Slashdot Mirror
Why You Are Not On Any Forbes Lists of Rich People
Mike writes "Ever wondered why, no matter how hard you work, you are not getting any further towards getting on one of those Forbes Billionaire lists? Mike Cassidy at Mercury Center has the answer to why you are not on any Forbes lists via a Q & A he has prepared for all us working stiffs."
The sad thing about America is that we hammer our kids during their formative years with the message that all the wrong things matter. We tell them that succeeding in a narccisitic power game is the most important thing or even the only thing. It's a lie, and it screws everyone over, expecially the weaker kids who believe the lie and who can't afford to be distracted from the hard work of finding their potential. If we focused our educational system on teaching kids how to be fully potentialized human beings and didn't concern ourselves with their value to the capitalist machine (at least during their formative years), they would have a chance to reach their full potential and it would likely have value to society (even unsuccessful artists add to a society). Instead, we churn out generations of cripples, simpletons capable only of consumerism or narrow minded capitalist pursuits, and as this mass grows, they in turn pass on the lie to their own children since it is all they know.
Sure, some money is needed. There are basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) to be met. There are medical bills. There is the cost of education. There is the need to save for retirement. There is the want to support your hobbies and interest and to have time for your family. But we need to put this into perspective. First of all, even in America where everything is becoming privatized and expensive, you don't have to be rich to achieve these goals. But if all you know is consumerism=happiness, then you are going to need a ton of money to be happy expecially since you get more and more jaded with every toy you buy (diminishing returns). A non-consumerism-addicted human who has emerged from their formative years undamaged will be able to enjoy life at a much smaller cost. Second of all, if we were able to start reversing the course of this problem and head back towards sanity (perhaps starting with a stock market crash), eventually we might be able to shift the emphasis of our government towards providing a real safety net, where everyone is truly able stay above the poverty line, to get a good education, enjoy medical benefits, and a reasonable retirement.
The emptiness of our society right now is very disturbing to me. We eat our own. Adult foreigners come here to play and make money but raise their kids elsewhere. The elite don't make use of our public schools and universities. It should be clear to all that true quality of life for the majority of americans is headed into the gutter. But this isn't an oft discussed topic these days while stock prices are high.
This isn't a reply to the parent message, but instead a reply to the parent message's replies. If find it easier to just say this once than to reply individually to all of them.
Now, I don't remember whether he's a socialist, a communist, or what, but I know he's ONE of those things, and it sure ain't Democracy.
By Marx's definition, a true Communist society can't exist without Democracy, seeing as how there isn't any government in a true Communist society and the people rule themselves. This, of course, is a bit too utopian, which is why you don't see any true Communist societies. What you see instead is the totalitarian Leninist/Stalinist states (i.e.: Soviet Union) and Social Democrat states (i.e.: the majority present-day Europe).
while every country that has even remotely adopted Marxist dogma is now deep in poverty.
and
In case you didn't notice, socialism has now proven itself to be a failure in most areas of the world.
The majority of Europe is Socialist. Is France a failure? Is Sweden a failure? Is Germany a failure?
My guess is that it won't -- for the same reason that they aren't wealthy in the first place -- they refuse to work for and earn it.
Since when does hard work equate with being wealthy in our society? My Grandfather worked as a mason for most of his life - which I consider fairly laborous work - and he didn't die rich. Now compare some upstart twenty-something year-olds that make a web portal and become millionaires overnight.
I can't believe how many people I've heard compare Communism/Socialism and Democracy, thinking the two are incompatible. Communism and Socialism are economic states! Democracy is a governmental state! The U.S. is a Capitalist Republic, whereas the Soviet Union was a Socialist Dictatorship. There is nothing that says you can't have a Socialist Democracy or Capitalist Dictatorship.
Another thing that really erks me is when I see kids at school (or even adults) talking about how much they love living in a democracy. The U.S. is a Republic. We democratically elect people to rule over us. We as citizens don't have say in government decision, we just choose who does say (and the polls tend to be biased towards a selection of only two or three people).
If anyone is actually interested, here's the websites for the U.S. Communist Party and the U.S. Socialist Party. You'll notice neither of them talk about destroying the current free-market system everyone here appears to be enjoying, but instead more realistic goals like increasing Union presence, equal hourly pay according to job (i.e.: how much labor is required to effectively work in this field), etc.
-Chris Andreasen
-Chris Andreasen
You strike me as the bitter type. There was not one ounce of whine in my comment. You're obviously bitter. The point is that IT is _expected_ weather or not the kid really wants to go to one of the top colleges or not. All things being equal, sure, i'd still choose my life in a second. But life doesn't come without some complications. The original post stated and implied that children of rich parents don't have to work, etc etc etc. This is simply untrue, and I was addresssing them.
If you wish to see the world as black and white, be my guest. But don't pull apart my comments (snip snip) as if you're offering some revealing insight. Its the qualitative aspects that you simply fail to grasp. Its easy to write me off as being just another 'rich kid', but whatever its your life...
PS: You seem to want to believe that I'm rich, and you're not. I don't have to know you to know (reasonably) that this is not true. I'm sure that if anyone looked at your circumstances, it'd be well beyond the means of 95% of this world. So put this in perspective.
Because then the rich parents, the ones with influence, will force a school situation that they approve of. At this point, anybody who would give a shit has given up. Raising the overall standard of life, starting with education can do nothing but help this country. A mixing of classes can do nothing but help this country. How's that for starters?
+&x
What if Bill Gates reads slashdot? I think this article is unfairly written, because it assumes that it's addessing the 5.99999 billion inhabitants of the earth who are NOT excessively rich. What about the neglected minority, the .000001 billion who are? Where is THEIR Q&A? Is this discrimination? Could they sue?
:P
gnfnrf
Oh foo! all i need is enough money for a nice new computer and a stereo and a bunch of cds and a truck and some acreage and a tractor and that nice taylor guitar and traveling to europe and paying off my school loans and donating to charity and i will be just dandy and comfortable.
"i don't need anything!!...Except this chair!! All i need is this chair! and this lamp! but that's all!"
"I want peace on earth and good will toward men." "We're the U.S. government. We don't do that sort of thing!!"
From the article:
> Q: I read that Gates is worth $85 billion and that he's starting
> to give some of it away. Do you think he'd give me a million or two?
*giggles* A few of my friends and I are thinking of applying to the Gates foundation for a grant to slack. "Mr. Gates, if you give us money, we promise that we won't do anything. Think of the publicity you'd get!"
Think it'd work? There's something great at the thought of taking Bill's money, isn't there? ^_~
I have absolutely nothing against the entrepreneur who finds some way to make a fortune (as long as they do it legally and morally). What bugs me is their kids. You know, people who are BORN rich. People who think that they're better than you because they've never actually had to WORK for a living. Isn't there something we can do about them?
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
And what of the entreprenuer who starts up a firm that cures AIDS? treats Diabetes? etc. Would you have us believe that only one party is better served by this invention/innovation? Money may be transferred from one party to another, but obviously the purchasing party finds more VALUE in that item than they do in their cash.
Furthermore, money IS created. You can't explain a growing economy by mere transference of money (zero-sum)...unless of course you're leftish and believe that we're just selling wares to the ignorant masses in third world countries. Or stealing their money, or what have you...
Exactly. We all, in the US (and some other countries), make more than people in most of the world. I've actually lived on $500 for one year - it can be done.
If you just took the money you spend on Jolt Cola and invested it, and bought used cars, but lived the same otherwise, you'd be a millionaire in a couple of decades.
But will you?
Most won't.
Will in Seattle
The notion that I was attacking was that rich kids: just inherit money, don't have to work, etc. This is untrue. It was not whine. Most of the people posting on this thread seem to ASSUME that I'm bitching becuase a) I'm 'rich' b) I dare imply that NOT EVERYTHING is perfect. I clearly stated that I would not want to trade places.
That being said however, you said you've seen kids who've burned out in 'lower middle' class areas. Well this happens in private schools as well. The difference is that it is more than just your parents pushing you. Its every part of your social life. I don't think thats so rosy. Its fine if you're capable of succeeding. But its not so great if you realize that perhaps you're not smart enough, not motivated enough, sick of that life, or perhaps you'd just be happier teaching high school...
You seem to see a certain sickness in the 'preppy' situation. I couldn't agree with you more. That is exactly my point. While I don't agree that parents should be forced send their kids to public school (many like you end up changing their minds --especially when you live in a not-so middle class town in upstate NY), I do have some objections to the 'coasting' lifestyle.
That being said, I think you overstate the admissions process. It is becoming tougher and tougher for such kids to get admitted like that. Being the son or daughter of an alumni simply doesn't give you carte blanche these days. (Look at the admissions ratios alone could tell you this) Yet the pressures to 'succeed' still exist. These do bring certain streses. PERIOD. Are these stresses greater than the ones experienced by poor people? Probably not.
I do have respect for people who make more with less. But wakeup, will you? As you stated earlier, you are lower-middle class. Which most certainly qualifies you as living a life well beyond that of most of this world. Purely on your own merits? I'm sure circustances had NOTHING to do with your success (as if). Caltech is a fine school, better in many ways than many of the Ivys. But number #1? Do you really believe those surveys? Where just the year before another school was number #1 (Harvard, or Yale). I don't buy into the notion that schools actually go from 'best to better' in a period of a year, every year. I think some schools are better at certain things, over an extended period of time. But what you GET out of college depends far more on the individual than the college (almost regardless of where you go. Note: Doenst have even have to be "#50")
You know what Marx did do though? He provided an alternative to the capitalist theory and how capital should be dealt with, etc. Most "communist" implementations that we have seen in this century is a result of mis-interpertations of Marx's texts and just plain human errancy.
Was Marx responsible for what happened to Russia? Nope, he himself detested Russia. What basically happened is that Lenin overthrew the monarchy of the old russia and later had internal battles between federal organizations, other socialist/communist parties, etc. Then here comes Stalin overthrowing Lenin, blah blah blah rest is history.
Have you read the communist manifesto? Have you taken a class in marxist economics?
If you answered "no" to the first question, then don't even bother posting. What gets me is when people critisize the philospher and crucify him for having a different idea. Want to critisize how its implemented? Fine go ahead.. its your right, and I encourage you to do so.
Marxism suffers from more than just implementation errors. The economic scheme is flawed from the get go. It assumes that resources can be efficiently allocated centrally. This is a fatal flaw. It was written by a dilletante academic with no experience or understanding of markets, let alone human nature. People will suffer no matter how it is implemented or enforced.
When people advocate confiscating property in ANY philosophers name, expect a reaction.
Although that article was written with tongue very firmly in cheek, the author's affliction is rampantly clear: he's been brainwashed by the very system on which he's attempting to pass comment.
Fortunately for us though, we know that money is only one of the things you need to be rich, and that without the other things then you're not rich, you're just monetarily encumbered.
Let's take the case of the classic "rich" person we speak about here a lot, partly because he's about to come on UK telly in 12 minutes' time, interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on BBC2.
Is Bill Gates rich? Er, it doesn't seem likely, otherwise he'd have enough of a clue to discard virtually everything in Windows right now and replace it with a *BSD or Linux infrastructure with just a Windows-compatible covering over the top. That would make Windows the undisputed king of O/S's, end of story. Having a clue is central to being rich.
Maybe he's got the clue to realize that he should do that, but instead he hasn't got the *freedom* to do so. Well, in that case then he's not rich either, because freedom is the other essential component of being rich.
One could go on and on. Nope, good ol' Bill isn't rich, he's just monetarily encumbered.
And I'm off to watch Jeremy Paxman, who, alas, doesn't know anything about technology so the interview won't be up to much, I expect.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
You mention a lot of good points, but the analysis is more emotional than scientifically dissective. I can't do the topic justice either, but others before us have done a fairly good job.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs gives a particularly good framework for considerations of the value of money in the scheme of things. In a nutshell, the items of maximum value to you as an individual are determined by what you need to satisfy your immediate requirements. Good hifi speakers are not relevant when you don't have a roof over your head, and shelter is meaningless when you are dying from starvation. Money is often considered a general enabler but it's far from being that: it's worth nothing when you're stuck on a rock in the middle of a crocodile reservoir. Even in more mundane circumstances, it can be unhelpful, and even a liability.
Financial riches are merely part of a larger picture. This doesn't come across in the media and on the stock market of course, but that doesn't really matter, because everyone knows it anyway. When we hear people say "Be happy with what you've got" it sounds like advice from a have to a have-not, but only if you accept that you are a have-not. If you're intelligent enough to understand the phrase, they you are clearly not a have-not. You may not have a lot of money (join the club), but that's not a reflection on much at all except on the amount of tax you'll be paying. The law of diminishing returns hits with a vengence in this area, and I'm not just talking about tax.
In summary, who cares whether we're on some Rich List or other. The taxman, for sure. For everyone else, if you care then I'd seriously worry about your quality of life, because you'll be *very* unhappy for the rest of it.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
hehe, right on. It never ceases to amaze me how many people, particularly slashdotters just don't get it.
Though I think your imagery could use some work...
It's like planning a manned space flight; designing a ship with no space for fuel or means of propulsion, giving up control to a committee of people 30 miles underground on earth, and plotting your course straight through the center of the sun. Then pinning failure to reach Pluto on the astronauts, because of their poor behavior on board the ship.
...or something like that =)
I'd inclined to pursue 'rich'. But not everyone feels this way. Rich many times implies more work and risk. Its not just, do you want to be rich or do you want to be poor all things being equal. All things are not equal. Its not just a matter of being smart, fortunate, lucky, etc. For the entreprenuer atleast, its more a matter of focus, drive, hardwork, risk, intelligence and willingness to cross nay-sayers.
At a certain point though, for most people, its no longer about the money. For most, after a couple million in cash (as opposed to non-liquid forms), you have the freedom to do what you. You can buy the cars you want, the sailboat, the house, etc. You come to realize that the next toy won't bring you lasting happiness, and in many ways means more hassle. Thus you set other goals for yourself. eg: Contributing something of real value to the world. And for a more distributed percentage its to reach some arbitrary goal, eg: More Money than Ellison, be the best in your career, improve shareholder value, make sure your trusted long time employees can retire, etc. In other words, something to keep striving for.
I know many people like this, my parents for one. The stressed incurred as an owner/president/CEO of a startup corporation is like none other. Its a love/hate relationship. Both highly rewarding in some ways, but grueling in others. Free Time? Whats that? Is this worth it? For some, for me, for my parents, yes. I'd rather risk falling on my face for the opportunity to see greater things, than choose the safer but less rewarding career. I'd rather work longer and harder and not enjoy my money as much, and see my company continue to grow. There are alot of personal value judgements involved. For me atleast, this has less little to do with money. (Though the money is part of it -- relative to my other options the difference as to what I can really spend is not that great...though a Chalet in the Rockies, and a sailboat would be great). If it were merely a matter of _wanting_ more money, provided the option, the economy would look much more different.
The fact of the matter is that BOTH parties CHOOSE to participate KNOWING full well the outcome. I fail to see how anyone can argue that all such transactions mean that one person must loose, and the other must win. It simply doesn't work this way. If one person 'won', and the other 'lost', the transaction simply wouldn't take place. Sure, one party will normally end up holding the other's money. But in exchange, you recieve something which you find to be of greater or equal value to the cash you had. This is not a loss.
Lets say if I were a farmer, and I produce 500 bushels of wheat. I'd far rather have 50 bucks in my hand, than keep 2 bushels of wheat. You, the baker, need my product to bake bread. So you purchase 2 bushels of wheat at 50 bucks. I'm happy. You're happy. These two bushels then enable you to create 1000 loafs of bread. You then sell each loaf for 50 cents a piece. It only costs you 5 cents per loaf for my product. And, lets say, 10 cents for the other ingredients. This gives you a value added of 35 cents per loaf. Because you did business with me, you can now earn more money. You still think this is a loss?
You didn't loose because you found it MS software more valuable than the alternative of keeping your money. Your customers didn't loose, because they choose to purchase your software. They may either purchase it for entertainment, producivity, business, you name it. The notion that one "looses" because they fail to pass along expenses is silly.
When you go to the grocery store, are you loosing 50 times over? Following your logic, the only way to not loose would mean that you go out and grow it on your own. The people who brings these products to you enjoy various efficiencies, which bring you cheaper products. Which is the more efficient use of time and money? The farmer, the baker, the packagers, the distributor, are all specialized and experience economies of scale which you could never. Furthermore the learning curves are too many and too steep to allow you to reproduce what they do as efficiently as they do it.
Classes in Marxism? Nope. I just use the primary sources, like reading the works of Marx, Engels and comrades instead, including their blasted Manifesto of 1848.
Marx's theories are essentially irrelevant. Assuming that equitable distribution is possible, that centrally planned economies work, that people would work en masse without merit-based compensation, that capitalist industrialism would implode, and so forth -- just about EVERY assumption that he makes is incorrect. Since these are required for the efficacy of his recommendations, the latter can be ignored as impractical.
It's like planning intergalactic manned spaceflight, but requiring that one be able to warp space/time by creating huge gravitonic forces completely beyond our understanding and probable capabilities.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Oh, the little home comforts.
However, its not always win-win. There are certain tradeoffs that are made many times.
You mean there can be drawbacks??? Tell us more!!!
Parents of wealthy kids are expected to do certain things, and behave certain ways that others simply aren't. eg: Sports after school every season (mandatory)
OUCH! My god, that's brutal! Oh, except there are poor people who have to do that too, if their parents demand it...
3 hours minimum of homework since 6th grade,
AAH, the nerve! Having to study to get good grades! I'll mention that to the next kid I see who doesn't have rich parents and wants to go to college. I'm sure he'll agree with you, and consider himself lucky he doesn't have those rich-folk expectations...
...
My parents and most of my friends' parents certainly required us to get jobs during the summer and during vacations. It has nothing to do with money. They simply have principles.
Except for people without money, it has everything to do with money... And it's not only rich people have principles, y'know.
In order to be a productive member of society, you must know the meaning of work. When I wanted something growing up, say a new stereo, I had to earn the money myself.
Whereas non-rich people just magic them up from pixie dust.
Grow up!!!
There are few things worse than listening to people who don't realise how lucky they are when they start whining...
Here in Southern California, there's a lot of pressure to be rich. You see, even a really lousy lower middle class home in a crummy neighborhood nudges $ 200,000. If you want a house that feels "upper middle class", you're going to pay almost half a million dollars.
... and yet ... I visit 24500 Piuma in Malibu (15 acres of your own hilltop land at a bargain $495,000, "Plans and permits for 4,000 square foot home included"), gaze at the spectacular view, and it is at that moment that I really love Southern California.
And let's not even talk about a half-decent car: A Mercedes E320 ($46,000).
Because of all this, the desire to be rich infects your brain. You most surely can't get your dream girl - or even something close - without being rich. But I wouldn't laugh too hard at this culture of greed - more than anything, it comes from what are traditionally considered middle-class necessities turning into upper-class luxuries.
I have a friend who wants me to move down to his neck of the woods. I think he feels I'd make a pretty good match for the company he works for, although I'm not so sure. (They are, sadly, still using Windows NT down there, ugh!) But his location is the Space Coast of Florida, which has waterfront homes selling for $ 119,000 and up. Waterfront. With a boat dock. The type of lifestyle that costs a minimum of $ 2,395,000 (!) in Orange County.
This has made me think a lot about this subject. I think many of us are driven to make money not because of innate greed, but because we tend to live in horrendously expensive places. From what I understand, Silicon Valley makes Los Angeles look cheap.
And yet
But I sure as heck don't have $ 1 million to buy that land and erect a suitable dream house.
Maybe I'd be better off moving to South Florida, enjoying the gloriously comfortable warm water from the vantage point of my own personal boat dock, right off of my comfortable middle class home.
Anyone know what the market for consultants/software developers is like down there?
D
For more on this subject, see my David's Dream House web page:
http://www.amazing.com/david/dream-house/
----
If you are convinced that you are poor because you don't have millions or billions in the bank then you have a narrow view of values and a very hard life ahead of you.
You are rich beyond your (current) wildest dreams. Possibly more so than Bill Gates. But you won't know that until you look beyond superficial things like the Rich List.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Gee thanks, I guess. The onus isn't on me to change views, particularly superficial ones. Especially on a forum such as slashdot, where virtually everyone is rich by historical and current international standards (even domestically).
...Humility.
The "rich" by no means have a lock on spoiled children. Wealth is an enabler; it is not an ends onto itself. Wealth may make it easier and even provide the opportunity for "spoilage" to occur. But its not just the rich who are spoiled, and not all the rich are spoiled. This is particularly true when you compare the American middle class with the upper middle class/upper class. None of which know the meaning of a day to day existence, insofar as the basic staples go.
What is it about money that causes "spoilage"? Is spoilage the mere act of living a safer, more secure, and more comfortable life? If this is the case, then virtually everyone on slashdot guilty from any perspective other than that of today in the US (and those few other developed nations). Otherwise, you believe there are other qualifications. Such as how one behaves and acts in this world, and their outlook on life.
Does merely having money in the bank cause spoilage? It doesn't do you much good if you can't spend it, or if you only spend it on essentials. I believe wealth is but one factor in spoiled kids. There are many others, though some are somewhat dependent on wealth. Consider these other elements (both quantitatively and qualitatively):
# of Siblings - Parents attention, wealth, etc is divided. Parents tend to adopt unrealistic expectations of their first born...
Looks - Do you know what its like to be ugly? fat? skinny? tall?
Intelligence - Are you blessed with intelligence? Cursed?
Athletic Prowess - Are you an athlete? Oafish?
Upbringing - Do your parents shield you from the world? Expect you to work around the house? Take jobs below what you're capable of getting due to privileges? Did your parents tell you that you're a little genius? Did your parents shuttle you around? Remind you of how fortunate you are? Teach you how to forgive and forget? Your parents allow you to watch TV? Join the consumer culture? Buy you crap? Did your parents know when to say no? Apologetic for not giving your more?
Health - You ever have medical problems? Family? Lost a parent? Had to help siblings? Made commitments to family?
Social - You a nerd? Super-cool? Jock? Affluent friends? What are your social expectations? Do you understand people, like to hear yourself talk, or both? Introvert, Extrovert?
Failure - You ever made a mistake in your life? Learn anything from it? Your parents go through hard times? Did they tell you anything about it? Did you experience it yourself?
Fortunate - Were you brought up in a good neighborhood? Safe? Comfortable? Polite? Decent school? Or are you the only college bound one in your school?
Moves - You ever left your home town, the security of friends and family? Moved across the country? Done it several times? Lived anywhere where you don't know anyone? Changed schools, economic, and social groups?
This is by no means a complete list, but they are some of the larger factors in ones personl growth that strike me. They are far more significant than merely having money in the bank. Wealth merely provides an increased potential (in one dimension) for some acts. Most of these are beyond the control of the individual, much like parents' wealth. When you start to change a few of these variables, the tables can turn quickly.
The bottom line is, looking strictly at the wealth of ones parents is a very poor indicator of personality. You would have better luck by just glancing at the individual for the first time and drawing conclusions from that (eg: How they carry themselves). Atleast that is a reflection of the individual. Though, hopefully, you've come to the conclusion over the years that that you've been woefully wrong there as well.
