js97
Senior Member
So why do they blame the rich for the 'bubble' that they helped to create?
|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
So why do they blame the rich for the 'bubble' that they helped to create?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Nice. So when you drive through Rosedale and look at all the rich houses and many expensive cars are you thinking that with the exception of inherited wealth, these folks must have worked harder and smarter than everyone else? Or, do you see a group of people are selfishly exploiting everyone else in the name of greed?
Those in the first camp would believe that we are all given equal opportunity to work hard and work smart, but that the results are not guaranteed; as others will be smarter or luckier or than you. So, of course there is never a true equality of starting points - those with better family connections will go to better schools, build better networks... but they can still blow their money and lives through stupid decisions, while someone from a poor or middle class family can rise to be the richest in the land - in fact if you look at many billionaires many started at modest beginnings.
The second camp driving through Rosedale see a group of undeserving fat bastards who need to be controlled through taxation and other means to share their wealth, thus ensuring a more equal result. This is the equality of result I was referring to. It's never a true equality, since the rich guy will always have more wealth, but by forcing him to share his wealth we are ensuring that everyone gets to enjoy the results of the rich guy's success.
And that's my point. We see rich folks and don't see opportunity realized, but instead see exploiters of a flawed system.
Last edited:
Minus Smile
Banned
"while someone from a poor or middle class family can rise to be the richest in the land - in fact if you look at many billionaires many started at modest beginnings."
Sir Richard Branson is a perfect example. He's a high school drop out and look at where he is today.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
The Richard Branson's of the world distract us from the fact that rags-to-riches stories are statistically insignificant. The reality is that social mobility is very limited in our civilization.
Furthermore, the materialist or money paradigm distracts us from the fact that human behaviour contains many survival strategies with divergent objectives. Success depends in part on trade-offs. For instance some people work hard and some people do not. We may admire hard work but we must also admit that not working hard is also a winning survival strategy or at least a trade-off behaviour because were it not, people who do not work hard would not exist. An alternative and highly successful survival strategy to accumulating material wealth for example could be to screw everything that moves, accumulate no wealth and die young. In a way someone like a billionaire is more an example of a psychological aboration because wealth accumulation beyond a point serves little purpose and must almost by definition come at the expense of exploration of other aspects of the human experience (unless that wealth is inherited).
I feel both the left and right are composed of people who cannot accept my argument above for differing reasons.
Furthermore, the materialist or money paradigm distracts us from the fact that human behaviour contains many survival strategies with divergent objectives. Success depends in part on trade-offs. For instance some people work hard and some people do not. We may admire hard work but we must also admit that not working hard is also a winning survival strategy or at least a trade-off behaviour because were it not, people who do not work hard would not exist. An alternative and highly successful survival strategy to accumulating material wealth for example could be to screw everything that moves, accumulate no wealth and die young. In a way someone like a billionaire is more an example of a psychological aboration because wealth accumulation beyond a point serves little purpose and must almost by definition come at the expense of exploration of other aspects of the human experience (unless that wealth is inherited).
I feel both the left and right are composed of people who cannot accept my argument above for differing reasons.
js97
Senior Member
I'm not sure what world you live in, perhaps in the social paradigms of Russia or China would one be subjected to the class/caste they are born in. But in Canada, it's pretty easy to be upwardly mobile (to a certain degree) and live comfortably, with very few impediments.
Also, if you're justifing lazy workers as a survival trait, then in our society, we should frown and look down upon that trait. Just like we don't accept violent individuals and resolutions with violence, (which is a survival trait), we shouldn't accept lazyness.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
TrickyRicky;584292I feel both the left and right are composed of people who cannot accept my argument above for differing reasons.[/QUOTE said:
kkgg7
Banned
Actually it is in countries like Russia and China where you are most likely to move from poor to rich, provided you are bold enough to take risks and smart enough to grab the opportunites. Those who are stuck in poverty are usually those who 1) have no ambition and/or dare not take risks in life 2) completely incompetent
In western countries, it is easy to move upward as well. If you are reasonably smart, get some education, get a Bachelor's or Master's degree by studying hard, and you are almost guaranteed a comfortable lifestyle. As I said before, if you think lawyers and banks are too rich, become one. Who forbids you from taking LSAT or GMAT and apply to law school or business school?
