ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Baylor3216 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/
Study: It's better to have rich parents than be smart

A recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds that there is a correct answer to the often posed hypothetical of being born with a big brain or a big bank account.

The big picture: In "Born to Win, Schooled to Lose," researchers found that being born "affluent" but dim carries a 7 in 10 chance of reaching a high socioeconomic status as an adult, while being born intelligent but "disadvantaged" means just a 3-in-10 shot.

Details: "The study found that a kindergarten student from the bottom 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the top 25% of students has a 31% chance of earning a college education and working a job that pays at least $35,000 by the time they are 25, and at least $45,000 by the time they are 35," CNBC's Abigail Hess reports.

• "A kindergarten student from the top 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the bottom 25% of students had a 71% chance of achieving the same achievements," Hess writes.

How they did it: Researchers analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), tracing students from kindergarten to adulthood, assessing how they did on standardized math tests.

---

Most of us learned long ago that the biggest impact on success is just showing up. Some put in the time, some just know how to whine

---

These people are showing up. 80+ hours a week AND THEYRE STILL POOR.

That's the problem.

The top 1% has earned $21 TRILLION dollars over the last 30 years.

The bottom 50% have LOST $900 million.

This isn't about "showing up." It's a lot harder to show up if the meeting room is on 57th floor and you can't walk because you're getting kneecapped on the way in the building.

---

That's total BS. No one who works 80+hours a week is poor for long.
You're just making up crap now.

---

1 in 9 full-time workers are still poor.
https://www.epi.org/publication/one-in-nine-u-s-workers-are-paid-wages-that-can-leave-them-in-poverty-even-when-working-full-time/

That's FULL TIME. There are absolutely people working multiple part time jobs and in poverty. 80 hours? Almost definitely. I personally know someone who works 60+ and is nearly homeless (in and out).

---

That is fantastic news. Thank you for posting that information so we could all see how it's dropped from 1 in 4 in 1986 to only 1 in 9 in 2017. We're on an awesome trend. Economy rolling, less regulation and taxation so more growth and increased jobs, more competition so rising wages. All good stuff. Keep America great!

---

Your ability to willfully miss a point is truly amazing.

You bluster and weave and bully with such confidence, it's almost Impressive.

You just feel first and rationalize later.

---

How about this then:

In 2008, I lost my job in a massive wave of layoffs. It was the 8th round of layoffs in 18 months. I spent the next 2 years looking for a good job, and working 30+ hours doing whatever work I could find. At the end of 2009, I was informed that my family and I qualified for foodstamps and other welfare programs. I laughed because I still owned a home valued over $300k, and 2 cars valued over $70k. I also had about $10k left in my savings account. But I had 2 children and annual earnings below the poverty line for a family of my size.
So guess what.... I was your "working poor" for about 2 years. I never took government money. I sold my cars and bought cheaper, used cars. I put my house on the market, drained my savings, and started selling stuff around the house (computers, tools, guns, lawn mower, TV, stereo, etc.) We were about to agree to a lowball offer on my house when I got hired in a decent job. We continued to live poor, so that we could build up our savings again.

How many of your "working poor" are just like me? How many own a smart phone? A car? How many people with a job will remain poor for their entire lives?

Did you really look at the chart in the article?? The number of "working poor" is around 13% and dramatically DROPPING! And yet you want to change the policies which are causing the numbers to drop??
"Gee, things are getting better and better... we MUST do something different!" - stupid, stupid, stupid.

---

How many "working poor" had a home they owned, a really good job before losing it and enough savings to get them through a couple years of unemployment?

I don't think you know what "poor" means.

---

According to the study in the article YOU posted.... I was one of the working poor. That is my point. Not everyone included in that "working poor" definition is the super sad victim that you portray. Not by a long shot.

---

What? Did you actually read it? Current income was ONE facet. Total assets is another.

Now you're just being obtuse.

bearassnekkid said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

---

If there has ever been, in the entire history of mankind, a society that allows people to reach their potential, it is the United States of America.

You don't see it, but your weak arguments in favor of special treatment are borne from a gross sense of entitlement.

"Hey, we live in a wealthy nation, so we should be able to be wealthy, cuz, yeah." No. Being extremely wealthy requires good fortune, intelligence, and effort. I say extremely wealthy because virtually everyone except the extreme poor in this country are wealthy by world and historical standards. Clean, running water, Food in abundance. Shelter. Clothing. Health care. Transportation. You and 47 talk about the unfairness of "luck", but people in the U.S. today are among the luckiest humans to have ever walked the planet. Still, not everyone gets to be uber rich. Deal with it. And live in some gratitude.

---

You're arguing against points I'm not making. You're trying to twist my words because it suits your very strange set of arguments.

We want a just society. Will we ever have it? Never like it SHOULD be.

But can't we agree that should be the goal? Or are you just admitting you're cool with the status quo that benefits you?

I mean, screw everyone else. You have what YOU need.

^^^ Definition for above statement from BBL:

I'm a loser in my professional life, I can't win competing against my age group in the workplace but I don't wanna tell my wife because she may leave me, knowing I'm a loser. I'm not gonna enter workforce at my level and try to work my way up from such a menial job, that's sooooo below me

I can't earn enough to save and my college debt is now insurmountable. That scares me for my future.

I can't buy a house, heck I can't take my wife out to eat. Her job as bank teller is all we have now financially as I contribute nothing financially and I'm "man of the House"

My parents are frustrated with me and think I can do better, much better. My mother is beginning to give up on me now

I need a diversion from people thinking I'm a loser that can't support his family

I'll listen to anyone that gives me "a way out" of being a loser professionally and pay off my anchor, my college debt

Bernie sounds good to me. I think I'll go all in on Bernie! He has multitudes of adoring college fans, how could I be a Younger Bernie? Maybe I should learn Socialism? Yeah, it's Socialism for me! I'm all in on Socialism now. That'll get me a great job and pay off my college debt!!!

I'll learn it and preach it from rooftops and people will think I'm smart, knowing this new thing Socialism. My peers will accept me as a leader again, and not a loser like they do now! In Socialism I'll be equal, maybe even better, if I'm a leader of this new thing called "Socialism."

I'll practice my stump speeches for Socialism on this little isolated Baylor site. These are relatively safe Baylor people that won't bite my head off like the general public does. I'll learn to debate and never give up my savior which has to be Socialism now. I'll be deceptive. I'll learn to be a leader for Socialism on this Baylor site, then I'll know enough to be another Beto, only better. And I'll excel as high as possible in school so they'll think I'm smart!

I'll be somebody if Socialism just wins out! I've got to be all in on Socialism now.

Onward to debate these losers here on this conservative Baylor site

Let's go .....

Someone quote this so BBL sees it as the ***** doesn't like me and has me on ignore. I wonder why ;-)

Because you make up stuff? He prolly doesnt find you as entertaining as I do. You're nearly a good laugh,,,

Kenyan Muslim retired crack dealer obama

Ahhhh that felt great as I wake

The fact that Florda insists on following me around and responding to my posts even though he knows I've blocked him is kind of him in a nutshell.

He's an old man, watching Fox News, screaming into the wind.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The fact that Florda insists on following me around and responding to my posts even though he knows I've blocked him is kind of him in a nutshell.

He's an old man, watching Fox News, screaming into the wind.

---

Trump called FOX fake news last night. Boomers everywhere are panicking with their generation's greatest dilemma. This is their Normandy.

Crash Davis said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The fact that Florda insists on following me around and responding to my posts even though he knows I've blocked him is kind of him in a nutshell.

He's an old man, watching Fox News, screaming into the wind.

---

Trump called FOX fake news last night. Boomers everywhere are panicking with their generation's greatest dilemma. This is their Normandy.

---

Trump didn't exactly call FOX 'fake news', he said he does not believe 'fake polls', which in English means he does not like what they said.

Obama said there were 57 states, and Bush couldn't pronounce 'nuclear'.

Is what it is.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The fact that Florda insists on following me around and responding to my posts even though he knows I've blocked him is kind of him in a nutshell.

He's an old man, watching Fox News, screaming into the wind.

---

Trump called FOX fake news last night. Boomers everywhere are panicking with their generation's greatest dilemma. This is their Normandy.

---

Trump didn't exactly call FOX 'fake news', he said he does not believe 'fake polls', which in English means he does not like what they said.

Obama said there were 57 states, and Bush couldn't pronounce 'nuclear'.

Is what it is.

---

Wait. You're comparing slips of the tongue with the number of times Trump has repeated an attack on the media/anyone who disagrees with his version of reality?

Don't hurt your back with those mental gymnastics.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The fact that Florda insists on following me around and responding to my posts even though he knows I've blocked him is kind of him in a nutshell.

He's an old man, watching Fox News, screaming into the wind.

---

Trump called FOX fake news last night. Boomers everywhere are panicking with their generation's greatest dilemma. This is their Normandy.

---

Trump didn't exactly call FOX 'fake news', he said he does not believe 'fake polls', which in English means he does not like what they said.

Obama said there were 57 states, and Bush couldn't pronounce 'nuclear'.

Is what it is.

---

Also, went and looked it up.

He called Brett Baier "fake news." Not the polls.

Swing-and-a-miss, homie.

BBL, in your opinion, why does the left have such a hard time competing against the right?

Florda_mike said:

---

^^^ Definition for above statement from BBL:

I'm a loser in my professional life, I can't win competing against my age group in the workplace but I don't wanna tell my wife because she may leave me, knowing I'm a loser. I'm not gonna enter workforce at my level and try to work my way up from such a menial job, that's sooooo below me

I can't earn enough to save and my college debt is now insurmountable. That scares me for my future.

I can't buy a house, heck I can't take my wife out to eat. Her job as bank teller is all we have now financially as I contribute nothing financially and I'm "man of the House"

My parents are frustrated with me and think I can do better, much better. My mother is beginning to give up on me now

I need a diversion from people thinking I'm a loser that can't support his family

I'll listen to anyone that gives me "a way out" of being a loser professionally and pay off my anchor, my college debt

Bernie sounds good to me. I think I'll go all in on Bernie! He has multitudes of adoring college fans, how could I be a Younger Bernie? Maybe I should learn Socialism? Yeah, it's Socialism for me! I'm all in on Socialism now. That'll get me a great job and pay off my college debt!!!

I'll learn it and preach it from rooftops and people will think I'm smart, knowing this new thing Socialism. My peers will accept me as a leader again, and not a loser like they do now! In Socialism I'll be equal, maybe even better, if I'm a leader of this new thing called "Socialism."

I'll practice my stump speeches for Socialism on this little isolated Baylor site. These are relatively safe Baylor people that won't bite my head off like the general public does. I'll learn to debate and never give up my savior which has to be Socialism now. I'll be deceptive. I'll learn to be a leader for Socialism on this Baylor site, then I'll know enough to be another Beto, only better. And I'll excel as high as possible in school so they'll think I'm smart!

I'll be somebody if Socialism just wins out! I've got to be all in on Socialism now.

Onward to debate these losers here on this conservative Baylor site

Let's go .....

Someone quote this so BBL sees it as the ***** doesn't like me and has me on ignore. I wonder why ;-)

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BBL, in your opinion, why does the left have such a hard time competing against the right?

---

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Clinton won more votes - a lot more- than Trump. 2018 was a giant victory for democrats as they won nationwide by 9 points.

But I'll play along.

Because the left is overly concerned with facts and reason and bleeding heart issues.

The right doesn't have the same compunctions.

It really sucks. Because conservatives used to care about facts and were just hardcore realists. Between the two extremes, a lot of amazing work was done. One side would temper the other. Both Bush's and Clinton were excellent examples of that.

Obama governed as a moderate. Believe it or not, he really did. And he had no idea what he was fighting with the rise of the TeaParty.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BBL, in your opinion, why does the left have such a hard time competing against the right?

---

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Clinton won more votes - a lot more- than Trump. 2018 was a giant victory for democrats as they won nationwide by 9 points.

But I'll play along.

Because the left is overly concerned with facts and reason and bleeding heart issues.

The right doesn't have the same compunctions.

It really sucks. Because conservatives used to care about facts and were just hardcore realists. Between the two extremes, a lot of amazing work was done. One side would temper the other. Both Bush's and Clinton were excellent examples of that.

Obama governed as a moderate. Believe it or not, he really did. And he had no idea what he was fighting with the rise of the TeaParty.

---

Yeah she won more votes...but she's not in power. Trump is. Trump won a much larger area of diverse votes.

And Democrats had historical losses. Generally the party in control with a President loses more than they lost in 2018.

The left is not concerned with facts. Currently you guys are pushing that there are no genders. Science says there are.

Obama, Bush and Clinton created Trump.

The right are populists today.

The left is moving further left into very radical territory.

Do you support this new wave of ultra radical leftism? i don't see Democrats moving towards the center. When will you jump off that train?

Waco1947 said:

---

Birth place and to whom matters. Not a one of us chose our parents or birthplace.

---

Your incessant victimhood wore quite thin a very long time ago. Pathetic, really.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

No one is saying there shouldn't be inequality. That's a false argument you've been trying to make.

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

The system as it is right now is NOT a meritocracy. It takes A LOT more than hard work to get ahead now. You have to be lucky. You have to be perfect.

No one is saying that we should break everyone's legs. We're just stating that some people have legs that work and some people don't. And for those that don't, maybe build some ramps so they can get into the building if they are willing to try.

That is it.

---

It SHOULD take more than hard work to get ahead!

It takes SMART WORK.

Not everyone is smart. If you're born into a situation where you're not blessed, not smart, not good at life...you still don't deserve to get ahead.

The only people that deserve to get ahead are people who overcome extraordinary measures, sacrifice, work more than they should and grab life by the horns. Everyone else is too weak.

Only the weak are making your argument. Everyone has the full ability to become stronger. Not everyone has the same potential.

Getting ahead is a subjective term: what is your definition of getting ahead?

You are literally arguing for special treatment.

Scenario: Man declines going to college or learning skills. He decides to work a maximum of 20 hours a week at Mcdonalds because he thinks working more than that is too hard for him. He's extremely overweight and needs health insurance. Does he deserve a ramp? Does he deserve a handout?

---

I get you're really up your own ass about this borderline eugenics/classist mindset.

You're also insisting on misstating my points, which makes sense, because you are too far into your rant to admit that I'm right.

LMAO. "SMART WORK" vs "HARD WORK" is a distinction without a difference. You really believe you hit on some point, don't you? Goodness, it'd be adorable if you weren't so completely dismissive of the reality of the world.

I have showed you PROOF that the ability of people to change their economic status in this country is melting away. It's not theoretical. It's fact. It is becoming harder and harder to change your lot in life.

Our country was literally built on the backs of people who were willing to break their backs and work hard (smart, whatever) and do what needs to be done. Our middle class was built by our grandparents doing what was needed, going to war, coming back and working in a factory, or as a teacher, or as a pastor, and putting in all their effort, mind, body, soul into it.

