rapid technological change, with some entrepreneurs producing better, or just luckier, innovations than others, and reaping greater rewards. It may also result from increased disparities in work effort, with more industrious individuals earning higher incomes as a result of their greater effort. In both these cases, one could argue convincingly that the increase in inequality is justified and that no remedial changes in public policy are needed. On the other hand, if the increase in inequality results mostly from factors largely beyond the ability of individuals to control or counteract, then a strong case can be made for a public policy response.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:03AM (37 children)
19% of income equality being blamed on predetermined factors seems very low. I would have thought it accounted for more.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @12:24PM (24 children)
A huge factor seems to be simply being in the right place at the right time.
If it had not been for World War II, would even Einstein or Oppenheimer have been recognized?
The best bosses I have ever had got their respect through the excellence of their work. They knew their stuff and weren't afraid to teach.
The worst bosses I ever had were people hired out of training institutions. All they knew was the "leadership" skill of intimidation. They did not know their technical stuff, and knew the people who did only represented a threat, so he would use any power delegated to him to retard the group by restricting access to needed stuff.
Even rarer yet was those investors with the organizational skills to place leadership skills over technical skills. Soon, all we could do is make presentations, shake hands, and sign contracts. No one knew how to actually implement what we promised the customer, but we did know how to word a contract so we got paid anyway.
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 12 2017, @12:29PM (12 children)
True. A lot of people like to call that luck but they're largely wrong. Being able to see where and when the right time and place will be ahead of time means you don't need luck.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:06PM (5 children)
Right, I'm sure that a random tribal African has exactly the same opportunity as the progeny of a billionaire. If the later makes it to the top, it's entirely by virtue of their character, and if the former didn't, it's because of their moral failings.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:07PM (3 children)
It's their tough luck is what it is. The world never has been and never will be anything remotely resembling fair.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:40PM (1 child)
Buzzard... Can you go more than one post deep without contradicting yourself?
>>True. A lot of people like to call that luck but they're largely wrong.
And one reply later
>> It's their tough luck is what it is. The world never has been and never will be anything remotely resembling fair.
So is it luck or isnt it? (spoiler: It is 100% luck all the way down)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:55PM
It's luck when they do it. It's skill when I do it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:41PM
Well those people should make their own jobs! Opportunity is waiting, and didn't you hear about the millions of jobs we can't find qualified workers for?
Haha, man the propaganda machine is amazing. Turn the US into a modern day serfdom and even sell it aad the fault of the serfs!!! GENIUS!
But who would really buy that simplistic bootstrap bullcrap when the real world evidence is literally all around us?????
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:35PM
The definition of "top" varies on the perspective of the individual.
People are different. The Pirahã [wikipedia.org] people are a typical example. They're a partially isolated people who 'we' have made contact with. People have tried to teach them and offer them technology repeatedly and it never amounts to anything. People will teach them to make canoes which greatly improve their lives - the canoes fail and they float around on pieces of bark instead of repairing them or making new ones. They don't even have a notion of numbers in their language, let alone writing. Water wheels? Let's not even go there. These people have reached the "top" in their mind even when people have repeatedly tried to let them move far beyond what they currently have.
I think people never really consider that culture is a big part of what helps people advance, or retards their development. Many places in Africa still have slavery [wikipedia.org] for instance even though the vast majority of other cultures realized this was the wrong direction centuries ago. It's not the lack of medicine and solar cells that's stopping these people from advancing but their own cultures. When they do advance they absolutely should be granted every opportunity available, but I think implying the reason for the lack of advancement in many places around the world is a lack of resources (which is essentially what those billions of dollars represent) is rather missing the point.
---
---
Now the interesting thing is that though some may label this as some sort of ism or obia, we can also apply it equally to ourselves. I think it is safe to say that if there are any advanced species aware of us, it may be likely that they've chosen to make their presence aware for the exact same reason. Our problem is not a lack of access to their goodies and technologies, but ourselves and our collective culture. We still attack and label each other for having different views and even kill each other when we get emotional enough, or greedy enough. We silence words we don't like to hear and value profit over progress. We have our own problems to overcome. And so do other cultures. Perhaps it's time we spend a bit more time looking inward and give others the opportunity to do so, of their own accord, as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:32PM (5 children)
You're full of shit as always Buzzy. That works for a portion of the population, but it doesn't work for everybody. There's literally not enough high paying jobs for that to work out.