I find poor people share some similarities -
1) they don't want to work extra hard to be outstanding, either in school or at work.
2) they are afraid of taking risks and are not money wise (not know how to spend money wisely)
If you have a mediocre IQ, never worked hard to achieve your goal and never take riskes, why shouldn't you be poor?
I know a couple who moved to Canada 20 years ago, with nothing but a couple of thousand dollars. As their diplomas are not recognized in Canada, they had to find labour work to make a living (the kind of $8 an hour 9am-9pm work with no benefits). Gradually they saved money, and started their small business by providing IT service in ethnic communities. Today, they live in their $600,000 house near Yonge/Eglington and are landlords of a couple of condo properties. They are not rich, but they managed to achieve a middle class life from scratch by HARD WORK and living thrifty, something many poor don't particularly like.
When I say hardwork, I mean they work everyday, no matter whether it is Sunday or Christmas or 11:30pm. When there is business, they go do it, no complaint. They charge competitive price (at least 30% or 40% lower than what a white guy would), knowing it is not easy to make money and get business in a foreign country. They cooked every meal, never throwing $10 for crappy foodcourt food, for $4 lattes or $20 to watch a movie with soda and popcorn. When they saved some money, they invested in real estate, not vacations to Spain. This is how they get themselves out of poverty.
I had the experience of hiring a handyman/woman (a couple) to do some work last year. They seemed to be in need of money, but refused to come to work on weekends (which I preferred because I have to work during work days), or anytime before 10 am. They took a coffee/cigarette break every 30 or 40 minutes, and finished the project in 4 days, instead of 2 days they promised in the beginning. Will I hire them next time I need someone? NO. Will they have a chance of becoming middle class? definitely not. They will be stuck in low income for the rest of their lives.
I walk by Eaton Centre everyday and see perfectly healthy homeless men and woman in their 30s or even 20s begging for money. I never give them a cent. Several Tim Hortons are hiring, but I guess they just feel too noble for work.
Am I left or right? I never cared. If a person is poor because he didn't work hard enough, I have no respect for him. Think about all those immigrants from developing countries, with language barriers, culture difference, and diplomas not recognized, it is very difficult for me to show any sympathy for those who were born in Canada (not many realizing it is such a big advantage) speaking perfect English and with all sorts of social connections yet end up being poverty stricken for their lives.
G
gabe
Guest
kkgg7 troll please move out of Canada.
Minus Smile
Banned
How is he a troll? That's a perfectly valid argument. People aren't trolls for simply having a different outlook than yourself.
AKS
Senior Member
It's actually not as easy to get a job as you think. If they are homeless, chances are they have no address. If you have no address, they probably won't hire you. When you fill out the form, they ask for your address and other info such as references, etc. If you're hired, you need a bank account. The bank also asks for your address and info. The problem such as this also occurs in Hong Kong. There was an interview on TV with people living on the streets. They said employers won't hire them because they don't have a steady address. Since they live on the street, they don't have one. It's a double edged sword when you're down in the dumps. It's not so easy to get back up without help.
Also some people on the street are mentally ill. They won't think like a regular person would such as getting shelter and things. They should probably look for help, but chances are they won't.
Last edited:
Paleo
Active Member
That settles it! Once everyone becomes a banker or lawyer, we'll all be richer than our richest dreams!
adma
Superstar
G
gabe
Guest
kkgg7 philosophy: so long as I'm comfortable in the lifeboat, everyone else can drown.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Actually, I'd say his philosophy is that there is no lifeboat. If you want to better your life you have to swim.
Minus Smile
Banned
Did you learn to think that way at the School of Experiential Education?