271–280 of 632 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We develop drugs and medical practices to artificially extend our lives. We build gigantic civilizations and trade goods around the globe. We take the coffee beans from a farmer in a poor nation undergoing drought, pay that farmer between $0.07-$0.50 per kilo of coffee, and then sell that kilo in a coffee shop (after roasting and brewing) for about $70. We aren't natural. We don't need natural evolutionary states. We…
None of that is my responsibility. I'm not obligated to help anyone but myself. Nobody asked me for consent before flinging me into existence, and now I have to follow all these rules that people make up? I don't need "unnatural, human-oriented, ethical states". I'm perfectly happy with a state where I can acquire as many resources as possible, even if that incurs a significant cost to others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing, unless you force a dog which hunted its bone to share it with one who slept the whole day, and call it "equality".
Or you can share 5% of your hunt to keep the lazy dog from attacking you while you sleep. Is it 'fair'? No. Is it a wise move? Maybe.
If there are only 19 bones for every 20 dogs, then it doesn't matter how good a bone hunter they all are there will always be one dog disappointed and the other 19 will be grateful for the bone no matter how thin and weedy it is. Systemically the 'interest rate targeting' approach starts to tighten up policy when unemployment gets below 5% - which they consider 'full employment' even though 1 in 20 haven't got jobs.…
Why do these articles always start with a story about a person? I see this in nearly all articles from american news papers. It's strange. Seems like a paper from a young student who needs to get his 3000 wordcount. It just bloats the article and makes it difficult to get the information out of it.
I think many journalists like to think themselves as writers. But this ain't a novel!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know people who profess to be victims, too. I'll tick off the choices they made that got them where they are. Of course, they get angry with me. Nobody wants to hear the truth. Where I am, the good and the bad, is nearly entirely the sum of my choices. For example, if you floss or not eventually has a large effect on your health. Ditto for the amount you choose to drink, smoke, and exercise. Where you choose to liv…
> I know people who profess to be victims, too. I'll tick off the choices they made that got them where they are. Of course, they get angry with me. Nobody wants to hear the truth. Who told you poor people are capable of as good choices as richer people? When you live life in easy mode is easy to make the right choices. It's also easy to see some people who managed to play in hard mode and win, and extrapolate to eve…
The first step in making better choices is to realize that one is making choices.
Why do these articles always start with a story about a person? I see this in nearly all articles from american news papers. It's strange. Seems like a paper from a young student who needs to get his 3000 wordcount. It just bloats the article and makes it difficult to get the information out of it.
I broke out of poverty. Why can't they do it too? It was a simple thing for me, a combination of studying hard, focusing on my future and the death of my father. You see, my parents were both fishermen. It's a grueling, painful job that can destroy your body as you age leaving you with back problems and forcing you to retire early. It also paid poorly and had a lot of risks. Which unfortunately for us, resulted in th…
Your story seems to indicate that studying hard and focusing on the future are necessary but not sufficient conditions to enter the middle class. I think the formula is that you need all three: -Relatively consistent work ethic -Decent decision-making -Some minimal opportunity Often the argument seems to swing between these absurd positions that it's all about just one of these and the others don't matter. Of course…
Why is this a problem? I just can't see any indication of problem here, this is just supply vs demand: world is globalized now and most of what uneducated people could do can be imported from much cheaper places. If we started to look hard for 'fixes' for this we'd end up just breaking the economy. Force businesses to pay them more and even more of these job will evaporate, because there will be no point any longer.…
It seems to me your policy would lead to the creation of permanent two-class society, where moving between the classes is difficult. Besides, do you really want to live in a fortress segregated from the rest of the society? Why not invest money in education, training and a social security net that gives poorer individuals the means and space to catapult themselves into wealth?
As for fortress thing - you are exaggerating. There isn't so much crime around these days, much less than 30-40 years ago when things were still going fine according to the article.
In the end, it's just the technology change. 40-50 years ago uneducated masses who were members of solid middle class have been factory workers. They are automated away. There isn't anything which could be done about this. Besides, exactly 40-50 years ago, during Jimmy Carter era, same things were said about farmers who found themselves displaced with great improvements in farming productivity. History just repeats itself.
And yes, classes must be sustainable and moving between them should be difficult, only through exceptional personal (genetic) abilities and a lot of effort. Otherwise they are not classes, just people gambling and some of them winning.