Is the "American Dream" dead...

Venom said:
It may create the conditions in which crime thrives.

But I can't see a scenario in which the poor get rich nearly as much as the rich staying rich.
Click to expand...

Because "hard work" can only rarely outperform investments. The easiest way to acquire money is to already have a great deal of money.
 
rustypouch said:
Look at you, shifting goalposts and not answering questions.

<snip>
Click to expand...

But he implied that he took risks, had long nights, and made sacrifices. Some people will do anything to avoid hard work.

Seriously though, logger did make a couple of good points. The ability to borrow a significant amount of money is very important.


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Quote edited to conform.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
logger said:
No, what comes from conservatives is a majority of people find their way to the American Dream, therefore, others can to.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Except for the future generations who will suffer as civilization eventually falls because you get to drive an SUV.

Tough for them, but that's the nature of the zero-sum game you play because you've been lucky enough to live in a time and place that allows you to play that game, at future generations' expense.
 
LSSBB said:
So, since you can't guarantee success even with hard work, poverty due to hard luck isn't really a choice.

So what are the chances for someone to make it out of poverty, vs. chances for them not to make it, and are those chances increasing or decreasing statistically, and how much?
Click to expand...

It's a waste of time to ask people who've been lucky questions like that. That's like asking a fat cow in a lush pasture what are the chances of a cow in a barren pasture getting through the fence into the lush pasture. Fat cow will just stare dully at you. Fat cow has no idea wtf you're talking about, or gives a rat's ass. Fat cow will just return to it's obsessive grazing, as if to demonstrate how to get fat in a lush pasture.

People who have been lucky don't typically know they've been lucky. Their good luck seems typical and inevitable to them, until the good luck runs out. Then they typically begin to see themselves as victims.

Just look at poor Trump, how he's been victimized. :rolleyes: His habitual morning tweets will tell you all about it, if you haven't noticed.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
So, since you can't guarantee success even with hard work, poverty due to hard luck isn't really a choice.

So what are the chances for someone to make it out of poverty, vs. chances for them not to make it, and are those chances increasing or decreasing statistically, and how much?
Click to expand...

The chances are very good, obviously those chances are much better ten in the past. But once again it doesn’t guarantee that people want to be out of poverty unless another provides that path for them.
 
Toontown said:
It's a waste of time to ask people who've been lucky questions like that. That's like asking a fat cow in a lush pasture what are the chances of a cow in a barren pasture getting through the fence into the lush pasture. Fat cow will just stare dully at you. Fat cow has no idea wtf you're talking about, or gives a rat's ass. Fat cow will just return to it's obsessive grazing, as if to demonstrate how to get fat in a lush pasture.

People who have been lucky don't typically know they've been lucky. Their good luck seems typical and inevitable to them, until the good luck runs out. Then they typically begin to see themselves as victims.
Click to expand...

Ouch.
 
logger said:
The chances are very good, obviously those chances are much better ten in the past.
Click to expand...

What time frame are we talking here when you refer to 'the past'? If you are talking the most recent few generations, I haven't seen the data to support that at all. Take a quick look at this image from the equality of opportunity project -

project_abs_lato2.png


Are we to assume younger generations just aren't working as hard as the older ones, or that something else has changed?
 
rdwight said:
What time frame are we talking here when you refer to 'the past'? If you are talking the most recent few generations, I haven't seen the data to support that at all. Take a quick look at this image from the equality of opportunity project -

[qimg]http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/project_abs_lato2.png[/qimg]

Are we to assume younger generations just aren't working as hard as the older ones, or that something else has changed?
Click to expand...

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/abs_mobility_summary.pdf

A link to the full report for the benefit of all. Looks like the data set is for 30 year olds compared to their parents when they were 30. It does stand to reason somewhat that a period of impressive economic expansion following two world wars sandwiched around the great depression would skew the data toward those born after such turmoil doing better than their parents. The long stretch of relative peace since that time would slow that change. 90% of the people may have been doing better because it would have been awful hard to do worse.

Also of note, the baseline of the chart is nearly 50%, which skews to perception of the reviewer who might just glance at it.

The chart really starts to level off once we get to generations who's parents were likely born after WWII.
 
logger said:
Sure, because anyone who’s living the American Dream must have been lucky, certainly is a theme on the left.
Click to expand...

You happened to be born in the one time and place where the American dream is possible. History shows that the vast majority of all humans, throughout recorded history, have lived short, brutal lives of quiet desperation.

Now you gonna tell me I don't know what I know, and you haven't been lucky?

We've all been lucky to various extents. We have all slipped through a narrowing window, after the limited time when industrialization has created unprecedented opportunities and standard of living, but just before the resulting evil mutant chickens return to reclaim their roosting place.

There is an outside chance that science may once again pull off a miracle and save us from ourselves and the evil mutant chickens. But the problem with luck is that it has usually run out just about the time you notice it's been with you.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
You happened to be born in the one time and place where the American dream is possible. History shows that the vast majority of all humans, throughout recorded history, have lived short, brutal lives of quiet desperation.

Now you gonna tell me I don't know what I know, and you haven't been lucky?

We've all been lucky to various extents. We have all slipped through a narrowing window, after the limited time when industrialization has created unprecedented opportunities and standard of living, but just before the resulting evil mutant chickens return to reclaim their roosting place.

There is an outside chance that science may once again pull off a miracle and save us from ourselves and the evil mutant chickens. But the problem with luck is that it has usually run out just about the time you notice it's been with you.
Click to expand...

Being born in this country was certainly “lucky” but characterising the AD that way ignores the facts. One fact being how we stand out from other countries in the way we were founded. It’s not all luck, not even close!
 
Toontown said:
It's a waste of time to ask people who've been lucky questions like that. That's like asking a fat cow in a lush pasture what are the chances of a cow in a barren pasture getting through the fence into the lush pasture. Fat cow will just stare dully at you. Fat cow has no idea wtf you're talking about, or gives a rat's ass. Fat cow will just return to it's obsessive grazing, as if to demonstrate how to get fat in a lush pasture.

People who have been lucky don't typically know they've been lucky. Their good luck seems typical and inevitable to them, until the good luck runs out. Then they typically begin to see themselves as victims.

Just look at poor Trump, how he's been victimized. :rolleyes: His habitual morning tweets will tell you all about it, if you haven't noticed.
Click to expand...
I don't even have the slightest hope that anything I say will change logger's opinion. That's why I pointed out how it is an example of hindsight bias, which is the behavior you are describing.
 
logger said:
Being born in this country was certainly “lucky” but characterising the AD that way ignores the facts. One fact being how we stand out from other countries in the way we were founded. It’s not all luck, not even close!
Click to expand...

What did any of us have to do with the way the AD was founded?

We were born. The grass was there. We scarfed it down like a herd of fat cows in a lush pasture. We'll keep scarfing it down till it's all gone, and future generations will despise us, unless science is able to keep pulling rabbits out of the hat.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
Sure, because anyone who’s living the American Dream must have been lucky, certainly is a theme on the left.
Click to expand...
Sure, luck is a factor and many lucky people squander the opportunities they have been given.

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toontown said:
What did any of us have to do with the way the AD was founded?

We were born. The grass was there. We scarfed it down like a herd of fat cows in a lush pasture. We'll keep scarfing it down till it's all gone, and future generations will despise us, unless science is able to keep pulling rabbits out of the hat.
Click to expand...

Really, this is getting ridiculous. Is scarfing it down like suckling at the teat?
 
logger said:
Really, this is getting ridiculous. Is scarfing it down like suckling at the teat?
Click to expand...

Nah, it's more like scarfing up all the grass, and then the hot dry winds come and blow away the exposed topsoil, leaving a barren wasteland.
 