Seriously, there are fewer living wage jobs than there are people who need to earn a living wage, let alone people who want to get ahead. I'm guessing that you must sleep really well at night, because ignorance is bliss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @04:30PM (4 children)
You would think he sleeps well at night based on his apparent conviction, but his brain isn't worthless so his subconscious is busy ticking away. I'm guessing he's living a sort of constant existential crisis where his Ego fights against his Id, ignoring reality and doing its best to rationalize his egotistical beliefs. Eventually it will fail, hopefully before it results in a massive breakdown that ruins his life. Or he could get "lucky" and be one of those old guys that looks around with a certain hunger in their eye and shits on everyone else dying "happy" by bringing a misery to others that he doesn't realize comes from within himself.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 12 2017, @04:32PM (3 children)
He's just a sociopath, full stop. A normal, healthy human being with a functioning set of mirror neurons simply does not believe these things. I'm just glad to see this forum finally hitting critical mass on Chief Shitting Bull here and giving him en masse what I've been doing all alone for months. Took a while, but he's finally getting his comeuppance.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @04:53PM (2 children)
Based on TMB's comments in the recent electric motorcycle thread, I'm wondering if he isn't a loner version of a biker (Hell's Angels style).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:08PM (1 child)
He is a liar, or a troll who lies for the lulz.
He has spouted off about running his own business and saying his employees like him in order to prove some point, then he claims to be an employee somewhere not weeks later. For all we know this site is just a pet PR project of the NSA/CIA! haha hmmmmm
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:35PM
If he were lying about that that wouldn't surprise me, but that's small potatoes compared to the real problem IMO...which is that he's a total sociopath. Almost a textbook case. Since he's not physically here in front of me I can't sense it through the air like with the other socio/psychopaths I've run into (horrible, it's like they're surrounded by this corrosive, rusty cloud...) but the words alone are enough. They feel entirely sincere, too; when he's at his worst he is truly, as it is written, speaking from the fullness of his heart.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:37PM
Wrong example.
Both of them were recognized even before WWII.
Letting Einstein aside (do I need to make the case for him?), you have:
Born-Oppemheimer approximation [wikipedia.org] in quantum chemistry - 1927
Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit [wikipedia.org] - mass limits for neutron stars - 1939
On Continued Gravitational Contraction [aps.org] - 1939- predicts the existence of black-holes - had he lived long enough, he'd be a Nobel prize winner for this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:32PM (8 children)
Einstein had quite terrible luck. His initial applications to university were at a young age but that is something that was not particularly atypical for the time. He was rejected. Following his admittance after continuing his basic education and later graduation he was unable, two years, to find any academic post that would have him. He ended up left working as an assistant patent examiner - a job he was only really able to find thanks to a friend of a friend relationship. Much of his early work was laid out in this situation. His works alone is what would eventually propel him to 'scientific stardom'. And of course during his early life he was constantly country hopping and developing all sorts of strategies to avoid conscription.
If anything really changed his life, it was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment). That experiment is what led more or less directly to the discovery of relativity which is what would propel Einstein to immortality. But again Michelson-Morley was in 1887, when Einstein was 8 years old. Einstein's first publication on relativity was in 1905. So it's not like he just happened to be the first to grab onto something that anybody of fine intelligence could have given comparable circumstance. [soylentnews.org]
If there was ever an argument for the success of merit over condition, Einstein would be it.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:00PM (7 children)
I would say he got enough brains such that he could succeed even as a patent clerk..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:52PM (6 children)
I'd absolutely agree, but that's another topic altogether. It's also one that I think is really bizarre in American politics. Both sides seem to be logically broken.
- The right tend to argue that people are inherently unequal yet everybody can improve their position in their lives if they just try a bit harder.
- The left tend to argue that all people are inherent equal yet we need to provide protections for any not doing well.
If we're all equal then it's true that your results are simply a matter of your own personal effort and work. The white pieces or black pieces in a chess game don't win because of any inherent difference in the pieces, but because they were used more effectively. Complete equality is a great argument for more of a dog-eat-dog style system. On the other hand if we're inherently unequal then that's the exact opposite situation: some individuals, no matter their effort, would never be able to effectively compete against other individuals. That is a strong argument towards providing special treatment and care for those who have shown themselves unable to otherwise achieve success in society.
