Why You Are Not On Any Forbes Lists of Rich People 192
Mike writes "Ever wondered why, no matter how hard you work, you are not getting any further towards getting on one of those Forbes Billionaire lists? Mike Cassidy at Mercury Center has the answer to why you are not on any Forbes lists via a Q & A he has prepared for all us working stiffs."
The big lie (Score:5)
The sad thing about America is that we hammer our kids during their formative years with the message that all the wrong things matter. We tell them that succeeding in a narccisitic power game is the most important thing or even the only thing. It's a lie, and it screws everyone over, expecially the weaker kids who believe the lie and who can't afford to be distracted from the hard work of finding their potential. If we focused our educational system on teaching kids how to be fully potentialized human beings and didn't concern ourselves with their value to the capitalist machine (at least during their formative years), they would have a chance to reach their full potential and it would likely have value to society (even unsuccessful artists add to a society). Instead, we churn out generations of cripples, simpletons capable only of consumerism or narrow minded capitalist pursuits, and as this mass grows, they in turn pass on the lie to their own children since it is all they know.
Sure, some money is needed. There are basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) to be met. There are medical bills. There is the cost of education. There is the need to save for retirement. There is the want to support your hobbies and interest and to have time for your family. But we need to put this into perspective. First of all, even in America where everything is becoming privatized and expensive, you don't have to be rich to achieve these goals. But if all you know is consumerism=happiness, then you are going to need a ton of money to be happy expecially since you get more and more jaded with every toy you buy (diminishing returns). A non-consumerism-addicted human who has emerged from their formative years undamaged will be able to enjoy life at a much smaller cost. Second of all, if we were able to start reversing the course of this problem and head back towards sanity (perhaps starting with a stock market crash), eventually we might be able to shift the emphasis of our government towards providing a real safety net, where everyone is truly able stay above the poverty line, to get a good education, enjoy medical benefits, and a reasonable retirement.
The emptiness of our society right now is very disturbing to me. We eat our own. Adult foreigners come here to play and make money but raise their kids elsewhere. The elite don't make use of our public schools and universities. It should be clear to all that true quality of life for the majority of americans is headed into the gutter. But this isn't an oft discussed topic these days while stock prices are high.
Re:All techies are going to be "against the wall". (Score:1)
Re:Can you please make another blanket statement? (Score:1)
I was expected to do the exact same thing, except I was expected to work part-time year round. My dad was a pipefitter/electrician. My mom worked at JC Penney's. Don't be complaining.
Re:All of the above (Score:2)
Now, I don't remember whether he's a socialist, a communist, or what, but I know he's ONE of those things, and it sure ain't Democracy.
By Marx's definition, a true Communist society can't exist without Democracy, seeing as how there isn't any government in a true Communist society and the people rule themselves. This, of course, is a bit too utopian, which is why you don't see any true Communist societies. What you see instead is the totalitarian Leninist/Stalinist states (i.e.: Soviet Union) and Social Democrat states (i.e.: the majority present-day Europe).
while every country that has even remotely adopted Marxist dogma is now deep in poverty.
and
In case you didn't notice, socialism has now proven itself to be a failure in most areas of the world.
The majority of Europe is Socialist. Is France a failure? Is Sweden a failure? Is Germany a failure?
My guess is that it won't -- for the same reason that they aren't wealthy in the first place -- they refuse to work for and earn it.
Since when does hard work equate with being wealthy in our society? My Grandfather worked as a mason for most of his life - which I consider fairly laborous work - and he didn't die rich. Now compare some upstart twenty-something year-olds that make a web portal and become millionaires overnight.
I can't believe how many people I've heard compare Communism/Socialism and Democracy, thinking the two are incompatible. Communism and Socialism are economic states! Democracy is a governmental state! The U.S. is a Capitalist Republic, whereas the Soviet Union was a Socialist Dictatorship. There is nothing that says you can't have a Socialist Democracy or Capitalist Dictatorship.
Another thing that really erks me is when I see kids at school (or even adults) talking about how much they love living in a democracy. The U.S. is a Republic. We democratically elect people to rule over us. We as citizens don't have say in government decision, we just choose who does say (and the polls tend to be biased towards a selection of only two or three people).
If anyone is actually interested, here's the websites for the U.S. Communist Party [hartford-hwp.com] and the U.S. Socialist Party [sp-usa.org]. You'll notice neither of them talk about destroying the current free-market system everyone here appears to be enjoying, but instead more realistic goals like increasing Union presence, equal hourly pay according to job (i.e.: how much labor is required to effectively work in this field), etc.
-Chris Andreasen
Re:Can you please make another blanket statement? (Score:1)
I need to grow up? Ahem (Score:2)
You strike me as the bitter type. There was not one ounce of whine in my comment. You're obviously bitter. The point is that IT is _expected_ weather or not the kid really wants to go to one of the top colleges or not. All things being equal, sure, i'd still choose my life in a second. But life doesn't come without some complications. The original post stated and implied that children of rich parents don't have to work, etc etc etc. This is simply untrue, and I was addresssing them.
If you wish to see the world as black and white, be my guest. But don't pull apart my comments (snip snip) as if you're offering some revealing insight. Its the qualitative aspects that you simply fail to grasp. Its easy to write me off as being just another 'rich kid', but whatever its your life...
PS: You seem to want to believe that I'm rich, and you're not. I don't have to know you to know (reasonably) that this is not true. I'm sure that if anyone looked at your circumstances, it'd be well beyond the means of 95% of this world. So put this in perspective.
Re:I disagree, abstractly. (Score:1)
This has little to do with 'defending' my wealth. I really don't feel the need. The issue is weather or not more money will help the school system. I know from personal experience that it will not.
Instead, of attacking my arguments with reason, you find it easier to merely group me with 'thousands from my socio-economic class...'
Forcing one into schools is certainly NOT about freedom. And I seriously doubt, it'll help. But come on, give me your best arguments as to why you believe this will help. Until then, shut your mouth.
Re:Can you please make another blanket statement? (Score:1)
Hmmm... Tell that to George W. Bush!!!
--
Re:You know what bugs me about rich people? (Score:1)
- Poor with no guarantee of happiness
- Rich with no guarantee of happiness
I'll have to go for rich.Just my $.02
Re:Perhaps stories on Slashdot should be moderated (Score:1)
Just move on with your life, plotting to get rich somehow... we'll won't miss ya. Honest.
Re:Bill Gates charity? (Score:1)
Re:Perhaps stories on Slashdot should be moderated (Score:1)
The ironic thing is that the book probably caused the author(s) to get rich quick.
