The Son Also Rises.

[trdsf]

The idea that poor people don't work hard is nonsense. I suspect it's largely a case of increased opportunity to begin with, and better education and access to influential networks leading to even better opportunities. And that's just the ones who didn't inherit a chunk of money. Those ones are even better off.

I am not rich, and I work my ass off. So does every other low-wage worker I know. You bust your ass on the low end of the pay scale, which strongly limits the amount of time you can spend picking up new skills and looking for better jobs.

The valuation of work is wonky anyway. When I was a department secretary, when the VP went on a two-week vacation, everyone just said "Have a nice trip." When I took just two days off, the first thing anyone said was a panicky "AIEE! We need a temp!"
'
I am thus of the opinion that if you can't take time off without the office needing a temp to replace you, you're not paid enough, and if you can take off for two weeks and it has no impact on the office's productivity, you're paid too much.

I wonder if the report looked at the intangibles that come with being part of the economic elite -- better health care and better schools and being able to afford college move you a lot further up the board than someone who doesn't have those advantages, even if the children don't inherit directly.

Fundamentally, even if they don't directly cash in on inheritance, they have the advantage of being moved to the head of the line as an unearned benefit.

[JimC]

To mistermack

Nevertheless, there is a good point from that book. Which is that cultural teachings, whether from family, or your sector of society, are vitally important. A person who gets the right example and teaching can achieve much.

On the other hand, a person born into a problem cultural sector, such as those Seth wants to punish, may have a major struggle due to lack of appropriate example and teachings.

To be fair to Seth, rather than punish, he may state it as "remove excessive government assistance"

Depending on context, this may be functionally equivalent to punishment, but there is a valid argument that welfare dependency causes long-term damage to the recipients...

[mistermack]

To mistermack

Nevertheless, there is a good point from that book. Which is that cultural teachings, whether from family, or your sector of society, are vitally important. A person who gets the right example and teaching can achieve much.

On the other hand, a person born into a problem cultural sector, such as those Seth wants to punish, may have a major struggle due to lack of appropriate example and teachings.

Quite right. That's the bit I described as the bleedin obvious. Maybe it is a revelation to some people, I don't know about that.
In the circles I meet with, it sticks out a mile.

[Seth]

To mistermack

Nevertheless, there is a good point from that book. Which is that cultural teachings, whether from family, or your sector of society, are vitally important. A person who gets the right example and teaching can achieve much.

On the other hand, a person born into a problem cultural sector, such as those Seth wants to punish, may have a major struggle due to lack of appropriate example and teachings.

And you think handing them money for nothing so that they can remain generationally unemployable is a proper substitute for "appropriate example and teachings"?

How about giving them proper examples and teaching them? I'll spend my money on that willingly. And do.

By way of example, I just gave one of my nephews, who is excelling at welding (he just won a regional competition), more than $3000 worth of welding equipment, including a MIG welder and a plasma torch, and will be giving him my tool chest (minus the tools) when I move. It's just what he needs to get started and I will soon not have any place to store all that stuff since I'm moving.

[Seth]

The idea that poor people don't work hard is nonsense. I suspect it's largely a case of increased opportunity to begin with, and better education and access to influential networks leading to even better opportunities. And that's just the ones who didn't inherit a chunk of money. Those ones are even better off.

I am not rich, and I work my ass off. So does every other low-wage worker I know. You bust your ass on the low end of the pay scale, which strongly limits the amount of time you can spend picking up new skills and looking for better jobs.

How were your grades in high school? College? Did you work your ass off to get an education when it was offered to you for no cost to you? Or did you, as many people do, fuck off for your entire primary and secondary school career, blow off classes, never thinking about the future and never take advantage of the many vocational and technical training programs that exist while looking to your economic and social future?

The valuation of work is wonky anyway. When I was a department secretary, when the VP went on a two-week vacation, everyone just said "Have a nice trip." When I took just two days off, the first thing anyone said was a panicky "AIEE! We need a temp!"

'
Sergeants run the military. That doesn't mean it can run without officers making decisions.

I am thus of the opinion that if you can't take time off without the office needing a temp to replace you, you're not paid enough, and if you can take off for two weeks and it has no impact on the office's productivity, you're paid too much.

Bookeeping has to be done every day, as does assembling products or the like. Making business decisions that keep the company profitable doesn't happen on a daily basis, but it's no less important, and is more important in fact because the impact of the decisions are much greater for everyone, and therefore more is demanded of the executive, so he's worth more to the company.

A good executive sets the company on track and hires staff that can keep it running smoothly without his constant oversight, which takes more skill than typing letters or filing documents.

I wonder if the report looked at the intangibles that come with being part of the economic elite -- better health care and better schools and being able to afford college move you a lot further up the board than someone who doesn't have those advantages, even if the children don't inherit directly.

I'm sure they are very helpful, which is a very good reason for you to work towards becoming part of the economic elite...if not for you, for your children.

Fundamentally, even if they don't directly cash in on inheritance, they have the advantage of being moved to the head of the line as an unearned benefit.

And is that not what you would want for your children? Isn't that why you might work hard and constantly improve your skill set so as to become more valuable to your employer so that you can rise in the hierarchy as much as possible so that your children will be able to do the same from a higher starting point than you started at?