We can even see the sad results of this play out in reality. Individuals who would not score particularly highly on IQ exams work themselves to the bone convinced that one day they'll get their just deserves - which they never do. And on the other side of things we have individuals demanding government enforced equality in areas where that seems to be the only possible way to achieve equality, even all the while claiming everybody is indeed completely equal in every way. It's quite bizarre.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @04:43PM (4 children)
People are not equal, but the governement should treat people equally under the law. There are intrinsic factors (genetics, work ethic, etc.) and extrinsic factors (parental income, location, etc.) that contribute to people not being equal. Equal opportunity is about trying to level the playing field by making up for negative extrinsic factors (ESL classes, financial aid for college, etc.).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:23PM
I am pretty sure this just wooshed past anyone who dislikes "liberals" because it relies on details that are annoying to have to consider and deal with. Most humans just want the easy blanket answers that don't require much thought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:40PM (2 children)
I think most of everybody on all sides would agree with working towards equality of opportunity even if the proposed means of doing so might be different.
Where things get weird is what I actually mentioned in my post: enforced equality of result. Companies can be sued for hiring too many "blues" or not enough "greens" or paying "oranges" more than "purples" or other such ways where any group ends up with a better outcome all the while arguing that everybody is equal. For instance the gender gap is just completely illogical. If I can hire a woman who can otherwise perform identically to a man for let's say 7 units of money whereas it costs me 9 units of money to hire a man - I'm going to hire literally nothing but women. I mean at this point just about everybody has heard of the alleged wage gap. Yet it's strange. Look at just about every successful company. For some reason they're keeping those allegedly overpriced males around. If you assume rough equality in this case you're left, almost immediately, with numerous logical contradictions.
To be fair, let's also pick on the right. The argument against ensuring a livable wage is that people should just get better jobs. There's a lot of ways to refute this but to keep it on theme let's drag up the right's general embrace of extreme inherent differences between individuals. A common statistic being thrown about is the abysmal performance on IQ tests by "pinks" that leaves many in the mentally challenged range. Yet "pinks" also tend to be heavily overrepresented in the sub livable wage jobs. So their argument ends up appealing the competence of groups they view as incompetent. Again the logic doesn't really work there without some mental gymnastics or going full sociopath.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:18AM (1 child)
For instance the gender gap is just completely illogical. If I can hire a woman who can otherwise perform identically to a man for let's say 7 units of money whereas it costs me 9 units of money to hire a man - I'm going to hire literally nothing but women.
The problem is that the person who pays a woman 7 units instead of 9 honestly believes the man is more valuable, often for illogical reasons and might actually believe the woman is only worth 5 units so is overpaying at 7 units. Bigotry is not logical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:39AM
Yet is seems no person pays a woman 7 units instead of 9 and in fact they will rather hire an unqualified woman than a qualified man [theguardian.com] because most companies don't require entry level employees to be top of the crop but they are required to maintain a better gender ratio. For no reason but to placate the next moron who says 'bigotry' to get some vagina credit.
(Score: 2) by TK on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:39PM
Did you really use a chess analogy? White has an advantage [wikipedia.org] because that player goes first.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:49PM
> If it had not been for World War II, would even Einstein or Oppenheimer have been recognized?
Special Relativity : 1905
General Relativity : 1907-1915
Yup, this shit's over a hundred years old.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 12 2017, @12:26PM (11 children)
Yeah, a lot of people like to blame things on stuff they can't control, so it's a popular idea that it should account for more.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:31PM (10 children)
I was going to say that I thought luck would count in a large way, but I think "luck" in the case of doing well is largely a matter of right place, right time. There are a lot of societal factors (parents, location, etc) that give you better odds without any effort. It's not intentional or exclusionary, and I guess it's still luck if you consider it how lucky you were to be borne in the right place to the right parents. It's silly to think it's bigotry or something, as it really is just luck of the draw. Terminology I guess ... kind of rude to make it sound like it's intentional exclusion.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:35PM
Apparently "luck of the draw" only accounts for 19% according to a comment lower down. So, no, it's really not luck.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:36PM (1 child)
Nevermind, that was you. Mea culpa, been up since 3:30AM.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:16AM
Culpa my ass. You know who else has been up since
Mea culpa, been up since 3:30AM.
>
Yes, your's truly. And I have to say, TMB that sleep, or lack of the same, does not seem to influence the insanity of your political position, though it may affect you troll skills. But we are really back to Colonel Kurz, in the Heart of Darkness, you know, Tennessee, where you ask me if I don't approve of your methods. And I say, "Sir, I don't see any method at all." That is where we are, Oh Might be a Buzzard, my head rising out of the water, with the appropriate grease camo paint, coming to kill you. Because, after all like Colonel Kurz, you did what needed to be done. But after you did it, you realized, "like a diamond bullet thorough your brain", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tV1yfEPTk [youtube.com] Horror! Horror has a face. You must make a friend of horror, etc. , etc, Do you know how deep your psychosis goes, Oh Weakly Buzzard? You are actually what everyone has said you are. Colonel Kurz, at least, wanted to tear his teeth out, before he denied free lunches to school children. They are stronger than you are. Because, it is judgment, judgement that defeats us, it is SJWs that defeat us, because they are moral, and we are not! We deserve to die! We are grocery clerks, sent to collect a bill.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:03PM (6 children)
I think "luck" in the case of doing well is largely a matter of right place, right time
Over the decades I've found that luck does not translate across social classes.
What I see in my whiteopia cultural ancestry was anyone can learn multivariate calculus if they have the guts to work hard enough, and I had to study pretty hard, and I passed the classes. Other social classes see that and call it "luck", must have been born that way. Eh I was kinda naturally good at it but I put in the sweat too just like anyone else.
Decades ago in my 20s I was thin and muscular via "luck" according to some. Must be my superior partially German genetics that my people just have to look at a barbell and magically receive Schwarzenegger-esque biceps. Although further analysis indicates there is not much "luck" involved in spending an hour at the gym every day while people with less "luck" but a lot more beer belly were at the bar or pigging out on fast food. It never fails to amaze me for decades that if you talk to fat weaklings about how to get swole (as the kids say now a days) and you'll hear all about genetics and required "luck" as they gulp down their McDinner and suck down a quart of corn syrup soda before spending an evening sitting in front of the TV, but you talk to swole guys and you never hear the word "luck" all you need is hours sweating in the gym and clean food on the plate.
More than a decade ago I passed a lot of Cisco tests and got several certs because of "luck" according to some. Or maybe it was dozens of hours reading books and manuals and sitting at a router console that created my "luck".
It goes both ways of course. Lower class people seem to have very low stress lives due to "luck". Being able to figure out how to live life is nice but sometimes takes a lot of effort, whereas stumbling around in a drunken stupor as life happens to them is very low stress. Figuring out the next step in career or lifestyle is both possible and hard work, but its just "luck" that people who don't bother get to relax about that instead. Of course nothing good happens to them, but they are very lucky not to be stressed.
Observational evidence over some decades points to any claim across social classes of "luck" usually means just not understanding the situation. Inside a social class some are luckier than others. But across social group boundaries most observations of luck tend to just be misinterpretations. And so in a story on SN about high school dropouts, for most of us here any discussion of "luck" just boils down to not being in their socioeconomic group.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:31PM
Absolutely. I think it counts with *all else being roughly equal* though.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:37PM
I like your post. I would just add: luck - to include lucky genetics - is most important in the extreme cases. Those, of course, are the ones that we hear about. Freak accident paralyzes gifted student. Concussion turns ordinary guy into concert pianist [dailymail.co.uk].
For the rest of us - and I would say this applies across all classes - self-discipline is the key to success. I can't really talk about success in the upper classes, because I have no experience there. But below that:
- At the bottom of the ladder, this means actually showing up for work on time, every day, not hung over, ready to work. When on the job, actually work. Don't be a lazy ass, sneaking off for smoke breaks or whatever. When you're on the job, work.
- In the middle class, all the above is assumed (yeah, I know, there are lazy asses, but they also don't go anywhere). Plus one new thing: willingness to take responsibility. If something goes wrong, don't pretend you didn't notice - fix it. If you make a mistake, don't hide it - own it and make it right. If you see a way to make things better - take the initiative, do it. There are damned few people who really think this way, but they sure are the ones you want as employees and as colleagues.
None of that is luck. None of it is genetics, unless there is a genetic basis for behavior. A lot of it is learned, though, from the environment you grow up in. Growing up in the slums does not teach good work habits. Beer-swilling bubba won't take responsibility for anything beyond the remote control. If one had the "bad luck" to be born into a bad environment, it takes extra determination (self-discipline) to break the pattern, but it is entirely possible.
Hey, I even found an academic reference supporting my claim that self-discipline is important [upenn.edu]
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:52PM (2 children)
anyone can learn multivariate calculus if they have the guts to work hard enough,
It's much harder if you can't afford to pay someone to teach you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:58PM (1 child)
Oh spare me. I paid to sit in a lecture hall with 300 of my closest friends and then discussion group was led by a non-English speaking TA with 30 of my closest friends. I learned calculus all on my own, with the addition of watching some lectures, and there are now better lectures free on the internet.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:00AM
And a luckier person had a private tutor and someone giving them a back massage while they learned.
The other unlucky person was too busy working as a masseur for entitled assholes just to put food on the table and had limited time to study at all.
