| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 20 2014 06:16 Wolfstan wrote: People like Buffet, Gates and Zuckerberg are the rule, . Every you guy you listed here was already a rich person at birth. They became richer, but they were already easily in the top 5 or higher. At least be smart and cite someone like Brin who is a genuine immigrant -- although obviously endowed with his parental socio-economic outlook on life, or Jay Z who became rich on pure talent. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
He got out of debt, paid me back, traveled half of Canada for a wedding, and purchased a computer in the March to July he was given the opportunity. Him and other poor people do well much better while in debt and are absolutely poisonous to themselves when they get to a positive net worth they were never taught how to deal with. He was very out of place when brought into a more affluent social circle that everyone noticed. There was disappointment getting blackout drunk 5 out of 4 days off and being stopped from entering local pubs by doormen for instance. It was incredibly sad the frequency of poor choices in the 5 months I took him in, hoping that if given a hand up he would make better choices for his children's sake. Every you guy you listed here was already a rich person at birth. They became richer, but they were already easily in the top 5 or higher. At least be smart and cite someone like Brin who is a genuine immigrant -- although obviously endowed with his parental socio-economic outlook on life, or Jay Z who became rich on pure talent. Ummm, I would definitely consider them self made. They don't need their parents material wealth, they got their parents character, network, work ethic, and values, which their parents used to accumulate wealth. Maybe the envious, lazy masses should focus on what they did and who they knew rather than dismissing them because they started higher on the social ladder. They didn't get there because their parents died and got a fat inheritance check that should be taxed to "make the game less rigged." | ||
|
dp
United States234 Posts
Saying someone is self made without attributing any of their success on the conditions of their upbringing/parents class is disingenuous. That shit all is a part of it. It is easy to come into a discussion using your personal situation and having a slanted view on things as they really are in the world around you. When it comes to wealth, simply passing down inheritance is only a portion of the equation, as much as some would like to dismiss the other aspects of it. You obviously acknowledge the fact the higher classes inherit as well, "their parents character, network, work ethic, and values". To act as if these are unattributed to their success is a far cry from reality. While going from high class to ultra wealthy is definitely not easy, to attribute the praise without acknowledging the head start is once again, disingenuous to the argument. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On September 20 2014 08:38 dp wrote: Wolfstan, Saying someone is self made without attributing any of their success on the conditions of their upbringing/parents class is disingenuous. That shit all is a part of it. It is easy to come into a discussion using your personal situation and having a slanted view on things as they really are in the world around you. When it comes to wealth, simply passing down inheritance is only a portion of the equation, as much as some would like to dismiss the other aspects of it. You obviously acknowledge the fact the higher classes inherit as well, "their parents character, network, work ethic, and values". To act as if these are unattributed to their success is a far cry from reality. While going from high class to ultra wealthy is definitely not easy, to attribute the praise without acknowledging the head start is once again, disingenuous to the argument. Totally agree with this. It's the context, not the resources per se, that are important. Rich people don't just have the advantage of money and money in and of itself doesn't make them more likely to be successful, even the things money can buy. But it's the social environment, one in which they're much more likely to be encouraged and nurtured to meet their potential while being taught to avoid broad pitfalls that leads to different outcomes. It's not a guarantee of success, of course, but everyone acknowledges that they set many of those "necessary but not sufficient" conditions that poorer people may not. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 20 2014 07:36 Wolfstan wrote: Same company, I'm in the office, but we put him out on a crew with a 10 day on 4 day off rotation. He got out of debt, paid me back, traveled half of Canada for a wedding, and purchased a computer in the March to July he was given the opportunity. Him and other poor people do well much better while in debt and are absolutely poisonous to themselves when they get to a positive net worth they were never taught how to deal with. He was very out of place when brought into a more affluent social circle that everyone noticed. There was disappointment getting blackout drunk 5 out of 4 days off and being stopped from entering local pubs by doormen for instance. It was incredibly sad the frequency of poor choices in the 5 months I took him in, hoping that if given a hand up he would make better choices for his children's sake. Ummm, I would definitely consider them self made. They don't need their parents material wealth, they got their parents character, network, work ethic, and values, which their parents used to accumulate wealth. Maybe the envious, lazy masses should focus on what they did and who they knew rather than dismissing them because they started higher on the social ladder. They didn't get there because their parents died and got a fat inheritance check that should be taxed to "make the game less rigged." Have you ever worked the 10 day on 4 day off rotation? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On September 20 2014 09:08 coverpunch wrote: Totally agree with this. It's the context, not the resources per se, that are important. Rich people don't just have the advantage of money and money in and of itself doesn't make them more likely to be successful, even the things money can buy. But it's the social environment, one in which they're much more likely to be encouraged and nurtured to meet their potential while being taught to avoid broad pitfalls that leads to different outcomes. It's not a guarantee of success, of course, but everyone acknowledges that they set many of those "necessary but not sufficient" conditions that poorer people may not. Good, we all agree on a basic premise that good parenting can be attributed to success and good habits and choices as a result of that parenting. I just follow that thought that redistribution will not fix inequality, poor people will still be raised poor to whine about their lot in life, and wealthy people will still be encouraged and nurtured to meet their potential. Still though, wealthy person playing the game well somehow "doesn't count" while the poor person falling down the ladder bringing others with them "isn't their fault" mentality is very toxic. It discourages and discounts growth and enables defeatism. On September 20 2014 09:23 IgnE wrote: Have you ever worked the 10 day on 4 day off rotation? No, I haven't done a tour on the tools. On September 20 2014 10:28 oneofthem wrote: canada's natural resource industry is like the closest thing to a labor starved, expansion industry. you can't extend experience there to other places. You mean 2 generations of right-wing economic policies, where the electorate values hard work and capitalist policies, mean the industry grows and labour participates in the good times? Aside from our electorate, regulations and temperatures Canada and US have fairly similar geological profiles. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 20 2014 07:36 Wolfstan wrote: They don't need their parents material wealth, they got their parents character, network, work ethic, and values, which their parents used to accumulate wealth. Yea, they did not need their parents material wealth that allowed them access to the best schools in their respective regions (except they did) but they got all these other benefits of being born into the privileged class that I dont consider privilege because it would undermine my argument! | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
dp
United States234 Posts
On September 20 2014 10:48 Wolfstan wrote: Good, we all agree on a basic premise that good parenting can be attributed to success and good habits and choices as a result of that parenting. I just follow that thought that redistribution will not fix inequality, poor people will still be raised poor to whine about their lot in life, and wealthy people will still be encouraged and nurtured to meet their potential. Still though, wealthy person playing the game well somehow "doesn't count" while the poor person falling down the ladder bringing others with them "isn't their fault" mentality is very toxic. It discourages and discounts growth and enables defeatism. No, I haven't done a tour on the tools. You mean 2 generations of right-wing economic policies, where the electorate values hard work and capitalist policies, mean the industry grows and labour participates in the good times? Aside from our electorate, regulations and temperatures Canada and US have fairly similar geological profiles. Wolfstan: That's a nice way to avoid the actual conversation and again exert your position without really addressing the underlining point that is being talked about here. Good parenting is in no way a quality we are discussing when we talk about the divide in upbringing related to economic class. Even bringing that as an example to be discussed is avoiding the conversation as a whole. "Poor people are bad parents while rich people are good parents instilling good values" isn't really a position I would assume any reasonable person would put forward except in the position of deflecting any real discussion on the points being put forward. No one discounts the success of people born into a better economic position. But ignoring that fact is also an unreasonable attempt to act as if someone born into poverty with no connections and gaining success is the same as someone born into wealth and given the best possible upbringing and connections money can buy. It is not a fair game. It doesn't have to be. In the end though, there is no reason to ignore how the game is stacked in the favor of some. Acting as if this reality is just some liberal illusion displays a level of cognitive dissonance that isn't about to be persuaded by any internet forum post/reply. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 20 2014 10:56 NovaTheFeared wrote: How is government policy to rectify the inequality of parenting except by being the parent and making all parental decisions for the child? By providing a minimum level of social safety net so that even children with parents who are either terrible at parenting or with a terrible social network can participate in the competition? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On September 20 2014 10:49 oneofthem wrote: right wing economic policies won't give you oil. please. No but they will be easier to attract private investment for extraction. Building economically sensible pipelines will be easier. Those companies will not worry about excessive taxation or nationalization. Lack of a sense of entitlement and a 10% provincial flat income tax drains productive people to work here, providing funding for our social programs while leaving other jurisdictions with a smaller productive tax base. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
On September 20 2014 11:27 Sub40APM wrote: By providing a minimum level of social safety net so that even children with parents who are either terrible at parenting or with a terrible social network can participate in the competition? That seems wholly inadequate to create a level playing field. People with similar economic or social network deficiencies but different parents will still find their results differ through no fault of their own. The intervention minimum has to eliminate all the effects of good or bad parenting. | ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
On September 20 2014 05:08 JumboJohnson wrote: This is a bit presumptuous, a cloud doesn't make a strobe-like shadow. I don't know personally, but you really can't compare a cloud's shadow to a flashing shadow in your room. I want to come back to this point. Not the strobe effect but the actually numbers behind wind power. Before I go on I want to make clear that this is literally napkin math. As of 2004 there was a worldwide number of over two hundred thousand wind turbines with a total namplate capacity of 282,482 MW of power. source This averages to 1.4 MW per turbine. The total electrical consumption of the United States in 2004 was 25,155 TWh or 25,155,000,000 MWh source. A hundredth of that is 251,550,000 MWh. So if we wanted a hundredth part of the United States electricity to come from wind, it would take 179,678,571 wind turbines. There are about 2,300,000,000 acres in the United States. source Therefore it would require 1 turbine per 12.8 acre to achieve this. This calculation doesn't include land that is unsuitable to wind turbines so it seems a bit generous. This all also doesn't take into account the spacing required for wind turbines. Take from these numbers what you will, but from what I gather wind turbines seem kind of space heavy. This was from wanting only 1/100th of our power to come from wind. Disclaimer: Please let me know if there is a flaw in my math. | ||
KwarK
United States44205 Posts
| ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 20 2014 12:44 NovaTheFeared wrote: The intervention minimum has to eliminate all the effects of good or bad parenting. We cant prevent all crime therefore we shouldnt prevent any crime. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 9341Shuttle  786firebathero  622Zeus 335Soulkey 177Dewaltoss 145Mind 70Hyun 66scan(afreeca)  55ToSsGirL 45[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games FrodaN2528 singsing1737 Serral1698 B2W.Neo981 hiko884 Beastyqt650 Mlord466 crisheroes301 DeMusliM209 TKL  140Liquid`VortiX121 ceh9105 XaKoH  70SteadfastSC59 ArmadaUGS58 QueenE56 |
|
Patches Events
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
