If they aren't first generation millionaires, then they haven't earned it?Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Really? That's what passes for good math in your eyes?
If they aren't first generation millionaires, then they haven't earned it?
Really? That's what passes for good math in your eyes?
My time is as limited as yours; I can at best hope to have the book read by next week's end. None of your points deny that in order to glean most from the conversation, it'd be best for me to be as refreshed as I can be on the topic. My memory is at least as damaged as yours, at any rate.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I think you're confused over my statement. Its initially unearned (unless your counting surviving life up until that point) for that specific person, I made no claim on how that money first entered the family, or what is done with it after it is passed down.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Just because you are a second generation millionaire does not mean you did not earn your wealth. If my father was a millionaire business tycoon, and I am a millionaire doctor, it does not mean that I have not earned my wealth as a doctor, or that I inherited any money from him.
You're re-reading it because you know its a really good book. You're just using me as an excuse. And in any case, the truth is I'm very patient - that comes with increased forgetfulness - and if you're going to be finished within a week, then certainly I can wait for the more fruitful conversation.
What language are you reading it in, btw? I wonder how much is lost in the translation from Polish to English....
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I honestly wasn't planning on re-reading it any time soon as I have been reading history instead of fiction in my leisure time lately. But I do want to re-read it if we're to discuss it.
I'm reading it in English as well, insofar as I know there is no Finnish translation and I do not understand Polish. I will say, however, that in my experience the Finnish translations of his books have been superior reading experiences to the English ones, I think it has something to do with Slavic humour and nihilism only working so well in English.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Its probably good that nihilism doesn't translate to English well. For me, anyway.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Eh hard to find the exact beginning of it but the statistic (80%) is all over the place. Here are a couple of spots that mention it again.
http://www.thomasjstanley.com/blog-a..._Tomorrow.html
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/data-over...ty-816832.html
Of course, for this thread it is more interesting to look at mobility between poor and middle class, not middle class and rich. I don't doubt that if you have reasonable means you can make it in the USA, but the question is: can you if you start poor? I mean, if you started middle class in a decent neighbourhood with decent schools, that leaves all options open.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Whoops, I was referring to the money when I was mentioning it in generational terms (ie, "old money"), but I see what you mean relating it to the success of the individual members.
another idiotic remark but Lewk reinforcing his idea that if you say/see something enough, it must be true, and another failure to read the thread
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 04-16-2011 at 02:08 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I've seen it all over the place too. A LOT of what I see goes back to the same source, but there's others too. So do you really think the working poor are lazy?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Not all working poor are lazy. But some are. Some may work hard but make terrible decisions. IE the RAL, lottery tickets, smokes ect. Others are content with what they have and don't have ambition. And yet others are only temporarily poor and who will work their way up because they have a good work ethic, make good choices and have ambitions. The permanent poor are going to be the group that is lazy/dumb/no drive. Those characteristics are what causes them to be and remain poor. Middle class isn't hard to get to. Two individuals making 25k a year each is middle class in America.
Hang on, is "millionaire" = "rich" in the US today? Is "a million" today the same as it was 50 years ago?
Do children of the wealthy not get great upbringings? Go to excellent schools? Vacation in cool places? Have access to their parents' networks in addition to the ones they build in their fancy schools? Do they not get tracked to the best educations and the best paying jobs?
And who are these first generation millionaires anyway??
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Shh. There's way too much complex reality in that. I would be interested to see how many people born into real poverty in the US make it out. How many become millionaires? And no, a million today is much les than it was say 30 years ago. Looking for sources relativity to Lewk's quote I sable a few references to how little a million is today compared to various points in the recent past. It's not pretty. really, the 'success' associated with being a millionaire is more than a bit of myth these days.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Not necessarily. All it takes is one devastating or debilitating illness or injury, that can lead to medical bankruptcy and inability to use those good ole bootstraps. Why you keep adding "dumb" in the same category as lazy also ignores something like education that can make a real difference.
$50k might be middle class income but you know there's more to it than that.Middle class isn't hard to get to. Two individuals making 25k a year each is middle class in America.
The theology of wealth necessitates that all economical failures are also moral failures. In the flip-flop of causality that must then happen, poor economical consequences happen because people deserve them as punishment. It is this kind of thinking that fuels all the hate out of Lewkowski, and the same guilt-tripping is what leads Loki to the seemingly perfectly logical conclusion that poor high-school drop-outs need to marry one another in sexless economical unions, to work and educate themselves simultaneously. Only through this act of penance are the absolved at the altar of wealth, and permitted human existence.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
So here we go again on what is middle class. The simplest and easiest explanation is the folks in the middle. What characteristic can we say about the middle class. Middle income would make sense. Do you want to use the median net worth? If not come up with the metric that will roughly define the 50% of the population that is the "middle."
Lack of ambition isn't a moral failing the point though is that they remain poor based on their own choices. Now are there exceptions? of course. And as I said before a good section of today's poor are actually only temporarily poor and through hard work and smart decisions will bring them success.
Lies, lies, lies. You do fault them, you do blame them, theirs is first and foremost a moral hatred towards those unable to "work towards Christ" in your theology of wealth.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
Cool, while trying to refind that quote, I found these too:
It is a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?”
Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I responded to your comment that "middle class isn't hard to get to" based on a household income of $50K. Take two teens out of HS working low wage full time, they might make $50K/year in their first working year. But it takes longer than one year to secure a middle class lifestyle, one that can't be undone by 6 months or more of unemployment, and can build a safety cushion + saving for retirement.
The Great Recession bumped millions of previous middle-class(es) down at least one wrung, and the lower middle class became the working poor.
I'm still waiting for some type of parameter that we can objectively measure who is and who is not middle class. You insist and making it a nebulous term. Without a definition we can agree to and then measure against data the term middle class means absolutely nothing.
No idea what you are talking about. Being poor is not a moral failing. However folks who are poor all their life most likely are poor due to their own choices and decisions. Your dislike of this fact does not make it any less true.
We already tried that, but my Define Middle Class thread died. It's not a nebulous term, though. We've had plenty of links from academic sources showing that middle-class contains lower-middle-upper. Education, profession, income, assets, debt load, family size, age and location are all variables. $50,000 may be classified as a middle class income, but only if averaged across the nation.
People can make $50k and live quite a nice lifestyle in Mississippi, but not in Manhattan. So stop your dodging. You're the one who said it's so easy to make it into "middle class" by making $50k. Time for YOU to back up that claim.
Sigh. You are never going to define it.We already tried that, but my Define Middle Class thread died. It's not a nebulous term, though. We've had plenty of links from academic sources showing that middle-class contains lower-middle-upper. Education, profession, income, assets, debt load, family size, age and location are all variables. $50,000 may be classified as a middle class income, but only if averaged across the nation.
People can make $50k and live quite a nice lifestyle in Mississippi, but not in Manhattan. So stop your dodging. You're the one who said it's so easy to make it into "middle class" by making $50k. Time for YOU to back up that claim.
Since you have an issue with income how about we look at net worth?
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/ret..._wealth_a1.asp
Net worth (percentile) Median net worth (rounded)
Level VI (90 to 100) $833,600
Level V (80 to 89.9) $263,100
Level IV (60 to 79.9) $141,500
Level III (40 to 59.9) $62,500
Level II (20 to 39.9) $37,200
Level I (less than 20) $7,900
So if we want to lump 50% of the population we would be looking at say a spread of 20-60 (I'd prefer 25-75 but the data from the site I pulled doesn't lump it that way). So that is only 40% of the population but that gives us a Net worth between $37,200 to $141,500. Would that be an acceptable definition of middle class for you?
I love the whole "What about in Manhattan" argument. Cost of living is different in a different area and what I would say is to adjust it. For example going back to income (which I think is the best indicator of middle class). You would then just take the same breakdown of income 25/50/25 to get your lower/middle/upper class folks for that area. Data might not be as available as it is on the the whole country but someone could certainty get it.
What I find interesting is that a lot of well off people WANT to be called middle class. They don't like being considered "wealthy" or "upper class" they prefer distinctions like "upper middle class."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States
I would classify the top 25% of American households to be the "upper class." What income range would that be? Yes household income of 77,500+ is upper class America. 28.2% of American households make less then 28,000 dollars a year. That makes them lower class. What does that leave? An income range of 28,00 to 77,500 a household to be "middle class" by income. You obviously for some reason find this distasteful.
To get a better perspective GGT what percentage of the American people do you feel are poor/middle/upper? I classify 50% (the middle) as middle class. Is your vision of the middle class larger or smaller?
I'm not an economist, but now you're quoting economists, which are the same damn people I used to define the middle classes.
I don't recall you being so vocal in my Define Middle Class thread.So if we want to lump 50% of the population we would be looking at say a spread of 20-60 (I'd prefer 25-75 but the data from the site I pulled doesn't lump it that way). So that is only 40% of the population but that gives us a Net worth between $37,200 to $141,500. Would that be an acceptable definition of middle class for you?
I love the whole "What about in Manhattan" argument. Cost of living is different in a different area and what I would say is to adjust it. For example going back to income (which I think is the best indicator of middle class). You would then just take the same breakdown of income 25/50/25 to get your lower/middle/upper class folks for that area. Data might not be as available as it is on the the whole country but someone could certainty get it.
What I find interesting is that a lot of well off people WANT to be called middle class. They don't like being considered "wealthy" or "upper class" they prefer distinctions like "upper middle class."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States
I would classify the top 25% of American households to be the "upper class." What income range would that be? Yes household income of 77,500+ is upper class America. 28.2% of American households make less then 28,000 dollars a year. That makes them lower class. What does that leave? An income range of 28,00 to 77,500 a household to be "middle class" by income. You obviously for some reason find this distasteful.
To get a better perspective GGT what percentage of the American people do you feel are poor/middle/upper? I classify 50% (the middle) as middle class. Is your vision of the middle class larger or smaller?
The better question is.....what do you think is an appropriate range of income to qualify for Medicaid, or any type of Welfare? Or WIC, food stamps, subsidized lunches, section 8 housing, utility assistance?
You repeating it as mantra does equally less, expect to show your own disposition.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Sure. Environment doesn't play a significant part at all. But a silver spoonfed individual like you wouldn't understand that.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Lewk wants to play it both ways. If poor people work hard and become millionaires, he'll cheer freeee enterprise.
But if poor people work hard and can't get out of poverty, they're just dumb lazy fucks with no discipline.
What if nobody actually makes choices?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote