The Myth That Success Is Unearned

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
... if someone has no solution best to stay silent and study the problem instead of being part of it. High road or low road not a difficult choice.

We are all society and are all equally part of the problem. If there is no solution perhaps the first thing we need to do is recognise that, setting our sights on a Utopia may be the worst thing we can do. People in the west look at the rich and think if only things were fair that would be me. They should be looking at the poor and saying thank god the world's not fair otherwise that would be me.

Whilst being the change I want to see is nice, what if the change that is needed is lowering the standard of living of all those around me including myself?

We eat free range chickens and wear clothes made by people in cages. If we have time to muse about solutions online the sad fact is that WE are the problem no matter how much we like to think otherwise.

High road or low road isn't a choice.
Has anyone actually ever chosen the low road? Everyone picks the high road, some have to work harder to justify how it's the high road. But everyone picks the high road.

a reply to: windword

you do know that there is a tax on gasoline that both the feds and the state have added to gasoline. the higher the cost the higher the tax. and that this tax is supposed to pay for roads and infrastructure?

We have law on thebooks now that protect workers safety, working conditions and that prducts are made according to those standards.

But no worries the Elite have already moved many of those job out of the country to central and south America, China, Indonesia and India. Just to name a few.

Quote Lincoln all you want the country is not run by and for the people any more and hasn't for more than 60 years. Politicians now run it for themselves and their cronies.

a reply to: WhateverYouSay

I am not a libertarian.

We understand that in success team work is needed. But a hamburger pitcher at McD's is not a member of a success team of a business as much as he is the one who just keeps it going. It is the upper members who direct the direction of the company that make it successful. But they get all the profit while the burger pitcher gets his minimum wage.

If the burger pitcher wants more then let him strive to get to the top where the real money is. Burger pitching was not meant to be a permanent job that one retires from.

Income redistribution was done in Russia during the communist rule. It failed. those who worked hard did 90% of the work and got the same pay as those who did not and only did 10%. Soon no body did the work and the venture failed from farming to factory work. Just ask Putin.

a reply to: luthier

Then get rid of the feudal lords

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

We are the direct cause to all of our problems self made first other made second... but we see it upside down, other caused when it is our very own reaction and no one else's until we share the same problem either to spread it or over come it. Both really desire the same thing, which means skillful or unskillful in how to cope with what we have passed along to each other since the first concepts were born out of grunts and howls that could tell the difference between self and other as a separate thing from all else... before that it was just life and living sheer nature of simply being. Now complex being but in essence not really different.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Three of Trumpet's kids are worth 150 million, Chelsea is worth 15 million and the baby is worth a mill.

Obviously hard working, industrious and born rich.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

"if you love the job you do, you will never work a day in your life!"

I cant remember where the quote is from, but such an emphasis on monetary reimbursement doesn't take into account the satisfaction that some people get from their jobs, that may be paid more or less than the average.

I think it all depends on the value you associate being miserable and being paid considerably less/more to the actual satisfaction that you are contributing value to something.

a reply to: pigsy2400

It was Confucius.

Loving ones job does make it easier to do and less stressful If one does not love their job they should exit it immediately or they may hurt someone if not themselves.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So then, you're defending you're suggestion that corporations should pay no taxes?

Now, about those grants you propose they fund. Who decides what projects get funded and what projects don't get funded? How do you reconcile the fact that our government is in place to serve those who it governs, while corporations exist to line the pockets of it's stockholders, and have no social obligation outside of those that enhance their own financial goals?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: pigsy2400

It was Confucius.

Loving ones job does make it easier to do and less stressful If one does not love their job they should exit it immediately or they may hurt someone if not themselves.

I feel like that's only true to an extent. Many studies have shown that adding money to an activity, changing it from a hobby to a job also makes it less enjoyable. Sometimes monetizing your interests just causes you to lose something you really enjoyed.

Ideally, you make your job something you moderately enjoy, and you can leave your favorite hobbies as hobbies.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ah but it's really the financiers that get something for nothing, sure they could lose their investment but they realize that and won't invest in anything they don't deem to be profitable. Further they will want a large stake and a say in how a business is run they invest in. Other than that they sit back and squeeze as much cash and profit from a investment as they can. While all the real work is done by the start up business.

You could work your balls off and be poor or your life, or you could be sly and greedy and get rich off the back of other peoples hard work. That doesn't mean we need everyone earning the same, the problem come down to the pure greed of some at the expense of others.

a reply to: surfer_soul

agreed

a reply to: windword

I am sure everything could get picked to death.

a reply to: windword

Very good point... of course some of these grants have no useful purpose except too these companies disguised for marketing as well... called pork barrel spending aside from a NASA hammer costing 900 dollars last I read vs. 9 dollars because it was a government contractor buying it and having to fulfill the budget by cooking the books to balance out, to how fast does all the ketchups/catsups flow... it would seem no one cares until you smack that spot numbered 57 on the bottle to get it out of there.

So the win win is for whom? As those systems are designed with the utmost good intentions to benefit and grow and drive innovation and they do at the university level... but when there is little accounting and oversight as after the grant is won the money is the researchers, and then balance it however they want.

Someone has even gotten rich in writing a book on how to exploit these government grants for profit... so when someone can get rich or make a profit on how to exploit and make profit off of the government or the people? Then one can see just how capitalism works it is like leeches attaching to any good idea even if it leads to bleeding the entire animal out to which it is attached.

So who cares of America falls as long as you are rich from that bleeding you can live in a nice oasis until it does and then hey there are even more countries after it would so who cares about the all day suckers footing the bill... and the American dream is to become one of them?

originally posted by: SprocketUK

When you allow small numbers of people to stash away billions...

Allow?

ALLOW?!?!?

Are you actually serious? Do you even hear yourself? Living in the nanny-state UK has so brainwashed you with the leftist agenda that you actually believe someONE or some entity has a RIGHT to control how successful a person can be... and how much money they are allowed to save or give to their family....

Freakin sickening.

probably don't even realize how depraved that communist idealogy is and how badly is breaks the human spirit to thrive and prosper. You should really read all about East Germany and the psychological effects of the DDR.

originally posted by: SprocketUK...stash away billions of dollars in trust funds and suchlike it means that there is less liquid money out there in the economy for everyone to chase.

And you just demonstrated that you have no clue how a trust fund works!

You are unqualified to comment in this thread and I'd go so far as unqualified to vote, seeing as you really don't understand the world or human nature.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Taxes are a trust fund that the public has ran out of patience with as far as many governments go.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Are you actually serious? Do you even hear yourself? Living in the nanny-state UK has so brainwashed you with the leftist agenda that you actually believe someONE or some entity has a RIGHT to control how successful a person can be

you are aware we havent had a left wing government since the 70's, blair renamed labour 'new labour' and shifted the party to center right.
many true socialists then voted liberal democrat as they became the most left leaning party, hence their rise.
corbyn is trying to shift the party back to a left wing standing but, too many blairites unwilling to shift are killing the party.

whats wrong with capping bankers bonuses? did you not pay attention during the last global financial crash.
THE BANKERS DID IT, they even went on telly admitting they did it, have you forgotten?
your saying its fine, let them take millions of OUR money for their golden handshakes, retirement and bonuses?
and you call the other guy brainwashed?
ffs

probably don't even realize how depraved that communist idealogy is and how badly is breaks the human spirit to thrive and prosper. You should really read all about East Germany and the psychological effects of the DDR.

blaming communism for stalinism in the eastern bloc, is a little like blaming a horse for slow broadband speeds.
there's no correlation.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

No one has a right to control the majority share of the worlds resources and it's absurd that we've allowed people to reach a point where not only do they think doing so is a right, but one worth defending.

You live on a world with other human being that need to make a living, a world with other creatures trying to exist. These being have a right to these things to. Revolutions happen, and rightly so because fools forget that they are but one beast in a world of beasts and fatten oneself too much while depriving too many will cause one to be eaten.

Allow is the proper term. People acquire wealth because people allow them to. We make a deal in which were willing to accept them having more in exchange for certain things. When we feel that balance is broken and they have taken more than they are willing to give the deal is off.

We the people have been demanding the balance be restored to something more reasonable for quite awhile ignore us at your own peril. The worlds resources don't belong to anyone they belong to all of us. Some have more because we allow it. I think we've begun to decide that trust has been broken.

a reply to: Puppylove

Allow is the proper term. People acquire wealth because people allow them to. We make a deal in which were willing to accept them having more in exchange for certain things. When we feel that balance is broken and they have taken more than they are willing to give the deal is off.

Not remotely. People acquire wealth because they work for it and know how to accrue it.

I am going back to my tomato farming analogy.

If we all grow tomatoes, then we will have varying amounts of success with it dependent on a lot of factors including the natural elements and our personal skill with gardening along with our personal diligence in maintaining our gardens. And we might realize varying yields based on the numbers of plants we choose to grow.

However, each of us ends up with our own yield and no one steals that yield from anyone else. It is what we get and mostly appropriate to the effort we put into it.

Now, each of us also gets to dispose of that yield as we see fit too. What do you do with your tomatoes? Do you simply eat them all as they come off the vine? Do you sell the excess? Do you can them putting some away for lean times? Do you save some tomatoes to produce seed for your next tomato crop? Do you give tomatoes away to others? Remember, these are all your tomatoes; you took none from anyone else.

Wealthy people are adept at finding the right combination of disposing of their annual tomato yields in such a way as to steadily increase those yields over the years while making sure they are well buffered by always having a good store of canned tomatoes to buffer them in bad years. They don't take tomatoes from others. Now, they may or may not give tomatoes to those in need, but that's another argument.

a reply to: ketsuko

Working for something is only reasonable up until a point. See this is where the disconnect is what we need to find balance with. That's the problem, the weird delusion people have or should be allowed to have an infinite earning potential.

You're right up until a point, and we're wrong up until a point.

It's finding that balance which is where the magic happens.

Edit: 2 scenarios to point out the absurdities of why both philosophies are absurd by taking them to there furthest extreme.

Scenario 1: The no one has a right to tell someone how much wealth they can earn or what to do with it, means that if someone were to say acquire 100% of the worlds wealth and decide everyone should work for them for free for table scraps at best. It should be allowed, after all they acquired that wealth and we're not allowed to touch it or do anything about, and how dare we make demands.

Scenario 2: Everyone has equal rights to everything. Majority of people sit at home seeing no reason to work, while those that do have all the fruits of their labor, each eating equal without earning it equally.

Both extremes are absurd. Arguing for either is absurd. But for some absurd reason, people thing arguing for what can lead to the first is moral, but what leads to the second is not.

Both are immoral.

Wealth should be capped, no one is worthy of being the planets overlord or controlling most of the worlds assets.

It's ABSURD.

People get the same for different contributions. I disagree.

People should be allowed an infinite earning potential. I disagree.

Both are absurd. Stop defending absurdities and let's come together and find a balance between both extremes.