Re:Can you please make another blanket statement? (Score:1)
You're telling me that most(or many) electrician's sons are just expected to go to Princeton, Penn, Harvard, Stanford, etc? Perhaps your parents personally demanded that of you. I've seen that before. But it is not the same, as when every stitch of your social life demands such things of you. What if you're simply not bright? Legacy and the like means less and less these days. Again, this comes down to qualitative, not quantitative issues. If you're brought up a certain way, making a drastic change from that can be traumatic for some.
Secondly, I was NOT complaining. If you read my comment, you would have seen that I said that I wouldn't want to trade places. Growing up wealthy does not mean that I have my head stuck in the sand as many would like to believe.
The simple answer. (Score:2)
Hold on... (Score:3)
:P
gnfnrf
I tire of this bullshit. (Score:1)
I was not complaining. Many people who've posted on
The primary difference being was that I was responding to an actual comment. Whereas you're assuming i'm saying my life sucks (because I've got money, and I indicated that its not black and white). Far from it, I would NEVER want to trade places. However, I have seen some that have burnt out. There is more to this life than money... but failing relative to the level of performance of your social group is hurtfull.
...and as I stated, I have the highest respect for those who really climb... You brought far too many assumptions into what you read (or didn't read) from my comment.
How to strike it rich (Score:1)
Re:The simple answer. (Score:1)
You see some reasonably decent public school programs in certain suburbs. But I think this has more to do with the fact that since most EVERYONE comes from such a background, that a certain level of performance is expected. The question is, when you bus a kid out to the some school, and there is a 1:1000 ratio of 'rich to poor', does the same effect occur? I don't think so. Is there a higher likely hood of the same kid, despite his parents, falling through the cracks? Yes, I think so. Is this the greater good? I think not.
This still doesn't answer why Catholic schools do significantly better with the same group of people. Or how about, why is it that so many Asians have come to the US year after year, in the the period of one generation or less, manage to create sucessful businesses, speak english fluently, etc. Yet other classes/races in the same schools make so much less of themselves generation after generation.
The dynamic of private schools is also changing. More and more people of 'lower' classes are going to private schools. Look at the admissions rates at most any. The fact of the matter is that more than just the 'elite' realize how hopeless the situation is. Now economy has certainly helped, but it is more than just that. The lengths that many people go to send their kids to such schools is unbelievable....
ackthptptpt!! (Score:4)
"i don't need anything!!...Except this chair!! All i need is this chair! and this lamp! but that's all!"
gates can spare a few mil... (Score:1)
fuck open source that's twenty million dollars =)
JC
Bill Gates charity? (Score:2)
> Q: I read that Gates is worth $85 billion and that he's starting
> to give some of it away. Do you think he'd give me a million or two?
*giggles* A few of my friends and I are thinking of applying to the Gates foundation for a grant to slack. "Mr. Gates, if you give us money, we promise that we won't do anything. Think of the publicity you'd get!"
Think it'd work? There's something great at the thought of taking Bill's money, isn't there? ^_~
And the point is.... (Score:1)
Sounds like he feels low for not being rich, and is trying to make his readers feel low too. There was a nice, smug looking photo of him though. :P
Being happy that one's rich (Score:1)
You need to find out what makes you happy. It's probably not money, although you might think it is.
Of course, it is nice being able to fly to Paris when you want to, if that's your bag. But do you really need all those possessions?
Mike Cassidy isn't rich. . . (Score:1)
But it isn't.
Forbes Is Biased In Their Lists (Score:1)
--
Having a life (Score:1)
Most people get to be millionaires (or more), by:
1. saving a lot of their money to invest (10-20% of it - and yes, you can afford that);
2. staying married; (darn, blew that one)
3. living below their means; and
4. working for themselves.
That's what worked for my grandparents. Although they didn't work for themselves, they just invested a lot.
It's more likely the guy on the bus is a millionaire than the guy in the Maserati.
You know what bugs me about rich people? (Score:3)
Re:Pointless (Score:1)
Re:You know what bugs me about rich people? (Score:1)
Get rid of inheritence (Score:1)
The transaction doenst have to be zero sum. (Score:2)
And what of the entreprenuer who starts up a firm that cures AIDS? treats Diabetes? etc. Would you have us believe that only one party is better served by this invention/innovation? Money may be transferred from one party to another, but obviously the purchasing party finds more VALUE in that item than they do in their cash.
Furthermore, money IS created. You can't explain a growing economy by mere transference of money (zero-sum)...unless of course you're leftish and believe that we're just selling wares to the ignorant masses in third world countries. Or stealing their money, or what have you...
Re:gates can spare a few mil... (Score:1)
Maybe it's just me... (Score:1)
Beyond the means of 95% of the world (Score:2)
If you just took the money you spend on Jolt Cola and invested it, and bought used cars, but lived the same otherwise, you'd be a millionaire in a couple of decades.
But will you?
Most won't.
It's not that much (Score:1)
My Dad lives in Vermont nowadays - cost of living there is incredibly low. So, if you took all your stock options and never spent them, you could retire to somewhere else and live quite nicely for the rest of your life.
Try to think before you speak... (Score:1)
Personally, I think you're full of s***. I'm from a lower middle-class family, in a white trash town in upstate New York. And hey, I went to a pretty crappy public highschool, the worst one in the county. I would have had a better education had I been in the city instead of my particular suburb. But I still did things at my highschool, I didn't just sit around and smoke pot. I played three varsity sports, I was in every academic competition team that we had, and I was in our marching band and stage bands. Why? Because I wanted to, not because my parents made me. I pushed myself to achieve what I have. I didn't have my parents pushing me because of "principles" or some b.s. like that. I saw the kids in accelerated programs at the wealthier public highschools being burned out before they were even seniors by what the schools and their parents PUSHED them to do. And yes, then they go from their great public highschool to one of those nice Ivy League colleges on the east coast because that's where mommy or daddy went, so they are just waved in by admissions, they coast through because of grade inflation and the general ease of passing, even at Harvard or Princeton and Yale, graduate and go to get their MBA, or go to law school or med school, marry another nice rich person from the Ivy's that dresses only in Abercrombie and Fitch (et al.) and propagate the cycle.
So you'll forgive me if I'm a little put off by your diatribe, since I'm at Caltech (note: the #1 school in the nation, better than Harvard even) purely on my own merits, not because I went to a great highschool (it sucked), not because my parents are rich (we're not, I said that), but because I actually accomplished something for myself.
When I graduate I'm going to form a start-up with my best friend from my little white trash town. And even if I manage to make a good deal of mine my kids are still going to go to a public highschool and succeed on their own merits. If they aren't good enough to go to Caltech, so be it, I won't have them go here just because I did. That would be denying someone else who actually deserves the spot at the school the ability to go there. Children of alumni are admitted at a 2:1 rate over other kids at the Ivy's. The cycle propagates itself, and it isn't going to end. So stop bitching at us because you were privileged, those of us who weren't so lucky don't want to hear about your so-called hardships.
moller
Re:Get rid of inheritence (Score:1)
because they refuse to work? Come off it!
You seem to be saying that people prefer to live
on the streets with no homes and no idea where
the next meal is coming from because they dont
WANT to work?
Again, we seem to be forgetting that there is
not a level playing field, and that apart from
wealth as an advantage, the prejudices exist which
keep the advantages with the wealthy.
Don't believe me? Surely it must be admitted that
the statement "the poor don't want to work" is
a prejudicial statement?
I agree that giving money wholesale to
the poor from the rich is not a good solution,
but I don't think that is the one being
put forward. Rather, it is to force the wealthy
to redistribute their wealth - to keep
the money flowing instead of hiding
it under the mattress where it stagnates and
hurts the economy in general.
I'd also like to debunk the notion that taxes
are theft. They are theft only if you disagree
with the notion of government.
The price of stability is partially charged in
taxes => money to run the government, maintain
law and order (with police), distaster relief so
that a region can re-establish production, courts and so on.
Now, the proportion of tax distribution may be argued, but the notion that taxes are theft is nonsense.
Re:Hold on... (Score:1)
--
Re:All techies are going to be "against the wall". (Score:1)
--
"HORSE."
Re:You know what bugs me about rich people? (Score:1)
Perhaps you should read what was said. (Score:2)
The notion that I was attacking was that rich kids: just inherit money, don't have to work, etc. This is untrue. It was not whine. Most of the people posting on this thread seem to ASSUME that I'm bitching becuase a) I'm 'rich' b) I dare imply that NOT EVERYTHING is perfect. I clearly stated that I would not want to trade places.
That being said however, you said you've seen kids who've burned out in 'lower middle' class areas. Well this happens in private schools as well. The difference is that it is more than just your parents pushing you. Its every part of your social life. I don't think thats so rosy. Its fine if you're capable of succeeding. But its not so great if you realize that perhaps you're not smart enough, not motivated enough, sick of that life, or perhaps you'd just be happier teaching high school...
You seem to see a certain sickness in the 'preppy' situation. I couldn't agree with you more. That is exactly my point. While I don't agree that parents should be forced send their kids to public school (many like you end up changing their minds --especially when you live in a not-so middle class town in upstate NY), I do have some objections to the 'coasting' lifestyle.
That being said, I think you overstate the admissions process. It is becoming tougher and tougher for such kids to get admitted like that. Being the son or daughter of an alumni simply doesn't give you carte blanche these days. (Look at the admissions ratios alone could tell you this) Yet the pressures to 'succeed' still exist. These do bring certain streses. PERIOD. Are these stresses greater than the ones experienced by poor people? Probably not.
I do have respect for people who make more with less. But wakeup, will you? As you stated earlier, you are lower-middle class. Which most certainly qualifies you as living a life well beyond that of most of this world. Purely on your own merits? I'm sure circustances had NOTHING to do with your success (as if). Caltech is a fine school, better in many ways than many of the Ivys. But number #1? Do you really believe those surveys? Where just the year before another school was number #1 (Harvard, or Yale). I don't buy into the notion that schools actually go from 'best to better' in a period of a year, every year. I think some schools are better at certain things, over an extended period of time. But what you GET out of college depends far more on the individual than the college (almost regardless of where you go. Note: Doenst have even have to be "#50")
Re:Get rid of inheritence (Score:1)
Re:Perhaps you should read what was said. (Score:1)
Let me clarify, my suburb was lower middle class. There was very little burnout at my highschool, the kids that I am talking about that burned out in highschool were in the upper class suburbs. Granted, it's not as rich a community as several in long island, or the ones in Princeton, NJ, but it is every part of the "social life" that you so aptly described.
> You seem to see a certain sickness in the 'preppy' situation. I couldn't agree with you more. That is exactly my point.
Thank you for making that clear, I didn't catch that in your first post, but I may have just been blinded by my prejudices.
> Do you really believe those surveys?
Of course I don't believe those surveys. The schools aren't rated in a static and consistent manner, and some of the categories the schools are ranked in are questionable. Maybe you noticed that when the most recent college rankings came out, the president of Stanford called for a boycott of the rankings by the top schools. One of the points he made was that Caltech always lost points in the rankings for have a very low graduation rate (around 80%) compared to the high 90's that the Ivy league schools had. He made the point that Caltech shouldn't be penalized for making classes hard enough that students had difficulty passing. There are other places we lose points, one of them being campus diversity (there are no african-americans in the class that just entered, and maybe 7 in my class), and another being that we don't have a great deal of programs because we are so small. I admit I may have overstated the admissions process when related to sons and daughters of alumni, but they are still admitted more easily than other students, there is no denying that. We don't even need to go into the bias against white males. I have two friends whose rejection letters from MIT said "We cannot admit you at this time because you do not add enough ethnic diversity to the campus."
>But its not so great if you realize that perhaps you're not smart enough, not motivated enough, sick of that life, or perhaps you'd just be happier teaching high school...
Or perhaps you'd just be happier teaching highschool? I know you didn't mean this as a bad thing, but I feel obligated to call you on it anyway. I'm just wondering what you mean here. Some of the happiest people I know are highschool teachers. The best teacher at my highschool used to own his own business and was very successful, but he decided he would be happier teaching. Most of the people from my highschool want to be teachers, so they can help and try to make a difference. Personally, I think that's better than going out to try and make money, since they are going to be directly trying to make kids' lives better.
Not motivated enough? That's something that's easily changed. You just find something you love doing, and it's easy to be motivated enough.
>But what you GET out of college depends far more on the individual than the college.
Obviously. But I just felt I had to say something about this, because everyone here, even the biology majors, could transfer to Harvard as senior math or senior phys majors after just two years here. Sometimes it is what you get out of the college, but sometimes it's what the college puts into you.
M-x spook (Score:1)
Considering the content of your post, I would have to say that the M-x spook .signature was slightly redundant.
Love,
Jeremy
(a pacifist moderate socialist hacker)
(oh, how boring, I know)
Dave Barry got there first... (Score:1)
His column was funnier.
---
Re:Dave Barry got there first... (Score:1)
>
---
Re:Dave Barry got there first... (Score:1)
Just go read it yourself. [herald.com]
---
Re:The big lie (Score:2)
Phew.
I disagree, mostly. (Score:1)
I don't buy the strict economics argument. The public schools, contrary to popular belief, are not poor performing for want of money. The fact of the matter is that public school teachers are paid significantly more, yet they tend to be poorly educated. Public schools also recieve almost as much money per student on average as do private schools(more in some cases). I don't think an infusion of money is going to help anything. Take a look at the Catholic parochial schools, for example. They have basically the same set of kids, from the same neighborhoods, economic background, etc. Yet they consistently do better than public schools in the worst parts of town with MUCH less money.
The primary thing that sets schools apart is expectations and interference. Public schools are plagued by unions, regulations, etc. Private schools are relatively unencumbered. Students are simply expected to perform and behave. Parenting no doubt plays a large role. But I don't see how adding a few extra voices (wealthy) into the already loud rumble is going to help the others. I don't see how adding one rich kid into a class room of poor kids is going to change the atmosphere for the better. Perhaps politically if the 'rich' have more of a stake in the public school system, change might happen faster. Though I doubt this, the various interest groups and unions seem to sway the vote alot more.
I don't have all the answers, and i'm not prepared to offer a complete formula for success. But forcing the wealthy into the same schools strikes me as an obviously bad answer (intuitively, emperically, etc). There are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed first.
Re:Get rid of inheritence (Score:2)
You know what Marx did do though? He provided an alternative to the capitalist theory and how capital should be dealt with, etc. Most "communist" implementations that we have seen in this century is a result of mis-interpertations of Marx's texts and just plain human errancy.
Was Marx responsible for what happened to Russia? Nope, he himself detested Russia. What basically happened is that Lenin overthrew the monarchy of the old russia and later had internal battles between federal organizations, other socialist/communist parties, etc. Then here comes Stalin overthrowing Lenin, blah blah blah rest is history.
Have you read the communist manifesto? Have you taken a class in marxist economics?
If you answered "no" to the first question, then don't even bother posting. What gets me is when people critisize the philospher and crucify him for having a different idea. Want to critisize how its implemented? Fine go ahead.. its your right, and I encourage you to do so.
Re:The big lie (Score:1)
Re:The system churns out consumers WE ALL need (Score:1)
but, people are creatures of habit. What we do we tend to continue doing. How might we instill our children with the desire to succeed (financially, personally, socially, artistically, whatever) without trying to give them an achievement-ended view?
We might be breeding a materialistic, competitive race, but that beats the alternative of a society based on just getting by - achieving the minimum necessary level of comfort and settling for it. I would rather that people work hard and set goals high when young and find their comfort level when they have already achieved it.
>
Just my $0.02
I want to be Rich.. (Score:1)
Most of us just have to find out how we are going to make our millions. I have had a few ideas, but nothing I have taken much action on. But the time is nearing, I need to get myself a job, get a little capital going so I can start someting. I am not going to let an article like this deture me. And it should not deture you either, no matter how old you are.
Oh ya. If you live in the Las Vegas area and have an opening for a young, smart, slashdot reader, send me an e-mail, Ice_Hole@Yahoo.com
Learn how the rich protect them selves (Score:1)
and
3 words: off shore trusts
Why is the Queen of England a Corporate Sole ?
Left as an exercise for the readers
Work smarter, not harder !
Cheers
Marxism suffers from more than just implementation (Score:2)
When people advocate confiscating property in ANY philosophers name, expect a reaction.
Re:Get rid of inheritence (Score:1)
Hello McFly, You can't get rid of inheritence (Score:1)
Also, off shore trusts are another way to transfer money without being taxed.
Work smarter, not harder.
Cheers
Re:Rich? Or just monetarily encumbered? (Score:1)
You're kidding, right? The guy's got 80-some-odd-billion DOLLARS. He's the head of a company that's worth $500 billion, more than there is liquid cash in this country, and he's not rich? He has a shitload of money. So he's rich. Pretty simple.
Rich? Or just monetarily encumbered? (Score:3)
Fortunately for us though, we know that money is only one of the things you need to be rich, and that without the other things then you're not rich, you're just monetarily encumbered.
Let's take the case of the classic "rich" person we speak about here a lot, partly because he's about to come on UK telly in 12 minutes' time, interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on BBC2.
Is Bill Gates rich? Er, it doesn't seem likely, otherwise he'd have enough of a clue to discard virtually everything in Windows right now and replace it with a *BSD or Linux infrastructure with just a Windows-compatible covering over the top. That would make Windows the undisputed king of O/S's, end of story. Having a clue is central to being rich.
Maybe he's got the clue to realize that he should do that, but instead he hasn't got the *freedom* to do so. Well, in that case then he's not rich either, because freedom is the other essential component of being rich.
One could go on and on. Nope, good ol' Bill isn't rich, he's just monetarily encumbered.
And I'm off to watch Jeremy Paxman, who, alas, doesn't know anything about technology so the interview won't be up to much, I expect.
You don't need money (Score:1)
1) Eventually, you will run out of things to buy.
Ok, after you've bought five Lamborghini Diablos, the house on the hill, the yachts and the private planes, you WILL get tired of buying stuff. Those weeks of satisfaction that you got when you used to scrimp and save for something slowly dwindle away, until buying stuff is merely a way to spend time.
2) You can't take it with you. I think the Dave Matthews Band song puts it perfectly: "Look at me in my fancy car and my bank account / Oh, how I wish I could take it all down to my grave / God knows, I'd save and save"
3) Can't buy me love. So, you think all of your (non-rich) friends are going to come and hang out and party on the yacht and fly around the world with you for the rest of their lives? The ones that are truly your friends won't. They'll be too busy trying to achieve their goals in life.
4) You have to eat your own cooking. If you were happy as a poor person, you're going to be happy as a rich person. If you were miserable when you were poor, give yourself 6 months as a rich person and you'll be just as miserable as you were before.
"Humor value"? What's a "humor value"? (Score:1)
agreed!--What is rich? (Score:1)
My 2 Cents.
Re:ackthptptpt!! (Score:1)
Wrote he, on Slashdot. ;) (...replied he, on Slashdot)
--
Re:New Idea for slashdot... (Score:1)
I, too, was disappointed. But I don't think he looks anything like Peter Utilities.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Score:5)
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs gives a particularly good framework for considerations of the value of money in the scheme of things. In a nutshell, the items of maximum value to you as an individual are determined by what you need to satisfy your immediate requirements. Good hifi speakers are not relevant when you don't have a roof over your head, and shelter is meaningless when you are dying from starvation. Money is often considered a general enabler but it's far from being that: it's worth nothing when you're stuck on a rock in the middle of a crocodile reservoir. Even in more mundane circumstances, it can be unhelpful, and even a liability.
Financial riches are merely part of a larger picture. This doesn't come across in the media and on the stock market of course, but that doesn't really matter, because everyone knows it anyway. When we hear people say "Be happy with what you've got" it sounds like advice from a have to a have-not, but only if you accept that you are a have-not. If you're intelligent enough to understand the phrase, they you are clearly not a have-not. You may not have a lot of money (join the club), but that's not a reflection on much at all except on the amount of tax you'll be paying. The law of diminishing returns hits with a vengence in this area, and I'm not just talking about tax.
In summary, who cares whether we're on some Rich List or other. The taxman, for sure. For everyone else, if you care then I'd seriously worry about your quality of life, because you'll be *very* unhappy for the rest of it.
Re:Get rid of inheritence (Score:1)
I AM NOT AS I CRAZY AS I THINK I AM! or am i??? -GODriel
The Problem with Maslow (Score:1)
If that were actually true, then there wouldn't be poor people buying stereos, TVs, etc. -- but there are.
Maslow's efforts to classify and heirarchicize human behavior and development have always struck me as being more perscriptive than descriptive, more laden with value judgements than valuable judgement.
Simply put, real human priorities aren't as simplistic as he would have them. As the Sufis have it, Nazradin reaches for the strawberry even as he dangles over the cliff.
----------------------------------------------
Re:All techies are going to be "against the wall". (Score:1)
Re:M-x spook (Score:1)
Love,
Jeremy
(a pacifist moderate socialist hacker)
(oh, how boring, I know)
Well, I am a pacifist to a good extent, but I might not be so pacifist if the US becomes a fascist or near-fascist nation (which it is currently heading towards).
Re:The big lie (Score:1)
Which lie would that be? The lie that money can buy happiness? Or the lie that the root of American unhappiness is its shallow consumerism?
I'm getting a little weary of people complaining about "rampant consumerism". If you don't want stuff, don't buy it. Is there any more to this kind of thread than sour grapes?
Yes, I agree money isn't everything; yes, I agree that anyone who thinks having enough money will make them happy is a fool; yes, I agree that it often seems the money (and concommitant power) of the world is not distributed justly. But do we have so to go on about it?
After all, that rampant consumerism is putting paychecks in most of our pockets! How many of us work directly in pure research or in vital services such as agriculture? Most of the products manufactured, most of the services rendered on which geeks work these days are modern toys. If the American consumer were not so willing to fork over (for home computers on which to look at our blinkenlichten web sites, via our ISPs, etc.) were would we be?
But back to the question of the "emptiness of our society" -- it makes more sense to me to see consumerism, if it must be freighted with negative value, as a symptom, not a cause. There are so many more logical places to point fingers: our culture's abdication of the custody of spiritual technologies to religion(s), which has since failed to lead; the dramatic rise in status value of corporate fealty (the life-time employee), and the resultant dominance of corporate obedience over familial fidelity (e.g. millions of families uprooted on their employers' say-so); two world wars, a depression, and the threat of nuclear annihilation; the continuing financial desperation of an ever growing class of Americans; etc.
Somehow in the face of those things, the cry of "If only we didn't spend so much money on toys, then we'd be happy" seems (to me at least) silly.
----------------------------------------------
Re:Perhaps you should read what was said. (Score:2)
I didn't mean anything by the teaching comment. It is merely an example of a career that is not part of "the path". It, in and of itself, is a noble career in my opinion.
However, that being said, I've observed a certain apathy at public schools (and private schools to a lesser extent) amongst teachers. Have you ever for example noted in US News and World reports observed the 'intelligence' of education majors (which are required for most every public school teaching job), by almost all accounts its shockingly low on average. Even at the 'best' schools you compare them with virtually anyone else in that same school, and they're orders of magnititudes lower. I did a little math, and I was suprised to find out that the average score equivelents at the top schools were lower than even the N.C.A.A cutoff for college athletes (think football).
That in combination with talking to various people involved in public education and personal experience, has lead me to some conclusions over the years. Put simply, there is a great deal of dead wood in the system. The system is in many ways setup to assure this, but thats too much to get into here and now. In order to prevent further confusion, I reiterate, there is NOTHING wrong with teaching in and of itself.
I think the college ratings are overly discussed. It can be revealing, even useful, to get a sampling for the reputation of schools in the business community. Graduation rates. Average GPAs. That and other statistics can provide some useful information. But to read much beyond these statistics, strike me as an excercise in futility.
I also think the value of particular colleges are overemphasized. Sure, the 'top' schools tend to get brighter students (atleast if you think high school GPAs and standardized tests are accurate measures). But they by no means have the lock on it. Sure, it helps when applying for a job from a "name" school (though a few years later in many professions it matters little). Sure, in certain areas the better/wealthier schools can offer facilities which many others can't. But I believe school is for the most part, what you make of it. Some schools though, do a better job of insuring that the lower half atleast acquire certain skills before they graduate (eg: reading, writing, etc)
On the flip side, you see a certain self-satisfaction of a certain number of the 'top' grads. Which cause or allow them to pursue the easier path (much like prep school grads). There are also a lot of people who don't really do well in high school, for whatever reason, and only start to produce in college or later -- but come out with a fire in their belly.
In either case, when I look at the people at the top of their careers (be it business, engineering, computer science, or what have you), I see little differentation between the better schools (~800 different colleges) With the exception of perhaps academics, where name is everything.
Right On (Score:2)
Though I think your imagery could use some work...
It's like planning a manned space flight; designing a ship with no space for fuel or means of propulsion, giving up control to a committee of people 30 miles underground on earth, and plotting your course straight through the center of the sun. Then pinning failure to reach Pluto on the astronauts, because of their poor behavior on board the ship.
...or something like that =)
I don't think its so simple. (Score:2)
I'd inclined to pursue 'rich'. But not everyone feels this way. Rich many times implies more work and risk. Its not just, do you want to be rich or do you want to be poor all things being equal. All things are not equal. Its not just a matter of being smart, fortunate, lucky, etc. For the entreprenuer atleast, its more a matter of focus, drive, hardwork, risk, intelligence and willingness to cross nay-sayers.
At a certain point though, for most people, its no longer about the money. For most, after a couple million in cash (as opposed to non-liquid forms), you have the freedom to do what you. You can buy the cars you want, the sailboat, the house, etc. You come to realize that the next toy won't bring you lasting happiness, and in many ways means more hassle. Thus you set other goals for yourself. eg: Contributing something of real value to the world. And for a more distributed percentage its to reach some arbitrary goal, eg: More Money than Ellison, be the best in your career, improve shareholder value, make sure your trusted long time employees can retire, etc. In other words, something to keep striving for.
I know many people like this, my parents for one. The stressed incurred as an owner/president/CEO of a startup corporation is like none other. Its a love/hate relationship. Both highly rewarding in some ways, but grueling in others. Free Time? Whats that? Is this worth it? For some, for me, for my parents, yes. I'd rather risk falling on my face for the opportunity to see greater things, than choose the safer but less rewarding career. I'd rather work longer and harder and not enjoy my money as much, and see my company continue to grow. There are alot of personal value judgements involved. For me atleast, this has less little to do with money. (Though the money is part of it -- relative to my other options the difference as to what I can really spend is not that great...though a Chalet in the Rockies, and a sailboat would be great). If it were merely a matter of _wanting_ more money, provided the option, the economy would look much more different.
Re:The transaction doenst have to be zero sum. (Score:1)
Hold on, Tex. If money were created whenever interest was charged, then interest payers wouldn't have to scratch for it. The entire point of interest isn't to create money. It re-allocates it.
An example: I loan you ten bucks. You pay me back eleven next month. I didn't create that dollar. You didn't either. You scavanged it up from somewhere.
In other words, money wasn't created, just 1/10th was sucked into the banker's (my) pocket.
I have to disagree. Natural resources, sunlight included, aren't zero sum. Sunlight is just the simplest non-zero sum addition. Sunlight can be gathered and converted to electricity, it is thus a pure unit of Arthur Clark's kilowatt currency. And it just falls out of the sky. Other resources are practically unlimited when you stop considering the earth as the only supply.
Titan looks to have an atmosphere composed almost entirely of methane. CH4 is a hydrocarbon. So is oil. Conversions can happen with addition of energy (remember sunlight?)
Earth seems to have a nickel-iron core. If it does, then there's probably lots more around the sol system. Probably in easier to get at areas too.
Our real problems are energy - collecting useful energy, and getting rid of the heat without cooking/killing the planet. Definetly not a zero-sum game, not an any practical sense, anyway.
After thinking about this post, I think money might be created by the government paying interest. I'd have to check the figures, but it seems like printing new money to finance the interest on the public debt is it.
Course, I can always be wrong.
No. (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is that BOTH parties CHOOSE to participate KNOWING full well the outcome. I fail to see how anyone can argue that all such transactions mean that one person must loose, and the other must win. It simply doesn't work this way. If one person 'won', and the other 'lost', the transaction simply wouldn't take place. Sure, one party will normally end up holding the other's money. But in exchange, you recieve something which you find to be of greater or equal value to the cash you had. This is not a loss.
Lets say if I were a farmer, and I produce 500 bushels of wheat. I'd far rather have 50 bucks in my hand, than keep 2 bushels of wheat. You, the baker, need my product to bake bread. So you purchase 2 bushels of wheat at 50 bucks. I'm happy. You're happy. These two bushels then enable you to create 1000 loafs of bread. You then sell each loaf for 50 cents a piece. It only costs you 5 cents per loaf for my product. And, lets say, 10 cents for the other ingredients. This gives you a value added of 35 cents per loaf. Because you did business with me, you can now earn more money. You still think this is a loss?
You didn't loose because you found it MS software more valuable than the alternative of keeping your money. Your customers didn't loose, because they choose to purchase your software. They may either purchase it for entertainment, producivity, business, you name it. The notion that one "looses" because they fail to pass along expenses is silly.
When you go to the grocery store, are you loosing 50 times over? Following your logic, the only way to not loose would mean that you go out and grow it on your own. The people who brings these products to you enjoy various efficiencies, which bring you cheaper products. Which is the more efficient use of time and money? The farmer, the baker, the packagers, the distributor, are all specialized and experience economies of scale which you could never. Furthermore the learning curves are too many and too steep to allow you to reproduce what they do as efficiently as they do it.
It is what you get out of it... (Score:1)
This column is crap (Score:1)
I jest a little bit, but hard work is the one constant across all "success" -- this joker refuses to acknowledge that. As for the people born rich, their generous endowments (?) should neither be an indictment nor a quality of value -- give'em a chance to prove themselves in their own endeavors.
*** Proven iconoclast, aspiring bohemian. ***
please stop posting this multiple times... (Score:1)
Re:Get rid of inheritence (Score:2)
Marx's theories are essentially irrelevant. Assuming that equitable distribution is possible, that centrally planned economies work, that people would work en masse without merit-based compensation, that capitalist industrialism would implode, and so forth -- just about EVERY assumption that he makes is incorrect. Since these are required for the efficacy of his recommendations, the latter can be ignored as impractical.
It's like planning intergalactic manned spaceflight, but requiring that one be able to warp space/time by creating huge gravitonic forces completely beyond our understanding and probable capabilities.
Re:Can you please make another blanket statement? (Score:3)
Oh, the little home comforts.
However, its not always win-win. There are certain tradeoffs that are made many times.
You mean there can be drawbacks??? Tell us more!!!
Parents of wealthy kids are expected to do certain things, and behave certain ways that others simply aren't. eg: Sports after school every season (mandatory)
OUCH! My god, that's brutal! Oh, except there are poor people who have to do that too, if their parents demand it...
3 hours minimum of homework since 6th grade,
AAH, the nerve! Having to study to get good grades! I'll mention that to the next kid I see who doesn't have rich parents and wants to go to college. I'm sure he'll agree with you, and consider himself lucky he doesn't have those rich-folk expectations...
...
My parents and most of my friends' parents certainly required us to get jobs during the summer and during vacations. It has nothing to do with money. They simply have principles.
Except for people without money, it has everything to do with money... And it's not only rich people have principles, y'know.
In order to be a productive member of society, you must know the meaning of work. When I wanted something growing up, say a new stereo, I had to earn the money myself.
Whereas non-rich people just magic them up from pixie dust.
Grow up!!!
There are few things worse than listening to people who don't realise how lucky they are when they start whining...
A quick meditation on money. (Score:3)
And let's not even talk about a half-decent car: A Mercedes E320 ($46,000).
Because of all this, the desire to be rich infects your brain. You most surely can't get your dream girl - or even something close - without being rich. But I wouldn't laugh too hard at this culture of greed - more than anything, it comes from what are traditionally considered middle-class necessities turning into upper-class luxuries.
I have a friend who wants me to move down to his neck of the woods. I think he feels I'd make a pretty good match for the company he works for, although I'm not so sure. (They are, sadly, still using Windows NT down there, ugh!) But his location is the Space Coast of Florida, which has waterfront homes selling for $ 119,000 and up. Waterfront. With a boat dock. The type of lifestyle that costs a minimum of $ 2,395,000 (!) in Orange County.
This has made me think a lot about this subject. I think many of us are driven to make money not because of innate greed, but because we tend to live in horrendously expensive places. From what I understand, Silicon Valley makes Los Angeles look cheap.
And yet
But I sure as heck don't have $ 1 million to buy that land and erect a suitable dream house.
Maybe I'd be better off moving to South Florida, enjoying the gloriously comfortable warm water from the vantage point of my own personal boat dock, right off of my comfortable middle class home.
Anyone know what the market for consultants/software developers is like down there?
D
For more on this subject, see my David's Dream House web page:
http://www.amazing.com/david/dream-house/
----
Look beyond the superficial dollar signs (Score:2)
You are rich beyond your (current) wildest dreams. Possibly more so than Bill Gates. But you won't know that until you look beyond superficial things like the Rich List.
