Reducing Workday hours

Place open for new posts — threads with fresh content will be moved to either Real-life Discussion or ESOC Talk sub-forums, where you can create new topics.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by lejend »

Gendarme wrote:
lejend wrote:Poor people today have a higher standard of living than most humans did in history
Are you sure about that? Allow me to quote myself from a different topic:
Gendarme wrote:Joe soon realises that despite working 6 hours a day, and his wife doing the same, collectively working 12 hours a day - their current lifestyle is more than they can handle. The mortgage payment, the installment fee of their car loan, the cost of their two kids, and their epicurean food-consumption together with other every-day expenses exceed what their income can handle.
In other words, Joe's standard of living is not really higher than the one of Johnny, who lives in the rainforest of Amazonas. He has much less free time, a dwarfed social life in comparison to Johnny's, has restricted freedoms due to government regulations (although civilization technically gives him more options than the rainforest, if only he could afford them), and is not only psychically, but physically incredibly unhealthy (virtually no exercise, and insanely unhealthy food - even food that "is supposed to" and most believe to be healthy).


By what metric are modern standards of living no higher than during any time in history? Most people in history didn't live carefree lives in the forest. Life was fairly harsh. Some aspects of life were better, to be sure, but in general life was far less safe and comfortable. Any faults in the modern way of life are voluntary; people willingly make bad financial, health and other decisions. Nevertheless life is still more comfortable than it was 2000 or even 200 years ago.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by lejend »

Papist wrote:
lejend wrote:Then I don't see the point. People would still look at the millionaires and envy what they have. Poor people today have a higher standard of living than most humans did in history, but a lot of them still envy the rich and demand more free stuff. Why would 50K be any different? It's almost human nature to try to be above average, no matter how good the average is.


The idea behind minimum basic income (which I am not totally in favor of for the record) has nothing to do with poor people being envious of the wealthy. Rather it is the notion that while you might be poor, there is a certain line you should never fall below (I.e. you should always be able to get decent food and a modest place to live). You can agree or disagree with that premise or the specifics of the policy, but don't lie about motives.

And yes, a "poor" person in 2017 would be considered well off in 10,000 BCE. But it isn't 10,000 BCE - see how that works?


It has everything to do with envy. Nobody is born with a right to anything other than liberty. If you want a house, car, food, you have to work for it. That decent food and modest place to live didn't come out of nowhere. They were created by other people looking for a profit.

This certain line you speak of isn't very objective. It is relative to the standard of living enjoyed by the wealthy. Or are you saying that all humans in history had a right to a modern apartment, plentiful food stored minutes from home, 21st century medical technology, etc.?

If a 200K dollar basic income were instituted today, 50 years from now, when every single individual makes at least 200K, you'll be saying, "yes a "poor" person in 2067 would be considered well off in 2017. But it isn't 2017. We want free anti-ageing technology and spaceships!"

Have a look at the "poor" of the 21st century. Medieval Emperors would drool with envy.

http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-ine ... ted-states

Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[2] While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.

Regrettably, annual Census reports not only exaggerate current poverty, but also suggest that the number of poor persons[5] and their living conditions have remained virtually unchanged for four decades or more. In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time.

Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households.

As a rule of thumb, poor households tend to obtain modern conveniences about a dozen years after the middle class. Today, most poor families have conveniences that were unaffordable to the middle class not too long ago.


Image

Image

"Poor" people, yeah right. Humans are the same in 2017 as in 4000 BC. Greedy, envious and slothful. If only there was an ancient book that taught us to fight this...
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by pecelot »

Papist wrote:
lejend wrote:Then I don't see the point. People would still look at the millionaires and envy what they have. Poor people today have a higher standard of living than most humans did in history, but a lot of them still envy the rich and demand more free stuff. Why would 50K be any different? It's almost human nature to try to be above average, no matter how good the average is.


The idea behind minimum basic income (which I am not totally in favor of for the record) has nothing to do with poor people being envious of the wealthy. Rather it is the notion that while you might be poor, there is a certain line you should never fall below (I.e. you should always be able to get decent food and a modest place to live). You can agree or disagree with that premise or the specifics of the policy, but don't lie about motives.

And yes, a "poor" person in 2017 would be considered well off in 10,000 BCE. But it isn't 10,000 BCE - see how that works?

And why is that?

It could also create inflation :?
User avatar
United States of America Papist
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 2602
Joined: Mar 29, 2015
ESO: Papist

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Papist »

Lejend, it's easy to say that people don't deserve food and shelter when you yourself have never wanted for those things in your life. And that's what's being proposed, not "anti-aging technology and spaceships". We are talking subsistence-level shit here, not giving everyone a Lamborghini. Keep that in mind next time you go off about how greedy the people living in the gutter are.

I notice you put forward the "poor people today have it better than rich people hundreds of years ago" argument again. I'm still not sure how that's relevant, but I'll bite:
1) The standard of living for everyone sucked hundreds of years ago - it just sucked a little less for the wealthy. People dying of terrible diseases, many of which are treatable today, wasn't good then and isn't good now. The difference today is that we can (and should) do something about it.

2) Even back then, the rich had reliable access to good food and shelter, and had lucrative social/political connections that the poor then and now didn't/don't have.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
User avatar
United States of America Papist
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 2602
Joined: Mar 29, 2015
ESO: Papist

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Papist »

pecelot wrote:
Papist wrote:
lejend wrote:Then I don't see the point. People would still look at the millionaires and envy what they have. Poor people today have a higher standard of living than most humans did in history, but a lot of them still envy the rich and demand more free stuff. Why would 50K be any different? It's almost human nature to try to be above average, no matter how good the average is.


The idea behind minimum basic income (which I am not totally in favor of for the record) has nothing to do with poor people being envious of the wealthy. Rather it is the notion that while you might be poor, there is a certain line you should never fall below (I.e. you should always be able to get decent food and a modest place to live). You can agree or disagree with that premise or the specifics of the policy, but don't lie about motives.

And yes, a "poor" person in 2017 would be considered well off in 10,000 BCE. But it isn't 10,000 BCE - see how that works?

And why is that?

It could also create inflation :?


Why? The amount of money in the system will remain the same - it will just circulate more.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by pecelot »

But when the money is not in hands of those poor people, it won't be used that much or can be kept in reserve, therefore it will be somewhat out of the system.
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Jam »

lejend wrote:"Poor" people, yeah right. Humans are the same in 2017 as in 4000 BC. Greedy, envious and slothful. If only there was an ancient book that taught us to fight this...
You're in luck.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrndhamma.pdf
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Laurence Drake »

Jam wrote:
lejend wrote:"Poor" people, yeah right. Humans are the same in 2017 as in 4000 BC. Greedy, envious and slothful. If only there was an ancient book that taught us to fight this...
You're in luck.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrndhamma.pdf

Fool! The mighty dragon has no use for this heathenistic drivel.
Top quality poster.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by lejend »

Papist wrote:Lejend, it's easy to say that people don't deserve food and shelter when you yourself have never wanted for those things in your life. And that's what's being proposed, not "anti-aging technology and spaceships". We are talking subsistence-level shit here, not giving everyone a Lamborghini. Keep that in mind next time you go off about how greedy the people living in the gutter are.

I notice you put forward the "poor people today have it better than rich people hundreds of years ago" argument again. I'm still not sure how that's relevant, but I'll bite:
1) The standard of living for everyone sucked hundreds of years ago - it just sucked a little less for the wealthy. People dying of terrible diseases, many of which are treatable today, wasn't good then and isn't good now. The difference today is that we can (and should) do something about it.

2) Even back then, the rich had reliable access to good food and shelter, and had lucrative social/political connections that the poor then and now didn't/don't have.


I disagree. Poor people today have more liberty to do whatever they want, unconstrained by social roles or material lack. The standard of living has never been higher in all of human history. Do you think a Jarl's hut was more luxurious than the average modern apartment? Do you think making all food, clothing etc. at home is better than simply buying it?

A subsistence level assistance would be a loaf of bread and a tent, not an apartment, and thousands of calories of food prepared by someone else and delivered right to your neighborhood.

I think the idea of BI is motivated by greed. People may not realize it, but what you can get with a few hundred dollars today, is actually a luxury that most humans in history never could get. People do not want to hunt, skin, clean and cook animals. They do not want to work all day hauling wood and building a house. They want this to be done by other people, and then they want the finished product be given to them for free. They have a "right" to it. Where this right comes from is never explained.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by lejend »

Laurence Drake wrote:
Jam wrote:
lejend wrote:"Poor" people, yeah right. Humans are the same in 2017 as in 4000 BC. Greedy, envious and slothful. If only there was an ancient book that taught us to fight this...
You're in luck.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrndhamma.pdf

Fool! The mighty dragon has no use for this heathenistic drivel.


Indeed. Christianity teaches you to strive for all that is good and to find meaning in life. Doesn't Buddhism teach not to at all strive to change anything?
User avatar
United States of America Papist
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 2602
Joined: Mar 29, 2015
ESO: Papist

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Papist »

lejend wrote:I disagree. Poor people today have more liberty to do whatever they want, unconstrained by social roles or material lack. The standard of living has never been higher in all of human history. Do you think a Jarl's hut was more luxurious than the average modern apartment? Do you think making all food, clothing etc. at home is better than simply buying it?

