Yep. Its all about the idea and the execution.
General CE Chat
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Yep. Its all about the idea and the execution.
Jeff Bezos is now the richest person in the history of the world meanwhile his employees work 12 hour shifts and piss in bottles to deliver packages on time. Don't tell them it's about hard work.
Its the same structure that enables a billion people to receive whatever the product/service is, which they apparently value at least or more than the $2 they paid for it (otherwise they wouldn't buy it). You design me another system that aligns people's consumption decisions with other's production decisions so organically and I'll go to fetch your Nobel prize for you.
Earning it in your mind is not the same thing as earning it in real life. You think people don't deserve to accrue wealth because its "not fair!" (). That doesn't however mean they can't earn that wealth through the aforementioned attributes.
Capitalism in it's current form isn't the same thing as real life. There are more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your philosophy.
They choose to work for Bezos. If they have a great idea that could provide society with something usable and were willing to work hard to develop it then they wouldn't have to work for Bezos.
Technology makes the impact of ideas exponentially greater than that of just work. And this is gradual (and still exponential) throughout history. Which is why the outcomes diverge to extremes relative to one another.
It certainly isn't if you're lazy and more interested in complaining about why life sucks on internet forums. For people who are willing to make the sacrifice, the rewards are stagnant.
Or they're willing to do the work, but don't come from a well-off social background and as a result are a lot more poorly educated or suffer from greater health problems than those who're already fortunate enough to come from more money.
No one would deny that it's impossible for someone to start their own business and succeed but it should be self-evident that people who already come from privileged backgrounds will be in a better position to start their own businesses and succeed than someone who, say, has to limit their working time because they're looking after a sick parent, or who suffers from debilitating mental health issues because of a much more difficult social upbringing.
It's a game and it has nothing to do with hard work. People have had far better ideas than many billionaires, worked far harder and never earned more than 50k a year in their life. The current system rewards exploitation, plain and simple. If you can persuade thousands of people to work for wages so low they need the government to pay them welfare to keep a roof over their heads, then you're a 'genius' who will be rewarded with millions or billions. It's a nonsensical and completely unsustainable system.
I understand why things exist in their current state, I'm saying they shouldn't exist that way.
I agree that some people have it easier than other based on where they start, but the problem is less so the starting point, its the pre-defeatist mentality. People who believe it is the state's responsibility to take care of them are obviously less likely to seize the initiative to create, build, and innovate for themselves.
Who are these people ? Never heard of them.
I never thought I would be lectured to about time spent on internet forums by someone with 88,000 posts, remarkable.
Why is that the goal? why isn't the goal to have a society where no one starves, no one is homeless and no one dies from lack of medical care?
Except I'm not endlessly squeeling about why life sucks. Spot the difference ?
If you're someone who's grown up with a poor education, can't afford basic healthcare, has an absent parent and/or a neglectful one, and find yourself in a position where you're having to scrape by on a minimum wage job that barely gets you by then it'd be easy to see why you'd adopt a pre-defeatist mentality. Especially if someone better off than you says that you just have to 'work harder' to succeed when they're ignoring the fact that their chances of success are boosted by the fact they had a better upbringing and (if they're from a fairly rich background) will be able to make contacts in high places with greater ease due to their parents etc.
I don't deny that people can work hard and succeed...we've seen plenty examples of that happening, but I'll have sympathy with someone who's really, really struggling to get by when they've probably suffered from a lot more than I'd be able to imagine. In such cases giving up doesn't strike me as being 'pre-defeatist,' it's just someone accepting that due to the system in which they operate their chances of ever succeeding are minimal compared to people who already have money behind them.
Sounds like Windsor Ontario is calling.
Im sure by this logic you are fine with the conditions in packingtown and the coal mines and the cotton fields. after all they had a choice, work or starve.
Even right-libertarians acknowledge coercion exists wrt work.
crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/
No doubt about it. There should be a degree of federal help to deal with many of these issues.
Hence why I'd argue the idea that most people 'aren't willing to do the work' is wrong. Plenty of people are willing, or at least would be so long as they came from the same social backgrounds as people who are substantially more wealthy than them.
You really are a disingenuous callous person. My life is fine. I make a good salary, I paid off my student loans, I live in a safe neighborhood.
Some of us aren't entirely self centered though. The state of this forum when advocating left wing policies and solidarity is considered "squealing about why life sucks"
No-one chooses to work in conditions like these
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/timed-toilet-breaks-impossible-targets-11587888
There simply aren't the jobs going round and people are forced to take whatever is available. It's digesting that companies are allowed to brag and boast about billions and billions of pounds worth of profits at the expense of their workers, whom the state then has to subsidise because wages are so low.
@Eboue is right, the system is a joke.
It is definitely somewhere in the middle of 'Any one can make money' and 'Only billionaires can make money'. There are countless instances when ingenious ideas were killed by people with big money monopolizing the market as there are many instances of self-made billionaires.
The unshakeable truths here are 1) not everyone starts on an equal footing 2) this mythical utopian equal footing probably is never achievable?? 3) There are people, mostly based on race and geography who start off worse than others 4) Hard work is different for different people 5) I'm probably rambling.
The unshakeable truths here are 1) not everyone starts on an equal footing 2) this mythical utopian equal footing probably is never achievable?? 3) There are people, mostly based on race and geography who start off worse than others 4) Hard work is different for different people 5) I'm probably rambling.
Agree on all points. What's also baffling is the implication that poor people generally don't work hard.
Well most of the forum is left wing so there's plenty of room for left wing policies here. Whether or not the ideas are always presented intelligently is another matter.
Sounds like the 1920s are calling
All good points. We definitely need stringent regulations to make sure good ideas aren't stifled and there is a clear path for anyone who has a good idea and is willing to build on it, is there.
You refuse to debate the issue without getting personal. I'm presenting a left wing viewpoint and your response is to suggest I am squealing about why my life sucks and telling me to move to Canada.
I'll take the roaring twenties right about now.
Yeah, I'd imagine for a lot of poor people who do work hard it's quite insulting as well. A simple fact is that someone from a poorer background gets a harder lot in life than someone who's well-off. Even if that person does succeed in, say, getting to university, they're still going to have a harder time than the rich kid on the same course insofar as while the poorer person is probably going to have to spend most of their degree working a job/jobs on the side to make ends meet, the richer person's going to have more time to make contacts (contacts their parents are more likely to be able to provide them with) and to gain experience within their field etc. Not to mention that the person from a more well-off background's inevitably (statistically at least) going to be less likely to have to care after a sick relative etc.
You don't actually. You generally graze the periphery of these issues without making a cogent case for what you actually believe in. Anyone can say things "Society should be fairer" or "Citizens deserve more". Try discussing how these things would get paid for, how to build a consensus so Republicans (who are also human beings and US citizens) can feel like they have mutual ownership of the debate.
Im not interested in republicans having mutual ownership of the debate. Your path to achieving things doesn't have to be the same as my path.
Not interested in sharing Democracy with 50% of your fellow citizens ? Interesting.
Not interested in sharing power with republicans.
Since the UK is significantly to the left of the US in its social and economic policies, shouldn't some of these issues have been addressed by the government?
But I think one should at least acknowledge that there is risk in any significant alterations to the "logic" in which our economies currently exist. I'm not ignoring the suffering of people around the world and even how it relates to the current paradigm. But also don't ignore that we're currently at largest population levels we've ever had on the planet and longest life expectancy in most societies, neither of which would be possible without the current levels of food production and distribution as well as general medicine. So while both things are imperfect and we still count the people whose needs are not met in the millions, taking those who are provided for as a given is also a mistake when thinking of alternatives.
Then they aren't likely to share power with you either. This is why we have gridlock. Nobody wants to build consensus and everyone wants a 'my way or the highway' approach to policy.
But some of those who are provided for under the current system are provided for one hundred times over. We can redistribute most of their wealth and they will still live a good life.
They aren't sharing power with the left as is.