Re:You know what bugs me about rich people? (Score:2)
A few points (Score:2)
The "rich" by no means have a lock on spoiled children. Wealth is an enabler; it is not an ends onto itself. Wealth may make it easier and even provide the opportunity for "spoilage" to occur. But its not just the rich who are spoiled, and not all the rich are spoiled. This is particularly true when you compare the American middle class with the upper middle class/upper class. None of which know the meaning of a day to day existence, insofar as the basic staples go.
What is it about money that causes "spoilage"? Is spoilage the mere act of living a safer, more secure, and more comfortable life? If this is the case, then virtually everyone on slashdot guilty from any perspective other than that of today in the US (and those few other developed nations). Otherwise, you believe there are other qualifications. Such as how one behaves and acts in this world, and their outlook on life.
Does merely having money in the bank cause spoilage? It doesn't do you much good if you can't spend it, or if you only spend it on essentials. I believe wealth is but one factor in spoiled kids. There are many others, though some are somewhat dependent on wealth. Consider these other elements (both quantitatively and qualitatively):
# of Siblings - Parents attention, wealth, etc is divided. Parents tend to adopt unrealistic expectations of their first born...
Looks - Do you know what its like to be ugly? fat? skinny? tall?
Intelligence - Are you blessed with intelligence? Cursed?
Athletic Prowess - Are you an athlete? Oafish?
Upbringing - Do your parents shield you from the world? Expect you to work around the house? Take jobs below what you're capable of getting due to privileges? Did your parents tell you that you're a little genius? Did your parents shuttle you around? Remind you of how fortunate you are? Teach you how to forgive and forget? Your parents allow you to watch TV? Join the consumer culture? Buy you crap? Did your parents know when to say no? Apologetic for not giving your more?
Health - You ever have medical problems? Family? Lost a parent? Had to help siblings? Made commitments to family?
Social - You a nerd? Super-cool? Jock? Affluent friends? What are your social expectations? Do you understand people, like to hear yourself talk, or both? Introvert, Extrovert?
Failure - You ever made a mistake in your life? Learn anything from it? Your parents go through hard times? Did they tell you anything about it? Did you experience it yourself?
Fortunate - Were you brought up in a good neighborhood? Safe? Comfortable? Polite? Decent school? Or are you the only college bound one in your school?
Moves - You ever left your home town, the security of friends and family? Moved across the country? Done it several times? Lived anywhere where you don't know anyone? Changed schools, economic, and social groups?
This is by no means a complete list, but they are some of the larger factors in ones personl growth that strike me. They are far more significant than merely having money in the bank. Wealth merely provides an increased potential (in one dimension) for some acts. Most of these are beyond the control of the individual, much like parents' wealth. When you start to change a few of these variables, the tables can turn quickly.
The bottom line is, looking strictly at the wealth of ones parents is a very poor indicator of personality. You would have better luck by just glancing at the individual for the first time and drawing conclusions from that (eg: How they carry themselves). Atleast that is a reflection of the individual. Though, hopefully, you've come to the conclusion over the years that that you've been woefully wrong there as well.
I could draw an equally offensive correlation, by saying the poor are stupid. But hey, if you keep on behaving the way you're behaving, I might change my mind about you....
On another note, regarding colleges, I agree partially with you. Though I think you overstate the particular differences between the specific schools that you mentioned. In my experience and the experience of others at these schools (Princeton, UPenn, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, etc) are not all that different. Even the EEs I know disagree. Its probably somewhat accurate when you're comparing the lower ranked schools with the higher ranked schools. The only way to really compare them is to study at for all 4 years. And even then, the impressions are going to be vastly different depending on the indidividual, the crowd they fall in with, their major, and others. It can't be overstated enough.
Are you for real? (Score:2)
How can you make such a blanket statement about people who inherit money? Yeah, I'm sure they all really think they're better than you because they have more of it. Come on, that's just plain ignorant bias. Certainly their are people out there who feel this way, but I'd like to point out that there are probably just as many people out there who think they're better than you that don't have more money. They're just conceited. It happens - deal with it.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
My point is not that you're an idiot. (Score:2)
You started off your previous comment by apologizing, but there was still a hint of "Gee maybe if you keep it up I'll change my mind about you (rich kid)". Maybe I misinterpreted what you said.... I don't believe that you're a "poor" kid, nor do I assume the "poor" are "stupid". If you found that particular comment offensive, i'm sorry. What I was trying to show you was that it is a two way street. That there should be a certain amount of symetry in your beliefs. If you believe it is ok to associate wealth with spoiled children, be aware that using similar methods one can associate poorness with stupidity.
I take issue with these kind of superficial judgements (particularly when it is assumed that EVERYONE is this way), even if there might be a kernel of truth to them. Rather then flaming you with sheer emotional rants, I attempted to provide you with a cohesive rational argument -- I wasn't trying to "outsmart" you. Sometimes people just don't use their intellect to challenge their preconceptions. I've certainly been guilty of it before, and i'll probably be guilty of it again.
Regarding colleges (again), its merely a difference in opinion. Though my age and experiences may play a role here. I was more inclined when I was younger to buy into the whole "Rah Rah" school thing. I believe that some schools are better, but they don't have the lock on highly capable and intelligent students. More subjectively (in my experience), I just don't see a great deal of differences between the schools you mentioned (except maybe Cornell, yuck, heh).
No hard feelings.
Re:The big lie (Score:2)
YeaBut (Score:2)
Take a microsecond and think about what kind of world it would be if everybody ran around living like Jesus did. It sure would look different wouldn't it.
I disagree, abstractly. (Score:2)
..Because the rich are naturally better.
You might even have an evolutionary arguement for this one, but that would be your only chance.
Sorry, but your posts reflect such a obvious, sad bias. I've heard a number of people defend their wealth. The problem is they always start from a different place in the argument (much like life). They start with the assumption that everyone is like them (it's a common mistake, Freud) and go from there. The differences, especially in America, in growing up "with money" and not are extreme, too extreme to understand without extensive study, and experience. By "with money" I mean having enough money, continuously, for food, clothing, and shelter. And NOTHING else. There are many people who live below that line. Unless your life is much different than the thousands of people I know from your socio-economic class, these have never been a concern for you. Until they have you have no business talking about this subject.
Re:Rich? Or just monetarily encumbered? (Score:2)
He didn't ask whether BG was rich enough to realize that his O/S was so buggy and underpowered as to be a liability to many people, and how he felt about that. He didn't ask whether BG was rich enough to throw away the Windows infrastructure if he felt that the lame horse needed shooting. Nor did he ask whether BG was rich enough to alter the perception of the the Dept of Justice. BG's own comments made the real situation quite clear, although you had to read between the lines: the advantages that his money gives him are limited (would *you* want the "privilege" of meeting politicians?), and he'd have most of them with him still even if he left Microsoft and gave all his money away. It was actually quite sad.
No, instead of asking deeper questions, Paxman just focussed on BG's money much of the time, which made the interview very superficial, predictable and boring, since there's nothing interestingly new in the property of having a lot of money.
There's a balance to be had, and money can be applied on one side of the scales alone.
Re:The big lie (Score:3)
The world is a better place than it has ever been, and the trend is very good. The only problem is that the lights are coming on, and we're seeing ourselves for the flabby, whining pessimists most of us are.
The Unabomber and the Columbine "script kiddies" show us examples of negative analysis without positive analysis and positive synthesis. If you are going to address the problems of the world, you should be prepared for a big job and a scholarly, serious effort. It's pure ego to just point out a few problems and feebly propose hackneyed solutions. Check out Camus and Jung, and heed what they have to say about the results of this type of "thinking."
Intelligent people like the AC above and Katz and Gleick have all of this negative stuff to say, and it resonates. People earnestly feel these things. But it's lazy and useless. It's passive and pathetic. I simply can't stomach it.
Our parents had it worse than us, and they did magnificent things. We could too, but we won't if we are paralyzed with fear. Let's snap out of this. Let's stop feeding on this opiate of despair. Stop visualizing Armageddon. Visualize a sustainable, pleasant Earth, and it will happen.
Use your mind to make things better. It will work. Forget the greed-heads. Would anyone you know change places with Bill Gates? Michael Jackson? People are relatively smart.
Safety Net? How about a Safety Elevator? The safety net was turning into a spider's web.
Stock market crash a good thing? Please. We haven't transcended a utilitarian economy yet. Everyone would suffer.
Society is not empty, it's just misguided. But the net is making us smarter all the time. If we can get some of this negative noise out of the system (and out of our attitudes), we can make the world a much better place.
An anecdote from John Cleese (Score:2)
He talked about how he attended an event where they had a few of the richest people in the world in one room. Cleese thought that all the people would be able to sit back, have a glass of wine, and be happy that they've succeeded. But no. They all hate each other. It's insane.
Re:ackthptptpt!! (Score:2)
I agree, I think being rich would likely be not much fun at all. Those I know who have become rich did so by holding down two jobs, being politically and socially correct, and saving every penny for twenty years. That's an investment I can do without.
Then, once you've got the money, everyone is your friend. Not. The demands to invest it in hare-brained schemes, or to help out shiftless relatives and friends have got to be irritating after that kind of take-no-prisoners effort.
Acquisition of wealth also seems to make some people hard and cynical, and intolerant of those without blinding ambition. When wealth becomes its own goal it's an addiction like any other.
Acquiring wealth by birth, or in a sudden flash like the lottery, or a brilliant idea might be fun. Pulling a Horatio is just too much work. Having money for a few modest toys is enough for me, I'd rather have a life, thanks.
New Idea for slashdot... (Score:4)
I'd like to moderate the Article down, please. If similiar blathering was a post from an AC it would immediately be marked at flamebait/worthless/etc. I'm going a step further than the usual moderation and giving that Page, a rating of "-1 Lame/Un-interisting/Waste of Electrons".
Slashdot is usually very good about posting interesting/thought provoking and often wacky stories. This article was none of those. For any of you who did not read the article, here is a synopsis:
I can't believe good old Mike Cassidy gets paid for this drivel. On the plus side he does kinda look like the Norton Utilities Guy :)
Re:ackthptptpt!! (Score:2)
Hmm, what does it mean when someone looks for the meaning in someone quoting "The Jerk"?
It must mean...THE NEW PHONE BOOKS ARE HERE!!!
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
You are already Rich!!!! (Score:2)
Re:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Score:2)
(For those not familiar with Abraham Maslow's hierarchy, a few points to add to Morgaine's discussion: he breaks up our needs into five categories, the lowest being self-preservation, then safety, then social needs, then self esteem, and finally `self-actualisation'. He based a theory of education upon it, based upon the idea that we try to get people to listen to their inner feelings. It has been highly influential in modern Management science.)
Can you please make another blanket statement? (Score:2)
Just because ones' parents are rich doesn't mean they don't have to work for a living. Children of wealthy parents are normally provided with a decent education and they tend to be a little bit more mobile. But being rich doesn't mean that you get carte blanche. Secondly, taxes are a bitch. Even if you want to transfer all your money to your kids after your death, its suprising how little you actually can. eg: Capital Gains, Estate Taxes, legal fees, etc. Unless you're a billionaire, your kids aren't going to be living in the same kind of lifestyle for the rest of their lives (assuming the parents live an extravagant lifestyle).
I, for one, have wealthy extreprenuereal parents. Yes, my education is mostly paid for. College? no problem? A small loan for grad school? maybe. A Little seed capital? maybe.
I can't claim that i'd rather be born poor. However, its not always win-win. There are certain tradeoffs that are made many times. Parents of wealthy kids are expected to do certain things, and behave certain ways that others simply aren't. eg: Sports after school every season (mandatory), 3 hours minimum of homework since 6th grade, moves, no TV, get into a top college, etc etc etc. My parents and most of my friends' parents certainly required us to get jobs during the summer and during vacations. It has nothing to do with money. They simply have principles. In order to be a productive member of society, you must know the meaning of work. When I wanted something growing up, say a new stereo, I had to earn the money myself.
There are a certain percentage of elitists who sort of cruise through life with a sense of entitlement. eg: Go to the right prep school, get into the right college, land a cushy job at some leading firm, country club... But they are for the most part a minority. And I feel that they're becoming a dying breed. The world is simply becoming more and more competitive; just going through the motions and resting on your laurels isn't enough.
While I have a great deal more respect for individuals that manage to climb their way to the top without any advantages, it is extremely difficult (statistically). Would you really propose that rich people aren't allowed to support their children, and educate them decently? That they must go to the same public schools, no matter how poor? Might it have ever occured to you that one of the incentives to get 'rich', is to be able to provide your kids with a decent chance in life (eg: education).
I do find the notion of redistributing wealth by means of law out of 'principle' a bit disturbing. That is leaning towards socialism...
Mike Cassidy could be rich himself... (Score:2)
Read it like a "grumpy-old-man"-style parody, this time with a "grumpy-poor-man" instead. Yes, obviously everything he wrote is wrong, the keyword being "obviously". But if someone actually believed what was written, that would be sufficient to explain why that person would stay poor. Which makes it a pretty good self-referential piece of satire.
But are you HAPPY? (Score:3)
-Nick
Neither happy or rich, but would settle for either.
or an ion cannon, you decide.