I could draw an equally offensive correlation, by saying the poor are stupid. But hey, if you keep on behaving the way you're behaving, I might change my mind about you....
On another note, regarding colleges, I agree partially with you. Though I think you overstate the particular differences between the specific schools that you mentioned. In my experience and the experience of others at these schools (Princeton, UPenn, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, etc) are not all that different. Even the EEs I know disagree. Its probably somewhat accurate when you're comparing the lower ranked schools with the higher ranked schools. The only way to really compare them is to study at for all 4 years. And even then, the impressions are going to be vastly different depending on the indidividual, the crowd they fall in with, their major, and others. It can't be overstated enough.
How can you make such a blanket statement about people who inherit money? Yeah, I'm sure they all really think they're better than you because they have more of it. Come on, that's just plain ignorant bias. Certainly their are people out there who feel this way, but I'd like to point out that there are probably just as many people out there who think they're better than you that don't have more money. They're just conceited. It happens - deal with it.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
My point is not that you're an idiot. I don't know you well enough, and I try to reserve my judgements of others.
You started off your previous comment by apologizing, but there was still a hint of "Gee maybe if you keep it up I'll change my mind about you (rich kid)". Maybe I misinterpreted what you said.... I don't believe that you're a "poor" kid, nor do I assume the "poor" are "stupid". If you found that particular comment offensive, i'm sorry. What I was trying to show you was that it is a two way street. That there should be a certain amount of symetry in your beliefs. If you believe it is ok to associate wealth with spoiled children, be aware that using similar methods one can associate poorness with stupidity.
I take issue with these kind of superficial judgements (particularly when it is assumed that EVERYONE is this way), even if there might be a kernel of truth to them. Rather then flaming you with sheer emotional rants, I attempted to provide you with a cohesive rational argument -- I wasn't trying to "outsmart" you. Sometimes people just don't use their intellect to challenge their preconceptions. I've certainly been guilty of it before, and i'll probably be guilty of it again.
Regarding colleges (again), its merely a difference in opinion. Though my age and experiences may play a role here. I was more inclined when I was younger to buy into the whole "Rah Rah" school thing. I believe that some schools are better, but they don't have the lock on highly capable and intelligent students. More subjectively (in my experience), I just don't see a great deal of differences between the schools you mentioned (except maybe Cornell, yuck, heh).
No hard feelings.
All fine and dandy except that what you are speaking about is spiritual goals. Those same spiritual goals advocated by Jesus, Budha, and Mohammed as well as as thousands of enlightened persons all over the world. Unfortunately spiritually advanced people don't own media ro corporations and they certainly aren't in the government. You see shallow baseless desire is the grease that makes our economic engine turn. Without the seven deadly sins (greed, gluttony, covetousness etc) the economy would collapse and Bill G. and Rupert M. et al could no longer be rich. Face it. The economic system of the entire world is in opposition to the spiritual values.
Take a microsecond and think about what kind of world it would be if everybody ran around living like Jesus did. It sure would look different wouldn't it.
War is necrophilia.
But forcing the wealthy into the same schools strikes me as an obviously bad answer (intuitively, emperically, etc).
..Because the rich are naturally better.
You might even have an evolutionary arguement for this one, but that would be your only chance.
Sorry, but your posts reflect such a obvious, sad bias. I've heard a number of people defend their wealth. The problem is they always start from a different place in the argument (much like life). They start with the assumption that everyone is like them (it's a common mistake, Freud) and go from there. The differences, especially in America, in growing up "with money" and not are extreme, too extreme to understand without extensive study, and experience. By "with money" I mean having enough money, continuously, for food, clothing, and shelter. And NOTHING else. There are many people who live below that line. Unless your life is much different than the thousands of people I know from your socio-economic class, these have never been a concern for you. Until they have you have no business talking about this subject.
+&x
Mr Cleese said this on Dennis Miller Live a while ago when it was taped in Denver. I'm paraphrasing it heavily.
