Yah, the defense budget came in at about 686 billion. How about we trim 2 billion of that to fund cash for clunkers, which could reduce our need for military by about $500 billion.
No. I don’t want you work a crappy dangerous job. You’ve chosen that for yourself. I’m sorry you’re in the Navy and you can’t quit it like civilians can quit their jobs, but being bitter about it isn’t going to help anything.
Oh yeah, substitute “healthcare” for “fire fighters” and it sounds ridiculous. But what’s the difference, really? Just as you don’t hold it against people who haven’t paid enough taxes to pay for the fire fighters who helped them, why choose to hold it against people who are too poor to pay for healthcare?
I think most reasonable people would agree that the entrepreneur contributes more than any single employee, assuming that he or she remains constructively engaged in the enterprise. But I wouldn’t agree that the bottom level people contribute so little as you are suggesting, nor that their wages justly reflect the importance of their contribution, even if the market forces say they do. As you say further on in your post, grinding, wretched poverty is a default condition, a fact helped along by the exploding supply of cheap laborers who keep the factories of Asia humming. This is the end price of labor, one which may be correct in terms of market conditions, but not one which the average American or European is willing to accept.
Leaving aside the implication that another default condition, especially of poor humanity is dishonesty, I dispute the notion that wage workers lack the motivation to work. But to them the job is just a job. I wouldn’t expect a dishwasher or cashier to have the same passion for the restaurant as the owner does, but it doesn’t mean they’re necessarily prone to laziness or dishonesty.
I don’t follow. What does being bigger and stronger than average have the first thing to do with finance, business or accounting? And what exactly was it that you were supposed to be “outperforming” MBAs and CPAs in?
If the market says that is what their contribution is worth, that is what it is worth. If teir labor was worth more, they could market themselves to another employer for a higher salary, which people do.
That’s the reason an engineer makes more than a dishwasher. First of all if engineering paid the same as dishwasher or a greeter in Walmart, people wouldn’t bother with engineering school. And second, generally as you gain experience in a company (in a skilled position) you are able to contribute more, given positions with more responsibility and your salary goes up.
That’s because we are spoiled here in the US. We believe that simply by virtue of being born in the US we should have a certain standard of living. That’s pretty much the definition of “entitlement”.
Der Trihs? Any reply to this excellent post?
Let me just add that I’ve worked with all levels of employees in all levels of jobs from the lowest fast food restaurant to the largest Fortune 500 companies and most prestigeous management consulting firms. While there are good and bad poor and rich employees, the one thing that always sets who will be successful apart from who will stagnate in their job is ‘ambition’. Those people who care about their career work at it. They get promoted. They leave jobs for better ones. They seek out new opportunities.
People without ambition tend to do the bare minimum. They bitch and complain about the boss and the company. And they often just sit at the same job for years or even decades wondering when someone is going to hand them a big raise or promotion.
Hardly anything, except maybe in small towns.
The overall point is that I’m doing quite well now, but that it wasn’t handed to me. I didn’t waste too much time bemoaning my troubles but instead kept working and found a path to success, much like the ‘conservative’ posters. Yet I didn’t come to share what I consider a condescending and even contemptuous attitude toward the poor that I seem to find in a lot of business types.
The story dates back to college. It is not too relevant now, except to my rags-to-assets credentials.
I think that most conservative-type business people that you think are contemptuous of the poor are actually contemptuous of the no-ambition whiners that msmith### was just talking about.
For example the people who mindlessly whine about all government help after getting government funding for their education, instead of paying for it themselves.
:rolleyes: So I guess you are just going to follow me from thread to thread bringing that up? That’s really sad.
I already explained my views on why that doesn’t make me a hypocrite, and I said I would provide a fuller answer to your “argument” if you actually set out the argument. You only posted a definition plus an assertion, which does not add up to an argument. You must not have the ability to actually structure an argument or you would have done so by now.
I see. So it is this quality known as “ambition” that is the defining aspect, that which seperates the worthy from the damned. So, this ambition thing is ennobling, is it? A reliable indicator of moral worth, then? Pretty much always a positive influence on one’s personality?
Yours is a faith wondrous to behold.
Who’s said anything about the “worthy” and the “damned” in this thread but you and the other liberals?
This just shows liberals’ childish view of the world. You don’t see the work, you just see the result, so you think that rich people just got there through some happenstance and that to not share their bounty with those that weren’t so lucky is unfair.
Or maybe I just feel your hypocrisy is self evident, and I have more productive uses of my time, such as masturbation.
In other words who wouldn’t find someone who built his life around an education acquired with government grants, but is against people having help from the government, to be a hypocrite? Government money was okay for you, but it’s not for them? What makes you different then the guy who needs help funding his cancer treatment? How you going to take the money then tell someone else “sorry fuck you”?
On the other hand, a lot of those who are doing “quite well” did get it handed to them. Look at all the rich kids who attended Ivy League Brand Name University straight out of Name Brand Prep School.
