24 Mar 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhatever the definition of "leisure time":
Slate.com has a very fascinating article on where the gains in leisure time have occurred -- turns out the biggest winners are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Since the left demands redistribution of income to offset economic inequality, should the wealthy demand that the poor be rounded up and forced to clean their cat litter box, change the oil in their cars, mow their lawns, etc.?
http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/fr/flyout
1) Hard-working individuals being rewarded financially to have good holidays or to fulfill their desired life-styles, this sounds good. Leisure time may proportinaly be smaller, but may be its quality is very good;
2) Unemployed people, not having much in their hands, watching TV, cerebrities, thinking "wish my life is a bit more like that". Plenty of time but not much to do with a low self-esteem but to think like "I could do better than this, u know". This isn't that good;
3) Moderately working people are in between and mixture of two in different proportions. Perhaps most people are in this category.
Note: Hard-working starts in early ages (e.g. working hard at school). People tend to get payed less (e.g. manual workers) because they are not interested in education.
Appologise for stating obvious matters. I still think somehow this current situation is quite balanced. What one does is usually a result of what one's been doing.
25 Mar 07
3 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIt appears so anyway. No offense but take Bill Gates for example, there was I simplemindedly thinking he was your classic self made man. All it took was hard work determination and single minded purpose. Then I watched a doco on his life and it turns out that his mom sat on the board of IBM and other blue chip companies and that she gave him one million bucks in seed money to kick off his PC revolution.
Conversely, when you look at the Forbes list of the world's 100 richest people, they're mostly self-made. The other interesting point about the list is that it is in constant flux, indicating that wealth is not static.
Sort of took the gloss off of his achievement a bit. Turns out he wasn't just some nerdy college drop out who forgot to sleep, worked like a demon and made all the right moves. He was that, but he also had an inside track to the ways of the big end of town, a familiarity that led to a lack of deference to corporate giants like IBM, due in no small part no doubt, to the fact that he was comfortable with inner workings of the boardrooms of corporate America thanks to his mom's access. Enough for him not to blink anyway, and send IBM packing when they wanted exclusive rights to the software he was developing.
I am not saying that real one off mavericks don't exist, its all just too familiar a story though when you dig a bit below the surface. Top 100 financial whiz had a parent that was involved in the industry that wunderkind starts to shine in. And the bravado that they often show in the market place stems from the fact that they were weened from a very early age as to the machinations of big business, with the result that for them, they hardly ever suffer vertigo when it comes to the art of the deal.
I don't begrudge them or anyone else their wealth btw, they have their own reward and responsibility that goes with that, including the lack of leisure to enjoy it. I'd just the same not hear sentimental fairy stories about how it all may be possible for anyone as long as they believe.
Give me a break........
25 Mar 07
Ok, so Bill Gates, #1 on the list, is not self-made as has already been shown.
#2 is Warren Buffet. His Dad was in the House of Representatives and owned a stock company. Warren was given a job in that company at the age of 11. However he apparently was working two paper routes by the time he was 14, and that's certainly a sign of a strong work ethic.
Woops. Gotta go. Can't keep up the analysis for now.
Here's the list:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/07/billionaires-worlds-richest_07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billie_land.html
25 Mar 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOK, which do you think gives you a greater chance of being wealthy:
Ok, so Bill Gates, #1 on the list, is not self-made as has already been shown.
#2 is Warren Buffet. His Dad was in the House of Representatives and owned a stock company. Warren was given a job in that company at the age of 11. However he apparently was working two paper routes by the time he was 14, and that's certainly a sign of a strong work eth ...[text shortened]... orbes.com/2007/03/07/billionaires-worlds-richest_07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billie_land.html
1) Having a strong work ethic; or
2) Having rich parents.
25 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeI'm not agreeing with der's assumption, but he has a point as far as work ethics go.
You're completely missing the point.
Of course, hours worked influences pay within the same job.
That's not the same as "I think the rich are rich because they are in the work force and work more hours. Conversely, the poor are poor becuase many are not in the work force and those that do work do not work as many hours."
There are many people who wo ...[text shortened]... stands up for comparisons within the same job, but not across the labour market as a whole.
Here in Ireland some of the lowest paid workers (let's call them "non-nationals" ) work three jobs if they can, they save their money, and strive to better themselves. The same can't be said for Nationals in similar positions, they are more likely to enjoy their free time, piss their money up against the wall, and then blame the government for their lack of material wealth....I only use this example to show how attitude to work can effect social position, not to explain the existence of poverty.
25 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderDefinitely number one. But in both cases there has to be a desire to be wealthy, a real desire, not just a "it'd be nice to be wealthy" procrastination. We could also do with a definition of wealthy because IMHO making the top 100 is in a whole other realm.
OK, which do you think gives you a greater chance of being wealthy:
1) Having a strong work ethic; or
2) Having rich parents.
25 Mar 07
Originally posted by WajomaIf you seriously are answering 1, then you're a moron.
Definitely number one. But in both cases there has to be a desire to be wealthy, a real desire, not just a "it'd be nice to be wealthy" procrastination. We could also do with a definition of wealthy because IMHO making the top 100 is in a whole other realm.
25 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderOK, which do you think happens more often?
OK, which do you think gives you a greater chance of being wealthy:
1) Having a strong work ethic; or
2) Having rich parents.
1) a person is born to rich parents; or
2) a person isn't?
If your answer is 2, do you think this person may have a better life if he/she develops a strong work ethic or if he/she adopts the victims persona in life?
25 Mar 07
Originally posted by WajomaIt's called a "rhetorical question".
You ask what someone thinks but then dictate the answer. Then why ask?
I'm changing my answer to a mix of 3/ and 1/
3/ being a genuine desire to be wealthy.
A bartender I knew worked six nights a week. He didn't get wealthy on his salary and tips. His grandmother died, a trust ended because of her death and he got $2 million.
Assuming there had been no family trust, do you think if he had only worked that 7th day weekly, he would have eventually got wealthy?
25 Mar 07
Originally posted by jammerI have nothing against a strong work ethic. I merely point out that it alone is unlikely to make you wealthy.
OK, which do you think happens more often?
1) a person is born to rich parents; or
2) a person isn't?
If your answer is 2, do you think this person may have a better life if he/she develops a strong work ethic or if he/she adopts the victims persona in life?
25 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHe didn't have the desire to be wealthy, if he did he would have re-assessed his priorities and spent any spare time working towards that goal.
It's called a "rhetorical question".
A bartender I knew worked six nights a week. He didn't get wealthy on his salary and tips. His grandmother died, a trust ended because of her death and he got $2 million.
Assuming there had been no family trust, do you think if he had only worked that 7th day weekly, he would have eventually got wealthy?
"I have nothing against a strong work ethic. I merely point out that it alone is unlikely to make you wealthy."
That's what I've been saying.
25 Mar 07
Originally posted by WajomaWhy? He knew he was going to get wealthy as soon as his grandmother died anyway.
He didn't have the desire to be wealthy, if he did he would have re-assessed his priorities and spent any spare time working towards that goal.
"I have nothing against a strong work ethic. I merely point out that it alone is unlikely to make you wealthy."
That's what I've been saying.