That isn't enough. Your disgusting fake distinction of "smart" vs. "hard" just exposes your belief that you think rich people are smarter than poor people and therefore, more deserving. We ALL know that's not true. George Soros is incredibly wealthy. Guess you're willing to admit he's just a better human being than you are? You're not George Soros wealthy. Probably should just let him tell you what to do. Might makes right, correct?

---

A part of your problem is you fail to account for why it might be so that it may be harder to change one's lot in life. It doesn't take too much thought to observe a number of mega trends that have been in place for decades. Just off the top of my head: more women entering the workforce creating downward pressure on wages as the supply of labor increases; offshoring/global competition killing relatively higher paying jobs; the inevitable results of transitioning from agrarian, to industrial, to post industrial modes; the devaluing of college education that doesn't result in marketable/differentiating skills; the fiscal drag of the cost of said worthless college degrees (which are stupid expensive to a large extent because of stupid student loan policies; failure to really live frugally/responsibly in order to accumulate some sort of assets. I'm sure there are a great many more, but it's getting close to my bedtime. I'm an old fart, 64, but I still get up at 4:30 every weekday to keep plugging away hoping to add to at least a modicum of generational wealth for my kids and grandkids.

If you've never read any of his work, I commend to you the writings of Nassim Taleb, btw. He has a lot of insight into the impact of chance on both wealth and poverty. Short version, the uber successful often are the beneficiaries of a series of fortunate events that might, or might not really have much to do with their efforts. Similarly, there will always be poor people. I'm not doing him justice. You should check it out for yourself.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BBL, in your opinion, why does the left have such a hard time competing against the right?

---

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Clinton won more votes - a lot more- than Trump. 2018 was a giant victory for democrats as they won nationwide by 9 points.

But I'll play along.

Because the left is overly concerned with facts and reason and bleeding heart issues.

The right doesn't have the same compunctions.

It really sucks. Because conservatives used to care about facts and were just hardcore realists. Between the two extremes, a lot of amazing work was done. One side would temper the other. Both Bush's and Clinton were excellent examples of that.

Obama governed as a moderate. Believe it or not, he really did. And he had no idea what he was fighting with the rise of the TeaParty.

---

Yeah she won more votes...but she's not in power. Trump is. Trump won a much larger area of diverse votes.

And Democrats had historical losses. Generally the party in control with a President loses more than they lost in 2018.

The left is not concerned with facts. Currently you guys are pushing that there are no genders. Science says there are.

Obama, Bush and Clinton created Trump.

The right are populists today.

The left is moving further left into very radical territory.

Do you support this new wave of ultra radical leftism? i don't see Democrats moving towards the center. When will you jump off that train?

---

Stop quoting "science" as if you knew what you're talking about. Science actually says something different.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5824932/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/?redirect=1

But I'm not going down that rabbit hole. I will not get drawn into a discussion on what you don't know about gender and gender fluidity.

But you conservatives are about "facts?"

Where the hell have you been on climate change? Still denying that?

And Trump RAN as a populist. That doesn't make him one. What a stupid comment.

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

No one is saying there shouldn't be inequality. That's a false argument you've been trying to make.

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

The system as it is right now is NOT a meritocracy. It takes A LOT more than hard work to get ahead now. You have to be lucky. You have to be perfect.

No one is saying that we should break everyone's legs. We're just stating that some people have legs that work and some people don't. And for those that don't, maybe build some ramps so they can get into the building if they are willing to try.

That is it.

---

It SHOULD take more than hard work to get ahead!

It takes SMART WORK.

Not everyone is smart. If you're born into a situation where you're not blessed, not smart, not good at life...you still don't deserve to get ahead.

The only people that deserve to get ahead are people who overcome extraordinary measures, sacrifice, work more than they should and grab life by the horns. Everyone else is too weak.

Only the weak are making your argument. Everyone has the full ability to become stronger. Not everyone has the same potential.

Getting ahead is a subjective term: what is your definition of getting ahead?

You are literally arguing for special treatment.

Scenario: Man declines going to college or learning skills. He decides to work a maximum of 20 hours a week at Mcdonalds because he thinks working more than that is too hard for him. He's extremely overweight and needs health insurance. Does he deserve a ramp? Does he deserve a handout?

---

I get you're really up your own ass about this borderline eugenics/classist mindset.

You're also insisting on misstating my points, which makes sense, because you are too far into your rant to admit that I'm right.

LMAO. "SMART WORK" vs "HARD WORK" is a distinction without a difference. You really believe you hit on some point, don't you? Goodness, it'd be adorable if you weren't so completely dismissive of the reality of the world.

I have showed you PROOF that the ability of people to change their economic status in this country is melting away. It's not theoretical. It's fact. It is becoming harder and harder to change your lot in life.

Our country was literally built on the backs of people who were willing to break their backs and work hard (smart, whatever) and do what needs to be done. Our middle class was built by our grandparents doing what was needed, going to war, coming back and working in a factory, or as a teacher, or as a pastor, and putting in all their effort, mind, body, soul into it.

That isn't enough. Your disgusting fake distinction of "smart" vs. "hard" just exposes your belief that you think rich people are smarter than poor people and therefore, more deserving. We ALL know that's not true. George Soros is incredibly wealthy. Guess you're willing to admit he's just a better human being than you are? You're not George Soros wealthy. Probably should just let him tell you what to do. Might makes right, correct?

---

A part of your problem is you fail to account for why it might be so that it may be harder to change one's lot in life. It doesn't take too much thought to observe a number of mega trends that have been in place for decades. Just off the top of my head: more women entering the workforce creating downward pressure on wages as the supply of labor increases; offshoring/global competition killing relatively higher paying jobs; the inevitable results of transitioning from agrarian, to industrial, to post industrial modes; the devaluing of college education that doesn't result in marketable/differentiating skills; the fiscal drag of the cost of said worthless college degrees (which are stupid expensive to a large extent because of stupid student loan policies; failure to really live frugally/responsibly in order to accumulate some sort of assets. I'm sure there are a great many more, but it's getting close to my bedtime. I'm an old fart, 64, but I still get up at 4:30 every weekday to keep plugging away hoping to add to at least a modicum of generational wealth for my kids and grandkids.

If you've never read any of his work, I commend to you the writings of Nassim Taleb, btw. He has a lot of insight into the impact of chance on both wealth and poverty. Short version, the uber successful often are the beneficiaries of a series of fortunate events that might, or might not really have much to do with their efforts. Similarly, there will always be poor people. I'm not doing him justice. You should check it out for yourself.

---

Thanks for the recommendation! Sincerely. I'll try and check it out. I don't get a whole lot of chances to read for fun these days, but I just added The Black Swan to my wish list.

I'm not saying we should never have poor. I do not think that's possible. I really am a believer in the market. I just think the market has no heart and should be tempered by regulation. Tempered.

I just think that we as a society are best served by striving to shape our system to reward merit. Actual merit. How many Nicola Tesla's have we lost because they were born where they had NO chance?

Right now, that's absolutely happening.

curtpenn said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Birth place and to whom matters. Not a one of us chose our parents or birthplace.

---

Your incessant victimhood wore quite thin a very long time ago. Pathetic, really.

---

I am not claiming victimhood. It is a damn fact. Who your parents and where you are born tremendously impacts your life.
I was born white in Waco. I am not a victim. I benefitted from my birth place, date and parents.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

No one is saying there shouldn't be inequality. That's a false argument you've been trying to make.

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

The system as it is right now is NOT a meritocracy. It takes A LOT more than hard work to get ahead now. You have to be lucky. You have to be perfect.

No one is saying that we should break everyone's legs. We're just stating that some people have legs that work and some people don't. And for those that don't, maybe build some ramps so they can get into the building if they are willing to try.

