Let's be honest about how we live.

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the main problem with our society is that it's based on competition for limited resources and opportunities. This starts as early as grade school, were it is imbedded into your mind that unless you past certain test within a certain time frame, you are essentially finished and of no use to society other than the most menial and unpleasant jobs and living conditions.

That means there are winners and losers....and the winners really don't want to be bothered with the losers beyond a certain point (i.e., servitude or entertainment).

Mind you, there are factions of our society that are compassionate...which is why you have charities, soup kitchens, etc. And there are factions that are rational and practical....which is why you have social security, unemployment insurance and welfare.

But a large portion of the "winners" balk at the very notion of a fraction of their earnings be put into a communal trust so that people don't end up homeless beggars on the street. Which is essentially irrational, given that these same people don't want to have to deal with crime and living next to squalor.

And let's face it, people are NOT going to ceremonially commit suicide because they don't make the grade for this job or that career, or are suddenly jobless and homeless due to the mismanagement, greed or illicit activities of some of the winners. So yes, there will be crime of all sorts....and then there will be people who just snap and commit acts of violence. And then there will be those who are overwhelmed with despair and take to drugs and alcohol. Or those who will create "alternative" means to make a living that may not sit well with the winner's idealism.

And the "winners" will surround themselves with gates and walls and paid security....and expect that waiter to have that dinner on time and properly served, or that cup of coffee and doughnut ready in the morning (while driving/walking on clean streets). It's not their concern that the people who keep the lights on or mine the metal ore or do all the little things can't afford to live where they work or afford the items they produce.

Hence the problems we see now.

Do I have the solution to all of this? Well, I could say "learn to share and be nice to each other", or "stop penalizing women in the workplace for being able to give birth" or "you don't have to like or agree with someone to give them the respect and courtesy YOU expect" or "stop being greedy" or "just give people a decent wage to afford simple, decent living" or "acknowledge that smart, rich people can be corrupt and should be stopped"......but these seem to be to hard for most people to accept, let alone do.

CHANGE IS HARD, BUT DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER HOPING FOR DIFFERENT RESULTS IS INSANE.

So it's back to discussion, voting, advocating, and the threat of civil unrest/violence. Who knows, maybe people will catch on before turning the world into a garbage heap and incurring the wrath of God and nature (aka- "global warming")? Let's hope so.
 
i read you, there isn't a way to get past "winners and losers" it's human nature - the best we cn hope for is to reduce the "wealth gap"

or the plutocratic rule. No problem with sucessful people getting more -they WORKED FOR IT -and deserve it; I do have a problem with continuos wealth
stratification to the point the middle class is under a >squeeze< that means less and less for those HARD WORKING people also.
 
I've always been a high achiever, limited in fact by my own laziness. Nope, standardized tests and competitive expectations are for me.
 
The best jobs go to those who are best prepared (hopefully). That means you have to outdo everyone else in order to get the better jobs which earn you the better money, which gives you the things you want & need. The lesser jobs leave you wanting.

So unless you can be happy with less, you compete. And even then there will always be more applicants than jobs.
 
The best jobs go to those who are best prepared (hopefully). That means you have to outdo everyone else in order to get the better jobs which earn you the better money, which gives you the things you want & need. The lesser jobs leave you wanting.

So unless you can be happy with less, you compete. And even then there will always be more applicants than jobs.

Like God, Pete Carroll, himself said 'Always Compete'.
 
i read you, there isn't a way to get past "winners and losers" it's human nature - the best we cn hope for is to reduce the "wealth gap"

or the plutocratic rule. No problem with sucessful people getting more -they WORKED FOR IT -and deserve it; I do have a problem with continuos wealth
stratification to the point the middle class is under a >squeeze< that means less and less for those HARD WORKING people also.

Agreed....but let us remember that the majority of the wealthy INHERITED it...aka the "lucky sperm club".

I have no problem with "winners and losers" so long as the "losers" are not punished by the "winners" or are denied alternative means to "win" or just basically live a decent life.
 
I've always been a high achiever, limited in fact by my own laziness. Nope, standardized tests and competitive expectations are for me.

But it has been PROVEN that standardized test are NOT the be all, end all to determine a persons worth or potential in society for the rest of their lives. Remember, Einstein FAILED a standardized test at one point.
 
The best jobs go to those who are best prepared (hopefully). That means you have to outdo everyone else in order to get the better jobs which earn you the better money, which gives you the things you want & need. The lesser jobs leave you wanting.

So unless you can be happy with less, you compete. And even then there will always be more applicants than jobs.

Unfortunately in the real world, that is not the case. Nepotism, favors, "legacy" placements have long been the norm in our society.

As I stated, it's not so much the competition but what the "winners" overall do afterward in their treatment of others that is the problem.
 
Originally Posted by WinterBorn View Post
The best jobs go to those who are best prepared (hopefully). That means you have to outdo everyone else in order to get the better jobs which earn you the better money, which gives you the things you want & need. The lesser jobs leave you wanting.

So unless you can be happy with less, you compete. And even then there will always be more applicants than jobs.

Like God, Pete Carroll, himself said 'Always Compete'.

It's not the competition but what the "winners" do afterward to the "losers" that is the question. Just because you don't pass a certain test at a certain time doesn't mean you should be regulated to a position of "failure" for the rest of your life.
 
Agreed....but let us remember that the majority of the wealthy INHERITED it...aka the "lucky sperm club".

I have no problem with "winners and losers" so long as the "losers" are not punished by the "winners" or are denied alternative means to "win" or just basically live a decent life.

Do you have any links to show evidence that the majority of wealthy people inherited it?

Also, if I work hard and earn great wealth so I can provide for my family, are my children and grandchildren any less for that?
 
Unfortunately in the real world, that is not the case. Nepotism, favors, "legacy" placements have long been the norm in our society.

As I stated, it's not so much the competition but what the "winners" overall do afterward in their treatment of others that is the problem.

So the competition itself is not a problem. The problem is the way we treat each other? Wow, where have I heard that before?
 
Do you have any links to show evidence that the majority of wealthy people inherited it?

Also, if I work hard and earn great wealth so I can provide for my family, are my children and grandchildren any less for that?

Yes they are. If they weren't raised by wolves than they're going to be shitty people.
 
Agreed....but let us remember that the majority of the wealthy INHERITED it...aka the "lucky sperm club".

I have no problem with "winners and losers" so long as the "losers" are not punished by the "winners" or are denied alternative means to "win" or just basically live a decent life.

You got a link to that bolded?
 
But it has been PROVEN that standardized test are NOT the be all, end all to determine a persons worth or potential in society for the rest of their lives. Remember, Einstein FAILED a standardized test at one point.

I agree with the premise, but think you may have overstated? Got a link to bolded?
 
Back
Top