(Score: 1) by lonehighway on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:54PM
I think a lot of the opportunities that I stumbled into were simply because I was a "nice young man." People were willing to give me the benefit of the doubt. What I did with those opportunities was up to me, so maybe a combination of luck and work?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:05AM (71 children)
Life isn't fair. Anywhere. Ever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:42AM (53 children)
A popular phrase amongst those who are either being unfair or to whom life has been more than fair. Everyone else, not so much.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 12 2017, @12:24PM (51 children)
And yet, entirely true throughout all of history ever.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @12:52PM (48 children)
And yet, entirely true throughout all of history ever.
And? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting anything, but it sounds like you are implying a naturalistic fallacy here in that you are assuming that this outcome is optimal. A 18th century man could make that claim about flying machines, humanism and universal suffrage. Looking into thousands of years of small minded ignorance for inspiration sounds like a poor strategy to me. Our civilization is very immature intellectually, there are no doubt many great ideas we are yet to discover.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:09PM (47 children)
There's no fallacy. You simply want to impose fairness at my expense and you can go fuck yourself with that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:20PM (25 children)
Yep, that's what we want to do. Better if it was voluntary but you clearly don't care about the less fortunate. So, same to you. And the horse you rode in on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:31PM (24 children)
Care has nothing to do with it. I will not allow you, under any circumstance, to steal from me. My life is not their problem and their life is not my fault. If you want to blame and steal from someone for the poverty of children born less than rich, blame those actually at fault; blame their parents. They are legitimately at fault. They chose to have a child while not rich. I had absolutely no say in the decision and will not accept blame or consequences for it having been made.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:36PM (4 children)
I think the point is that if everyone puts into the pot, everyone's life improves drastically. E.g. if everyone contributes to a highway then everyone has drastic improvement in quality of life from being able to get from A to B.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:59PM (3 children)
That works with highways because they enable greater productivity through reduced transportation costs. When you make earning a zero sum game (by definition, "income equality" does this), then there have to be people who are hurt to benefit others.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:02PM (1 child)
Fair point.
I interpreted TFA as saying that income does not reflect productivity,
But on second reading this is not quite the argument. It is closer to say that productivity is dominated by geographic and other factors. It would be better if productivity was dominated by ability and effort.
(Score: 1) by Chrontius on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:29AM
That's fine - income doesn't reflect productivity. American productivity has gone up much faster than the minimum wage. To quote a study from 2013, "Minimum Wage Would Be $21.72 If It Kept Pace With Increases In Productivity" [huffingtonpost.com]
So - compared to 1968, productivity has gone up three times faster than the minimum wage? Apparently, Americans are working harder and/or smarter than ever, and being paid less for their work that at any time in the last fifty years. Am I reading that right? I think I am, and I'm … not even mad. I'm just disappointed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:05PM
It also works with education because that enables greater productivity through reduced employee adaptation costs.
It also works with medicine because it enables greater productivity through reduced healthcare costs.
It also works with politics because it enables greater transparency through increased bullshitting costs.
It also works with parenting because that enables greater social cohesion through reduced household stress.
Your point being?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by moondoctor on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:04PM
>My life is not their problem
You keep telling yourself that.
The fact that you don't recognise the benefits you receive by living in a society doesn't make what you say true. It's all connected whether you like it or not.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:11PM
:-) I'm going with Poe's law on all this...
One consideration to make is that humans go through great conscious effort to obstruct other humans. And the real problem is subservience, an apparently very successful survival trait, but it is slowing down progress. We obviously have the means to live like kings, and with much less effort than it takes to maintain the walls we put up
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:49PM
They chose to have a child while not rich.
Well, I suppose 95% of the population choosing not to reproduce would solve the overpopulation problem...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:50PM
It appears you have no desire to be part of society. Don't let the door hit your behind on the way out.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 12 2017, @05:57PM
I will not allow you, under any circumstance, to steal from me.
Good thing we live in a Democratic Republic, whose constitution explicitly grants the right to levy taxes, then, eh? Makes the stealing bit unnecessary.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:34PM
They chose to have a child while not rich. I had absolutely no say in the decision...
Voting for anti-abortion politicians is having a say in the decision.
(Score: 3, Touché) by julian on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:14PM
I'm brought a great measure of happiness knowing you have to pay taxes and pitch in to help improve civilization whether you like it or not :)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:09PM (11 children)
Just be careful that your death is not their salvation lest the last words you hear be "life isn't fair!".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:06PM (10 children)
Stolen money is never anyone's salvation. Just the opposite, in fact. No society has ever benefited from having a large and growing population of thieves.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:06PM (9 children)
Given that we have more than enough resources out there to allow everyone to live a middle class lifestyle, but some people have gold toilets and some are living in poverty, I wonder who the thieves are?
