Socrates was a fool…Most philosophers are fools in a sense, because they do not have the sense to seek the successful relationships everyone needs… Who knows what Marx might have become if he were not so intent upon making a name for himself… We give up all to have immortality, and when it is over we have the same nothing as everyone else… Socrates had what most of us want: The last laugh…He was not correct… He made a start… He made the same mistake many of us make, of judging our own forms without context… He did not have anthropology…He did not have a broad eduacation of history and culture…He was worse than a kid comparing his family to the family up the block…He was comparing his society to some ideal of what societies should be… It was retarded… Marx had a better grasp of history and anthropology…Today, Das Capital is history, and very good history… Marx really applied statistics to the subject as never before…And he did not do so from some ivory castle, but from the trenches, with others without near the ability, and all of the pain that he endured…And his success is our success…If capital did not fear communism even today, there is no limit to the degradation the working class would be made to suffer… We lived well while communism was a danger, and now they do not need the unions, and now they do not need the benefits of social security and public health… Without the threat of communism America is become the third world…
Jugg,
Some unions have gone too far in some case in our times. I’m not against them per se, but I’m not on their bandwagon either. My uncle’s friend caught a super of a building stealing jewelry from one of their factories on video. They went to the union to fire the guy and the union said that they couldn’t fire him unless the factory paid a 100k penalty. So there is another side to the unions. But I hear ya. Personally, I’m for the harmonious blend of a free-market supported with strong social programs.
And America already has a third-world within it, it’s just not spoken about.
That fellow must have been in some mythical union… All the unions I know of will climb through their butts to please the contractor… They all talk tough, but the all kiss butt… Here is the deal…Not everyone can be in a trade union…They can keep their benefits and wages so long as they can control the number of people competing for their jobs…That is simple supply and demand…and this is fine with employers who are union and who are not union, because the purpose of dividing the working class is done, at a small price…If we were all without unions, and could see how similar was our condition, how there was no natural limits to how low wages or working conditions might be driven, then there would be a chance for revolt…The employers hate the union primarily because they are democratic… The government hates the unions because their existence demonstrates that the government is not fulfilling its obligation, which if filled, would make unions unnecessary…And the workers hate the unions which at best are corrupt, and sometime effective, so that the poor slob who is sold on individualism can point to the union, and say that is why I am not better off…They are over paid, if I am fairly paid… Losers hate winners, and winners hate whiners…The union people are not over paid, and not paid well enough…Most are simply underpaid and over worked, but they have a sense that this is their choice, and the test of their individualism… Well it is a test, and they fail…All individuals are victims unless they are busy victimizing…
It is actually worse than you are presenting. People say that the best indicator for income is education and, sure, there is a fantastic correlation between education and income. But you wanna know what the best indicator for educational achievement is? Parental income.
American dream? Phah! Social mobility in America is, statistically speaking, the worst in the developed world. We essentially have entrenched classes. Pretty fucked up, if you ask me.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t find meaning in a job well done. I’m not arguing the stoic position so I don’t think that is sufficient. But at the same time, I think it needs to be acknowledged.
Finding meaning in a job well done is easy… That is why miserable slaves are so rare in literature…The slave master does not have near the ability in his wealth to find meaning and happiness… The slave in creation recreates himself… Still, the trick to to find meaningful jobs to well do…If they do not feed our lives, they are never going to be meaningful…So much of what we all do is pointless, and the pay is crappy, so it take a lot of our lives and gives us nothing but worries…Meanwhile, the boss isn’t getting any more meaning out of the affair than we are, and some times he is getting less, so he has to spend to buy meaning he cannot buy, and sleep the worried sleep of one who knows he is only one step away from ruin…When are people going to figure out that it doesn’t work???
Slaves are a pretty classic example of a worker who is alienated from his labor. So that counter-argument was a strawman. You also seem to think I am taking the stoic line in arguing that all that is necessary is internal goods, when I’ve been arguing that both internal and external goods are necessary for contentment.
I’m not really sure what you are getting at, do clarify.
Was this statement a joke? If ever there were a place in this world where one could move up in society, America would seem the merited candidate. My father came here about 18 years ago from poverty-stricken ex-communist squalor. Now we live in a respectable enough suburban neighborhood where all basic needs are met and then some. Even observe who our president is on this day. Has that ever occurred in any other Eurocentric nation? People come here from all corners of the globe to find a better life. A fading dream, perhaps, but the more I experience external existence, the more I realize the glimmer has not hitherto acquiesced.
www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndInfor … eport.aspx
Read it and weep.
Now, I apologize for the victim-blaming nature of this question, but could the difference be less in the quantity and quality of opportunities available to those of poorer circumstances and more in their motivation to take advantage of the opportunities that exist? I mean, when life at the bottom is as good as it is in the States, maybe people just don’t have enough reason to get learnin’ and become millionaires.
Actually, I think that’s probably wrong, but I’d be interested to hear the reason why.
And this proves what? That low-lives who don’t want to work hard to create better lives for their offspring need government handouts to raise them out of the gutter? Thats not breaking news to anybody
Zeus,
Since the European countries discussed in the article actually have a better standard of living for the lower class than in the US, I’m not sure that such an argument would follow.
Duality,
Now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You argued that America had a great degree of social mobility, I provided evidence suggesting that there is very little social mobility in America, especially as compared to other First World countries. You countered that with a non-sequitur about lazy people. Unless you are trying to suggest that American people are the laziest people in the first world, followed by the British, then the Continentals, with the Scandanavians being the most industrious? Do you have anything to back up such a stance?
Only because you define social mobility as government handouts. I don’t. The reason those nations have greater "mobiility is because they are socialized up the ass backwards. Also the reason they have inferior markets and economies.
Yea I’ll get you some obesity rates if you so desire, average T.V. viewing rates, disease rates, etc.
- You didn’t read the link, did you? I’m not defining anything here. Since you didn’t read the first one, I doubt you’ll check out a second one but here is some more food-for-thought:
nytimes.com/packages/html/na … ex_03.html
- Well, if you are arguing that America has less social mobility because Americans are lazy, at least that is consistent. Though I’d ask how that squares with the amount of hours the average American works per week as opposed to the average European. Working more and getting less done?
Of course I did
you are, by making blanket statements without understanding external variables that affect outcomes.
Its also funny how most immigrants would rather, according to you, come to America and be peons enmeshed in a constant cycle of poverty than go to say a Scandinavian country and get socialized royal treatment.
They aren’t getting less done. American professionals are probably the hardest working human beings on the planet. It’s the low-lives who dont work that infect the infrastructure.
Then you needn’t have tried to make it an argument about what I’m doing. Ad hom is generally considered a flaw in one’s argument.
I understand 'em just fine 
What percentage of US immigrants are Scandanavian? Damned few. Patriotic bluster is just bluster.
So you say Americans are lazy, statistically speaking, but that only applies to the low-lives. The hardest working human beings on the planet who have less possibility for social mobility than in other areas are languishing why? You’re argument is all over the place man.
I’m not sure if this comment is all that relative to your discusssion, but I saw this and thought to myself (I work in a huge, beurocratic, power-driven company mind you) - Aren’t some of the hardest working American “professionals” among the most detestable of low-lives?
These men, and sometimes women, who basically come to work to get waited on, ego’s fed until morbid obesity, all the while complaining that nobody’s work is of real satisfaction. That, I would argue, is the real poison of society; especially American society.
Devaluing others to encourage the “self”. I mean, we see this crap in Elementary school with bullies and kids fighting in the attempt to assert and display their power; the same goes for the the job world. Tactics may differ, but motives are alike and just as rotten.
I look very often at why people who succeed, even mildly can succeed…They often have unreasonable expectations that because of their optimism and hard work are realized…Most often, people with no hope, and no freedom, when set free fill it up, and take advantage of it…Those people I have met who are the most natural successes are imports from countries with existing and healthy communities… I have seen some people at work, or even relaxing…There is no democracy to the family…Father speaks, and children listen…Father asks, and children answer…No one says: When am I going to get paid…People work for a common goal, and hold to that goal, so that it is not individuals who succeed, but families…But after a generation here, their children are like our children, generally worthless, and lazy…And there are limits to their success, just because success is harder to endure than failure…Money divides people when unity is essential to success…
You aren’t doing anything, you just misunderstand the bigger picture
Well that’s irrelevant. What are the immigration rates of persons from first world nations in general? The vast majority of immigration derives from second or third world countries. The point was, if one had a choice between them, it would be quite predictable.
It’s not all over the place, you just generalize specific statements without understanding external variables, influences and individual situations. All you need to do is stop doing that.
Well yeah, but that has to do more with morality and character. Their existences are centered around self-profit and material gain. Also, you have to realize the sort of people present in the business career field to begin with. Their primary purpose is to make money, and lots of it. Much moreso than in other professions.
This is a result of modern capitalism and the business wielding power over helpless employees due to government interference in markets. In a free market, this would self-regulate and weed out human failure and organizations like this. For example, all the companies now destroyed by their own greed and corruption, instead of being afforded government bailouts and subsidies, would be allowed to crumble and superior, more efficient ones would rise. Granted, this is a lot worse in socialized nations, being rank with corruption and human inefficincy, causing their inferior economies, but capitalism is in no way ideal and, in all respects, a failed economic system.
This is generally how it’s worked from the beginning of time. A civilization is established, becomes prosperous, then it’s citizens become pompous, weak and lazy. It is subsequently destroyed by influx of less well off populations who are hungrier and more desperate.
The Chinese by the Mongols, Egyptians by the Babylonians, Babylonians by the Persians, Persians by the Greeks, The Greeks by the Romans, the Romans by the barbarians, British by the Americans, etc.
"At present the governors, induced by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly; while they and their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain. They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue. Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them.
And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another’s way, whether on a journey or on some other occasion of meeting, on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow-sailors; aye and they may observe the behaviour of each other in the very moment of danger—for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich—and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh—when he sees such an one puffing and at his wits’-end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another ‘Our warriors are not good for much’?" - Socrates
Family goals are substantially superior to pursuit of self-centered material gain. Essentially, however, they are both primitive styles of thought. The priority of the individual should be to cultivate in themselves an understanding of true being, and from such an endeavour will stem the proper interactions within society and the right goals within their personal lives. Obedience from fear works to an extent, but is eventually subverted as society evolves. A prime example would be children raised in fanatical religious families, who ensuingly lead aimless nihilistic and hedonistic lifestyles as a way of lashing out against the fear-based, repressive environment they were subjected to.
Then enlighten me.
The Scandanavian countries do have a large influx of immigrants. Different demographics, sure. But that is because a huge component of immigration is proximity. People are far more likely to emigrate to a country that is nearby than they are to a country that is far away. People are also far more likely to emigrate to a country with a sizable expat population as opposed to one without the familiarities of home.
Then clarify your argument. Show these variables.
You argument thus-far as been that America is the land of opportunity insofar as social mobility is concerned but when faced with the fact that America has less social mobility than other first world countries, you countered that this situation exists because Americans are substantially lazier than people in these other countries. So America is the land of opportunity but most people can’t realize that opportunity. This is despite the fact that lazy Americans are also the hardest working people out of the countries that we are talking about. On the other hand, you’ve dismissed areas where actual social mobility is realized as having a socialist concept of social mobility (which, on the face of it, seems quite strange).
Please, clarify the argument you are making.
Just to be clear, I agree with most of your response above, but I can’t see how economic failure = human failure. Are there perfect, economy-calculating robots that set the standard for economic success? An economy would seem to be made up of the transactions of goods & services within a given society, and, therefore, the people who buy & sell the goods & services. In other words, if an economy is a sum of the business activity ocurring between the members of a respective society, isn’t the “economy” simply what the people make of it - regardless of the name they give it? An economy, and in turn the relative society, based solely on power and efficiancy would seem to be one of robotic automation - human beings would not even be necessary or present in a perfect economic system. Therefore neither would human values, which keep humanity afloat. To me, I always considered the concepts of “society”, “economy”, “efficiancy”, “prodcutivity”, etc. (you get the idea) to be human answers to the recognition of our own short-comings (like greed, inefficiancy, and corruption). I think the only truely efficient, effective, fair, self-regulatory, incorruptable economic system is one entirely free of human influence.
I might argue that some of the greatest economic “success” is a result of “human failure” - if by that you mean the failure of humanity to consider itself for what it is, and, instead, focusing only on the material/economic world. If by “human failure” you are literally just referring to human errors - of both thought and action - I would be interested to hear any theory based on a system that can truely “weed-out” humanity from human business. Imperfection is one of the many inherent traits in humanity, no?
I would argue that no economic system is ideal being that they all suffer the same short-comings of the individuals who make up the society. That is to say, I think all economic systems, given enough time and human influence, end up as “failed economic systems”.