The problem is, when you work for someone else, you work for wages and limit your income. What is even worse, you give someone else your time you could be using to better yourself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does One Person's Gain Come at Another's Expense?
- Thread starter Reverend Rick
- Start date
The problem is, when you work for someone else, you work for wages and limit your income. What is even worse, you give someone else your time you could be using to better yourself.
None, but Central Park belongs to us all.
...uh, what does that have to do with what I said?
So much for making enough food to eat. Perfectly good soil going to waste because it wooks pwitty. (kidding; I'd never ask for CP to become farmland unless there was some kind of crisis.)
Jesus Wolf, the guy who was the brains for Bill Gates worked for him. He got wages for his efforts and de facto became Bill's property.
Do you really not follow what I am saying? The problem is, people are programed from an early age to work for someone else, which is fine if you want to limit your income.
After they get off work, they do little to better themselves. They are programmed to work for someone else and never do much for themselves mostly because they think they only should work when they are on the clock.
dust1n
Zindīq
Then yes, for the most part; though this manifests itself in a myriad number of ways.
dust1n
Zindīq
Well you probably should, seeing how nothing on the planet is infinite, and almost all of it capable of being exhausted.
...no, I was referring to 86-DOS (aka QDOS), which was invented by Tim Paterson as a clone of CP/M-86, and bought by little baby Microsoft.
Furthermore, Ed Roberts, the guy who invented the personal computer with the Altair 8800 was CEO of MITS, which no longer exists. Roberts himself died 3 years ago a medical doctor and pretty much forgotten. Steve Jobs would receive a worlds' mourning and near-deity status the very next year.
Or shoot for the stars, 'cause being a multibillionaire is almost impossible any other way.
Which for a lot of people, is simply the only option.
Last edited:
Not in our life time. :no:
There will be other opportunities and resources like renewables.
If one of us sits on our butt and sleeps while the other walks to town and finds a girl friend, how can the person who naps be envious?
dust1n
Zindīq
I didn't specify in which life time it would happen.
Sure... that doesn't imply that there is an infinite amount of resources.
I'm not really sure why you are asking this, or what it is even suppose to relate to. Is this suppose to be some sort of metaphor for people going and making billions of dollars while others who didn't do that are napping?
Been there done that. I had to work my wage slave job AND work for my company when i was a start up
The process of renewing stuff costs energy and resources that may not be renewable.
There's always a cost.
You were lucky.
'Sides, my point still stands: success comes at someone else's expense with my example from computer history.
Circular reasoning. To be successful many times you have to think outside the box. I'm sure many people thought we would still be using candles before the light bulb. Now with LED lights we use a fraction to produce light.
Energy will be the same way and someone will become rich figuring it all out.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
What do you mean held back? Do you mean should you use people and their misfortune to make more money? So you can feel better?
There's still a cost to using electric lights.
Bet we won't though.
I think we're dropping the whole house on quite a few people.
Ah. So you're just talking about the United States and people therein.
I was talking about the whole world.
But it is not an absolute is it? What I see is poor choices being made. I takes two people to make a deal.
One person on that deal was going to be the richest man in the world, and the other just another garage geek.
Where there are winners there are losers. Doesn't matter how hard the losers fought or how skilled they were; all it takes is another person less skilled and maybe lazier but also willing to play dirty. Remember that Gates was a compulsive gambler and college dropout.
But of course it's not an absolute. Absolutes absolutely don't exist. (lol) But it's still a general law of society and nature: success = win. Winners means the presence of losers. And losers can work hard and be skilled.
I don't see were my arguement is limited to one country.
Some folks need to be spoon fed while others are self starters. There will always be exceptions of course but the fact still remains that the rich will become even richer at an even faster pace in the future.
100 years from now, there will not even be a middle class any more.