Let's apply some logic to a scenario. Two people. One has an empty house with no car and the other has a house filled with 2 TVs, 2 dining room tables, 2 cars, etc, etc. Which one is most likely to be a thief?
BTW, growing wealth inequality is generally a symptom of a failing state.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:24PM (8 children)
No, you do not. You know who they are and do not want to admit it. A thief is someone who takes something not freely given. Period.
Wealth inequality is a fallacy. Fiat currency based economics is not a zero-sum game. Someone having more does not mean what you have is reduced.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:12PM (7 children)
Yes, for example the fruits of one's labor. Paying less than enough to live on for full time employment is an example of stealing the fruits of someone else's labor.
Coercion takes many forms.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:31PM (6 children)
No, sweety. Employment is a contract. If you dislike the terms, either argue for better terms or take your business elsewhere. Once you accept the terms, you have agreed that what the employer is offering you is what you deserve. There is no moral component to pay rates.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:56PM (5 children)
Sorry, but there certainly is, as long as the potential employee is bent over a barrel by the need for income. One day, perhaps you can complete remedial kindergarten and you'll understand.
Many people understand that law and ethics is considerably more complex than Bartertown.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 14 2017, @12:24AM (4 children)
One day you'll pull your head out of Marx's asshole and realize nobody owes you a fucking thing in this life. Not an equal start. Not a job that pays what you want. And certainly not comfort.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 14 2017, @01:31AM (3 children)
Who hurt you? What could possibly made you that hurtful and indifferent to everyone?
May I suggest you exile yourself to a desolate island? You seem to want to be isolated and the landscape would match your insides.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 14 2017, @10:46AM (2 children)
I'm not indifferent to everyone. People down on their luck I tend to help when I'm able. Thieves like you I wouldn't piss on if you were on fire though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 14 2017, @01:41PM (1 child)
Says the thief.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 14 2017, @02:21PM
[Citation Needed]
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:56PM (1 child)
There's no fallacy. You simply want to impose fairness at my expense and you can go fuck yourself with that.
That is also a fallacy. The motivation of the speaker has no bearing on the validity of their statement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:01AM
That is also a fallacy.
It is the "Mightly Buzzurd Horse-fucking fallacy", so named after a libertaritard who pulled his own self up by his boot straps to reach the rear-end of someone else's horse, and then has the temerity to complain about theft. Out in the Old West, where I come from, they hang horse rapers.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 12 2017, @07:18PM (18 children)
Yep, you got your unfair advantage and you plan to keep it. Stay on top by pul;ling everyone else down.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:13PM (17 children)
Deciding to have a child when you are poor is what causes that child to be born with less advantages than others. Nobody else had a say in that child's conception so any unfairness is entirely attributable to the child's parents. Thus any remedy must be logically made by said parents or you do nothing but introduce further unfairness to otherwise uninvolved people and train a child to believe it is entitled to things it has not earned. Obviously someone has trained you in such a manner and our society suffers from it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:27PM (16 children)
So what of the child? Said child never participated in a decision to be at a disadvantage. That includes the disadvantage of not being able to afford to your standards to fulfill the biological imperative to reproduce.
It does, however, amuse me to draw parallels between your prescription and Communist China's one child policy. How does it feel to stand side by side with Chairman Mao?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:18PM (15 children)
See above re: blame and accountability. The parents of said child are the only ones responsible for its lot in life and are the only ones obligated to do anything about it.
Biological imperative my ass. We are rational beings and override "biological imperatives" every single day.
You're being intentionally obtuse. I did not say that anyone should not reproduce. I simply laid blame for the results of said reproduction firmly where it belongs. Personal accountability, you should try it sometime.
Further, you seem to think that it is somehow moral for a mob to steal from someone while it is not for an individual to. This is incorrect. There is no action under the sun that it is moral for a group to take that it is immoral for an individual to take. Numbers do not confer righteousness any more than power does.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:19PM (14 children)
I noticed you skipped over the part about the child having no part in the decision. Are you proposing original sin?
As for the rest, correct, the gang of thieves in the 0.1% who have stolen the wealth of the remaining 99.9% should return it immediately.
As for personal responsibility, that's hilarious coming from mister "that's not my problem".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:28PM (13 children)
It was irrelevant. When you know where the fault lies, all there is to do is correctly attribute it and seek reparations from said source.