Or do you think you should be given more money for doing something that's not worth all that much to the employer and is in fact something that anyone with a decent high-school education can do without putting forth any effort...which makes you eminently replaceable?

[Seth]

To mistermack

Nevertheless, there is a good point from that book. Which is that cultural teachings, whether from family, or your sector of society, are vitally important. A person who gets the right example and teaching can achieve much.

On the other hand, a person born into a problem cultural sector, such as those Seth wants to punish, may have a major struggle due to lack of appropriate example and teachings.

To be fair to Seth, rather than punish, he may state it as "remove excessive government assistance"

Depending on context, this may be functionally equivalent to punishment, but there is a valid argument that welfare dependency causes long-term damage to the recipients...

It's not even that, it's "not allow government assistance to debilitate, enslave and disincentivize personal effort and industry." If my tax money went only into government-sponsored vocational training programs for welfare recipients who are able to work, I wouldn't have nearly as much complaint about paying for it.

Welfare payments not linked to a requirement to work and better onesself in the job market are not beneficial, they are a Machiavellian trap into generational dependence and learned helplessness. Those who advocate such payments for anyone who is capable of work are hypocrites of the highest order because they aren't helping such people, they are enslaving them with chains of gold.

[pErvinalia]

11169959_10153760544348154_7578938920862624115_n.jpg (78.12 KiB) Viewed 1482 times

[piscator]

To mistermack

Nevertheless, there is a good point from that book. Which is that cultural teachings, whether from family, or your sector of society, are vitally important. A person who gets the right example and teaching can achieve much.

On the other hand, a person born into a problem cultural sector, such as those Seth wants to punish, may have a major struggle due to lack of appropriate example and teachings.

Quite right. That's the bit I described as the bleedin obvious. Maybe it is a revelation to some people, I don't know about that.
In the circles I meet with, it sticks out a mile.

You have to admit Britain is sort of famous for that...

[piscator]

The idea that poor people don't work hard is nonsense. I suspect it's largely a case of increased opportunity to begin with, and better education and access to influential networks leading to even better opportunities. And that's just the ones who didn't inherit a chunk of money. Those ones are even better off.

I am not rich, and I work my ass off. So does every other low-wage worker I know. You bust your ass on the low end of the pay scale, which strongly limits the amount of time you can spend picking up new skills and looking for better jobs.

The valuation of work is wonky anyway. When I was a department secretary, when the VP went on a two-week vacation, everyone just said "Have a nice trip." When I took just two days off, the first thing anyone said was a panicky "AIEE! We need a temp!"
'
I am thus of the opinion that if you can't take time off without the office needing a temp to replace you, you're not paid enough, and if you can take off for two weeks and it has no impact on the office's productivity, you're paid too much.

Pretty close, but you omitted "Replacement Costs", which can be significant for jobs it takes more than a week to learn. I have people it would take a year to replace, assuming there was a pool of qualified applicants waiting to sit in their chairs tomorrow, which there's not. No one is irreplaceable in my business model but me, but "Replacement Costs" is a nontrivial source of any employee's value. Moneyball.

I wonder if the report looked at the intangibles that come with being part of the economic elite -- better health care and better schools and being able to afford college move you a lot further up the board than someone who doesn't have those advantages, even if the children don't inherit directly.

Fundamentally, even if they don't directly cash in on inheritance, they have the advantage of being moved to the head of the line as an unearned benefit.

The rich are different. But what parent in his right mind is going to willingly short his kid anything as valuable as education and social networking? So it's not really a conspiracy that "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton."

My point is: Whaddayagonnadoo? Have some sort of Lottery where a certain percentage of the 1% has to go play the Hunger Games? Most of the Old Money, it's no more their fault that they're rich than the poor kid who's poor. If you're going to question one or the other's birthrights, then you have to question them all, no? Where are you going to stand to do that, exactly?

[pErvinalia]

My point is: Whaddayagonnadoo? Have some sort of Lottery where a certain percentage of the 1% has to go play the Hunger Games?

I like that idea!

[mistermack]

My point is: Whaddayagonnadoo? Have some sort of Lottery where a certain percentage of the 1% has to go play the Hunger Games?

Like I've said before many times. Make inheritance tax 100%.
And spend the money on a high standard of education for all.

Any money left over comes off the income tax take.

[JimC]

My point is: Whaddayagonnadoo? Have some sort of Lottery where a certain percentage of the 1% has to go play the Hunger Games?

Like I've said before many times. Make inheritance tax 100%.
And spend the money on a high standard of education for all.

Any money left over comes off the income tax take.

An inheritance tax over a certain threshold, perhaps...

[mistermack]

My point is: Whaddayagonnadoo? Have some sort of Lottery where a certain percentage of the 1% has to go play the Hunger Games?

Like I've said before many times. Make inheritance tax 100%.
And spend the money on a high standard of education for all.

Any money left over comes off the income tax take.

An inheritance tax over a certain threshold, perhaps...

Yes of course. It's got to be practical and worthwhile anyway so you have to set a limit.

[laklak]

I believe in the SKIN paradigm, "Spend Kid's Inheritance Now". I'm working as fast as I can.

[Seth]

11169959_10153760544348154_7578938920862624115_n.jpg

Gotta have vision and guts too.