# Reality leans left? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 2, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442 "2019-03-02T19:24:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/81 "2019-03-07T04:12:02Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Man, you guys can sure overcomplicate stuff. > > I always interpreted the term to mean simply that change is pretty much the one constant in the world, and conservatives/the right are trying to prevent that from happening/mitigate its effects. > > So as a result, reality leans to the left, as the left is already advocating for change, not trying to avoid/mitigate/stop it. And here, I think you’re overcomplicating it. The joke is that reality is biased toward the left and therefore can be dismissed. You’re trying to make it mean that reality has more liberal things in it than conservative things, but what it really means is that the right ignores facts. Bias doesn’t mean weight, it means unfair falsehood. The joke is the contradiction between the words “reality,” which means things that actually exist, and “bias,” which implies inaccuracy or falsehoods. That’s what makes it funny. To suggest Colbert is saying “The world is more liberal than conservative” is to rob the joke of its whole conceit. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/82 "2019-03-07T15:19:52Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Okay, I suppose if you insist that you are able to tell the turn of the die better than the bettor next to you, who am I to argue? Arguing with gamblers never gets anywhere. > > If you are better at evaluating risk, then you didn’t take risks. If you took risks, it means that there was a chance that you could fail. If there is a chance that you could fail, then there is someone who did the same thing that you did, but failed. If there was no chance that you could fail, then you certainly had some favors going for you, didn’t you? WTF are you talking about? Being good at evaluating risks doesn’t mean that one isn’t taking any risks, it just means that they’re good at evaluating which ones are and aren’t a good idea. Each risk really has three components- what you stand to gain, what you stand to lose, and how likely you are to win/lose. How someone is able to evaluate those things means that they may be better than usual at determining if something’s a good risk. Take poker, for example. Someone with better skill at reading people may be able to better determine whether or not to fold or when to call, etc… That’s a form of being able to evaluate risk, in the context of a poker hand. And some people ARE good at that kind of thing- look at Warren Buffett. He’s clearly got some kind of intuitive mojo going on that lets him evaluate investment risk better than the average investor. And I have to disagree with you about the value of work. How hard you work is immaterial- it’s what you produce that counts. If we have two bakers, and one consistently produces dried out bread, or bread that doesn’t rise well, or is too salty, it doesn’t matter one whit how hard they try- their bread sucks, and if anyone wants it, they won’t want it for the same price as good bread. Meanwhile, we have another guy who for whatever reason, is a natural baker. He makes perfect bread every time, and can do it easily and without excess effort. He’ll be able to make more of the better bread AND sell it for more than your average bread, much less the first baker’s crap. He’ll come out far ahead of the first guy monetarily. So why should he owe that first guy anything? He’s literally better at his job than the first guy, and takes advantage of that. Or in a more extreme example, I can go out and spend an immense amount of effort at batting practice, and still suck at baseball. Why should Aaron Judge owe me anything because he’s better at baseball than I am? You seem to be implying that being better at something is always the result of outside influence or ill-begotten advantages or something like that. That’s the sour-grapes attitude I was talking about upthread. You’ve done nothing but alienate Omar Little by implying that everything he has earned is undeserved, and that he’s a bastard for not willingly paying out an even more significant percentage of his income when there are others who don’t make as much. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/83 "2019-03-07T15:45:45Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > But sometimes–dare I say even most of the times–the truth is alienating. > > A lot of Millennials are sick and tired of being lectured to by self-righteous Boomers on the virtues of hard work and making the right “choices”. They say stuff like “Why, when I was your age, I already owned my own my home! And here you are, living with roommates and dicking around in low-wage jobs like a loser!” > > These Boomers don’t like to be reminded of how cheap college tuition was for them. They get defensive when they are reminded that homes in the 1970s were affordable even for the minimum wage earner, while that is not the case now. They feel bad when they are reminded that they were able to get a job right out of college, but now a college degree has the same gravitas as a high school diploma. In a word, they feel “alienated” when their kids remind them that they had got breaks. Perhaps if these people don’t want to deal with alienation, they need to stop being so judgy of others less fortunate than them. You know, as a Gen-Xer, I get kind of sick of listening to both Millennials and Baby Boomers. I feel like my generation had the misfortune of being born at the intersections of two very different economic realities. When I attend college alumni events, they always have some guest speaker, usually the CEO of some company