Another Civics Lesson

[CA renter]

[quote=patientrenter]When I was a teenager, my family income was less than the modern equivalent of $30,000 a year, and I had only one parent – my Mom (who never finished high school). I went to a school where avoiding gang fights at break was a major priority.

I now earn over $1/2 million a year, and have enough money to buy a home for cash etc.. I got there by working 100-hour weeks for many years, and pouring energy into improving my skills over decades, and applying them to the most financially rewarding jobs.

Most people complaining about how society is very unfair made far fewer tough choices. I just have no sympathy, except in a very few cases. I’ll listen more carefully to someone after they’ve spent 2 decades of 100-hour weeks working at the most financially rewarding jobs available to them.[/quote]

It’s entirely possible for some people who come from rough backgrounds to succeed in this country. Both of my parents did exactly that.

That being said, there is no denying that sheer luck has at least as much to do with success as “hard work” does. I can show you many, many people who work tremendously hard, long hours and are some of the most productive workers in the world, but still live in poverty. A look at many of our illegal immigrants will show that. There is also no doubt that many people who occupy the top levels of wealth and income are NOT there because of “hard work” but rather, because they have the right connections.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.

For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?

Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.

I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..

If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.

I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.

[/quote]

You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).

China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.

We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.

No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.

Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.

For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?

Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.

I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..

If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.

I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.

[/quote]

You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).

China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.

We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.

No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.

Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.

For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?

Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.

I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..

If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.

I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.

[/quote]

You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).

China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.

We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.

No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.

Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.

For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?

Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.

I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..

If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.

I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.

[/quote]

You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).

China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.

We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.

No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.

Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Brutus]If you design an experiment to prove that a particular philosophy is a failure, you will succeed, without regard to the merits of such philosophy.

For instance, if the teacher had wanted to prove the inefficacy of socialism, he could assign the smartest students only half their grade points and give the other half to one of the dummies. How long do think it would be before the smart students rebelled?

Pure Capitalism is a miserable system, but it’s better that ALL the other systems because it takes into account the diversity and fallibility of human nature and free will.
None of the other systems, such as socialism, take these factors into consideration. Socialism can only work (without being extremely oppressive) where the population is small and homogenous: Sweden, for example. Where the population is large, like China, socialism requires that the government not allow for much in the way of individual liberties. All large, strongly Socialist (communist) countries become very oppressive, very quickly. That is because Socialism is rule by the weak and ignorant.
The corruption of capitalism is a walk in the park by comparison.

I would rather live on the streets and be free, than live in a mansion and owe my life to the government..

If we keep creating and supporting weak people, if we continue to reward bad behavior, we will only create more weak people and bad behavior.

I say this as I figure out how to pay taxes on my $30,000 a year job.

[/quote]

You’re conflating socialist and communist. They really aren’t the same (at least not in modern usage).

China is not a socialist state, it is a communist state.

We’re not pure capitalist either – we have less socialism mixed in than most Western European systems, but there is plenty of socialism already here.

No child born of poor parents in a country which did not practice some socialism would have much of a chance to rise above their beginnings. As one direct example, government funded student loans are a socialist enhancement.

Just as an aside, I’m not sure how you get the rule that only “small” and homogenous countries can practice socialism. As one example, you could fairly easily view Europe as a loose federation of states, which are quite diverse, but all of which practice socialism to a much greater extent than here. They seem to do alright, and as I pointed out in another post, their vertical mobility between classes is far greater than ours.

[patientrenter]

CAR, there aren’t that many people who have some talent, have applied themselves for 15 hours a day to their education for over 10 years, choosing subjects that are “hard” (like physics, chemistry, math, biochem, medicine etc) and likely to lead to lucrative careers, and then worked 100 hours a week for years in jobs that have the best opportunity for long-term financial rewards, in the places that offer the best opportunity, regardless of family preferences.

You can’t point to people who have made only some of these hard choices and say that a significant % of them have not been successful, as proof that making the right hard choices isn’t a pretty reliable way of getting ahead. And we all have to accept that naturally untalented people exist, and aren’t going to float to the top, regardless of effort.

Even luck is not always what it seems. Last year, I made some financial bets that turned out nicely. I almost made bets 20 times larger, that would have set me up very comfortably for life. But if I had made those bets and they turned out poorly, I would have been set back. If someone takes risks and it turns out well, then are they just lucky, or are they also reaping the fair rewards for putting their asses on the line?

As for hard-working illegal immingrants, their situation should be compared to how they would do if they stayed in their country of origin. Since they are almost always free to go back, we get our answer by just looking at how many return to their country of origin because they cannot do better here than there. Very few do. If Mexico were educating all its children to high levels in science and law etc, and when they came here they were unable to break out of a life of grinding poverty, then I’d say that we had a real problem of fairness. Bit that ain’t happening.

[patientrenter]

CAR, there aren’t that many people who have some talent, have applied themselves for 15 hours a day to their education for over 10 years, choosing subjects that are “hard” (like physics, chemistry, math, biochem, medicine etc) and likely to lead to lucrative careers, and then worked 100 hours a week for years in jobs that have the best opportunity for long-term financial rewards, in the places that offer the best opportunity, regardless of family preferences.

You can’t point to people who have made only some of these hard choices and say that a significant % of them have not been successful, as proof that making the right hard choices isn’t a pretty reliable way of getting ahead. And we all have to accept that naturally untalented people exist, and aren’t going to float to the top, regardless of effort.

Even luck is not always what it seems. Last year, I made some financial bets that turned out nicely. I almost made bets 20 times larger, that would have set me up very comfortably for life. But if I had made those bets and they turned out poorly, I would have been set back. If someone takes risks and it turns out well, then are they just lucky, or are they also reaping the fair rewards for putting their asses on the line?

As for hard-working illegal immingrants, their situation should be compared to how they would do if they stayed in their country of origin. Since they are almost always free to go back, we get our answer by just looking at how many return to their country of origin because they cannot do better here than there. Very few do. If Mexico were educating all its children to high levels in science and law etc, and when they came here they were unable to break out of a life of grinding poverty, then I’d say that we had a real problem of fairness. Bit that ain’t happening.

[patientrenter]

CAR, there aren’t that many people who have some talent, have applied themselves for 15 hours a day to their education for over 10 years, choosing subjects that are “hard” (like physics, chemistry, math, biochem, medicine etc) and likely to lead to lucrative careers, and then worked 100 hours a week for years in jobs that have the best opportunity for long-term financial rewards, in the places that offer the best opportunity, regardless of family preferences.

You can’t point to people who have made only some of these hard choices and say that a significant % of them have not been successful, as proof that making the right hard choices isn’t a pretty reliable way of getting ahead. And we all have to accept that naturally untalented people exist, and aren’t going to float to the top, regardless of effort.

Even luck is not always what it seems. Last year, I made some financial bets that turned out nicely. I almost made bets 20 times larger, that would have set me up very comfortably for life. But if I had made those bets and they turned out poorly, I would have been set back. If someone takes risks and it turns out well, then are they just lucky, or are they also reaping the fair rewards for putting their asses on the line?

As for hard-working illegal immingrants, their situation should be compared to how they would do if they stayed in their country of origin. Since they are almost always free to go back, we get our answer by just looking at how many return to their country of origin because they cannot do better here than there. Very few do. If Mexico were educating all its children to high levels in science and law etc, and when they came here they were unable to break out of a life of grinding poverty, then I’d say that we had a real problem of fairness. Bit that ain’t happening.

[patientrenter]

CAR, there aren’t that many people who have some talent, have applied themselves for 15 hours a day to their education for over 10 years, choosing subjects that are “hard” (like physics, chemistry, math, biochem, medicine etc) and likely to lead to lucrative careers, and then worked 100 hours a week for years in jobs that have the best opportunity for long-term financial rewards, in the places that offer the best opportunity, regardless of family preferences.

You can’t point to people who have made only some of these hard choices and say that a significant % of them have not been successful, as proof that making the right hard choices isn’t a pretty reliable way of getting ahead. And we all have to accept that naturally untalented people exist, and aren’t going to float to the top, regardless of effort.

Even luck is not always what it seems. Last year, I made some financial bets that turned out nicely. I almost made bets 20 times larger, that would have set me up very comfortably for life. But if I had made those bets and they turned out poorly, I would have been set back. If someone takes risks and it turns out well, then are they just lucky, or are they also reaping the fair rewards for putting their asses on the line?

As for hard-working illegal immingrants, their situation should be compared to how they would do if they stayed in their country of origin. Since they are almost always free to go back, we get our answer by just looking at how many return to their country of origin because they cannot do better here than there. Very few do. If Mexico were educating all its children to high levels in science and law etc, and when they came here they were unable to break out of a life of grinding poverty, then I’d say that we had a real problem of fairness. Bit that ain’t happening.

[patientrenter]

CAR, there aren’t that many people who have some talent, have applied themselves for 15 hours a day to their education for over 10 years, choosing subjects that are “hard” (like physics, chemistry, math, biochem, medicine etc) and likely to lead to lucrative careers, and then worked 100 hours a week for years in jobs that have the best opportunity for long-term financial rewards, in the places that offer the best opportunity, regardless of family preferences.

You can’t point to people who have made only some of these hard choices and say that a significant % of them have not been successful, as proof that making the right hard choices isn’t a pretty reliable way of getting ahead. And we all have to accept that naturally untalented people exist, and aren’t going to float to the top, regardless of effort.

Even luck is not always what it seems. Last year, I made some financial bets that turned out nicely. I almost made bets 20 times larger, that would have set me up very comfortably for life. But if I had made those bets and they turned out poorly, I would have been set back. If someone takes risks and it turns out well, then are they just lucky, or are they also reaping the fair rewards for putting their asses on the line?

As for hard-working illegal immingrants, their situation should be compared to how they would do if they stayed in their country of origin. Since they are almost always free to go back, we get our answer by just looking at how many return to their country of origin because they cannot do better here than there. Very few do. If Mexico were educating all its children to high levels in science and law etc, and when they came here they were unable to break out of a life of grinding poverty, then I’d say that we had a real problem of fairness. Bit that ain’t happening.

[CA renter]

If Mexico were educating all its children to high levels in science and law etc, and when they came here they were unable to break out of a life of grinding poverty, then I’d say that we had a real problem of fairness.
—————–

If Mexico, China, and India all make their children focus on science and law, what will happen to wages in those industries?

It’s short-sighted to think everyone should only major/focus in these areas.

IMHO, America has succeeded largely because of our diversity, resilience, and flexibility. Too many people, globally-speaking, are getting into these majors, and many of those people come from poorer countries.

We need to acknowledge the importance of all workers, not just those in a few fields. We have many top scientists and engineers who were slammed by the aerospace shut-down in the 80s. Many PhDs in science are making less than salespeople and “deal makers” (salespeople, managers, and people in the financial industry, among others). We should not shoe-horn everyone into the same occupations. That is economic suicide, IMHO.

O/T, but just wanted to point that out. 🙂

[CA renter]

If Mexico were educating all its children to high levels in science and law etc, and when they came here they were unable to break out of a life of grinding poverty, then I’d say that we had a real problem of fairness.
—————–

If Mexico, China, and India all make their children focus on science and law, what will happen to wages in those industries?

It’s short-sighted to think everyone should only major/focus in these areas.

IMHO, America has succeeded largely because of our diversity, resilience, and flexibility. Too many people, globally-speaking, are getting into these majors, and many of those people come from poorer countries.

We need to acknowledge the importance of all workers, not just those in a few fields. We have many top scientists and engineers who were slammed by the aerospace shut-down in the 80s. Many PhDs in science are making less than salespeople and “deal makers” (salespeople, managers, and people in the financial industry, among others). We should not shoe-horn everyone into the same occupations. That is economic suicide, IMHO.

O/T, but just wanted to point that out. 🙂

[CA renter]

If Mexico were educating all its children to high levels in science and law etc, and when they came here they were unable to break out of a life of grinding poverty, then I’d say that we had a real problem of fairness.
—————–

If Mexico, China, and India all make their children focus on science and law, what will happen to wages in those industries?

It’s short-sighted to think everyone should only major/focus in these areas.

IMHO, America has succeeded largely because of our diversity, resilience, and flexibility. Too many people, globally-speaking, are getting into these majors, and many of those people come from poorer countries.

We need to acknowledge the importance of all workers, not just those in a few fields. We have many top scientists and engineers who were slammed by the aerospace shut-down in the 80s. Many PhDs in science are making less than salespeople and “deal makers” (salespeople, managers, and people in the financial industry, among others). We should not shoe-horn everyone into the same occupations. That is economic suicide, IMHO.

O/T, but just wanted to point that out. 🙂

[CA renter]

If Mexico were educating all its children to high levels in science and law etc, and when they came here they were unable to break out of a life of grinding poverty, then I’d say that we had a real problem of fairness.
—————–

If Mexico, China, and India all make their children focus on science and law, what will happen to wages in those industries?

It’s short-sighted to think everyone should only major/focus in these areas.

IMHO, America has succeeded largely because of our diversity, resilience, and flexibility. Too many people, globally-speaking, are getting into these majors, and many of those people come from poorer countries.

We need to acknowledge the importance of all workers, not just those in a few fields. We have many top scientists and engineers who were slammed by the aerospace shut-down in the 80s. Many PhDs in science are making less than salespeople and “deal makers” (salespeople, managers, and people in the financial industry, among others). We should not shoe-horn everyone into the same occupations. That is economic suicide, IMHO.

O/T, but just wanted to point that out. 🙂

[Author]

Posts