4 ms·

> 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 aspect

> 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.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  > Most people don't and won't make it. Exactly. And that's normal. Most people can't shoot a hoop from mid court and make it. Why? A multitude of reasons. I don't understand your point. What do you want? Equality? Everyone should be able to shoot a hoop from mid court and nail it? Everywhere that idea has been tried ended-up in misery and even greater inequality, with the ruling class truly oppressing the population. I also find this statement perplexing: > reach an average standard of living and retirement similar to what America once promised America promised no such thing. Opportunity. That's what the US offers. What anyone does and can accomplish with it is up to them. You have the opportunity to succeed or fail. People seem intent on blaming anywhere from 0.1% to 10% of the population for the ailments of everyone else. And, in the process of doing so ignore all other factors. This is the only reason for which the middle class is eroding, no other reason at all. Not education, not policy, not regulation of our industries, not trade deals, not currency manipulation, not technology, not productivity, not anything else, just those rich bastards sucking-up all the oxygen. That's just wrong at the outset. Let's just agree to disagree. It's Monday. Time to work.
  - intended 10y ago
    You've played a little Logical trick here. 1) shoot a hoop from the middle of the court/equality No one said being the 0.1% was the goal. The goal was to be able to have a fair game on the court. Which brings us to the last part "opportunity". You reduced it to america promised people an opportunity. This is both illogical (if it was just an opportunity, then in theory no one had to Come from England to america did they) and moving the goal posts. America promised a particular type of opportunity (the American dream), and the fair possibility for people to attain it. So it's not just opportunity which was promised, it was a good opportunity, and attainable. This has measurably changed. The echo chamber on HN may occlude this if you've not really seen other industries or other countries/history. Finally, I don't know who you argue with. It looks like you've not really had the chance to argue with people who know more than the buzzwords.
    - rebootthesystem 10y ago

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.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
> Most people don't and won't make it. Exactly. And that's normal. Most people can't shoot a hoop from mid court and make it. Why? A multitude of reasons. I don't understand your point. What do you want? Equality? Everyone should be able to shoot a hoop from mid court and nail it? Everywhere that idea has been tried ended-up in misery and even greater inequality, with the ruling class truly oppressing the population. I also find this statement perplexing: > reach an average standard of living and retirement similar to what America once promised America promised no such thing. Opportunity. That's what the US offers. What anyone does and can accomplish with it is up to them. You have the opportunity to succeed or fail. People seem intent on blaming anywhere from 0.1% to 10% of the population for the ailments of everyone else. And, in the process of doing so ignore all other factors. This is the only reason for which the middle class is eroding, no other reason at all. Not education, not policy, not regulation of our industries, not trade deals, not currency manipulation, not technology, not productivity, not anything else, just those rich bastards sucking-up all the oxygen. That's just wrong at the outset. Let's just agree to disagree. It's Monday. Time to work.
- intended 10y ago
  You've played a little Logical trick here. 1) shoot a hoop from the middle of the court/equality No one said being the 0.1% was the goal. The goal was to be able to have a fair game on the court. Which brings us to the last part "opportunity". You reduced it to america promised people an opportunity. This is both illogical (if it was just an opportunity, then in theory no one had to Come from England to america did they) and moving the goal posts. America promised a particular type of opportunity (the American dream), and the fair possibility for people to attain it. So it's not just opportunity which was promised, it was a good opportunity, and attainable. This has measurably changed. The echo chamber on HN may occlude this if you've not really seen other industries or other countries/history. Finally, I don't know who you argue with. It looks like you've not really had the chance to argue with people who know more than the buzzwords.
  - rebootthesystem 10y ago