And how were the taxes that you propose to pay for all this acquired? At gunpoint, that's how. Every tax dollar collected is an act of theft. Every single proponent of taxing some to benefit others is by definition a thief. As are those who receive the stolen lucre.
See, you don't even know what personal responsibility means. It means that every choice I make, I am entirely responsible for; every choice you make, you are entirely responsible for. And nothing else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @10:33PM (12 children)
So how do you get reparations from someone who doesn't have any resources?
Now quit stealing valuable oxygen, you didn't pay for it.
And actually, you also benefit from a more balanced society. For one, it tends to last longer without desperate people revolting in order to have a decent life.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 14 2017, @12:21AM (11 children)
You don't. They fucked you right proper and there's not a thing you can do about it. And there's nothing anyone else is obliged to do about it. Anything you rightfully get is voluntary charity out of the goodness of people's hearts.
So, you're saying "wouldn't it be a shame if something happened to your nice suburban community"? And you wonder why I call you a thief...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 14 2017, @01:34AM (10 children)
Anything you rightfully get is voluntary charity out of the goodness of people's hearts.
So you're saying there is none in yours?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 14 2017, @10:43AM (9 children)
Nope. I'm saying if someone comes to my home asking for a ride to the dollar store for some food because they don't have a car, they'll get it. If, however, they attempt to redistribute what wealth I have to themselves, I will shoot them in the head. Charity is a fine thing. Thievery is not. Period.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 14 2017, @01:38PM (8 children)
The social safety net is nothing more or less than society believing that charity will go further if it is pooled and managed by an expert. Why be pestered a hundred times a day for spare change when you can take care of it with a reasonable tax?
Your statement is also very convenient when you don't live near where the people who might need such help can walk to your door. Out of sight, out of mind.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 14 2017, @02:29PM (7 children)
Neither convenience nor efficiency is an excuse for theft. Try again.
*Bzzzzt* Wrong again. You shouldn't project so hard. It'd do you good to remember that you libtards are the least charitable of any political affiliation in the U.S. While everyone else is helping their neighbor, you're stealing from them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 14 2017, @02:39PM (6 children)
Now read your sigline. ROTFL
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 14 2017, @02:56PM (5 children)
That's not a caricature and it's not an opinion, slappy. It's a researched and published fact. While we're giving out our own money, you lot are giving out money that you've stolen.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 14 2017, @04:04PM (4 children)
Sorry, wrong. What lot is it you think I am? I look in the mirror and see one person.
Still ROTFL, more so now that you've shown your blind spot.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 14 2017, @11:06PM (3 children)
I think you're one of the thieves than wants to take what I've earned, give it to someone who thinks they deserve it for having done nothing, and call it charity instead of theft. That's plenty.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 14 2017, @11:29PM (2 children)
In other words you believe a caricature.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 15 2017, @12:31AM (1 child)
No, just your stated position. Accuracy precludes something being a caricature.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:38AM
You are blinded by your belief. Whatever gets you through the night I guess. I'll be over here giggling at you.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:37PM
Life being unfair is something that pieces of shit like you rationalize having more than you deserve while other people haven't even got the means for food and shelter while working large numbers of hours for low rates of pay.
Life isn't fair, is something that refers to things that are chance occurrence, our odds of contracting an infectious disease or getting cancer aren't the same. And sometimes we get screwed over by rare occurrences or somebody else's mistake. It's not something that's properly applied to employers being too cheap and short sighted to offer employees fair compensation.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:54PM
Illness causes death tends to be true as well. So if you get double pneumonia will you see a doctor or will you shrug and say "illness causes death".
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:46AM
No. It is a popular phrase among people who want to take control of their lives and popular thing to laugh at among people who love being a perpetual victim. In fact, among the powerful and powerless, this phrase is the essence of all the other differences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @12:04PM (16 children)
Yes, that is the problem we need to address. Preferably before the working class decides they've had enough and take matters into their own hands, communist revolutions are never fun for anyone.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:38PM (15 children)
Preferably before the working class decides they've had enough and take matters into their own hands, communist revolutions are never fun for anyone.
I'm predicting more a right wing one. The working class tends not to like the SJW types very much about now. Today the 60s boomer hippie left is "the man" in charge of everything screwed up which needs to be overthrown. Which puts me in a pickle where I don't want things even more screwed up, but the more things are screwed up the faster we get the right wing takeover I'm happily looking forward to. By analogy something like Germany in the 20s sucked, but you can't have Germany in the 30s without first passing thru Germany in the 20s, sort of.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @01:43PM (2 children)
Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich?