That is it.

---

It SHOULD take more than hard work to get ahead!

It takes SMART WORK.

Not everyone is smart. If you're born into a situation where you're not blessed, not smart, not good at life...you still don't deserve to get ahead.

The only people that deserve to get ahead are people who overcome extraordinary measures, sacrifice, work more than they should and grab life by the horns. Everyone else is too weak.

Only the weak are making your argument. Everyone has the full ability to become stronger. Not everyone has the same potential.

Getting ahead is a subjective term: what is your definition of getting ahead?

You are literally arguing for special treatment.

Scenario: Man declines going to college or learning skills. He decides to work a maximum of 20 hours a week at Mcdonalds because he thinks working more than that is too hard for him. He's extremely overweight and needs health insurance. Does he deserve a ramp? Does he deserve a handout?

---

I get you're really up your own ass about this borderline eugenics/classist mindset.

You're also insisting on misstating my points, which makes sense, because you are too far into your rant to admit that I'm right.

LMAO. "SMART WORK" vs "HARD WORK" is a distinction without a difference. You really believe you hit on some point, don't you? Goodness, it'd be adorable if you weren't so completely dismissive of the reality of the world.

I have showed you PROOF that the ability of people to change their economic status in this country is melting away. It's not theoretical. It's fact. It is becoming harder and harder to change your lot in life.

Our country was literally built on the backs of people who were willing to break their backs and work hard (smart, whatever) and do what needs to be done. Our middle class was built by our grandparents doing what was needed, going to war, coming back and working in a factory, or as a teacher, or as a pastor, and putting in all their effort, mind, body, soul into it.

That isn't enough. Your disgusting fake distinction of "smart" vs. "hard" just exposes your belief that you think rich people are smarter than poor people and therefore, more deserving. We ALL know that's not true. George Soros is incredibly wealthy. Guess you're willing to admit he's just a better human being than you are? You're not George Soros wealthy. Probably should just let him tell you what to do. Might makes right, correct?

---

A part of your problem is you fail to account for why it might be so that it may be harder to change one's lot in life. It doesn't take too much thought to observe a number of mega trends that have been in place for decades. Just off the top of my head: more women entering the workforce creating downward pressure on wages as the supply of labor increases; offshoring/global competition killing relatively higher paying jobs; the inevitable results of transitioning from agrarian, to industrial, to post industrial modes; the devaluing of college education that doesn't result in marketable/differentiating skills; the fiscal drag of the cost of said worthless college degrees (which are stupid expensive to a large extent because of stupid student loan policies; failure to really live frugally/responsibly in order to accumulate some sort of assets. I'm sure there are a great many more, but it's getting close to my bedtime. I'm an old fart, 64, but I still get up at 4:30 every weekday to keep plugging away hoping to add to at least a modicum of generational wealth for my kids and grandkids.

If you've never read any of his work, I commend to you the writings of Nassim Taleb, btw. He has a lot of insight into the impact of chance on both wealth and poverty. Short version, the uber successful often are the beneficiaries of a series of fortunate events that might, or might not really have much to do with their efforts. Similarly, there will always be poor people. I'm not doing him justice. You should check it out for yourself.

---

Thanks for the recommendation! Sincerely. I'll try and check it out. I don't get a whole lot of chances to read for fun these days, but I just added The Black Swan to my wish list.

I'm not saying we should never have poor. I do not think that's possible. I really am a believer in the market. I just think the market has no heart and should be tempered by regulation. Tempered.

I just think that we as a society are best served by striving to shape our system to reward merit. Actual merit. How many Nicola Tesla's have we lost because they were born where they had NO chance?

Right now, that's absolutely happening.

---

Not nearly as many as we lost because they were killed before they even had a chance to be born.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

No one is saying there shouldn't be inequality. That's a false argument you've been trying to make.

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

The system as it is right now is NOT a meritocracy. It takes A LOT more than hard work to get ahead now. You have to be lucky. You have to be perfect.

No one is saying that we should break everyone's legs. We're just stating that some people have legs that work and some people don't. And for those that don't, maybe build some ramps so they can get into the building if they are willing to try.

That is it.

---

It SHOULD take more than hard work to get ahead!

It takes SMART WORK.

Not everyone is smart. If you're born into a situation where you're not blessed, not smart, not good at life...you still don't deserve to get ahead.

The only people that deserve to get ahead are people who overcome extraordinary measures, sacrifice, work more than they should and grab life by the horns. Everyone else is too weak.

Only the weak are making your argument. Everyone has the full ability to become stronger. Not everyone has the same potential.

Getting ahead is a subjective term: what is your definition of getting ahead?

You are literally arguing for special treatment.

Scenario: Man declines going to college or learning skills. He decides to work a maximum of 20 hours a week at Mcdonalds because he thinks working more than that is too hard for him. He's extremely overweight and needs health insurance. Does he deserve a ramp? Does he deserve a handout?

---

I get you're really up your own ass about this borderline eugenics/classist mindset.

You're also insisting on misstating my points, which makes sense, because you are too far into your rant to admit that I'm right.

LMAO. "SMART WORK" vs "HARD WORK" is a distinction without a difference. You really believe you hit on some point, don't you? Goodness, it'd be adorable if you weren't so completely dismissive of the reality of the world.

I have showed you PROOF that the ability of people to change their economic status in this country is melting away. It's not theoretical. It's fact. It is becoming harder and harder to change your lot in life.

Our country was literally built on the backs of people who were willing to break their backs and work hard (smart, whatever) and do what needs to be done. Our middle class was built by our grandparents doing what was needed, going to war, coming back and working in a factory, or as a teacher, or as a pastor, and putting in all their effort, mind, body, soul into it.

That isn't enough. Your disgusting fake distinction of "smart" vs. "hard" just exposes your belief that you think rich people are smarter than poor people and therefore, more deserving. We ALL know that's not true. George Soros is incredibly wealthy. Guess you're willing to admit he's just a better human being than you are? You're not George Soros wealthy. Probably should just let him tell you what to do. Might makes right, correct?

---

A part of your problem is you fail to account for why it might be so that it may be harder to change one's lot in life. It doesn't take too much thought to observe a number of mega trends that have been in place for decades. Just off the top of my head: more women entering the workforce creating downward pressure on wages as the supply of labor increases; offshoring/global competition killing relatively higher paying jobs; the inevitable results of transitioning from agrarian, to industrial, to post industrial modes; the devaluing of college education that doesn't result in marketable/differentiating skills; the fiscal drag of the cost of said worthless college degrees (which are stupid expensive to a large extent because of stupid student loan policies; failure to really live frugally/responsibly in order to accumulate some sort of assets. I'm sure there are a great many more, but it's getting close to my bedtime. I'm an old fart, 64, but I still get up at 4:30 every weekday to keep plugging away hoping to add to at least a modicum of generational wealth for my kids and grandkids.

If you've never read any of his work, I commend to you the writings of Nassim Taleb, btw. He has a lot of insight into the impact of chance on both wealth and poverty. Short version, the uber successful often are the beneficiaries of a series of fortunate events that might, or might not really have much to do with their efforts. Similarly, there will always be poor people. I'm not doing him justice. You should check it out for yourself.

---

Thanks for the recommendation! Sincerely. I'll try and check it out. I don't get a whole lot of chances to read for fun these days, but I just added The Black Swan to my wish list.

I'm not saying we should never have poor. I do not think that's possible. I really am a believer in the market. I just think the market has no heart and should be tempered by regulation. Tempered.

I just think that we as a society are best served by striving to shape our system to reward merit. Actual merit. How many Nicola Tesla's have we lost because they were born where they had NO chance?