You don’t mind if I try and answer you again, do you? These questions touch on some very personal details for me which I don’t think I’m comfortable sharing on this forum- at least until I know more about what SDMB is about. I think I can do a little better though.
I don’t know you, so you shouldn’t take this personally.
My point in bringing this up is to posit that I have some personal advantages. Being bigger and stronger than most other people has really come in handy. I never seem to get sick (knock on wood), and so do not carry the burden of any of a long list of conditions that would make my current life impossible. In the context of business-types (is that acceptable language?), I am acknowledging that I have to give luck some credit for my advantages. I could just as easily have been born a sickly person.
I could have ignored my advantages and focused on something else. Who knows, maybe I could have undermined them. But I didn’t, so I can also take some personal credit for using my advantages.
From my personal experiences, and my interpretation of the gist of some of the comments on the board, I get a sense of supremacy out of a lot of business-types. Their moral virtue renders them superior to the poor- their success proves it! Being both smarter (they chose to study business) and more moral (by being motivated) than the poor, they are entitled to judge what the poor deserve. Heck, consign some of them to horrible fates, they are lazy, immoral, and not very bright!
It seems my attributing my advantages partly to luck or otherwise external forces wholly beyond my control prevents this attitude of supremacy in me. And I’m in the same place considering my use of motivation. When I was poor, I was me, now I’m doing just fine thanks, and I’m still me. It’d be hypocritical to demonize poor people.
Could you link to some posts displaying the attitude you believe many posters here have about the poor? BTW, no one that says what you said ever follows up by linking to actual posts.
No I suppose you are right. It’s much better to have no goals and no desires. To go through life achieving nothing, acomplishing nothing. Do the bare minimum asked of you just to get people off your back.
And during your life of mediocrity and stagnation, you can point your finger at those who do achieve success and wealth and claim that they did so through dishonest or corrupt means or at best luck and nepotism. And with your moral superiority you can then lay claim to their wealth and good fortune.
Try2B Comprehensive - No one is “demonizing” poor people. We are critical of mooches like **elucidator **and Der Trihs who think they are owed something. I’m not against social safety nets or providing a helping hand to those with drive and talent. What I am against is this nothing that The poor have a right to feed of the successful without their consent. Where I come from, forcing people to provide for you against their will is called slavery.
I don’t know what you mean by “business types”. People aren’t born with MBAs and CPAs. They have to work for them. Am I supposed to feel bad because I went to business school while some idiot decided to study some bullshit major?
Yeah, well, look at all the kids attending elite colleges who weren’t born to wealthy families. It’s very easy to point your finger at the privilaged few and use that as an excuse for your own failings.
One of the advantages of being born to a wealthy or upper-middle class family is that they tend to place a high value on education and hard work. Their children are taught that they deserve respect and success and if they work hard they can achieve it. Children from many poor families are not taught that. They taught that the system is against them so they never learn how to use the system to their benefit.
I am reminded of a recent President who fully met these requirements. He pushed thru tax cuts while lying us into an expensive war that has benefited few but investors in arms manufacture and private contractors (thru unbid contracts) which, incidentally, our children’s children will be paying for. Why shouldn’t those who benefited pay more than those who simply lost.
Oh, please. These “poor” kids are among the very brightest and motivated of the general population, our present POTUS for example. Indeed, if intelligence, scholarly discipline and work ethic were the sole entry requirements, it safe to say that we would have been spared our previous Presidency.
Need I repeat myself? This is the man who laughingly referred to his “real (political) base” as a coalition of the “the haves and the have-mores”.
Yes?
Ah, the art of the excluded middle!
Did I say a nation of good-for-nothing layabouts was a desirable and worthy goal? Well, not exactly, no. I did, however, question your unexamined dogma that ambition was wholly noble and worthy, the characteristic most to be admired.
Was Bernie Madoof “ambitious”? I daresay. What about the legions of bright MBA’s who recently drove our financial system of a cliff, ruining the life savings of untold numbers of their fellow citizens? Of course, it must be admitted that had those hapless victims been blessed with the good sense and driving ambition of their betters, they might have been amongst the happy band of brothers who looted, rather than those who were looted.
So, a modest suggestion, if I may? Perhaps this quality of ambition is not necessarily a Good Thing, invariably and without fail? Perhaps it is even a bad thing, given the results that so often apall us? A suggestion, only, that one of the central dogma of your capitalist catechism might not, actually, be true.
Picking apart a word like “ambitious” does not help this debate.
Is “love” an admirable trait? What if somebody "loves decapitating babies’ heads? I guess “love” isn’t so noble after all is it? How could “love” be a Good Thing if it leads to decapitating babies?!?!
The point is that when sane people are speaking of “ambitious”, it should already be understood in context that they are talking about it in a positive way. Most people use ambition in a positive way and they help make the world a better place.