It doesn't matter how high the average standard of living is if you can't afford to buy into it. It takes money to get good food and a roof over your head. If you have lots of money, there is no better time to be alive; if you're poor, you're options are severely limited. And that's what this proposal seeks to change.

A subsistence level assistance would be a loaf of bread and a tent, not an apartment, and thousands of calories of food prepared by someone else and delivered right to your neighborhood.

This is an ignorant statement. First, bread and a tent is not subsistence-level living - you would quickly either die of malnutrition or exposure (though something tells me you wouldn't be bothered by that in the slightest). Second, nobody is advocating that we deliver food to people's doorsteps; this is another one of your strawmen, designed to make the bare minimum sound extravagant.

I think the idea of BI is motivated by greed. People may not realize it, but what you can get with a few hundred dollars today, is actually a luxury that most humans in history never could get.

You may not realize it, but most poor people don't have hundreds of extra dollars on hand to spend on luxury items. If they did, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

People do not want to hunt, skin, clean and cook animals. They do not want to work all day hauling wood and building a house. They want this to be done by other people, and then they want the finished product be given to them for free. They have a "right" to it. Where this right comes from is never explained.

The lifestyle you are describing requires property, money, and experience; things poor people living in the inner cities don't have. It's dishonest to suggest that these people could choose to move into the countryside and buy a plot of land when many of them can't even afford to feed and clothe themselves.

You are once again exaggerating what advocates of this proposal are asking for. The proposal calls for people to get exactly enough money to afford a modest apartment and healthy food, far less than what you have taken for granted your entire life.

This debate for me is over who we want to be as a society. Do we want to be the people who mock and condemn the poor for asking for a few small crumbs of bread from the table (while we ourselves enjoy the entire loaf), or do we want to lift the less fortunate up, and let them aspire to something greater than food and roofs over their heads?
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by lejend »

Papist wrote:
lejend wrote:I disagree. Poor people today have more liberty to do whatever they want, unconstrained by social roles or material lack. The standard of living has never been higher in all of human history. Do you think a Jarl's hut was more luxurious than the average modern apartment? Do you think making all food, clothing etc. at home is better than simply buying it?

It doesn't matter how high the average standard of living is if you can't afford to buy into it. It takes money to get good food and a roof over your head. If you have lots of money, there is no better time to be alive; if you're poor, you're options are severely limited. And that's what this proposal seeks to change.

A subsistence level assistance would be a loaf of bread and a tent, not an apartment, and thousands of calories of food prepared by someone else and delivered right to your neighborhood.

This is an ignorant statement. First, bread and a tent is not subsistence-level living - you would quickly either die of malnutrition or exposure (though something tells me you wouldn't be bothered by that in the slightest). Second, nobody is advocating that we deliver food to people's doorsteps; this is another one of your strawmen, designed to make the bare minimum sound extravagant.

I think the idea of BI is motivated by greed. People may not realize it, but what you can get with a few hundred dollars today, is actually a luxury that most humans in history never could get.

You may not realize it, but most poor people don't have hundreds of extra dollars on hand to spend on luxury items. If they did, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

People do not want to hunt, skin, clean and cook animals. They do not want to work all day hauling wood and building a house. They want this to be done by other people, and then they want the finished product be given to them for free. They have a "right" to it. Where this right comes from is never explained.

The lifestyle you are describing requires property, money, and experience; things poor people living in the inner cities don't have. It's dishonest to suggest that these people could choose to move into the countryside and buy a plot of land when many of them can't even afford to feed and clothe themselves.

You are once again exaggerating what advocates of this proposal are asking for. The proposal calls for people to get exactly enough money to afford a modest apartment and healthy food, far less than what you have taken for granted your entire life.

This debate for me is over who we want to be as a society. Do we want to be the people who mock and condemn the poor for asking for a few small crumbs of bread from the table (while we ourselves enjoy the entire loaf), or do we want to lift the less fortunate up, and let them aspire to something greater than food and roofs over their heads?


You largely misunderstood my post.

I think, we simply fundamentally disagree on what life is about. You favor collectivism and a "safety net", but you don't take into account human nature and the inevitable endgame of these policies.

If you really want to lift the "less fortunate" into prosperity, you should first realize that they aren't blameless in their "poverty." They have certain mentalities that hinder their success. For instance, very few people have an income problem; they have spending problems. Financial ignorance is really the root cause of almost all poverty.

