4 ms·

It's hopeless. I don't know where this victim mentality comes from. I won't even put a political label on it because I truly don't understand how people can t

It's hopeless. I don't know where this victim mentality comes from. I won't even put a political label on it because I truly don't understand how people can think this way. It's like complaining that top 10% of good looking people get 80% of all the good acting jobs. Or that the top 10% of people with athletic prowess win 80% of sporting events. Or that the top 10% of good chess players win 80% of tournaments. Or that the top 10% of engineering graduates grab 80% of the good jobs. Or that the top 10% of people with great grades get 80% of the good jobs. And, while doing this, blaming those people for one's lack of success in the respective fields. Well, yeah, the top 10% of the people who are genetically better swimmers will win 80% of the swimming competitions. Me? I suck. Because I am not anywhere close to that genetically optimized group. I can get much harder and improve but I am simply not good enough. And that's OK. I don't know where this idea that we are all equal in every respect comes from. There are people far more capable and far less capable than every single one of us in just about every single human activity and the top 10% within any category will do better than the 90%. That's just the way things work. Wealth is that same. Some people have money because they are lucky and otherwise dumb as a brick. That's not the case for most people who have money. They've taken risks, worked hard or worked smarter than others (or all three of these factors). And, no, they are not trying to oppress the rest. The gifted swimmer who laps me at that open water meet doesn't even know I exist. Blaming him or her for my shitty standing isn't aligned with reality at all. Yet, I don't think these realities are going to convince people attached to this rich-hating ideology to reconsider their position. I don't understand where it comes from. I am speaking only of the US here. I don't know about the circumstances elsewhere. Here in the US, opportunities for advancement have never been better. Not by a long-shot.

dukeluke 10y ago
Actually, social mobility in the United States is declining (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_t...) at a time when the difference between the top 1 percent and the bottom 1 percent is obscene. There are people in this country with tens of billions of dollars while others are going bankrupt due to medical bills or working paycheck to paycheck, unable to save for retirement. But it's not even that the top 1 percent doing well that is the problem. It's that the top 1 percent is doing extraordinarily well in a time when the rest of the country(with the exception of a handful of cities in the US) is seeing a decline in quality of life. A rising economy should benefit everyone, but it seems to only be benefiting the capital owners right now, which is making a lot of people very angry.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  My point. My only point. Is that the rich have nothing whatsoever to do with what you are describing. They don't have a secret club where they meet to conspire on how to keep people poor. No, they do what they do every day: Focus on their businesses and investments. The reason we have the problems we have are far more complex than simply blaming the rich. Part of it is that we've "bred" the drive to succeed out of most people. No, this wasn't some fantastic conspiracy. I think it happened naturally due to how the US has developed. I read an article recently about how China is outpacing the US in the rate of business creation by a staggering margin. The level of investment in China on new ventures is mind boggling. That means they are promoting a culture of entrepreneurship as well as supporting it. This gap you describe is only filled with effort as well as intelligence. When unions create an environment where a guy inserting a screw into a hole gets paid $50 an hour, what do we expect that will lead to? And, when they create an environment where buying a robot to do that job requires the company to continue to employ that person at the same pay rate even when you don't need them. Well, again, what do we expect this will lead to? Unions have resulted in huge job losses in the US. Until that mentality changes they will not come back, despite what politicians might claim. I don't have the time to cover other scenarios, the above are not the only drivers. Nothing prevents anyone in the US from making as much money as they want other than themselves. That's the only limitation. You have to be willing to make the effort and take some risks. And it doesn't have to cost almost anything. I mean, look at the people posting videos on YouTube making gobs of money on ads. Most of the people in that middle class gap everyone refers to are walking around with iPhones or other smart phones. That's what's funny about this whole ideology, people on Welfare with iPhones. On the assumption they have access to a phone or a camera, anyone can make videos on YouTube and make money. Is it easy? No, of course not. Will it require lots of effort? Damn right. Will some fail? Most will fail. Yet, it's there, it's possible and it is within reach. I don't understand, do people want to be handed wealth without making an effort or an investment?
intended 10y ago
>Wealth is that same. Some people have money because they are lucky and otherwise dumb as a brick. That's not the case for most people who have money. They've taken risks, worked hard or worked smarter than others (or all three of these factors). And, no, they are not trying to oppress the rest. The gifted swimmer who laps me at that open water meet doesn't even know I exist. Blaming him or her for my shitty standing isn't aligned with reality at all. Yeesh. This is factually incorrect. You are saying "this is what you think the world must be like, given that's the pyramid in many other places." But you are just badly mis-caliberated. The top 0.1% control most of the wealth, and the top 0.01% control a disproportionate amount even amount the top 1%. Anyway - this is a great article : http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manage...
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  > The top 0.1% control most of the wealth So what? I can still make millions and so can anyone else. The top 0.1% of anything control the most coveted aspects of that thing. Really? And this is a revelation how? This manner of victim thinking is defeatist. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Here's a perfect example of a guy with a very simple idea that, as of 2012 (can't find current data), developed a SIX MILLION DOLLAR business. With a freaking paperclip. No code. No computers. No need to learn Python or ever touch a server. A freaking paperclip was his development tool. Here, read it: https://goo.gl/mqUbts https://goo.gl/mqUbts I'll repeat what I said a few times now: Opportunities in the US have never been better. Anyone can reach for the stars. Yet, it does require taking risks and being willing to work hard and smart in order to succeed. What the wealthy do is utterly irrelevant.
  - intended 10y ago
    You aren't getting it. You keep repeating that the wealthy don't matter, I suppose because you are saying that on your own you can be wealthy. Then you provide an example of an individual who did. Again, you are incorrect, vastly so. Firstly, measuring people who succeed is absolutely incorrect because it ignores the survivor bias. For that one guy who made it on shark tank, there are many others who failed on a per episode basis. Similar patterns appear in real life, and are possibly more stark. Secondly, not everyone is going to be an owner or an entrepreneur - some are not cut out for it, some are more interested in being professionals or doctor. You are arguing that it's possible, and that looking at failure is being defeatist. What me, science, and the rest of HN is saying is: " sure it's posisble. That's not what everyone is talking about." Most people don't and won't make it. Most people will not, even after a good effort reach an average standard of living and retirement similar to what America once promised. Social mobility has decreased, your examples are influenced by a survivor bias. The point of showing the wealth distribution is not to show what the wealthy are doing, but just how few people manage to even make it to comfortable and well to do standards. Todd: Most of society is never going to make it. Even the ones who try won't. A very small number will get lucky enough to cross that barrier.

dukeluke 10y ago

Actually, social mobility in the United States is declining (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_t...) at a time when the difference between the top 1 percent and the bottom 1 percent is obscene. There are people in this country with tens of billions of dollars while others are going bankrupt due to medical bills or working paycheck to paycheck, unable to save for retirement. But it's not even that the top 1 percent doing well that is the problem. It's that the top 1 percent is doing extraordinarily well in a time when the rest of the country(with the exception of a handful of cities in the US) is seeing a decline in quality of life. A rising economy should benefit everyone, but it seems to only be benefiting the capital owners right now, which is making a lot of people very angry.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
My point. My only point. Is that the rich have nothing whatsoever to do with what you are describing. They don't have a secret club where they meet to conspire on how to keep people poor. No, they do what they do every day: Focus on their businesses and investments. The reason we have the problems we have are far more complex than simply blaming the rich. Part of it is that we've "bred" the drive to succeed out of most people. No, this wasn't some fantastic conspiracy. I think it happened naturally due to how the US has developed. I read an article recently about how China is outpacing the US in the rate of business creation by a staggering margin. The level of investment in China on new ventures is mind boggling. That means they are promoting a culture of entrepreneurship as well as supporting it. This gap you describe is only filled with effort as well as intelligence. When unions create an environment where a guy inserting a screw into a hole gets paid $50 an hour, what do we expect that will lead to? And, when they create an environment where buying a robot to do that job requires the company to continue to employ that person at the same pay rate even when you don't need them. Well, again, what do we expect this will lead to? Unions have resulted in huge job losses in the US. Until that mentality changes they will not come back, despite what politicians might claim. I don't have the time to cover other scenarios, the above are not the only drivers. Nothing prevents anyone in the US from making as much money as they want other than themselves. That's the only limitation. You have to be willing to make the effort and take some risks. And it doesn't have to cost almost anything. I mean, look at the people posting videos on YouTube making gobs of money on ads. Most of the people in that middle class gap everyone refers to are walking around with iPhones or other smart phones. That's what's funny about this whole ideology, people on Welfare with iPhones. On the assumption they have access to a phone or a camera, anyone can make videos on YouTube and make money. Is it easy? No, of course not. Will it require lots of effort? Damn right. Will some fail? Most will fail. Yet, it's there, it's possible and it is within reach. I don't understand, do people want to be handed wealth without making an effort or an investment?

intended 10y ago

>Wealth is that same. Some people have money because they are lucky and otherwise dumb as a brick. That's not the case for most people who have money. They've taken risks, worked hard or worked smarter than others (or all three of these factors). And, no, they are not trying to oppress the rest. The gifted swimmer who laps me at that open water meet doesn't even know I exist. Blaming him or her for my shitty standing isn't aligned with reality at all. Yeesh. This is factually incorrect. You are saying "this is what you think the world must be like, given that's the pyramid in many other places." But you are just badly mis-caliberated. The top 0.1% control most of the wealth, and the top 0.01% control a disproportionate amount even amount the top 1%. Anyway - this is a great article : http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manage...

rebootthesystem 10y ago
> The top 0.1% control most of the wealth So what? I can still make millions and so can anyone else. The top 0.1% of anything control the most coveted aspects of that thing. Really? And this is a revelation how? This manner of victim thinking is defeatist. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Here's a perfect example of a guy with a very simple idea that, as of 2012 (can't find current data), developed a SIX MILLION DOLLAR business. With a freaking paperclip. No code. No computers. No need to learn Python or ever touch a server. A freaking paperclip was his development tool. Here, read it: https://goo.gl/mqUbts https://goo.gl/mqUbts I'll repeat what I said a few times now: Opportunities in the US have never been better. Anyone can reach for the stars. Yet, it does require taking risks and being willing to work hard and smart in order to succeed. What the wealthy do is utterly irrelevant.
- intended 10y ago
  You aren't getting it. You keep repeating that the wealthy don't matter, I suppose because you are saying that on your own you can be wealthy. Then you provide an example of an individual who did. Again, you are incorrect, vastly so. Firstly, measuring people who succeed is absolutely incorrect because it ignores the survivor bias. For that one guy who made it on shark tank, there are many others who failed on a per episode basis. Similar patterns appear in real life, and are possibly more stark. Secondly, not everyone is going to be an owner or an entrepreneur - some are not cut out for it, some are more interested in being professionals or doctor. You are arguing that it's possible, and that looking at failure is being defeatist. What me, science, and the rest of HN is saying is: " sure it's posisble. That's not what everyone is talking about." Most people don't and won't make it. Most people will not, even after a good effort reach an average standard of living and retirement similar to what America once promised. Social mobility has decreased, your examples are influenced by a survivor bias. The point of showing the wealth distribution is not to show what the wealthy are doing, but just how few people manage to even make it to comfortable and well to do standards. Todd: Most of society is never going to make it. Even the ones who try won't. A very small number will get lucky enough to cross that barrier.