But to counter that mentality, have we as parents and teachers developed a participation trophy philosophy that rewards mediocrity so junior doesn’t get his feelings hurt for not winning?
Is that philosophy swung too far in the opposite direction that ambition and drive has become diluted to the extent that more and more of society has become accepting of circumstances and just vilify those that are the bosses must have had some sort of advantage that they themselves were never given?
No its not. Only victims feel this way. And if you believe it to be true, it is for you.
I want to thank everybody for contributing and let you all know I haven’t abandoned the thread even though I don’t have anything to say about it at the moment.
Please continue
Actually, yes I do have something to say.
I realize now, that the question I wanted to ask, was trying to ask, is a very complex question that may not be able to be reduced to a single interrogative sentence.
The discussion that has been happening thus far has been both enjoyable and helpful to me, but still hasn’t quite hit the nail. The conversation has come close a few times, struck a glancing blow as it were.
Please, my friends, continue and I will try to formulate a query to insert to help further steer the replies closer to what I originally intended if I can.
In 1965, the average CEO pay stood at a ratio of 20 to 1 against the average worker. Now, it’s 70 to 1, with some CEO’s making obscene amounts, hundreds of times more than their employees. Executive pay has soared while worker pay sits stagnant.
This is what is meant by income inequality, and it is real.
Changing the argument doesn’t make it real. You first said:
Now your jumping on the income inequality between CEO pay and workforce pay. Those are not the same thing. So because the CEO of your employer has seen an increase in pay at a higher rate than you yourself have seen, you feel that you can’t improve your own individual situation? That you are trapped? That if your pay hasn’t increased at the same rate as .00000001% of people in our country that you are a victim?
Big business has the money and connections to influence government policies to suit themselves. They have no interest in bettering their underlings, or making it easier for the lower folk to improve their lot under their own power. Social programs suffer because the elites want to pay no, or next to no taxes. This makes it difficult for the underclass to excel in all sorts of ways. The very notion of social programs is looked upon as weakness because they help the “perennial losers”.
No, all this is not the same argument as “Only those who come from money can make money.” But I trust you can see how income inequality leads to that situation. When you are spending 50% of your income on keeping a roof over your head, mere survival becomes your life’s aim. Add in health care costs as the population ages, and you can see why the middle class is disappearing. It isn’t because they are joining the ranks of the moneyed classes.
Well it’s kind of hard to have a conversation with someone that keeps jumping from topic to topic. Sort of threadshitting to the Op to not stick with the what we have all been trying to discuss.
Thanks Omar, it’s appreciated. I’m not too bothered by it though, right now. I recieved some other news today about my personal life that has me unable to focus on this thread properly, so I’m content to let things wander as a “Whooaa Duude” sort of convo for now. It’s kind of fascinating in its own right to see the connections made between topics anyway
Please explain how in the world this statement could be considered threadshitting.
Are we talking about class divisions? Political divisions? Race divisions?
I don’t think Americans are averse to mediocrity. I think most people are content being in the middle of the pack. What Americans in general thrive on is not being among the bottom-rung “them”. If you’re not “them”, you’re doing okay. You’re one of “us”.
At least in my workplace, during idle moments in the breakroom, we don’t gush over the rockstar coworkers and express our desire to be like them. No, we just talk shit about the coworkers who dwell on the bottom-rung. The incompetents who have an inflated sense of their abilities and importance.
Politics plays on this. Political parties try to appeal to the everyday average Joe Six-Pack. The parties need the elites but they won’t highlight that fact lest it intimidate the mundanes. And the parties will convince their members that the bottom-rung dwellers are disproportionately found in the opposing party. They just define “bottom-rung dweller” differently. One party might call them “welfare leeches with their hands out all the time”. Another party might call them “deplorables who are too stupid to vote for their own self-interest”.
I am of Danish descent and it used to be some Danish people would follow a kind of rule where one didnt stand out. So if you did have money for example, it was considered wrong to flaunt it.
Ex. for years my grandparents when they bought a new car, would get roughly the same style and color as the old one.