Most people are raised, from a young age, to believe the successful are sinful and the unsuccessful are virtuous. IT's a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you believe success is due to immorality or luck, you will never work toward success, and will support "spreading the wealth around", taking successful people down a peg, and making the world more "fair."

Whereas I don't believe that unsuccessful people are blameless, nor do I believe the successful are just lucky or conniving. Rather than forcibly confiscate the wealth of the successful and give it to the unsuccessful, instead I favor building more wealth. Or rather, teaching people how to build it. This is not done via violence or making people dependent, but b fostering knawledge and selfreliance.

phpBB [video]


Giving people a handout can be a great help in a special time of need. But you aren't calling for charity by supporting welfare and a guaranteed basic income. You are endorsing force and dependence. We disagree on that.
User avatar
United States of America Papist
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 2602
Joined: Mar 29, 2015
ESO: Papist

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Papist »

lejend wrote:If you really want to lift the "less fortunate" into prosperity, you should first realize that they aren't blameless in their "poverty." They have certain mentalities that hinder their success. For instance, very few people have an income problem; they have spending problems. Financial ignorance is really the root cause of almost all poverty.

No, poverty is the root cause of all poverty. The vast majority of people stay in the social caste they were born into. Those at the bottom stay at the bottom because they have the deck stacked against them (if you are homeless for example, it is often impossible to get a job because most employers require an address). It has nothing to do with them making "bad choices" anymore than someone else being born and staying rich has anything to do with good choices. This statement of yours reflects a great deal of privilege - it's easy for someone who has never been poor to blame poor people for their circumstances.

Most people are raised, from a young age, to believe the successful are sinful and the unsuccessful are virtuous. IT's a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you believe success is due to immorality or luck, you will never work toward success, and will support "spreading the wealth around", taking successful people down a peg, and making the world more "fair."

No, nobody is condemning success. I personally only condemn successful people who think that they shouldn't have to pay back into the system that made them and their families rich to begin with. And rest assured that people are not deciding not to be poor because society tells them it's a good thing - that's bullshit and you know it.

Whereas I don't believe that unsuccessful people are blameless, nor do I believe the successful are just lucky or conniving. Rather than forcibly confiscate the wealth of the successful and give it to the unsuccessful, instead I favor building more wealth. Or rather, teaching people how to build it. This is not done via violence or making people dependent, but b fostering knawledge and selfreliance.

A classic trope of the right wing: big bad government is here to steal the poor millionaire's hard-earned money, that he made all by himself without any help from anyone or anything. I repeat - all that is being asked is that those who benefit the most from the system pay to keep it running, and allow others to benefit from it in the same way they did. If you think that's unfair, we are operating on fundamentally different levels.

People can't worry about building wealth if they are busy worrying about where their next meal is coming from or where they are sleeping at night. That is why we need BI or something similar (maybe a system where you are given food and a place to live in exchange for working a job, etc.).

Giving people a handout can be a great help in a special time of need. But you aren't calling for charity by supporting welfare and a guaranteed basic income. You are endorsing force and dependence. We disagree on that.

If being homeless and hungry is not a "time of need", I don't know what is.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: Reducing Workday hours

  • Quote

Post by n0el »

I love reading the argument that people are just seeking handouts... it shows how clueless and uneducated most people are about real life. There are undoubtedly people who abuse the system, but the majority want to make their own way and need the opportunity that government assistance provides.
mad cuz bad
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Laurence Drake »

n0el wrote:I love reading the argument that people are just seeking handouts... it shows how clueless and uneducated most people are about real life. There are undoubtedly people who abuse the system, but the majority want to make their own way and need the opportunity that government assistance provides.

Agreed that some people need assistance, but why is the government better for this instead of private philanthropy?
Top quality poster.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by n0el »

It's not better, there's roles for both of course. However right now I don't think you could get by with reliance 100% on private philanthropy.
mad cuz bad
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Laurence Drake »

n0el wrote:It's not better, there's roles for both of course. However right now I don't think you could get by with reliance 100% on private philanthropy.

That's because philanthropy is discouraged by taxes.
Top quality poster.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by n0el »

Well philanthropy is a bad way to invest your money when you can give it with the same tax benefits to a political foundation to advance your business.
mad cuz bad
User avatar
Sweden Gendarme
Gendarme
Donator 03
Posts: 5132
Joined: Sep 11, 2016
ESO: Gendarme

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Gendarme »

You don't actually need philanthropy. The people who are interested in sharing the cost of health care, can do so among themselves. There is no need to involve the whole population in the scheme. Furthermore, taking real-life examples of poor people in need of help is not really accurate, because our tax-money is not redistributed back to the people as it would be in theory - it is disguised stealing. People are poorer due to the fact that they are being scammed by taxation, and can't afford health care that is even more expensive that it should be due to regulations and lobbying.
Pay more attention to detail.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Goodspeed »

Laurence Drake wrote:
n0el wrote:It's not better, there's roles for both of course. However right now I don't think you could get by with reliance 100% on private philanthropy.