All well known 60s hippies obviously...
Good talk!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:49PM (1 child)
Good talk!
VLM is able to talk quite a lot. Not very good, though. He seems not to know that reality has a well known liberal bias, that the right in America is a dwindling minority of less than 12% of the population, and far less of the working class. VLM is a Nazi, advocates concentration camps for migrants! And, Paul Ryan is way too young to have been at Woodstock.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:08AM
Reality has no bias, but leftist love self-flagellation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:35PM
The only saving grace here is that you libertarian / co servative types are really so out of touch. You claim there will be a resurgence for your ideologies yet the vast majority of the US population disagrees with you. Cheat your way to victory with gerrymandering and the most terrible propaganda campaign selling ridiculous lies to gullible fools.
Yup, maga indeed as you are being sold out and stolen from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:49PM
More like a 50/50 IMHO.
Out of control divorce, abortion, toxic sexualization, drugs have been implemented first (you thought it was about your freedom, huh?). Crowd control drills, the rise of ubiquitous surveillance has been implemented second, and now the humanitarian/social/economic crises get here.
So, either the irregular army of refugees/immigrants win, and we end up with a totalitarian theocracy, or the incumbents react and we end up with a totalitarian right. Neither of them will go against really powerful interests, because neither of them would be possible without their help. Maintaining armies costs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:53PM (1 child)
I'm predicting more a right wing one.
The right is already the status quo.
The working class tends not to like the SJW types very much about now.
Oh, perish the thought. The SJW types would be the first to die in the fires of the revolution, if such a thing would come to pass. Think more Bolshevik and less Tumblr feminism.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:55PM
The right is already the status quo.
LOL yeah they sure run the media and academia and hollywood and the music biz and ...
Think more Bolshevik and less Tumblr feminism.
That is an interesting point to consider.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday April 12 2017, @03:17PM
Then you are even more of an idiot than I realized.
Apparently in all of your hard work, you haven't looked at what life is really like under a right-wing takeover. There are many examples in fairly recent history. I'll give you a clue: life is crap for everyone who is not part of a close circle around the leadership. You are looking forward to a crap life. That takes a special kind of stupid.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 12 2017, @04:38PM
"Happily looking forward to?" Jesus. If your naive dumb ass thinks you're going to get something you deserve but were prevented from obtaining in your new right-wing dystopia, you are sorely mistaken. This kind of person cares only about themselves. They'll throw you in the gas chamber along with all the people you no doubt refer to as cuck, SJW, etc.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Funny) by julian on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:20PM (3 children)
By analogy something like Germany in the 20s sucked, but you can't have Germany in the 30s without first passing thru Germany in the 20s, sort of.
Are you Sean Spicer? You want something like 1930s Germany to happen here? You can't think of anything bad that happened there at that time we might want to avoid?
I hope you're sterile or profoundly ugly.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 12 2017, @09:25PM (2 children)
I hope you're sterile or profoundly ugly.
LOL
I've noticed that people who oppose the right are just not pleasant to be around. Personal attacks, holiness signalling spirals, holier than thou claims of devoutness, the two minutes hate...
But people that oppose the left are generally pretty good folks. Nice neighbors, easy to get along with, fun to build a civilization with. Much more tolerant, generally.
Its not just one or two people, the stereotypes seem to ring true in general.
The kind of people attracted to political wings says a lot about those wings. The "cool kids" were left wing hippies in the 60s, but as the boomer die off the "cool kids" today are of a somewhat different political view...
(Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday April 12 2017, @09:36PM
But people that oppose the left are generally pretty good folks. Nice neighbors, easy to get along with, fun to build a civilization with. Much more tolerant
Actual Nazis. [npr.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:19PM
dude
you just described a cocoon or bubble.
you surround yourself with people like yourself and yeah everything is great.
then you start spouting ideas that entire other communities don't like and you act like you are the polite person in a sea of anger. you don't see that everyone else is not like you and equate that the fact you get along with like minded folks somehow makes it so that everyone else are noble savages. I am surprised you haven't expressed white mans burden yet.
no--you are being interpreted as the jerk in the crowd that god sprinkles upon us to make life interesting.
and yeah. there are jerks in the other crowds. some of them are the ones that you take most offense with. but lots of people would prefer to stay in their communities and ignore you as you ignore them -- except politics get in the way of that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:32AM
Are you really saying that you would like to see a return of the Nazis? Seriously?!?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:05PM
Wild guess, you nominate the Muslims for the ovens this time?