Right now, that's absolutely happening.

---

Not nearly as many as we lost because they were killed before they even had a chance to be born.

---

Whataboutism with a completely unrelated topic.

Good stuff.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

No one is saying there shouldn't be inequality. That's a false argument you've been trying to make.

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

The system as it is right now is NOT a meritocracy. It takes A LOT more than hard work to get ahead now. You have to be lucky. You have to be perfect.

No one is saying that we should break everyone's legs. We're just stating that some people have legs that work and some people don't. And for those that don't, maybe build some ramps so they can get into the building if they are willing to try.

That is it.

---

It SHOULD take more than hard work to get ahead!

It takes SMART WORK.

Not everyone is smart. If you're born into a situation where you're not blessed, not smart, not good at life...you still don't deserve to get ahead.

The only people that deserve to get ahead are people who overcome extraordinary measures, sacrifice, work more than they should and grab life by the horns. Everyone else is too weak.

Only the weak are making your argument. Everyone has the full ability to become stronger. Not everyone has the same potential.

Getting ahead is a subjective term: what is your definition of getting ahead?

You are literally arguing for special treatment.

Scenario: Man declines going to college or learning skills. He decides to work a maximum of 20 hours a week at Mcdonalds because he thinks working more than that is too hard for him. He's extremely overweight and needs health insurance. Does he deserve a ramp? Does he deserve a handout?

---

I get you're really up your own ass about this borderline eugenics/classist mindset.

You're also insisting on misstating my points, which makes sense, because you are too far into your rant to admit that I'm right.

LMAO. "SMART WORK" vs "HARD WORK" is a distinction without a difference. You really believe you hit on some point, don't you? Goodness, it'd be adorable if you weren't so completely dismissive of the reality of the world.

I have showed you PROOF that the ability of people to change their economic status in this country is melting away. It's not theoretical. It's fact. It is becoming harder and harder to change your lot in life.

Our country was literally built on the backs of people who were willing to break their backs and work hard (smart, whatever) and do what needs to be done. Our middle class was built by our grandparents doing what was needed, going to war, coming back and working in a factory, or as a teacher, or as a pastor, and putting in all their effort, mind, body, soul into it.

That isn't enough. Your disgusting fake distinction of "smart" vs. "hard" just exposes your belief that you think rich people are smarter than poor people and therefore, more deserving. We ALL know that's not true. George Soros is incredibly wealthy. Guess you're willing to admit he's just a better human being than you are? You're not George Soros wealthy. Probably should just let him tell you what to do. Might makes right, correct?

---

A part of your problem is you fail to account for why it might be so that it may be harder to change one's lot in life. It doesn't take too much thought to observe a number of mega trends that have been in place for decades. Just off the top of my head: more women entering the workforce creating downward pressure on wages as the supply of labor increases; offshoring/global competition killing relatively higher paying jobs; the inevitable results of transitioning from agrarian, to industrial, to post industrial modes; the devaluing of college education that doesn't result in marketable/differentiating skills; the fiscal drag of the cost of said worthless college degrees (which are stupid expensive to a large extent because of stupid student loan policies; failure to really live frugally/responsibly in order to accumulate some sort of assets. I'm sure there are a great many more, but it's getting close to my bedtime. I'm an old fart, 64, but I still get up at 4:30 every weekday to keep plugging away hoping to add to at least a modicum of generational wealth for my kids and grandkids.

If you've never read any of his work, I commend to you the writings of Nassim Taleb, btw. He has a lot of insight into the impact of chance on both wealth and poverty. Short version, the uber successful often are the beneficiaries of a series of fortunate events that might, or might not really have much to do with their efforts. Similarly, there will always be poor people. I'm not doing him justice. You should check it out for yourself.

---

Thanks for the recommendation! Sincerely. I'll try and check it out. I don't get a whole lot of chances to read for fun these days, but I just added The Black Swan to my wish list.

I'm not saying we should never have poor. I do not think that's possible. I really am a believer in the market. I just think the market has no heart and should be tempered by regulation. Tempered.

I just think that we as a society are best served by striving to shape our system to reward merit. Actual merit. How many Nicola Tesla's have we lost because they were born where they had NO chance?

Right now, that's absolutely happening.

---

Not nearly as many as we lost because they were killed before they even had a chance to be born.

---

Whataboutism with a completely unrelated topic.

Good stuff.

---

I wager you were good at dodge ball. You can't make a ****ing argument to save your life.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

No one is saying there shouldn't be inequality. That's a false argument you've been trying to make.

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

The system as it is right now is NOT a meritocracy. It takes A LOT more than hard work to get ahead now. You have to be lucky. You have to be perfect.

No one is saying that we should break everyone's legs. We're just stating that some people have legs that work and some people don't. And for those that don't, maybe build some ramps so they can get into the building if they are willing to try.

That is it.

---

It SHOULD take more than hard work to get ahead!

It takes SMART WORK.

Not everyone is smart. If you're born into a situation where you're not blessed, not smart, not good at life...you still don't deserve to get ahead.

The only people that deserve to get ahead are people who overcome extraordinary measures, sacrifice, work more than they should and grab life by the horns. Everyone else is too weak.

Only the weak are making your argument. Everyone has the full ability to become stronger. Not everyone has the same potential.

Getting ahead is a subjective term: what is your definition of getting ahead?

You are literally arguing for special treatment.

Scenario: Man declines going to college or learning skills. He decides to work a maximum of 20 hours a week at Mcdonalds because he thinks working more than that is too hard for him. He's extremely overweight and needs health insurance. Does he deserve a ramp? Does he deserve a handout?

---

I get you're really up your own ass about this borderline eugenics/classist mindset.

You're also insisting on misstating my points, which makes sense, because you are too far into your rant to admit that I'm right.

LMAO. "SMART WORK" vs "HARD WORK" is a distinction without a difference. You really believe you hit on some point, don't you? Goodness, it'd be adorable if you weren't so completely dismissive of the reality of the world.

I have showed you PROOF that the ability of people to change their economic status in this country is melting away. It's not theoretical. It's fact. It is becoming harder and harder to change your lot in life.

Our country was literally built on the backs of people who were willing to break their backs and work hard (smart, whatever) and do what needs to be done. Our middle class was built by our grandparents doing what was needed, going to war, coming back and working in a factory, or as a teacher, or as a pastor, and putting in all their effort, mind, body, soul into it.

That isn't enough. Your disgusting fake distinction of "smart" vs. "hard" just exposes your belief that you think rich people are smarter than poor people and therefore, more deserving. We ALL know that's not true. George Soros is incredibly wealthy. Guess you're willing to admit he's just a better human being than you are? You're not George Soros wealthy. Probably should just let him tell you what to do. Might makes right, correct?

---

A part of your problem is you fail to account for why it might be so that it may be harder to change one's lot in life. It doesn't take too much thought to observe a number of mega trends that have been in place for decades. Just off the top of my head: more women entering the workforce creating downward pressure on wages as the supply of labor increases; offshoring/global competition killing relatively higher paying jobs; the inevitable results of transitioning from agrarian, to industrial, to post industrial modes; the devaluing of college education that doesn't result in marketable/differentiating skills; the fiscal drag of the cost of said worthless college degrees (which are stupid expensive to a large extent because of stupid student loan policies; failure to really live frugally/responsibly in order to accumulate some sort of assets. I'm sure there are a great many more, but it's getting close to my bedtime. I'm an old fart, 64, but I still get up at 4:30 every weekday to keep plugging away hoping to add to at least a modicum of generational wealth for my kids and grandkids.

If you've never read any of his work, I commend to you the writings of Nassim Taleb, btw. He has a lot of insight into the impact of chance on both wealth and poverty. Short version, the uber successful often are the beneficiaries of a series of fortunate events that might, or might not really have much to do with their efforts. Similarly, there will always be poor people. I'm not doing him justice. You should check it out for yourself.

---

Thanks for the recommendation! Sincerely. I'll try and check it out. I don't get a whole lot of chances to read for fun these days, but I just added The Black Swan to my wish list.

I'm not saying we should never have poor. I do not think that's possible. I really am a believer in the market. I just think the market has no heart and should be tempered by regulation. Tempered.

I just think that we as a society are best served by striving to shape our system to reward merit. Actual merit. How many Nicola Tesla's have we lost because they were born where they had NO chance?

Right now, that's absolutely happening.

---

Not nearly as many as we lost because they were killed before they even had a chance to be born.

---

Whataboutism with a completely unrelated topic.

Good stuff.

---

When the topic is of society losing out on individual's contributions, it is absolutely related, as is the wasted lives from wars.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

No one is saying there shouldn't be inequality. That's a false argument you've been trying to make.

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

The system as it is right now is NOT a meritocracy. It takes A LOT more than hard work to get ahead now. You have to be lucky. You have to be perfect.

No one is saying that we should break everyone's legs. We're just stating that some people have legs that work and some people don't. And for those that don't, maybe build some ramps so they can get into the building if they are willing to try.

That is it.

---

It SHOULD take more than hard work to get ahead!

It takes SMART WORK.

Not everyone is smart. If you're born into a situation where you're not blessed, not smart, not good at life...you still don't deserve to get ahead.

The only people that deserve to get ahead are people who overcome extraordinary measures, sacrifice, work more than they should and grab life by the horns. Everyone else is too weak.

Only the weak are making your argument. Everyone has the full ability to become stronger. Not everyone has the same potential.

Getting ahead is a subjective term: what is your definition of getting ahead?

You are literally arguing for special treatment.

Scenario: Man declines going to college or learning skills. He decides to work a maximum of 20 hours a week at Mcdonalds because he thinks working more than that is too hard for him. He's extremely overweight and needs health insurance. Does he deserve a ramp? Does he deserve a handout?

---

I get you're really up your own ass about this borderline eugenics/classist mindset.

You're also insisting on misstating my points, which makes sense, because you are too far into your rant to admit that I'm right.

LMAO. "SMART WORK" vs "HARD WORK" is a distinction without a difference. You really believe you hit on some point, don't you? Goodness, it'd be adorable if you weren't so completely dismissive of the reality of the world.

I have showed you PROOF that the ability of people to change their economic status in this country is melting away. It's not theoretical. It's fact. It is becoming harder and harder to change your lot in life.

Our country was literally built on the backs of people who were willing to break their backs and work hard (smart, whatever) and do what needs to be done. Our middle class was built by our grandparents doing what was needed, going to war, coming back and working in a factory, or as a teacher, or as a pastor, and putting in all their effort, mind, body, soul into it.

That isn't enough. Your disgusting fake distinction of "smart" vs. "hard" just exposes your belief that you think rich people are smarter than poor people and therefore, more deserving. We ALL know that's not true. George Soros is incredibly wealthy. Guess you're willing to admit he's just a better human being than you are? You're not George Soros wealthy. Probably should just let him tell you what to do. Might makes right, correct?

---

A part of your problem is you fail to account for why it might be so that it may be harder to change one's lot in life. It doesn't take too much thought to observe a number of mega trends that have been in place for decades. Just off the top of my head: more women entering the workforce creating downward pressure on wages as the supply of labor increases; offshoring/global competition killing relatively higher paying jobs; the inevitable results of transitioning from agrarian, to industrial, to post industrial modes; the devaluing of college education that doesn't result in marketable/differentiating skills; the fiscal drag of the cost of said worthless college degrees (which are stupid expensive to a large extent because of stupid student loan policies; failure to really live frugally/responsibly in order to accumulate some sort of assets. I'm sure there are a great many more, but it's getting close to my bedtime. I'm an old fart, 64, but I still get up at 4:30 every weekday to keep plugging away hoping to add to at least a modicum of generational wealth for my kids and grandkids.

If you've never read any of his work, I commend to you the writings of Nassim Taleb, btw. He has a lot of insight into the impact of chance on both wealth and poverty. Short version, the uber successful often are the beneficiaries of a series of fortunate events that might, or might not really have much to do with their efforts. Similarly, there will always be poor people. I'm not doing him justice. You should check it out for yourself.

---

Thanks for the recommendation! Sincerely. I'll try and check it out. I don't get a whole lot of chances to read for fun these days, but I just added The Black Swan to my wish list.

I'm not saying we should never have poor. I do not think that's possible. I really am a believer in the market. I just think the market has no heart and should be tempered by regulation. Tempered.

I just think that we as a society are best served by striving to shape our system to reward merit. Actual merit. How many Nicola Tesla's have we lost because they were born where they had NO chance?

Right now, that's absolutely happening.

---

You really must read "Skin in the Game", as well. I think everyone should, for that matter:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36064445-skin-in-the-game?ac=1&from_search=true

"As always both accessible and iconoclastic, Taleb challenges long-held beliefs about the values of those who spearhead military interventions, make financial investments, and propagate religious faiths. Among his insights:


For social justice, focus on symmetry and risk sharing. You cannot make profits and transfer the risks to others, as bankers and large corporations do. You cannot get rich without owning your own risk and paying for your own losses. Forcing skin in the game corrects this asymmetry better than thousands of laws and regulations.
Ethical rules aren't universal. You're part of a group larger than you, but it's still smaller than humanity in general.
Minorities, not majorities, run the world. The world is not run by consensus but by stubborn minorities imposing their tastes and ethics on others.
You can be an intellectual yet still be an idiot. "Educated philistines" have been wrong on everything from Stalinism to Iraq to low-carb diets.
Beware of complicated solutions (that someone was paid to find). A simple barbell can build muscle better than expensive new machines.
True religion is commitment, not just faith. How much you believe in something is manifested only by what you're willing to risk for it."


His take on "Intellectual-yet-idiot" is dead on. Just google the term for some good stuff.

Interesting that Tesla was brought up. On the one hand, Tesla was undeniably brilliant, but he got into trouble by committing fraud, deceiving investors in order to pursue his chosen projects.

Criminal behavior is generally a bad idea, and you can't justify by saying 'oh but he was going to help people'.

ShooterTX said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Birth place and to whom matters. Not a one of us chose our parents or birthplace.

---

Your incessant victimhood wore quite thin a very long time ago. Pathetic, really.

---

I am not claiming victimhood. It is a damn fact. Who your parents and where you are born tremendously impacts your life.
I was born white in Waco. I am not a victim. I benefitted from my birth place, date and parents.

---

It is amazing how you turn something good (parents who made good choices) into something bad (priviledge). Why not advocate for more positive parenting and more solid choices?? Rather than advocate for punishing those who benefit from hard work and good choices.
Sick

---

You have nailed it exactly. The Left doesn't exist to make things better. Its entire purpose is to evenly spread misery.

They are crabs in a bucket.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

No one is saying there shouldn't be inequality. That's a false argument you've been trying to make.

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

The system as it is right now is NOT a meritocracy. It takes A LOT more than hard work to get ahead now. You have to be lucky. You have to be perfect.

No one is saying that we should break everyone's legs. We're just stating that some people have legs that work and some people don't. And for those that don't, maybe build some ramps so they can get into the building if they are willing to try.

That is it.

---

It SHOULD take more than hard work to get ahead!

It takes SMART WORK.

Not everyone is smart. If you're born into a situation where you're not blessed, not smart, not good at life...you still don't deserve to get ahead.

The only people that deserve to get ahead are people who overcome extraordinary measures, sacrifice, work more than they should and grab life by the horns. Everyone else is too weak.

Only the weak are making your argument. Everyone has the full ability to become stronger. Not everyone has the same potential.

Getting ahead is a subjective term: what is your definition of getting ahead?

You are literally arguing for special treatment.

Scenario: Man declines going to college or learning skills. He decides to work a maximum of 20 hours a week at Mcdonalds because he thinks working more than that is too hard for him. He's extremely overweight and needs health insurance. Does he deserve a ramp? Does he deserve a handout?

---

I get you're really up your own ass about this borderline eugenics/classist mindset.

You're also insisting on misstating my points, which makes sense, because you are too far into your rant to admit that I'm right.

LMAO. "SMART WORK" vs "HARD WORK" is a distinction without a difference. You really believe you hit on some point, don't you? Goodness, it'd be adorable if you weren't so completely dismissive of the reality of the world.

I have showed you PROOF that the ability of people to change their economic status in this country is melting away. It's not theoretical. It's fact. It is becoming harder and harder to change your lot in life.

Our country was literally built on the backs of people who were willing to break their backs and work hard (smart, whatever) and do what needs to be done. Our middle class was built by our grandparents doing what was needed, going to war, coming back and working in a factory, or as a teacher, or as a pastor, and putting in all their effort, mind, body, soul into it.

That isn't enough. Your disgusting fake distinction of "smart" vs. "hard" just exposes your belief that you think rich people are smarter than poor people and therefore, more deserving. We ALL know that's not true. George Soros is incredibly wealthy. Guess you're willing to admit he's just a better human being than you are? You're not George Soros wealthy. Probably should just let him tell you what to do. Might makes right, correct?

---

A part of your problem is you fail to account for why it might be so that it may be harder to change one's lot in life. It doesn't take too much thought to observe a number of mega trends that have been in place for decades. Just off the top of my head: more women entering the workforce creating downward pressure on wages as the supply of labor increases; offshoring/global competition killing relatively higher paying jobs; the inevitable results of transitioning from agrarian, to industrial, to post industrial modes; the devaluing of college education that doesn't result in marketable/differentiating skills; the fiscal drag of the cost of said worthless college degrees (which are stupid expensive to a large extent because of stupid student loan policies; failure to really live frugally/responsibly in order to accumulate some sort of assets. I'm sure there are a great many more, but it's getting close to my bedtime. I'm an old fart, 64, but I still get up at 4:30 every weekday to keep plugging away hoping to add to at least a modicum of generational wealth for my kids and grandkids.

If you've never read any of his work, I commend to you the writings of Nassim Taleb, btw. He has a lot of insight into the impact of chance on both wealth and poverty. Short version, the uber successful often are the beneficiaries of a series of fortunate events that might, or might not really have much to do with their efforts. Similarly, there will always be poor people. I'm not doing him justice. You should check it out for yourself.

---

Thanks for the recommendation! Sincerely. I'll try and check it out. I don't get a whole lot of chances to read for fun these days, but I just added The Black Swan to my wish list.

I'm not saying we should never have poor. I do not think that's possible. I really am a believer in the market. I just think the market has no heart and should be tempered by regulation. Tempered.

I just think that we as a society are best served by striving to shape our system to reward merit. Actual merit. How many Nicola Tesla's have we lost because they were born where they had NO chance?

Right now, that's absolutely happening.

---

Not nearly as many as we lost because they were killed before they even had a chance to be born.

---

Whataboutism with a completely unrelated topic.

Good stuff.

---

When the topic is of society losing out on individual's contributions, it is absolutely related, as is the wasted lives from wars.

---

It's a weird flex to say we can't talk about poor kids walking around until we talk about ones that were never born.

Can't they both matter?

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm perfectly fine with inequality.
I'm perfectly fine with extremely poor people existing.

Why shouldn't there be inequality?

---

No one is saying there shouldn't be inequality. That's a false argument you've been trying to make.

We're talking about a society that actually allows for people to reach their potential.

The system as it is right now is NOT a meritocracy. It takes A LOT more than hard work to get ahead now. You have to be lucky. You have to be perfect.

No one is saying that we should break everyone's legs. We're just stating that some people have legs that work and some people don't. And for those that don't, maybe build some ramps so they can get into the building if they are willing to try.

That is it.

---

It SHOULD take more than hard work to get ahead!

It takes SMART WORK.

Not everyone is smart. If you're born into a situation where you're not blessed, not smart, not good at life...you still don't deserve to get ahead.

The only people that deserve to get ahead are people who overcome extraordinary measures, sacrifice, work more than they should and grab life by the horns. Everyone else is too weak.

Only the weak are making your argument. Everyone has the full ability to become stronger. Not everyone has the same potential.

Getting ahead is a subjective term: what is your definition of getting ahead?

You are literally arguing for special treatment.

Scenario: Man declines going to college or learning skills. He decides to work a maximum of 20 hours a week at Mcdonalds because he thinks working more than that is too hard for him. He's extremely overweight and needs health insurance. Does he deserve a ramp? Does he deserve a handout?

---

I get you're really up your own ass about this borderline eugenics/classist mindset.

You're also insisting on misstating my points, which makes sense, because you are too far into your rant to admit that I'm right.

LMAO. "SMART WORK" vs "HARD WORK" is a distinction without a difference. You really believe you hit on some point, don't you? Goodness, it'd be adorable if you weren't so completely dismissive of the reality of the world.

I have showed you PROOF that the ability of people to change their economic status in this country is melting away. It's not theoretical. It's fact. It is becoming harder and harder to change your lot in life.

Our country was literally built on the backs of people who were willing to break their backs and work hard (smart, whatever) and do what needs to be done. Our middle class was built by our grandparents doing what was needed, going to war, coming back and working in a factory, or as a teacher, or as a pastor, and putting in all their effort, mind, body, soul into it.

That isn't enough. Your disgusting fake distinction of "smart" vs. "hard" just exposes your belief that you think rich people are smarter than poor people and therefore, more deserving. We ALL know that's not true. George Soros is incredibly wealthy. Guess you're willing to admit he's just a better human being than you are? You're not George Soros wealthy. Probably should just let him tell you what to do. Might makes right, correct?

---

A part of your problem is you fail to account for why it might be so that it may be harder to change one's lot in life. It doesn't take too much thought to observe a number of mega trends that have been in place for decades. Just off the top of my head: more women entering the workforce creating downward pressure on wages as the supply of labor increases; offshoring/global competition killing relatively higher paying jobs; the inevitable results of transitioning from agrarian, to industrial, to post industrial modes; the devaluing of college education that doesn't result in marketable/differentiating skills; the fiscal drag of the cost of said worthless college degrees (which are stupid expensive to a large extent because of stupid student loan policies; failure to really live frugally/responsibly in order to accumulate some sort of assets. I'm sure there are a great many more, but it's getting close to my bedtime. I'm an old fart, 64, but I still get up at 4:30 every weekday to keep plugging away hoping to add to at least a modicum of generational wealth for my kids and grandkids.

If you've never read any of his work, I commend to you the writings of Nassim Taleb, btw. He has a lot of insight into the impact of chance on both wealth and poverty. Short version, the uber successful often are the beneficiaries of a series of fortunate events that might, or might not really have much to do with their efforts. Similarly, there will always be poor people. I'm not doing him justice. You should check it out for yourself.

---

Thanks for the recommendation! Sincerely. I'll try and check it out. I don't get a whole lot of chances to read for fun these days, but I just added The Black Swan to my wish list.

I'm not saying we should never have poor. I do not think that's possible. I really am a believer in the market. I just think the market has no heart and should be tempered by regulation. Tempered.

I just think that we as a society are best served by striving to shape our system to reward merit. Actual merit. How many Nicola Tesla's have we lost because they were born where they had NO chance?

Right now, that's absolutely happening.

---

You really must read "Skin in the Game", as well. I think everyone should, for that matter:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36064445-skin-in-the-game?ac=1&from_search=true

"As always both accessible and iconoclastic, Taleb challenges long-held beliefs about the values of those who spearhead military interventions, make financial investments, and propagate religious faiths. Among his insights:


For social justice, focus on symmetry and risk sharing. You cannot make profits and transfer the risks to others, as bankers and large corporations do. You cannot get rich without owning your own risk and paying for your own losses. Forcing skin in the game corrects this asymmetry better than thousands of laws and regulations.
Ethical rules aren't universal. You're part of a group larger than you, but it's still smaller than humanity in general.
Minorities, not majorities, run the world. The world is not run by consensus but by stubborn minorities imposing their tastes and ethics on others.
You can be an intellectual yet still be an idiot. "Educated philistines" have been wrong on everything from Stalinism to Iraq to low-carb diets.
Beware of complicated solutions (that someone was paid to find). A simple barbell can build muscle better than expensive new machines.
True religion is commitment, not just faith. How much you believe in something is manifested only by what you're willing to risk for it."


His take on "Intellectual-yet-idiot" is dead on. Just google the term for some good stuff.

---

I've added that one, too. Sounds like I would really like him. I sincerely thank-you for the recommendation.

ShooterTX said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Birth place and to whom matters. Not a one of us chose our parents or birthplace.

---

Your incessant victimhood wore quite thin a very long time ago. Pathetic, really.

---

I am not claiming victimhood. It is a damn fact. Who your parents and where you are born tremendously impacts your life.
I was born white in Waco. I am not a victim. I benefitted from my birth place, date and parents.

---

It is amazing how you turn something good (parents who made good choices) into something bad (priviledge). Why not advocate for more positive parenting and more solid choices?? Rather than advocate for punishing those who benefit from hard work and good choices.
Sick

---

But that's the point. This system doesn't reward good choices. When you're poor, many of your choices don't matter, good or bad. It's not enough to make good choices. You have to be lucky, too.

THAT'S WHAT WE THINK NEEDS TO CHANGE.

We've shown -again and again there are mountains of data to back this up- that it is becoming harder and harder to escape poverty. It's becoming harder and harder to escape the middle class. It's even becoming harder and harder to fail from the upper class to a lower class -regardless of how bad you are at life.

A lot of times, privilege comes down to how many second, third, fourth chances you get.

We are making the absolutely insane statement that being a good person, working hard, and working smart should pay off.

Why even try, if it won't pay off? THAT is how a society rots.

We are just saying hard work should pay off. And y'all are being nasty about it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Interesting that Tesla was brought up. On the one hand, Tesla was undeniably brilliant, but he got into trouble by committing fraud, deceiving investors in order to pursue his chosen projects.

Criminal behavior is generally a bad idea, and you can't justify by saying 'oh but he was going to help people'.

---

I hadn't heard that.

You know what else is funny? Thomas Edison was an outright crook. He didn't invent the lightbulb. He just employed the people who did. He engaged in some really horrible and outright fraudulent business practices.

But he is celebrated as a genius for all time.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Interesting that Tesla was brought up. On the one hand, Tesla was undeniably brilliant, but he got into trouble by committing fraud, deceiving investors in order to pursue his chosen projects.

Criminal behavior is generally a bad idea, and you can't justify by saying 'oh but he was going to help people'.

---

I hadn't heard that.

You know what else is funny? Thomas Edison was an outright crook. He didn't invent the lightbulb. He just employed the people who did. He engaged in some really horrible and outright fraudulent business practices.

But he is celebrated as a genius for all time.

---

Edison may or may not have invented the light bulb, but I agree he was a scoundrel in practice. Among his detestable practices was harassing potential rivals to keep his near-monopoly of electric service, and by 'harassing' I include paying men to vandalize equipment and false reports accusing competitors of fraud.

My dad grew in Philly, and spent some time in New York. The joke was that CON ED was called that because it was run by ex cons and founded by a lifelong crook.

Edison was a lot like Zuckerberg.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Interesting that Tesla was brought up. On the one hand, Tesla was undeniably brilliant, but he got into trouble by committing fraud, deceiving investors in order to pursue his chosen projects.

Criminal behavior is generally a bad idea, and you can't justify by saying 'oh but he was going to help people'.

---

I hadn't heard that.

You know what else is funny? Thomas Edison was an outright crook. He didn't invent the lightbulb. He just employed the people who did. He engaged in some really horrible and outright fraudulent business practices.

But he is celebrated as a genius for all time.

---

Edison may or may not have invented the light bulb, but I agree he was a scoundrel in practice. Among his detestable practices was harassing potential rivals to keep his near-monopoly of electric service, and by 'harassing' I include paying men to vandalize equipment and false reports accusing competitors of fraud.

My dad grew in Philly, and spent some time in New York. The joke was that CON ED was called that because it was run by ex cons and founded by a lifelong crook.

Edison was a lot like Zuckerberg.

---

It's a little scary how much history relies less on the truth and more on the ability to tell the story you want told.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Interesting that Tesla was brought up. On the one hand, Tesla was undeniably brilliant, but he got into trouble by committing fraud, deceiving investors in order to pursue his chosen projects.

Criminal behavior is generally a bad idea, and you can't justify by saying 'oh but he was going to help people'.

---

I hadn't heard that.

You know what else is funny? Thomas Edison was an outright crook. He didn't invent the lightbulb. He just employed the people who did. He engaged in some really horrible and outright fraudulent business practices.

But he is celebrated as a genius for all time.

---

Edison may or may not have invented the light bulb, but I agree he was a scoundrel in practice. Among his detestable practices was harassing potential rivals to keep his near-monopoly of electric service, and by 'harassing' I include paying men to vandalize equipment and false reports accusing competitors of fraud.

My dad grew in Philly, and spent some time in New York. The joke was that CON ED was called that because it was run by ex cons and founded by a lifelong crook.

Edison was a lot like Zuckerberg.

---

It's a little scary how much history relies less on the truth and more on the ability to tell the story you want told.

---

It's frustrating when history has an important lesson but it gets ignored because you are having fun speeding towards the iceberg.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Interesting that Tesla was brought up. On the one hand, Tesla was undeniably brilliant, but he got into trouble by committing fraud, deceiving investors in order to pursue his chosen projects.

Criminal behavior is generally a bad idea, and you can't justify by saying 'oh but he was going to help people'.

---

I hadn't heard that.

You know what else is funny? Thomas Edison was an outright crook. He didn't invent the lightbulb. He just employed the people who did. He engaged in some really horrible and outright fraudulent business practices.

But he is celebrated as a genius for all time.

---

Edison may or may not have invented the light bulb, but I agree he was a scoundrel in practice. Among his detestable practices was harassing potential rivals to keep his near-monopoly of electric service, and by 'harassing' I include paying men to vandalize equipment and false reports accusing competitors of fraud.

My dad grew in Philly, and spent some time in New York. The joke was that CON ED was called that because it was run by ex cons and founded by a lifelong crook.

Edison was a lot like Zuckerberg.

---

It's a little scary how much history relies less on the truth and more on the ability to tell the story you want told.

---

All history is biased.