>The existence of a path forward doesn't mean everybody is going to take it. Which is not something anyone is even implying? >This is especially true because

>The existence of a path forward doesn't mean everybody is going to take it. Which is not something anyone is even implying? >This is especially true because the path to long-term success is often the path that's not particularly pleasant in the short-term. This is just motivational fallacies sprinkled with moral posturing, while somehow ignoring an abundance of mammalian behavioral science. You may not realize it, but you're already arguing for a caste system. If you took someone who is "successful" and removed their support structures they would, as has been proven time and time again, fair far worse than their hardened peers in the same position. Inheritors of wealth or people who profit from social networks rarely have the skills and adaptive "augments" necessary to survive in the workplace let alone climb it. Look at The Vanderbilts as an example. Generations of the family profiteering off workers for literally no constructive purpose, and they lost of all it. And this happens day in and day out. People cannot climb the social ladder because it is not set up to do so, so a few benefit, even for hundreds of years, while squandering resources. Many people's productive hours and efforts simply go toward enriching some other people, who are not capable of using those acquired resources correctly for many different reasons. > instead of exercising the discipline/restraint necessary for long-term pleasure. What's silly about this statement if you took it at face value, and for the sake of argument assumed it was true, the upper echelon of people we are talking about have made this so. They profit from it. And they will continue to push it.