[NYYS]

source

1. Average people think MONEY is the root of all evil. Rich people believe POVERTY is the root of all evil.

"The average person has been brainwashed to believe rich people are lucky or dishonest," Siebold writes.

That's why there's a certain shame that comes along with "getting rich" in lower-income communities.

"The world class knows that while having money doesn't guarantee happiness, it does make your life easier and more enjoyable."

2. Average people think selfishness is a vice. Rich people think selfishness is a virtue.

"The rich go out there and try to make themselves happy. They don't try to pretend to save the world," Siebold told Business Insider.

The problem is that middle class people see that as a negative––and it's keeping them poor, he writes.

"If you're not taking care of you, you're not in a position to help anyone else. You can't give what you don't have."

and on it goes...

Anyway, I post this not to mock the left (that's just a positive side effect) but to continue making a point - people aren't rich because mommy and daddy bought them Richness, they're rich because they subscribe (intentionally or not) to a certain set of values, roughly described above. This, coupled with wealthy offsprings' typically higher IQs, and we see a very clear reason why people are rich - a reason that can't be invalidated by giving the poor things and services. They simply don't know how to think to achieve financial well-being.

[Stagnant]

"The average person has been brainwashed to believe rich people are lucky or dishonest," Siebold writes.

That's why there's a certain shame that comes along with "getting rich" in lower-income communities.

K. This? Kinda wrong. Like, offensively, disgustingly wrong.

Not to say there isn't a lot right with this article and a lot to commend, but your conclusion, that the poor cannot become rich through aid, misses something – most poor people aren't aiming to become rich. They're aiming for respectably middle-class. Most people want to become rich, but aren't going to work for it, because it's just not that interesting of a goal, and doesn't seem attainable. I fail to see how this is a post that could mock the left, to be honest.

[oppose_obama]

Maybe that's the problem, they are aiming to be middle class?

[Stagnant]

Maybe that's the problem, they are aiming to be middle class?

I don't see it as a problem, personally. I can see some advantage to being rich beyond one's wildest dreams, but for most people, middle class is both a respectable and reasonable goal. It's like finishing a marathon and not getting first place. Sure, getting first would be nice, but I think finishing in the middle of the pack is fine, and I honestly have better things to do with my life than spend most of it training for the marathon. Call it flawed if you will, but I see no problem with people aspiring to that if it makes them happy.

[onemalehuman]

and on it goes...

Anyway, I post this not to mock the left (that's just a positive side effect) but to continue making a point - people aren't rich because mommy and daddy bought them Richness, they're rich because they subscribe (intentionally or not) to a certain set of values, roughly described above. This, coupled with wealthy offsprings' typically higher IQs, and we see a very clear reason why people are rich - a reason that can't be invalidated by giving the poor things and services. They simply don't know how to think to achieve financial well-being.

How much are you willing toinvest in that article of sophistry? Your future ancestors? Your ancestry sold you into buying it with the idea nobody can know what real remains all the time so each person better give up thinking for themselves with all those ruthless social monsters waiting on the fringes for those daring to stand alone against humanity.

[oppose_obama]

Sorry but that's where we disagree. Aiming for anything less then first is a bitch goal. When one aims to be a bitch, One should not be surprised when treated like a bitch.

[Far-Right Sage]

Average people think selfishness is a vice. Rich people think selfishness is a virtue.

"The rich go out there and try to make themselves happy. They don't try to pretend to save the world," Siebold told Business Insider.

This seems to be something clearly worthy of condemnation rather than reward and celebration.

It's difficult to read it any other way.

[GandalfTheGrey]

people aren't rich because mommy and daddy bought them Richness, they're rich because they subscribe (intentionally or not) to a certain set of values, roughly described above.

what? Where does this bullshit come from? What a copout. "Subscribing" to those certain set of values conveniently always seems to come about when you are sitting on a shit load of cash. Reminds me of a quote from IT crowd: When I started Reynholm Industries, I had just two things in my possession: a dream and 6 million pounds.

[oppose_obama]

Just because a person inherits money does not mean they will necessarily use that money efficiently. Many factors are at play, trust me;)

[GandalfTheGrey]

just answer me one question oppose_obama, how many millionaires out there today were born into what you might term a "middle class" or above family, and how many were born into real poverty? I don't know the answer myself, but I can hazard a rough guess.

[Stagnant]

Sorry but that's where we disagree. Aiming for anything less then first is a bitch goal. When one aims to be a bitch, One should not be surprised when treated like a bitch.

Well yes, I know your opinion of everyone who isn't "better" than you in life. It seems that you put way too much stock on having things and way too little on being happy. Just sayin'.

[Pants-of-dog]

Many years ago, I worked in construction. We were renovating some rich guy's house when the following happened:

The son, about twenty-one at the time, did not have his car for some reason. His father had already left for the day and the mom was wandering around the house checking us out.

So, the son asks his mom if he can borrow the car. The mom had an appointment (with a plastic surgeon, if I recall correctly) and told him he couldn't borrow it. So, he asked again. She said no again. He started whining. She said no again. He started crying like a little girl, with huge bawling sobs. She probably said no again, but I went out "for a smoke" at that time to avoid this melodrama.

Is crying like a little bitch one of the 21 rules?

[Soixante-Retard]

people aren't rich because mommy and daddy bought them Richness

Even if some people are rich because of an inheritance from "mommy and daddy", who should care? It's their (mommy's and daddy's) wealth, they can give it to whomever they want.

Would you want to be denied giving your offspring something?

[GandalfTheGrey]

^ NYYS has to believe, for whatever reason, that it is simply impossible that anyone could be wealthy for any other reason than they are all round superior human beings.

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

and on it goes...

Anyway, I post this not to mock the left (that's just a positive side effect) but to continue making a point - people aren't rich because mommy and daddy bought them Richness, they're rich because they subscribe (intentionally or not) to a certain set of values, roughly described above. This, coupled with wealthy offsprings' typically higher IQs, and we see a very clear reason why people are rich - a reason that can't be invalidated by giving the poor things and services. They simply don't know how to think to achieve financial well-being.

In general, all other things being equal, I would tend to agree with the author in the article. I would also say that in addition to passing along their IQs, parents also pass along the values and behaviors to their children which shape them to becoming successful as well.

However, one cannot discount the negative effects that low socio economic status can confer upon some. At a minimum, all american children should have access to education and healthcare. But are we missing out on teaching our children something more? Perhaps what we should be teaching people are the values and ethic of the rich - namely a reagan revolution of the lower classes. Wouldn't that be something?

[Baff]

I think that when you argue any of the other reasons you are in danger of misrepresenting the perspective.


On focusing on the extreme exceptions to the rule to the exclusion of the more mundane normative.
So much so that simply to mention them would produce a real danger of perverting the discussion into only dealing with social extremes and not the underpinning core of how things work in the world.

If you agree that education does make the key difference, then focusing on this education (finance, business, work ethic etc) is the key priority to helping the poor get ahead.

If however you feel that it is lack of opportunity, no schools, no healthcare, no legal representation.. or some such that makes poor people poor.
That they all have a decent understanding of how money works and a lust to take even low paid work and save up their pennies instead of living the life of a consumer whore or benefits dosser...
Then it must be something else.

how many millionaires out there today were born into what you might term a "middle class" or above family, and how many were born into real poverty? I don't know the answer myself, but I can hazard a rough guess.

Of the millionaires I know, three came from working class enviroments and one from a stately home.
Another one inherited his millions by the age of 21 and had lost them all by the age of 22.
Another had made all his by the same age.

The old adage is first generation makes it, second generations maintains it, third generation blows it.

Life is a game of Snakes and Ladders.
Personal wealth is anything but a constant through all.
Sometimes you get almost all the way to the very top only to go to the very bottom again.
And so on.

Being born into money isn't going to do you any good for long if you don't know how to manage your money.
It's damn sight easier to lose all your money than it is to save it.


Real poverty is a subjective term of course.
Does anyone in the first world meet that description?
Does it apply well to people in the first world 70 years ago before welfare etc?

I don't know.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Real poverty is a subjective term of course.

Does anyone in the first world meet that description?

relative is more accurate than subjective.

And the issue here is not whether "poor" people in the first world would meet the "poor criteria" in the third world - that is irrelevant. The only relevant point is that personal wealth discrepancies exist in the first world, and they can be huge - and that has an influence on who has a better chance of ending up "rich".

[Baff]

Why is that relavent?

Everyone in the first world has plenty of chance of becoming rich. Everyone in the first world has enough to live on.

Who has more or less chance of being richer/richest is only important to the jealous.
Those who have no intention of even trying to get rich but just don't want others to be seen to be doing any better than them out of spite alone.


"Wealth discrepancy" is just the way selfish, lazy and intolerant people talk. You don't have to take them seriously.


When we discuss helping the poor, we mean helping those who can't help themselves, not helping those who can help themselves but can't be bothered, or those that can help themselves but ideologically refuse to etc.
No one has any moral or social obligation to make you richer.

So if you are richer than other people. Nice one, and if you are not, so what?

[GandalfTheGrey]

Everyone in the first world has plenty of chance of becoming rich. Everyone in the first world has enough to live on.

"plenty of chance" doesn't mean anything meaningful. What matters is that there is not equality of chance across the whole spectrum of society. And I'm only talking about the relative "richness" within the first world - as the thread intended.

"Wealth discrepancy" is just the way selfish, lazy and intolerant people talk. You don't have to take them seriously.

what? There are poor people and there are rich people in the first world (relative to each other) - fact. Thats your definition of wealth discrepancy right there. You can describe it as "wealth variance" or "wealth difference" if it makes it easier for you.

No one has any moral or social obligation to make you richer.

I don't recall this being in the slightest bit relevant to the topic at hand.

So if you are richer than other people. Nice one, and if you are not, so what?

"so what?" is the whole point of this thread - you seem to have missed it.

[Baff]

The point of this thread is teach people some of the attitudes required to get rich.
Not to complain that life is being unjust to you.
But to make more people aware of how to successfully accomplish their dreams.

It is not so that you can insult some random unknown person who you feel is doing better than you.
It is so that if you hold this kind of an attitude, you can be alerted to the disadvantage you are giving yourself financially.


Everyone in the first world has a more or less equally good opportunity to get rich.

It's not 100% equal, but it's close enough to satisfy all but those who are acting on jealousy.
If someone is doing financially better than you, so what?

What difference does that make to your life other than clearly making you feel comparatively inferior?






There are subjectively poor people in the first world.

A number of people who may think of themselves as poor or are thought of by some people as poor but that most people in the world consider to be wealthy.
People who are comparatively wealthy, but subjectively labelled poor by those who seek political advantage from making class divisions.




Obviously we should not all be equally rich.
And not all the the things we could do in life should provide us with equal opportunites for wealth.
The idea that they should be is just greed. Avarice.

Those people who contibute less towards making themselves rich will never have an equal opportunity to get rich as those people who contribute more towards that end.
Since we don't all want the same things in life we shouldn't all be forced into behaving the same way.


Life is not all about money.
Other people want other things.

People who want the money but aren't prepared to make the same sacrifices for it as others don't have an equal chance of getting it. Nor should they ever.




And if by your own unluckiness, accident, ommission or outright stupidity you have made the wrong choices in your life and failed to become rich, no one should be held to account for your own mistakes except you.

There is no human need for you to be as rich as everyone else. Or to have the same opportunites to be so as everyone else.
It doesn't benefit me or society in anyway for that to be the case.
Just you.
So if you feel you need more opportunities to get rich, then make yourself some.
And if you don't feel you should have to, then you don't have what it takes to get rich anyway. It would be pointless and a giant waste of social resources to waste any further time on providing yet more opportunities to slackers who are going out of their way to avoid taking them or to provide more opportunities to get rich to those people who are ideologically opposed to pursuing them.

No matter how many opportunities you are given, the correct attitude is the biggest help anyone can offer you. Without it you are guarenteed to fail.