Why are some people so against others doing well

[Tunney]

Take for example tax avoidance, anyone can do it, if they read up on it and use the same methods. If enough of the mass population did this, then things would "have" to change and the problem may get solved. But those who are not avoiding tax legally whine about those that do because they don't have the compulsion to learn it for themselves and expect to have it handed to them.

Anyone is capable of avoiding tax using schemes like ISAs.

Not everyone is capable of avoiding tax using borderline-lawful off-shore schemes. Do you think that Gary Barlow did his research or do you think that he paid an accountant lots of money to advise him? Are these schemes possible for those paying tax through PAYE?

The government could certainly do more to close down these loopholes but it isn't as easy as most people think. Often international cooperation is needed. There's also a lot of money to be made in finding loopholes.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

The internet
Buy "some" books instead of all on cigs / beer

Typical ignorant daily fail response, but hey you keep judging people and circumstances that you actually know nothing about, except for what you read in hate papers and gullibly believe is representative of a huge section of society

 

[spoffle]

Disadvantaged can mean a myriad of difference things but at a base level.

In this case having a lower chance to succeed due to external factors outside of their control, be that growing up in poverty, a lack of positive role models, lower intelligence (as a result of poor nutrition in early childhood), lack of teaching of temporal discounting, substandard schooling, abuse (physical, emotional, sexual or neglect) in childhood, excessive bullying during adolescence, familial criminality/substance abuse/alcoholism, disrupted family life (divorce parents at early age - messy divorce).

All these factors & many more will have an impact on a persons chance to succeed, I just favour a system which accepts at a high level that there is no such thing as an equal start & therefore ensures everybody enjoys at least a reasonable standard of living off the back of this.

Regarding the runner example, really genetic advantage does make the matches unfair - but the 100 meters isn't meant to be a 'fair' race, its' meant to see who can run the fastest (this distinction is important). While having the same training opportunities is also another factor (which could also be a counter) overall they are not comparable as life isn't a race to see who can run the fastest.

In society we wrap up a rigged race as being a shining example of a meritocratic one & then berate & insult the loser. In this 'race' we judge those who we think are 'trying to run' (ignoring that some may have crippling physical aliments which prevent it)

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, then ran with it.

I was pointing out that due to your lack of context, it was largely meaningless in what you'd said.

I wasn't pointing out that sporting competitions were meant to be fair either, I was highlighting that being disadvantaged isn't automatically means for help or support to address the disadvantage.

I wasn't comparing life to a race, I was commenting on your lack of context, and the numerous ways in which it could be interpreted.

 

[spoffle]

The internet
Buy "some" books instead of all on cigs / beer

The problem is that there is always another excuse for those that don't want to and people willing to gather the pitchforks for them which adds to the spiral.

You have undermined your argument here by suggesting that the poor spend all their money on cigarettes or alcohol.

That is an unfair generalisation.

 

[Catanonia]

You have undermined your argument here by suggesting that the poor spend all their money on cigarettes or alcohol.

That is an unfair generalisation.

Probably is and probably true for a large number.

There is a wealth of help out their for the poorer amongst us to get help on such topics as education to better themselves, but there is nearly always another excuse rather than action. I speak from experience.

Of course there are those that are incapable, but that is a completely different topic.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

That is an unfair generalisation.

This is true,

I've been on JSA, I know what it can be like. I've seen the bottom of the pile and I had no money to do ANYTHING really (I could have afforded a book or 2 here and there though). I don't smoke nor do I drink, I just used the little money I had to at least try to eat healthy (totally blargh diet but I made it work just lots of veg etc and I don't eat meat)

That's why I'm so thankful piracy exists, without it I would have been screwed.

 

[Haggisman]

But the issue here is that it would become the very definition of unfair, because to make adjustments, or structure it so that everything is "fair" would mean some people get more than others to bring them up to the same level.

I think to make that more accurate, it would be better to phrase it as: "some people give more than others to bring them down to the same level."

The problem of course being that if you start taking away the rewards of people's hard work, there will eventually become a point where there is no incentive for them to work hard.

While on paper it's obvious to what people should do - having the motivation required to do it is another matter.

Obviously luck plays a very large part in it, but there is also the matter of sacrifice and priorities.

Is it fair that Bob earns £100k/pa and Tim earns £20k/pa? On the surface no.

What if you are then told that Bob spent 10 years with no social life studying, followed by another 3 years earning virtually nothing while working 80 hour weeks to build up his own business, while Tim was off spending his student loan travelling round the world, and then working an easy 9-5 job and spending his weekends with his family?

Suddenly seems a bit more fair

Lets think of it this way.

If everyone had the attitude of working their hardest and doing the best possible job they could do, how would the world look?

If everyone had the attitude of making the bare minimum of effort and sat on their **** all day, how would the world look?

Which of those attitudes should we be encouraging?

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Poor vs rich is an essential cog in the wheel. We need people to work in our shops, drive our HGV's, clean our offices and make our food. If they were not there, society would reduce to anarchy. How are you going to run a society if nobody needs to do anything because they are well off?

The only way for it to work is to try and afford the 'have nots' in society a reasonable standard of living, and dare I say it something to strive for. That motivation to have a better life is a powerful driving force and is also the mother of a lot of ingenuity. I do not think it is perfect, but I think it is a better alternative to communism.

 

[elmarko]

I think to make that more accurate, it would be better to phrase it as: "some people give more than others to bring them down to the same level."

The problem of course being that if you start taking away the rewards of people's hard work, there will eventually become a point where there is no incentive for them to work hard.

Obviously luck plays a very large part in it, but there is also the matter of sacrifice and priorities.

Is it fair that Bob earns £100k/pa and Tim earns £20k/pa? On the surface no.

What if you are then told that Bob spent 10 years with no social life studying, followed by another 3 years earning virtually nothing while working 80 hour weeks to build up his own business, while Tim was off spending his student loan travelling round the world, and then working an easy 9-5 job and spending his weekends with his family?

Suddenly seems a bit more fair

Lets think of it this way.

If everyone had the attitude of working their hardest and doing the best possible job they could do, how would the world look?

If everyone had the attitude of making the bare minimum of effort and sat on their **** all day, how would the world look?

Which of those attitudes should we be encouraging?

You seem to be making the common error in assuming that direct effort results in greater rewards - or that effort has a direct relationship with wealth & success.

Your example is hugely bias to the point of being ridiculous, there are countless people who work incredibly hard & don't get the break required to make it.

Not to mention that as mentioned above, you have to take into account that our society requires people at the bottom - no amount of 'hard work' can make a society of millionaires unless we change our entire economic model.

Society in it's current form requires a disparity in rewards for extreme wealth to exist - the question is, where do we draw the line & at what point do we punish people for being at the bottom when our society is built upon that requirement.

 

[Westyfield2]

I think to make that more accurate, it would be better to phrase it as: "some people give more than others to bring them down to the same level."

The problem of course being that if you start taking away the rewards of people's hard work, there will eventually become a point where there is no incentive for them to work hard.



Obviously luck plays a very large part in it, but there is also the matter of sacrifice and priorities.

Is it fair that Bob earns £100k/pa and Tim earns £20k/pa? On the surface no.

What if you are then told that Bob spent 10 years with no social life studying, followed by another 3 years earning virtually nothing while working 80 hour weeks to build up his own business, while Tim was off spending his student loan travelling round the world, and then working an easy 9-5 job and spending his weekends with his family?

Suddenly seems a bit more fair

Lets think of it this way.

If everyone had the attitude of working their hardest and doing the best possible job they could do, how would the world look?

If everyone had the attitude of making the bare minimum of effort and sat on their **** all day, how would the world look?

Which of those attitudes should we be encouraging?

What he said.

I doff my cap to anyone that's been more successful than myself . Fair play on them!

 

[Tunney]

You seem to be making the common error in assuming that direct effort results in greater rewards - or that effort has a direct relationship with wealth & success.

Correct. In a capitalist society, hard work means nothing if what you produce is not in demand.

Become an accountant and you're probably going to have a long and stable career. Become an author and you're probably going to need to work a second job to survive.

 

[spoffle]

Correct. In a capitalist society, hard work means nothing if what you produce is not in demand.

Become an accountant and you're probably going to have a long and stable career. Become an author and you're probably going to need to work a second job to survive.

It was obvious that he was talking about hard work in a specific context though. Hardware in itself is not related to financial or ANY reward, but I don't think that's a valid counter argument to the points he made.

 

[elmarko]

Don't get me wrong either. I'm not suggesting that hard work should not be rewarded (but I would suggest people do a little research on motivation theory). I'm simply advocating a smaller difference to what we have now to assist those on lessor wages to really engage with & participate in society.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Yeah, it's like those who moan about Union members getting a better deal.

Maybe the option is to organise and do the same instead of moaning about others?

 

[elmarko]

It was obvious that he was talking about hard work in a specific context though. Hardware in itself is not related to financial or ANY reward, but I don't think that's a valid counter argument to the points he made.

You are still failing to admit how much chance & good/bad luck impact on an individual's chance to succeed in life.

 

[Haggisman]

You seem to be making the common error in assuming that direct effort results in greater rewards - or that effort has a direct relationship with wealth & success.

Your example is hugely bias to the point of being ridiculous, there are countless people who work incredibly hard & don't get the break required to make it.

Not to mention that as mentioned above, you have to take into account that our society requires people at the bottom - no amount of 'hard work' can make a society of millionaires unless we change our entire economic model.

Society in it's current form requires a disparity in rewards for extreme wealth to exist - the question is, where do we draw the line & at what point do we punish people for being at the bottom when our society is built upon that requirement.

Sorry, I should have been clearer in what I meant by "hard work". Rather than literally hard physical labour/working every hour under the sun, I meant it holistically; work hard, work smart, find opportunities, don't be afraid to take risks, make sacrifices.

If, as you mentioned, you are one of the "countless people who work incredibly hard & don't get the break required to make it." then you clearly aren't working smart. Hardly anyone gets opportunities handed to them on a plate, you need to get out there and make them.

Unfortunately, too many people are content to work long hours for low wages, because they are comfortable/feel safe in where they are and aren't brave enough/have the initiative to actually do anything about it other than moan about how life is unfair.

If you've got the choice between staying in your minimum wage waitress job for the next 20 years, or living on baked beans on toast, and working nights and studying for 2 years to get some qualifications, then it's your choice. If you don't want to make that sacrifice, you have no-one to blame but yourself.

 

[Baron C]

You seem to be making the common error in assuming that direct effort results in greater rewards - or that effort has a direct relationship with wealth & success.

Your example is hugely bias to the point of being ridiculous, there are countless people who work incredibly hard & don't get the break required to make it.

Not to mention that as mentioned above, you have to take into account that our society requires people at the bottom - no amount of 'hard work' can make a society of millionaires unless we change our entire society.

Society in it's current form requires a disparity in rewards for extreme wealth to exist - the question is, where do we draw the line & at what point do we punish people for being at the bottom when our society is built upon that requirement.

I concur. Not everyone can be a millionaire.

The road to getting rich isn't just how hard you work. There are other factors in play. The main thing I found was that work gives you the opportunity of market exposure. Opportunity can walk through the door .

Another position to consider is that a lot of people however well educated or experienced never get that lucky break. I have met plenty of individuals with technical or educational experience who are still salarymen and happy to not take chances. Most of my friends now in their early forties professionals are accepting now that they were highly risk averse in their youth. Also a fair few fell into the hedonism trap of the city and all its alluring falsehoods. Also, I find they had this presumption that they were in control of their lives to a much higher degree than was the case. You know, career, work then retire at fifty.
Whilst I took risks which have overtime largely reaped good rewards.

I'm 40 in September and happily prioritized making money since I started at 14years old working with an uncle on Market stalls selling imported leather jackets.
From there to now came failed ventures, career paths, losing my house/s , loss of great friends. Very little social life.However, those sacrifices I made in good conscious. My businesses have created jobs for people to support their families and I'm grateful to the universe for that. ( that wasn't and isn't supposed to be an ego trip paragraph, more a anacdotal evidence type statement


I have friends that work at tier 1 level of corporate institutions and they I assure you can have the weight of the world on their shoulders having to make impossible decisions. Although, most of them are borderline sociopaths with sexual dysfunction and serious health problems.

From a business/ entrepreneur standpoint it's also worth noting that for the small amount of success stories of people getting rich the graveyards are full of failed business men and entrepreneurs.

The system is unbalanced, of course it is . I am a firm believer in checks and balances. However, rule number 1 is simple, 'life isn't fair!'

It's about how badly you want it.

 

[spoffle]

You are still failing to admit how much chance & good/bad luck impact on an individual's chance to succeed in life.

I'm not failing to admit it, I never denied it.

You're misunderstanding nearly everything I'm typing. I'm pointing out that good and bad luck shouldn't be a reason to change how society works to try and level the playing field for everyone involved.

 

[mmj_uk]

It works both ways, those who have made a good life for themselves either through hard work, luck or birthright just as much hate to see people on benefits (no matter how small) living anything other than an utterly miserable and deprived existance.

 

[spoffle]

It works both ways, those who have made a good life for themselves either through hard work, luck or birthright just as much hate to see people on benefits (no matter how small) living anything other than an utterly miserable and deprived existance.

Wow, such generalisations. What the hell