That's because philanthropy is discouraged by taxes.
That is indeed exactly what he would say
User avatar
United States of America Papist
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 2602
Joined: Mar 29, 2015
ESO: Papist

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Papist »

n0el wrote:I love reading the argument that people are just seeking handouts... it shows how clueless and uneducated most people are about real life. There are undoubtedly people who abuse the system, but the majority want to make their own way and need the opportunity that government assistance provides.


In my experience, most people who talk like that are white, and middle/upper middle class folks who have never wanted for anything ever. Then they shit on people for wanting things that they have had for free their entire lives.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
User avatar
United States of America Papist
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 2602
Joined: Mar 29, 2015
ESO: Papist

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by Papist »

Gendarme wrote:You don't actually need philanthropy. The people who are interested in sharing the cost of health care, can do so among themselves. There is no need to involve the whole population in the scheme. Furthermore, taking real-life examples of poor people in need of help is not really accurate, because our tax-money is not redistributed back to the people as it would be in theory - it is disguised stealing. People are poorer due to the fact that they are being scammed by taxation, and can't afford health care that is even more expensive that it should be due to regulations and lobbying.


Being asked to pay to help support the system that helps you build and maintain wealth is not theft.

Also, your approach to healthcare was tried in the United States and it failed miserably; I see no reason to repeat that mistake again. The rising costs have nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with corporate and insurance company greed.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by n0el »

Papist wrote:
n0el wrote:I love reading the argument that people are just seeking handouts... it shows how clueless and uneducated most people are about real life. There are undoubtedly people who abuse the system, but the majority want to make their own way and need the opportunity that government assistance provides.


In my experience, most people who talk like that are white, and middle/upper middle class folks who have never wanted for anything ever. Then they shit on people for wanting things that they have had for free their entire lives.

Well said.
mad cuz bad
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by lejend »

Papist wrote:poverty is the root cause of all poverty.

The vast majority of people stay in the social caste they were born into.

Those at the bottom stay at the bottom because they have the deck stacked against them

It has nothing to do with them making "bad choices"

someone else being born and staying rich

the system that made them and their families rich to begin with.

those who benefit the most from the system

others to benefit from it in the same way they did.


So, essentially, your fate in life is predetermined. Nobody should bother to make any effort to change their circumstances. If you're unsuccessful it's because the corporations, the rich, the Jews, someone, is out there stealing your share. Nothing is your fault. You're a helpless product of your circumstances. All you have to do, is shout loud enough and someone will step in and take care of you. And if they don't, vote for a government to take from others by force and give their wealth to you.

With that mentality you'll always be poor. Luckily for you poverty in the modern era is wealthier than royalty for most of history.

( @Gendarme I think you'll be interested in this too> ) You Are Richer than John D. Rockefeller

-

You're all talking as if we are enemies. Like this is a contest, where you must disagree to win. I think you should reread my posts before replying, because you keep misunderstanding what I'm trying to tell you.

Well I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink. Maybe I'm just not doing a very good job explaining it. But, if this post doesn't make you get it, then I don't think you will ever learn except the hard way. Most people never learn it though. Many go through life ignorant and afraid and blaming other people for their "misfortune."
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Reducing Workday hours

Post by deleted_user0 »

Yea that story is alot of bs. There is no poimt in blaming others for your misfortune, but whn looking at the situation objectively, i cant see how you can deny that fortunes are not only connected, but they affect each other, and in many cases there is perverse incentive to make sure your rivals fail since you are in a direct competition.

With luck of the draw, incredible talent, balls of steel and perhaps not so great competitors you can win a hand if the dealer dealt you 6-7 off suit vs a pair of aces. However, if the dealer deals you 6-7 for the rest of the game, vs aa for the rest of the game, its very unlikely you will win the game. Acknowledging this does not mean you advocate diminished personal responsibility. But pretending that the playing field is fair and level in such a case is absolutely absurd. Moreover, its really showcasing incredible ignorance of his priviliged situation when the player who has been dealt aa is going to cite his incredible strategic play and hard work as the main reasons for him winning, and not the fact that hes simply been dealt aa. I mean, sure hed still had to make the effort, and in real life with all its complications and distractions, to become something requires effort even with privilige most of the times, but it requires 10x more if you dont have that. And not everyone is born with the capabilities needed to overcome such odds. To say thats wholly their fault seems perverse.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV