5 ms·

> 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.

> 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
  > The goal was to be able to have a fair game on the court. OK. That also means no advantages for anyone. Cut Welfare, cut support programs, cut grants, cut subsidies, etc. Fair means nobody is favored in any way. To take the "shooting the hoop" analogy further, it also means that if someone is out of shape, doesn't exercise and isn't willing to make the effort to get up every day and work hard to be able to make it they fail. And that's the root of the problem I have with some of this narrative. Those who can't make it or fail blame the athletes who do make it for their ailments and call out for "fairness". What they really want is something for nothing. > 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. I don't think you know what "opportunity" means to an entrepreneur. You can take opportunities to the bank. In sharp contrast to that, ideas are worthless. > America promised a particular type of opportunity (the American dream), and the fair possibility for people to attain it. Pure fabrication on your part my friend. Show me one document that says the US ever promised "a fair possibility to attain the American dream". No such thing. And, even if it were, what's fair anyway? One of the most overused words or concepts. Let's explore "fair" for a moment. When I launched my first business I had to work 18 hour days 7 days a week to make it go. All self-funded BTW. I did that for about 18 months. I then worked about 16 hour days 5 to 6 days a week for another couple of years, still in the garage. Three years later it made sense to move it out of the garage into a 10,000 square foot industrial building. I was finally able to only work 12 hour days. I don't think we took a non-working vacation in ten years. What the hell is "fair" in this context for someone who looks at what I achieved through that effort? Should I give them half my money so they can live without working? Or half my money so they can start a business and compete with me? Or half my money so they can have a lifetime pension and retire at 50 years of age? No. "Fair" means that if you want what I have you either work harder or smarter than me, or both. You, and anyone else, have the opportunity to do so, just like I did. I am not special at all other than I am willing to do what has to be done. That's it. I could have chosen to stay at my prior job earning $120K a year and go sailing every weekend. I chose to work over 16 hour days for three years and risk hundreds of thousands of dollars to chase after a personal dream. As a wise man told me: "Having a business gives you great freedom. You get to choose which 20 hours of the day you want to work. Most people don't want to have that freedom yet are quick to envy or critique those who do have it." Want it "fair"? Stop complaining about rich people and get to work. Nobody is stopping you.

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
> The goal was to be able to have a fair game on the court. OK. That also means no advantages for anyone. Cut Welfare, cut support programs, cut grants, cut subsidies, etc. Fair means nobody is favored in any way. To take the "shooting the hoop" analogy further, it also means that if someone is out of shape, doesn't exercise and isn't willing to make the effort to get up every day and work hard to be able to make it they fail. And that's the root of the problem I have with some of this narrative. Those who can't make it or fail blame the athletes who do make it for their ailments and call out for "fairness". What they really want is something for nothing. > 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. I don't think you know what "opportunity" means to an entrepreneur. You can take opportunities to the bank. In sharp contrast to that, ideas are worthless. > America promised a particular type of opportunity (the American dream), and the fair possibility for people to attain it. Pure fabrication on your part my friend. Show me one document that says the US ever promised "a fair possibility to attain the American dream". No such thing. And, even if it were, what's fair anyway? One of the most overused words or concepts. Let's explore "fair" for a moment. When I launched my first business I had to work 18 hour days 7 days a week to make it go. All self-funded BTW. I did that for about 18 months. I then worked about 16 hour days 5 to 6 days a week for another couple of years, still in the garage. Three years later it made sense to move it out of the garage into a 10,000 square foot industrial building. I was finally able to only work 12 hour days. I don't think we took a non-working vacation in ten years. What the hell is "fair" in this context for someone who looks at what I achieved through that effort? Should I give them half my money so they can live without working? Or half my money so they can start a business and compete with me? Or half my money so they can have a lifetime pension and retire at 50 years of age? No. "Fair" means that if you want what I have you either work harder or smarter than me, or both. You, and anyone else, have the opportunity to do so, just like I did. I am not special at all other than I am willing to do what has to be done. That's it. I could have chosen to stay at my prior job earning $120K a year and go sailing every weekend. I chose to work over 16 hour days for three years and risk hundreds of thousands of dollars to chase after a personal dream. As a wise man told me: "Having a business gives you great freedom. You get to choose which 20 hours of the day you want to work. Most people don't want to have that freedom yet are quick to envy or critique those who do have it." Want it "fair"? Stop complaining about rich people and get to work. Nobody is stopping you.