or other successful person. Their speech usually follows a theme of "I partied too hard in college and had to take basic Econ 3 times so my father punished me by working for [some other famous alumni]'s…yada yada yada…now I’m CEO of Megaglobal Investment Bank. That seems to be the theme for people 5-10 years older than me. Graduate college (often with some bullshit major), fall into some job through some fraternity brother, football teammate, family member, just because companies hired people out of college, 30+ years later cruising along in their SVP / C-level jobs waiting to retire. Everyone 5-10 years younger studied to be full-stack devops agile cloud engineers so they can bop around different tech startups every 6 to 18 months, playing fooseball, eating free snacks and working in open plan offices. So for me, I missed out on the opportunity to land some dumb corporate job to grind out for 40 years while I have a normal life and raise a family while simultaneously being one of the oldest guy in a room full of socially awkward dorks who spent their childhood learning 15 different coding platforms. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/84 "2019-03-07T15:45:59Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Top 1% of earners in the US pay approx. 37% of total taxes collected in the US. > Top 10% of earners in the US pay approx. 70% of total taxes collected in the US. > > What level of tax burden should be born by this group? Closer to 80%? 90%? > > Please tell me what sort of favors I received, since you are all knowing. If we have a wealth gap that seems to be ratcheting in one direction, and if we have the moral hazard of tax breaks for billionaires, and this leading to new deficits, leading to arguments that the crisis of this deficit requires more ratcheting back, what do you think? It’s not my call. It’s societies, and the voters. We are anonymous here and I just can’t take seriously someone who reports that their accumulation of wealth was devoid of favors, loopholes, and accidents. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/85 "2019-03-07T16:16:18Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > That’s a victim mentality if I ever heard one. You must have never heard one, as that is nothing like a victim mentality. To acknowledge reality, and not even to complain about one’s own circumstances in that reality, but only to acknowledge that those circumstances exist is nothing like a victim mentality. > [@bump](#): > > WTF are you talking about? Being good at evaluating risks doesn’t mean that one isn’t taking any risks, it just means that they’re good at evaluating which ones are and aren’t a good idea. Each risk really has three components- what you stand to gain, what you stand to lose, and how likely you are to win/lose. How someone is able to evaluate those things means that they may be better than usual at determining if something’s a good risk. Take poker, for example. Someone with better skill at reading people may be able to better determine whether or not to fold or when to call, etc… That’s a form of being able to evaluate risk, in the context of a poker hand. And I’ve seen some really good poker players get wiped out. Being able to evaluate risk does not mean being immune to them. However, Omar Little responded to the question of what about people who took the same risks and did not get as good a result, he replied with claiming ath he is better at evaluating the risk. That either means nothing at all, or it means that he was immune to the risk. Can you ask him WTF he is talking about, then get back to me? > [@](#): > > And some people ARE good at that kind of thing- look at Warren Buffett. He’s clearly got some kind of intuitive mojo going on that lets him evaluate investment risk better than the average investor. [Even he admits that much of his fortune was built on some lucky breaks. > [@](#): > > ]([https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/30/a-birthday-message-from-lucky-warren-buffett.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/30/a-birthday-message-from-lucky-warren-buffett.html)) > And I have to disagree with you about the value of work. How hard you work is immaterial- it’s what you produce that counts. then you are disagreeing with Omar Little then, not me, as he is the one that said that he got where he was due to hard work, and I was the one who said that hard work is not enough. > [@](#): > > If we have two bakers, and one consistently produces dried out bread, or bread that doesn’t rise well, or is too salty, it doesn’t matter one whit how hard they try- their bread sucks, and if anyone wants it, they won’t want it for the same price as good bread. Meanwhile, we have another guy who for whatever reason, is a natural baker. He makes perfect bread every time, and can do it easily and without excess effort. He’ll be able to make more of the better bread AND sell it for more than your average bread, much less the first baker’s crap. He’ll come out far ahead of the first guy monetarily. This example is pretty random, and doesn’t seem to relate to anything that i’ve said at all. Can you explain how this is relevant? It is also a very unrealistic and ad hoc attempt at using fantasy to argue against reality. Can you give me a reason why the one baker is terrible and the other is great? Is it a lack of knowledge and training? Is it improper or malfunctioning equipment? What advantages does the second baker have over the first, that prevents the first from being able to make an acceptable product? > [@](#): > > So why should he owe that first guy anything? He’s literally better at his job than the first guy, and takes advantage of that. who said that he owes the first guy anything? Now, does he owe back to society for