He talked about how he attended an event where they had a few of the richest people in the world in one room. Cleese thought that all the people would be able to sit back, have a glass of wine, and be happy that they've succeeded. But no. They all hate each other. It's insane.
I'd like to moderate the Article down, please. If similiar blathering was a post from an AC it would immediately be marked at flamebait/worthless/etc. I'm going a step further than the usual moderation and giving that Page, a rating of "-1 Lame/Un-interisting/Waste of Electrons".
Slashdot is usually very good about posting interesting/thought provoking and often wacky stories. This article was none of those. For any of you who did not read the article, here is a synopsis:
I can't believe good old Mike Cassidy gets paid for this drivel. On the plus side he does kinda look like the Norton Utilities Guy :)
Your using a computer to browse and peruse the Internet, i.e. the "richest" source of information yet devised. You read Slashdot, one of those "rich" sources of info. Perhaps you are not the wealthiest person arround, but you are "rich"!!! The easiest way to be wealthy is to leverage off of others. Pure talent is harder to acheive and harder to sell(mostly because of all the people leveraging off of you!). It's a lot easier if you are a: Pushy, arrogant, uncaring, unfeeling, semi-ignorant, work-aholic on a power trip. In otherwords, well balanced people tend not to become overly wealthy. Some do, but if your not super wealthy it's probably because your a more balanced person - Good for you!!!!
Just because ones' parents are rich doesn't mean they don't have to work for a living. Children of wealthy parents are normally provided with a decent education and they tend to be a little bit more mobile. But being rich doesn't mean that you get carte blanche. Secondly, taxes are a bitch. Even if you want to transfer all your money to your kids after your death, its suprising how little you actually can. eg: Capital Gains, Estate Taxes, legal fees, etc. Unless you're a billionaire, your kids aren't going to be living in the same kind of lifestyle for the rest of their lives (assuming the parents live an extravagant lifestyle).
I, for one, have wealthy extreprenuereal parents. Yes, my education is mostly paid for. College? no problem? A small loan for grad school? maybe. A Little seed capital? maybe.
I can't claim that i'd rather be born poor. However, its not always win-win. There are certain tradeoffs that are made many times. Parents of wealthy kids are expected to do certain things, and behave certain ways that others simply aren't. eg: Sports after school every season (mandatory), 3 hours minimum of homework since 6th grade, moves, no TV, get into a top college, etc etc etc. My parents and most of my friends' parents certainly required us to get jobs during the summer and during vacations. It has nothing to do with money. They simply have principles. In order to be a productive member of society, you must know the meaning of work. When I wanted something growing up, say a new stereo, I had to earn the money myself.
There are a certain percentage of elitists who sort of cruise through life with a sense of entitlement. eg: Go to the right prep school, get into the right college, land a cushy job at some leading firm, country club... But they are for the most part a minority. And I feel that they're becoming a dying breed. The world is simply becoming more and more competitive; just going through the motions and resting on your laurels isn't enough.
While I have a great deal more respect for individuals that manage to climb their way to the top without any advantages, it is extremely difficult (statistically). Would you really propose that rich people aren't allowed to support their children, and educate them decently? That they must go to the same public schools, no matter how poor? Might it have ever occured to you that one of the incentives to get 'rich', is to be able to provide your kids with a decent chance in life (eg: education).
I do find the notion of redistributing wealth by means of law out of 'principle' a bit disturbing. That is leaning towards socialism...
...but then he would be in bad taste, because he makes fun of (a specific category) of poor people.
Read it like a "grumpy-old-man"-style parody, this time with a "grumpy-poor-man" instead. Yes, obviously everything he wrote is wrong, the keyword being "obviously". But if someone actually believed what was written, that would be sufficient to explain why that person would stay poor. Which makes it a pretty good self-referential piece of satire.
nuff said.
-Nick
Neither happy or rich, but would settle for either.
or an ion cannon, you decide.
Have GNU . . . Will Travel