6 ms·

The people need to take care of themselves first, then their family, then their immediate surrounding, then their region and their country. Reversing the depend

by kukx 6y ago

The people need to take care of themselves first, then their family, then their immediate surrounding, then their region and their country. Reversing the dependency on a large scale is not sustainable. Someone's right is someone else responsibility, for someone to receive money, someone else has to provide it. The government is a middleman in this transaction that wastes a substantial share of the value in the process.

colejohnson66 6y ago
The problem with the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” thinking is that it ignores being born into the problem. Sure, some people can work their way out of a rut that their parents were in, but the majority can’t.
- fartcannon 6y ago
  Not just that, but if we rank everyone, some people will inevitably be worse than others. Should those at the bottom be condemned to poverty?
  - suprfsat 6y ago
    That's pretty much the main political divide in our country. Should poor people have it better off, or worse off?
    - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      That is an argument and such bad spirit. The actual discussion is about the degree of which government should handle re-distributing wealth to the lower class and to what degree the middle and upper class is responsible. The “divide” is that politicians on both sides who’s actions don’t always match their stated positions.
      - clevergadget 6y ago
        yeah as long as they keep the conversation on the extremes they never have to give up anything. If you ask them to give up a 4th car for someone to have food then they are evil for saying no. So they say "Oh we have to give up EVERYTHING and live in the DIRT because of your RADICAL EXTREMISM!"
  - stcredzero 6y ago
    Should those at the bottom be condemned to poverty? The lesson of the GINI coefficient and the psychology of relative wealth, is that absolute, material well being isn't the issue. The issue is whether people think the cards are so stacked against them, that they will never win. So the answer is no. We know that condemning those at the bottom will result in civil unrest. Everyone needs to live in dignity, or there will be violence. Psychology has pretty much determined this to be a fact of human nature. However, this doesn't mean we should have equity. People should be rewarded, and people should also have something to strive for. It's the dignity of the common person which has been eroded over time.
- kukx 6y ago
  Sure, there are limits to the extend in which people can take care of themselves. For example if they are born with a low IQ they may never be able to do provide a net benefit to any job or almost any job. So that they are effectively unemployable. But if you are able to do anything of benefit to the society then you should do it. And having a job is the way to do it and be sustainable.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  The problem with the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” thinking is that it ignores being born into the problem. This is both right and wrong. Asian immigrants are notorious for arriving on foreign shores, penniless, then winding up owning businesses and sending their kids to top tier schools. The problem isn't being born into not having money and things. The problem is being born into an environment that sets children up for future failure. The good news, is that such cultural practices aren't attached to race or ethnicity and so can be learned and adopted. There are historical precedents for this. The bad news, is that other cultural practices can do the opposite, and insulate groups of people against things like valuing education and a work ethic.
  - _huayra_ 6y ago
    Most people who are immigrants have almost by definition a better-than-average work ethic. You can see this if you know a bunch of people from country X when you live in country Y (where Y is usually a country "better off" than X), and then you go visit country X. You'll see that the "expats from X" you see while living in Y may be of a higher caliber (e.g. entrepreneurial, in your example), the people who did not expatriate do not often contain the same values. As someone who lived in the US for a long time and now lives in Europe, I can tell you that all of the Americans I've met over here (who are not vacationing) are incredibly driven and entrepreneurial. They do not at all reflect the average American back in the US (e.g. I don't know a single Trump supporter over here; the Democrats Abroad caucus typically goes far more liberal than any state, supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016 by a very wide margin).
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Not sure how true that generalization is. If you look at Germany, you'll see high unemployment rates (and less education) among immigrants from Turkey and Arabian countries, while you'll see significantly more success on all fronts for immigrants from e.g. Vietnam.
      - _huayra_ 6y ago
        I think both can be true: people who emigrate from a country to pursue better career / life opportunities typically are more industrious in my experience than are those who do not (on average; there are plenty of people who don't emigrate who are just as industrious; it's just that those who are NOT industrious do not emigrate at all), while at the same time some immigrants will differ in industriousness based on their country of origin.
specialist 6y ago
> Someone's right is someone else responsibility I don't follow. What are some examples of this?
- mariksolo 6y ago
  If college is free (or loans are forgiven), people who never went to college would have to subsidize those who did. If healthcare is free, people who are healthy have to pay healthcare for those who aren't. I'm not taking a stance one way or the other on these issues, just trying to illustrate the argument.
  - specialist 6y ago
    Ok, thanks. IIRC, that's called collectivism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

by kukx 6y ago

colejohnson66 6y ago

The problem with the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” thinking is that it ignores being born into the problem. Sure, some people can work their way out of a rut that their parents were in, but the majority can’t.

fartcannon 6y ago
Not just that, but if we rank everyone, some people will inevitably be worse than others. Should those at the bottom be condemned to poverty?
- suprfsat 6y ago
  That's pretty much the main political divide in our country. Should poor people have it better off, or worse off?
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    That is an argument and such bad spirit. The actual discussion is about the degree of which government should handle re-distributing wealth to the lower class and to what degree the middle and upper class is responsible. The “divide” is that politicians on both sides who’s actions don’t always match their stated positions.
    - clevergadget 6y ago
      yeah as long as they keep the conversation on the extremes they never have to give up anything. If you ask them to give up a 4th car for someone to have food then they are evil for saying no. So they say "Oh we have to give up EVERYTHING and live in the DIRT because of your RADICAL EXTREMISM!"
- stcredzero 6y ago
  Should those at the bottom be condemned to poverty? The lesson of the GINI coefficient and the psychology of relative wealth, is that absolute, material well being isn't the issue. The issue is whether people think the cards are so stacked against them, that they will never win. So the answer is no. We know that condemning those at the bottom will result in civil unrest. Everyone needs to live in dignity, or there will be violence. Psychology has pretty much determined this to be a fact of human nature. However, this doesn't mean we should have equity. People should be rewarded, and people should also have something to strive for. It's the dignity of the common person which has been eroded over time.
kukx 6y ago
Sure, there are limits to the extend in which people can take care of themselves. For example if they are born with a low IQ they may never be able to do provide a net benefit to any job or almost any job. So that they are effectively unemployable. But if you are able to do anything of benefit to the society then you should do it. And having a job is the way to do it and be sustainable.
stcredzero 6y ago
The problem with the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” thinking is that it ignores being born into the problem. This is both right and wrong. Asian immigrants are notorious for arriving on foreign shores, penniless, then winding up owning businesses and sending their kids to top tier schools. The problem isn't being born into not having money and things. The problem is being born into an environment that sets children up for future failure. The good news, is that such cultural practices aren't attached to race or ethnicity and so can be learned and adopted. There are historical precedents for this. The bad news, is that other cultural practices can do the opposite, and insulate groups of people against things like valuing education and a work ethic.
- _huayra_ 6y ago
  Most people who are immigrants have almost by definition a better-than-average work ethic. You can see this if you know a bunch of people from country X when you live in country Y (where Y is usually a country "better off" than X), and then you go visit country X. You'll see that the "expats from X" you see while living in Y may be of a higher caliber (e.g. entrepreneurial, in your example), the people who did not expatriate do not often contain the same values. As someone who lived in the US for a long time and now lives in Europe, I can tell you that all of the Americans I've met over here (who are not vacationing) are incredibly driven and entrepreneurial. They do not at all reflect the average American back in the US (e.g. I don't know a single Trump supporter over here; the Democrats Abroad caucus typically goes far more liberal than any state, supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016 by a very wide margin).
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Not sure how true that generalization is. If you look at Germany, you'll see high unemployment rates (and less education) among immigrants from Turkey and Arabian countries, while you'll see significantly more success on all fronts for immigrants from e.g. Vietnam.
    - _huayra_ 6y ago
      I think both can be true: people who emigrate from a country to pursue better career / life opportunities typically are more industrious in my experience than are those who do not (on average; there are plenty of people who don't emigrate who are just as industrious; it's just that those who are NOT industrious do not emigrate at all), while at the same time some immigrants will differ in industriousness based on their country of origin.

specialist 6y ago

> Someone's right is someone else responsibility I don't follow. What are some examples of this?

mariksolo 6y ago
If college is free (or loans are forgiven), people who never went to college would have to subsidize those who did. If healthcare is free, people who are healthy have to pay healthcare for those who aren't. I'm not taking a stance one way or the other on these issues, just trying to illustrate the argument.
- specialist 6y ago
  Ok, thanks. IIRC, that's called collectivism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism