Pfft... you work in fast food?

[suncowiam]

A huge percentage of them are. Of course the recession turned many middle-class people into poor people, but the general trend is that if you are born into poverty then your kids are going to die in poverty.

So what if you wouldn't have had the "brains" for software engineer?

With many people not knowing how to cook, feeding people is indeed important. It's a consequence of our culture of convenience.

Sorry but you're making assumptions.

I know folks with "brains" that aren't compatible with engineering and yet made more money than me in various phases of the market. I know more capable folks that loss more money than me in critical phases of the market.

Who is charge of their own money? Why should I be the burden of other people's failures?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Sorry but you're making assumptions.

I know folks with "brains" that aren't compatible with engineering and yet made more money than me in various phases of the market. I know more capable folks that loss more money than me in critical phases of the market.

Who is charge of their own money? Why should I be the burden of other people's failures?

So, people only have the value of their portfolios? Those without portfolios are worthless?

 

[suncowiam]

Well most rich guys HAVE NEVER worked washing dishes at Denney's, so yes, some of their work seems rather easy by comparison.

And yet another assumption being made about the rich. I don't deny that there is a percentage skew here but you are definitely conversing in a stereotyped manner.

Change that to most minorities or most women or most anything, and see what happened? Then how is anyone supposed to isolate the smaller percentage from the bigger percentage? You can't, so you might as well bucket it all into one category, hence, the definition of stereotyping.

This thread is about not stereotyping the poor. I get that and I completely agree with it. But if you want to do that then you have to extend the definition of not stereotyping to any income, period. Otherwise, its just being subjective. And being subjective doesn't fix anything, imo. Being subjective, usually means a majority of the subjective opinion would win. And we know where this leads, right??

 

[suncowiam]

So, people only have the value of their portfolios? Those without portfolios are worthless?

You didn't take context to my statement with ShadowWolf. Until you do I'm not going to repeat myself or continue this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry but you're making assumptions.

That's not an assumption, but something study-after-study-after-study has shown. It's hard to get out of poverty, and much easier to make money when you have access to it.

I know folks with "brains" that aren't compatible with engineering and yet made more money than me in various phases of the market. I know more capable folks that loss more money than me in critical phases of the market.

It's not just the brains, but any skills needed for any higher paying position. But making money, and lots of it, isn't just about being smart or working hard. It also takes an avenue to take being present. Bill Gates, for example, would be nothing had Mac not been around. Trump, came from money. Many of the wealthiest have tons of money to put in the stock market to make tons more money. You're average doctor, despite years of schooling, internships, residencies, and training to be specialized in an area, and despite the necessity of their work, they are not going to make anything close, ever, to what some Wall Street Tycoon is able to soak up for no other reason than already having a enough money to throw out as a gigantic money sponge.

Who is charge of their own money? Why should I be the burden of other people's failures?

That doesn't make any since. Of course everyone is in charge of their own money, and how would be a burden of other people's failures?

 

[suncowiam]

That's not an assumption, but something study-after-study-after-study has shown. It's hard to get out of poverty, and much easier to make money when you have access to it.

It's not just the brains, but any skills needed for any higher paying position. But making money, and lots of it, isn't just about being smart or working hard. It also takes an avenue to take being present. Bill Gates, for example, would be nothing had Mac not been around. Trump, came from money. Many of the wealthiest have tons of money to put in the stock market to make tons more money. You're average doctor, despite years of schooling, internships, residencies, and training to be specialized in an area, and despite the necessity of their work, they are not going to make anything close, ever, to what some Wall Street Tycoon is able to soak up for no other reason than already having a enough money to throw out as a gigantic money sponge.

That doesn't make any since. Of course everyone is in charge of their own money, and how would be a burden of other people's failures?

We're diverging from the original topic, which I take some responsibility for that too...

My point is stereotyping based on any income/skills is as bad as stereotyping based on low income/skills.

 

[Kapalika]

What counts as rich?

I'd say in the top 2% of income in the United States at least. I think that's around/over 250,000 USD a year income. Some might lower or raise the bar depending on where they live. I know a guy who earned his money. He was from trailer trash and got a degree and became a doctor and works in the E.R. But he's a total asshat and not very pleasant to be around unless you only casually know him (spreads rumors and the like very toxic). But again to his credit, despite his severe personal failings I can at least respect that he earned his living.

But it also seems him like many others have a skewed view. Making in the top 2% thinking they are middle class when really they are upper middle class verging to upper class. Supporting crazy candidates like Trump and economic policy positions that only really help people in his shoes at best, or are just asinine ideas at worst.

I know not all rich people are like this, some despite perhaps questionable business practices in the end have done a lot of good like Bill Gates who handled his wealth very honorably. Unfortunately I can't say he's a typical of example of a man with great wealth. But he also worked up his wealth too.

Also a random thought, but we seem to equate going from poor to rich as earning it, but really I don't think effort can scale with wealth in that way. A human can only work so hard and I don't think those earning literally a million times more money worked a million times harder or deserve the money a million more times.

You didn't take context to my statement with ShadowWolf. Until you do I'm not going to repeat myself or continue this.

I think you were replying to/reading @beenherebeforeagain and not @Shadow Wolf

 

[Kapalika]

I think the bell curve for poor people, particularly younger ones has widened out in recent decades.

Plenty of self educated, hard working people. But also plenty of ignorant, lazy people too. I think this is a product of our changing times; less people fall in the middle now. I think the internet, our failing public educational standards, cultural changes and economic reality has created this.

And so you get a system where perhaps some do deserve to work there because they don't even want anything more or at least put in the effort for iy, but many don't want to work there and and want more. Unfortunately I don't think there is just enough high-end jobs to go around for everyone to get one in our society and unless we ultra specialize we won't particularly the more automation replaces other people. I once worked at a place that had about 50 people working; with some automation that could of been reduced to much fewer people.

I live in a pretty poor area so I've seen a lot of varying attitudes and it's really hard to generalize poor people. I would say that in general the working poor is very angry and does work hard, but it's not true of every type of poor person. However singling out that group that doesn't work hard just hurts the greater number that does work hard and is trying to do more with their life.

 

[Quagmire]

It is perhaps normal for cultures worldwide to attach certain status and prestige to certain fields of employ, as well as certain taboo and denigration to others.

In my country, the stories we tell to people are "you need to get a job that pays a lot of money and has prestige." It is a powerful cultural mythology, that sweeps my countryfolk up from young age. They aspire to be things like doctors, veterinarians, engineers, and other supposedly prestigious, money-making careers. There is another story we tell to people that goes alongside the one above: "if you don't get a prestigious job that makes a lot of money, you are a lesser person and your education was a waste." We don't just tell people to aspire for particular positions of prestige, we tell them they are failures if they don't have those supposedly powerful and worthy types of jobs. The manager of a big box store? We stare down our noses at it. The person running the sales floor? We stare down our noses at them even harder.

Why do we do this?

I find it quite bothersome. What about you?

Not sure who you mean by "we".

I would assume there are a lot more retail store managers and sales personnel in the world then there are people in a position to stare down their noses at them.

 

[Quagmire]

I have a strong tendency to look down on people who look down on people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a strong tendency to look down on people who look down on people.

I look up to people who look down on people who look down on people.

 

[Lyndon]

I'd say in the top 2% of income in the United States at least. I think that's around/over 250,000 USD a year income. Some might lower or raise the bar depending on where they live. I know a guy who earned his money. He was from trailer trash and got a degree and became a doctor and works in the E.R. But he's a total asshat and not very pleasant to be around unless you only casually know him (spreads rumors and the like very toxic). But again to his credit, despite his severe personal failings I can at least respect that he earned his living.

But it also seems him like many others have a skewed view. Making in the top 2% thinking they are middle class when really they are upper middle class verging to upper class. Supporting crazy candidates like Trump and economic policy positions that only really help people in his shoes at best, or are just asinine ideas at worst.

I know not all rich people are like this, some despite perhaps questionable business practices in the end have done a lot of good like Bill Gates who handled his wealth very honorably. Unfortunately I can't say he's a typical of example of a man with great wealth. But he also worked up his wealth too.

Also a random thought, but we seem to equate going from poor to rich as earning it, but really I don't think effort can scale with wealth in that way. A human can only work so hard and I don't think those earning literally a million times more money worked a million times harder or deserve the money a million more times.



I think you were replying to/reading @beenherebeforeagain and not @Shadow Wolf

Bill Gates, the man that created Windows 10 honourable??? I don't think so!!

 

[Quagmire]

Bill Gates, the man that created Windows 10 honourable??? I don't think so!!

Really? Mine came with a really cool computer game called "Find the Magical Vanishing Start-up Menu".

I'm still on level 1.

 

[Kapalika]

Bill Gates, the man that created Windows 10 honourable??? I don't think so!!

I don't think Gates really has any say in 99.99999% of what happens in any development of an OS and probably hasn't in many, many years. He's now just a face if even that. And I was talking about his philanthropy anyway.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think Gates really has any say in 99.99999% of what happens in any development of an OS and probably hasn't in many, many years. He's now just a face if even that. And I was talking about his philanthropy anyway.

He wasn't doing much for awhile, but he stepped into an advising position about a year-and-a-half ago.
And, as for his philanthropy, he's given about $30 billion. He's not just the richest person alive, he's also the most generous billionaire with donating his money.

 

[lovesong]

We live in a society that values brains over brawn. Yes our society would fall apart without those brawns, but that work is still less valuable on an individual scale, that is, one doctor contributes far more to society than one store clerk or fast food worker. Those jobs also get skewed by the number of people with mental disabilities who work them. Whether fairly or not, the less abled you are, the less valued you are by society as a whole.

I'm not saying I agree with any stereotypes, but that's my understanding of why society tends to look down on those professions.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd say in the top 2% of income in the United States at least. I think that's around/over 250,000 USD a year income. Some might lower or raise the bar depending on where they live. I know a guy who earned his money. He was from trailer trash and got a degree and became a doctor and works in the E.R. But he's a total asshat and not very pleasant to be around unless you only casually know him (spreads rumors and the like very toxic). But again to his credit, despite his severe personal failings I can at least respect that he earned his living.

Hmm...ok. I ask primarily to work out where I sit in your eyes. I am one of those middle class folks, I guess. Not top 2% though, so maybe I'm excused.
My family was strictly working class (but not poor...just very basic, single income, blue collar) I worked as a storeman and served pies at the footy to pay my way through uni. The teaching degree I ended up with made for decent pay, but I left and went into private industry.

It strikes me as strange to complain about the rich and their attitude to the poor. I would say that the gap between low and high wages is societally unhealthy, even moreso in America than here.

But it also seems him like many others have a skewed view. Making in the top 2% thinking they are middle class when really they are upper middle class verging to upper class. Supporting crazy candidates like Trump and economic policy positions that only really help people in his shoes at best, or are just asinine ideas at worst.

Skewed views and self interest don't seem isolated to any particular socio-economic group. Perhaps you are confusing impactfulness or power?

Also a random thought, but we seem to equate going from poor to rich as earning it, but really I don't think effort can scale with wealth in that way. A human can only work so hard and I don't think those earning literally a million times more money worked a million times harder or deserve the money a million more times.

'Worth' and 'Deserve' are interesting words for you to use. When I got into the computing industry I had to work reception. No qualifications, so even entry level support jobs were outside my reach back then.

I was of the same 'worth' as I am now, I daresay. I am much better paid now since I have a proven track record, am hard to replace in terms of specific knowledge and experience and...most importantly in terms of wages...can be charged out to clients at a premium. My wage is effectively a cut of what I make others.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the problem might ultimately be rooted in human nature. It seems we're always comparing ourselves to others and then automatically assessing ourselves as superior or inferior to them. Most of the criteria we base those assessments on are laughable, but we scarcely notice just how laughable they are because, after all, we are -- for all our cleverness -- basically apes. It would be asking too much of most of us to grasp that socioeconomic status is a lousy measure of superiority/inferiority, let alone that any measure of superiority/inferiority is suspect.

But add to all that the superstructure of rationalizations we have erected for our judgments. For instance, we believe that we live in a meritocracy where people rise to the levels of society that they deserve. No amount of scientific evidence to the contrary is sufficient to dislodge that view from the minds of those who cling to it. It's like a religion for them. Yet, an implication of such a view is that people who work in low paying jobs deserve to work in low paying jobs.

 

[Lyndon]

Out of curiosity, did you ever work any of those jobs? Reason I ask, is if someone works/has worked a job like that, they generally have a greater respect for others in those same positions.

Worked as a caterer for a wedding once, the 14 hour shift ended up with 8 hrs of washing dishes, didn't come back for more. Hard work, harder than sitting at a desk pushing buttons on a computer. Harder than fixing violins (my present job).

 

[SomeRandom]

I don't think Gates really has any say in 99.99999% of what happens in any development of an OS and probably hasn't in many, many years. He's now just a face if even that. And I was talking about his philanthropy anyway.

Bill Gates was always the face. He bought and sold his first DOS and GUI for a mint and created an empire off it's success. But you could say that about a lot of people. Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, even Sir Alan Turing to a certain extent. We amalgamate achievements and assign them to a single person to make it easily identifiable to us.