giving him the opportunity to engage in a lucrative gluten based trade? Yes. Does society owe something to the citizens that it has not properly equipped to be properly productive and engaged members? IMHO, yes, but I take it from your statements, you feel differently. > [@](#): > > Or in a more extreme example, I can go out and spend an immense amount of effort at batting practice, and still suck at baseball. Why should Aaron Judge owe me anything because he’s better at baseball than I am? No reason at all, but there is a farmer out there that is going to be sending you a bill, and saying that you owe him for an entire shipment of straw. > [@](#): > > You seem to be implying that being better at something is always the result of outside influence or ill-begotten advantages or something like that. Can you actually quote where I said that, or can you only claim that, from your perspective, that I am lying when I disagree that that is the implication that I am making. That is not what I said, or related to anything that I’ve said. > [@](#): > > That’s the sour-grapes attitude I was talking about upthread. You’ve done nothing but alienate Omar Little by implying that everything he has earned is undeserved, Quote me where I said that, or retract that statement. Don’t just say “It seems to me that you implied this”, actually quote where I said it. That is not what I said, that’s not where I’m coming from, and your accusations are without any merit or validity whatsoever. > [@](#): > > and that he’s a bastard Once again, quote or retract. > [@](#): > > for not willingly paying out an even more significant percentage of his income when there are others who don’t make as much. All you have proven here is that you can say “you seem to be implying”, then level accusations that have no basis in reality, but only in your own motivated reasoning. If you have a question as to what you think I am implying, then go ahead and ask. Accusing me of such, when I have specifically said that that is not where I am coming from, is looking for a fight to win, not a discussion to engage in. If you do not retract your weasley “implying” nonsense, then this is the last engagement I have with you, as it will then be obvious that you are not here for a discussion, but just desire to pick a fight I have no desire to have. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/86 "2019-03-07T16:20:07Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Why do you assume that? > > My parents aren’t wealthy, nor were my grandparents, but I am. There was no rigging the system. I worked my ass off in school. Obtained scholarships and grants to get a college education. Obtained a great job out of college based upon my academic and leadership qualifications that I developed in school. Worked my ass off at my first job and continued to do so, took risks with different opportunities, succeeded based upon my qualifications. Invested my earnings well. I make seven figures a year. I pay more taxes than 99% of the other taxpayers in this country, which I’m okay with, because I pay my fair share. Yet there is a growing number of people in this country that believe I should pay even more. ? So what? You also make more money than 99% of taxpayers in this country. Really there is nothing more insufferable than wealthy people rambling on about how hard they had it growing up, how they worked so hard and made all the right choices. What’s the moral of this story? You worked so hard and did everything yourself so you don’t want your tax dollars going to pay for things like roads and schools and police? > [@puddleglum](#): > > The wealthy and the non wealthy are living in the same society. If the society is the same for both then that must mean there is something different about the wealthy and non wealthy and that wealth is not just a product of society. That is not true in any meaningful way. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/87 "2019-03-07T16:31:00Z")
The Right elected Donald J. Trump as the President of the United States. How can there be a question that reality leans Left? It sure doesn’t lean Right. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/88 "2019-03-07T16:55:50Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > That’s a victim mentality if I ever heard one. If the belief that improvements can be made that will enable better outcomes for everyone is a “victim mentality,” then someone would have to believe everything is perfect to not be a victim. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/89 "2019-03-07T16:59:01Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Okay, I suppose if you insist that you are able to tell the turn of the die better than the bettor next to you, who am I to argue? Arguing with gamblers never gets anywhere. > > If you are better at evaluating risk, then you didn’t take risks. If you took risks, it means that there was a chance that you could fail. If there is a chance that you could fail, then there is someone who did the same thing that you did, but failed. If there was no chance that you could fail, then you certainly had some favors going for you, didn’t you? You clearly no very little about business and how they operate. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Well, earlier you were saying that you deserved what you had because of your hard work, now you are saying that you deserve it because of the position that you found yourself in. As long as you realize that your criticisms of others not working as hard, or taking risks, or being ambitious are negated, then sure, now you deserve more because you are in a position to be more valuable. No, I said that I worked hard to get the opportunities that have been presented to me. I never said I was paid or am paid solely for hard work. I know it’s difficult to parse other people’s statements when you are already biased, but please try. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > This is not true. Not at all. There are many who do not create any value, and yet earn tons of money, and there are those who create quite a bit of value, and have no rewards. It is not as automatic a system as you seem to think it is. > > So, what benefits did you have that put you in a position to be so valuable to your employer? Why would 100,000 other people not be able to provide the same value? Hard to break it to you, but the system normally works like I described. If you don’t create value, you either get fired or you get demoted. Otherwise the companies eventually go out of business, then everyone loses. Are there exceptions, yes. Does the media focus on the exception, yes. Are the exceptions the norm, no. I know, it’s a better story, to believe that there are lots of people that got favors, ill gotten gains, and that the system is rigged where only the silver spoons find their way to the top, but that narrative doesn’t ring true across most of corporate America. I know too many people like myself, that come from humble beginnings and made their way up the ladder. Mainly because they are smarter than most other people. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > And yet, what you have left over is still more income than most americans. Deservedly so. We are not a communist society, or a socialist society. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am asking you to do your part in funding the society that has rewarded you so richly. Why do you think that I am not doing my part currently? As noted, I pay a significant amount more in absolute $ and % than most Americans. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > The greatest economic gains were achieved while we had over a 70% marginal tax rate. Now that it is barely half of that, you want to complain about what you are missing out on. Instead of parroting what you hear AOC spout, you should do a bit of your own research. The period of 1991 to 2001 was the period of greatest economic expansion. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/90 "2019-03-07T16:59:28Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And I’ve seen some really good poker players get wiped out. Being able to evaluate risk does not mean being immune to them. However, Omar Little responded to the question of what about people who took the same risks and did not get as good a result, he replied with claiming ath he is better at evaluating the risk. That either means nothing at all, or it means that he was immune to the risk. > > Can you ask him WTF he is talking about, then get back to me? > > [URL=“[https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/30/a-birthday-message-from-lucky-warren-buffett.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/30/a-birthday-message-from-lucky-warren-buffett.html)”]Even he admits that much of his fortune was built on some lucky breaks. Luck is part of taking risks- even if you’re good at evaluating whether something is a “good” risk or not, there’s still that element of chance. Ultimately though, people have an obligation to pay their taxes. And it’s not unreasonable for anyone to not want to pay more, regardless of how wealthy they are. How they got that wealth is immaterial- a person who wins the 400 million lottery this week has no \*more \*obligation than someone who does it via hard work and/or natural talent. Warren Buffett and Mark Cuban are both billionaires, but one of them mostly did it the hard way, while the other had one colossal windfall and has built from there. But Cuban’s no more obligated (and no less) than Buffett just because he managed to sell his company at the absolute most perfect moment. And Buffett is no more deserving than Cuban either. Yet the constant refrain around here has to do with the origin of wealth as some sort of indicator that they are obligated to basically give up their wealth for others. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > then you are disagreeing with Omar Little then, not me, as he is the one that said that he got where he was due to hard work, and I was the one who said that hard work is not enough. I think I’m disagreeing with both of you- the amount of work you put in doesn’t really matter one way or the other- it doesn’t obligate anyone or prove any worthiness or anything like that. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Can you actually quote where I said that, or can you only claim that, from your perspective, that I am lying when I disagree that that is the implication that I am making. What I’m trying to get at is that you, and others keep essentially saying that Omar’s high income is due to things outside his control, and downplaying the aspects that are within his control. And the implication that I’m reading from that is that he’s somehow undeserving and especially obligated to pay back. But we can’t say that every wealthy person built their fortune unethically or illegally or through aspects out of their control. Some did do it through hard work, and probably a little luck. But everyone has good breaks and bad breaks- nobody’s a total sad sack where literally everything goes wrong. Taking advantage of those good breaks is a good thing, not something that they should be castigated for, or resented for. It’s like people think this is a system with a particularly limited amount of money and that one person making any amount of money above the average incontrovertibly means that it came out of other people’s pockets, especially the poor. Or that the fact that people can take risks, and some win and others lose is somehow unfair or inequitable. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/91 "2019-03-07T17:03:54Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > You worked so hard and did everything yourself so you don’t want your tax dollars going to pay for things like roads and schools and police? Wow, talk about insufferable people jumping to conclusions. What a waste of my time even interacting with you. You don’t know me, you don’t know my view on where tax money should be spent but you are oh so quick to label me and dump me in your predisposed view of what conservatives must think. You need to get out more and meet real people, instead of sitting behind your computer. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/92 "2019-03-07T17:14:23Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > To vastly oversimplify, they’re based on the idea that the system as it currently exists does not offer enough potential for more people like you to succeed, and penalizes people whose ambitions are set back by circumstances beyond their control. You claim that the system penalizes people. That assumes that these people are **victims** of the system. And that they have **no control** over the circumstances around them. If that’s not a statement on victimhood, please clarify. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/93 "2019-03-07T17:48:17Z")
> [@Haldurson](#): > > There are a lot of different conservative beliefs and ideals, and a lot of different liberal beliefs and ideals. and not all people who identify as one or the other will hold with every single one of them. So there is a danger about making gross generalizations, but here goes. In general, conservatism is about resisting change, about either slowing change, keeping things as they are, or (in the extreme), yearning for days past (egs. Reactionaries, Neonazis, and White supremacists . The left is the opposite of that, where they don’t see the past as all rosy, they see flaws in current systems, and they want to reform or change them. In the most extreme case, they may want to wipe out everything and start with a clean slate (egs. anarchists, and revolutionaries). > > All that said, the one absolute is change. Not everything changes equally, and not everything changes at the same time. And some changes are fast, some are slow. There’s changes to the environment, to religious views, to moral views, to morees, to culture, to technology. And this happens both globally and locally, and everywhere in between. > > Some changes should be resisted. I’d be very unhappy if in 30 years, my community was under water. I’d be very unhappy if my home, the US that is, fell behind economically because it couldn’t educate it’s masses to be able to deal with changes to technology and the economic consequences. I’d be very unhappy if changes to our society meant that my life would be in increased danger by virtue of the increasing acceptance of white nationalism and antisemitism in my country. That’s the kind of change that I want to resist. Ironically, that makes me a liberal. So as I said, broad statements like the above are dangerous. > > But back to the OP, the reason why I see reality as having a liberal bias is that change is inevitable, and if you don’t react by changing yourself, you are not dealing with reality. You don’t HAVE to deal with everything. But you can’t put the genie back in the bottle either. So the more people decide to stand up for themselves (And the more those people standing up for themselves are not part of the entrenched power structure of the US), the more we have to adapt. And that is a decidedly liberal standpoint. This is not true, what conservatives want to conserve is not the way things currently are or were a couple years ago, but the principles of free market capitalism and limited government. The principles which in just a few hundred years has transformed the world for the better and made people living now, the richest in the entire history of the world. We understand that the current prosperity is more precarious than people think. Countries can change and go backwards. Russia accounted for one third of the global wheat trade before WW1 and then lost 20 million people in a famine in the 20s. Venezuela was the richest country in South America and now the population is leaving or starving. Argentina went from the 10 richest country in the world to now the 90th. The American economy could stagnate too if we do the wrong things. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/94 "2019-03-07T17:49:55Z")
Hey Omar, like you, I made my life. I do quite well. I worked my ass off for it. If you don’t see that the wealthy and connected don’t get a pass because of their privileged position, there is probably no way to cure your blindness. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/95 "2019-03-07T18:12:10Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > You clearly no very little about business and how they operate. Actually I do. I know some business owners that did everything right, and still failed, and I know some business owners who did everything wrong, and still managed to turn a profit. Most are somewhere in between. You obviously, have no idea what the word “risk” means. > [@](#): > > No, I said that I worked hard to get the opportunities that have been presented to me. I never said I was paid or am paid solely for hard work. I know it’s difficult to parse other people’s statements when you are already biased, but please try. and that is what I said, that you said that you worked hard to get where you are. I know that it is hard to parse other’s statements when you are already biased, but I don’t really give a shit if you try. > [@](#): > > Hard to break it to you, but the system normally works like I described. If you don’t create value, you either get fired or you get demoted. Otherwise the companies eventually go out of business, then everyone loses. Are there exceptions, yes. Does the media focus on the exception, yes. Are the exceptions the norm, no. It tend in that direction, but to call it an absolute, as you did previously, is what your error is. The exceptions are the exceptions to the average, true, but they are not really all that rare. > [@](#): > > I know, it’s a better story, to believe that there are lots of people that got favors, ill gotten gains, and that the system is rigged where only the silver spoons find their way to the top, but that narrative doesn’t ring true across most of corporate America. I know too many people like myself, that come from humble beginnings and made their way up the ladder. Mainly because they are smarter than most other people. And it is a better story for you to rail against someone you can pretend made the claims that you are making here, but that narrative doesn’t ring true to the actual words that have been used in this thread. But good that you got to get a humble brag about how much smarter you are than other people. > [@](#): > > Deservedly so. We are not a communist society, or a socialist society. I didn’t say it was not deserved. But, sure, we are not a _socialist_ society, but we certainly do have some social programs. Which of those were you talking about cutting again? I must have missed it when you answered. > [@](#): > > Why do you think that I am not doing my part currently? As noted, I pay a significant amount more in absolute $ and % than most Americans. Why do you think that I think that you are not doing your part currently? It is not something that I said. As long as you are paying the taxes that society asks you to legally pay, you are doing the part society asks of you. Now, I did say that there could be a debate as to whether society may ask more of you in the future, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate in it and have the chance to make their fortunate as you have, but that is not the same as what you have accused me of in your reactionary defensiveness of any criticism. Now, if you complain about society taking so much from you, how is that _not_ the same victim mentality that you were whining about earlier? > [@](#): > > Instead of parroting what you hear AOC spout, you should do a bit of your own research. The period of 1991 to 2001 was the period of greatest economic expansion. Not parroting anything at all, but I suppose it gives you satisfaction to spit that accusation out, now doesn’t it? Depends on how you measure. By measuring the increase in yearly GDP, there are more years, on average for any given 10 years span between 1950 and 1975 that are higher than the years on average from 1991 to 2001. How are you measuring? > [@bump](#): > > you, and others keep essentially saying that Nice weasel word change up. From “You seem to be implying” to “you are essentially saying”, and then just making stuff up from there. Let me give it a try: What you are essentially implying is if someone was not able to make it into the 1%, it is because they are stupid and lazy, and deserve to die of starvation and exposure. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/96 "2019-03-07T18:14:20Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Wow, talk about insufferable people jumping to conclusions. What a waste of my time even interacting with you. You don’t know me, you don’t know my view on where tax money should be spent but you are oh so quick to label me and dump me in your predisposed view of what conservatives must think. You need to get out more and meet real people, instead of sitting behind your computer. No, I don’t know specifically how you want your tax dollars allocated, but I know what I read from your posts and (to varying degrees) I know plenty of the type (both “real people” and “behind the computer”). The entire tone of all your posts is “I built my fortune all by myself with no ones help and no one should ask me to give back.” And whenever I hear people saying stuff that sounds like that, I feel like the implication is that anyone else could do the same, provided they just get off their ass and put enough effort into it. Or am I misinterpreting? > [@bump](#): > > I guess where I have a problem is with the “unfair” part. That wealthy guy may well have done all the right things, and so may have his parents, grandparents and great grandparents. > > Why is that somehow unfair to some person who didn’t do the right things, and neither did their ancestors? Why should they deserve a piece of the other guy’s pie? I don’t think it’s a matter of “fairness”. I think it’s more a matter of figuring out how to create the right balance between rewarding things like hard work, creativity, entrepreneurship and general excellence, providing adequate infrastructure and services so those opportunities are available for those who want them and providing adequate safety nets so that people who suffer temporary or even permanent misfortune have some recourse besides starving in the street. The reality is that very few of us are eking out a fortune by venturing off into the wilderness with nothing but an ax and the sweat of our brow. We live in a complex system where our ability to be successful is dependent on building the necessary skills, experiences and contacts. And even then, what drives “success” is often not based on what is good for “society” or the “community”, but on what is good for enabling those who control large supplies of capital to earn more capital. To use an extreme example, Jeff Bezos is the wealthiest man alive. Why was he getting $3 billion in subsidies to build a headquarters in New York? ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/97 "2019-03-07T18:42:47Z")
**Omar Little** , I dont think anyone doubts that you didn’t work hard for what you’ve got, but many of us believe that hard work and determination are not all that is needed to succeed. Let me tell you the story of two accountants. Both were experts in their field, hard workers and valued by their employers equally. They even had the same employer; Arthur Andersen. Larry joined the company in the 60’s was soon considered a top performer and worked his way up to senior partner and retired with an investment portfolio that made others swoon. Chris joined the firm in the 90’s and was on his way to becoming a partner at a speed that amazed his fellow workers. And I’m sure you can see where this is going. Andersen went belly up. Chris’s 401k was gone, and the stigma of the company made it hard for him to get work right away and so he went through his savings. He was able to get back on his feet, but by then he was almost 40. Two people with the same skills, the same value, and even the same employer ended up with two very different stories. Luck and circumstance often play a bigger role than hard work and perceived value. Let me throw some stats at ya: -less than 6% of Americans are considered wealthy (have assets of more than $2.4 mil) that number drops to less than 1% world wide. That means that only 1 in 13 had the wherewithal to “make it.” I find it hard to believe that those other 12 standing next to you worked less hard than you. Luck and circumstance had alot to do with it. For some, it doesn’t matter how hard they work (or how well, or whatever metric you use) they will never be wealthy. -In the US, that same 6% own over 2/3 of the wealth (worldwide: .7% own over 40%) -In US 13% live at or below the poverty line and another 13% live just above. And in some countries that number is close to 80%. Maybe you feel different but those numbers, to me, indicate an obligation of the wealthy to pay more than their fair share of taxes since they have more than their fair share of the wealth. In pure numbers, as you indicate, you (and those like you) pay more taxes than the average taxpayer; but you pay the same **percentage** of your wealth even tho you have a larger percentage of the wealth available. And you (and those like you) also pay the lion’s share of the total pot of taxes, but just a 1% increase in your taxes would equal a 10% increase in the total collected which would be significant. It’s not about winners and losers, or even victors and victims. It’s about luck and obligation. mc ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/98 "2019-03-07T18:50:57Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > You claim that the system penalizes people. That assumes that these people are **victims** of the system. And that they have **no control** over the circumstances around them. > > If that’s not a statement on victimhood, please clarify. I see where you’re coming from. I wrote “the system as it currently exists does not offer enough potential for more people like you to succeed, and penalizes people whose ambitions are set back by circumstances beyond their control.” “System” and “penalize” make it sound like there’s evil intent involved, and that’s not what I intended. I should probably have said “environment” and “hinders” instead: The socioeconomic environment, as currently constituted in the U.S., does not offer enough potential for more people like you to succeed, and hinders people whose ambitions are set back by circumstances beyond their control. This does \*\*not \*\*mean that people have no control over their circumstances, but it acknowledges that there are circumstances people can’t control, and that those circumstances may not apply equally to all people. If you still see victimhood in that statement, than anyone who gets wet in the rain is a victim of precipitation. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/99 "2019-03-07T19:33:01Z")
Trump donated (improperly from his foundation) $25,000 to Pam Bondi’s (Florida DA) re-election campaign. Not surprisingly, Bondi drops idea of investigating Trump ‘University’ fraud. Was it legal to donate? Sure. Is it fishy as hell, you bet. Just an example of how those who ‘have’ get away with crime. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442/100 "2019-03-07T19:50:31Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I think it’s more a matter of figuring out how to create the right balance between rewarding things like hard work, creativity, entrepreneurship and general excellence, providing adequate infrastructure and services so those opportunities are available for those who want them and providing adequate safety nets so that people who suffer temporary or even permanent misfortune have some recourse besides starving in the street. > > \ > > To use an extreme example, Jeff Bezos is the wealthiest man alive. Why was he getting $3 billion in subsidies to build a headquarters in New York? Do you have a cite for how many people in the US actually starve to death in the street? Or is this just hyperbole. I guess that’s all I can expect from the guy that thinks China is a \*\*just a bit \*\*closer to communism than western democracy. :rolleyes: And wrt Jeff Bezos, he personally wasn’t getting a $3 billion subsidy, it was Amazon. And to answer your question, it was so that NYC could entice Amazon to put its headquarters there. Amazon has many choices where it employs its people. Having a large employer in your city is good for your city’s economy. The benefits that would have accrued to NYC for having HQ2 there would have exceeded the $3 billion. Now NYC is going to miss out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality-leans-left/830442.md?page=6)