Toontown said:
Nah, it's more like scarfing up all the grass, and then the hot dry winds come and blow away the exposed topsoil, leaving a barren wasteland.
Click to expand...

I suppose some would see our country as a barren wasteland, of course that isn’t reality.
 
logger said:
I suppose some would see our country as a barren wasteland, of course that isn’t reality.
Click to expand...

It's getting there. And not just our country.

The industry-driven, fossil-fueled American dream is unsustainable, barring some more techno/scientific miracles and a willingness to change which is not currently in evidence.

But if you're old enough, you'll die before it gets really bad. Then it won't matter that future generations will despise you for what you've done.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
No, what comes from conservatives is a majority of people find their way to the American Dream, therefore, others can to.
Click to expand...

Except they don’t. The US is the most economically stratified country in the developed world. People born poor are more likely to stay poor in the US than any other developed country.
 
logger said:
Sure, because anyone who’s living the American Dream must have been lucky, certainly is a theme on the left.
Click to expand...

Only if by “lucky” you mean the false entitlement people who are born rich people in the US enjoy. Things like being smart and hard working get you farther in countries like Canada, Japan, Germany, Finland, France, etc than they do in the US. Being born rich gets you farther in the US than it does in these countries.
 
lomiller said:
Only if by “lucky” you mean the false entitlement people who are born rich people in the US enjoy. Things like being smart and hard working get you farther in countries like Canada, Japan, Germany, Finland, France, etc than they do in the US. Being born rich gets you farther in the US than it does in these countries.
Click to expand...

Interesting, they must be hiding all those smart successful people.
 
lomiller said:
Except they don’t. The US is the most economically stratified country in the developed world. People born poor are more likely to stay poor in the US than any other developed country.
Click to expand...

Because they are so taken care of and encouraged to stay in that lifestyle. It’s the leftist thing to do.
 
logger said:
Interesting, they must be hiding all those smart successful people.
Click to expand...

What? You are not making sense.


logger said:
Because they are so taken care of and encouraged to stay in that lifestyle. It’s the leftist thing to do.
Click to expand...

Every country that does more than the US to help it's poor outperforms the US in economic mobility. The poor stay poor in the US in spite of how hard they work because the US systematically favors the rich.
 
lomiller said:
Every country that does more than the US to help it's poor outperforms the US in economic mobility. The poor stay poor in the US in spite of how hard they work because the US systematically favors the rich.
Click to expand...

We should just give each poor person a six figure gift, look how well we’ll be doing!
 
Seems like a certain someone is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Par for the course, I suppose...:rolleyes:
 
logger said:
We should just give each poor person a six figure gift, look how well we’ll be doing!
Click to expand...

Is anyone in this thread advocating that ? There are however a range of things the US could do to improve economic and social mobility. If you don't want to look at other countries because of American exceptionalism then look to your own past.
 
Spock Jenkins said:
It does stand to reason somewhat that a period of impressive economic expansion following two world wars sandwiched around the great depression would skew the data
Click to expand...
You can't dismiss the data by saying it's 'skewed' - it is what it is. The causes don't matter. Whether it will continue doesn't matter. The claim was about what has happened, not a prediction of future performance.

Also of note, the baseline of the chart is nearly 50%, which skews to perception of the reviewer who might just glance at it.
Click to expand...
The claim was that the chances are now much better than in the past, a relative term. Clearly the truth is the opposite, and even a line with half the slope would still be sloping the wrong way.

But if you are worried about where the baseline should be, 50% is a good choice because it is the expected 'null' with an even chance of doing better or worse. Logger also claimed the chances are now 'very good', which this chart totally debunks without having to show anything below 50%.
 
logger said:
And those people who do the hard work wouldn’t have that work if “others” didn’t benefit from it. It’s called capitalism, the bedrock of the American Dream.

It also involves risk, long nights and a lot of sacrifice,
Click to expand...
Wrong! Capitalism isn't about 'hard work', it's about creating maximum wealth. That means producing the most with the least effort. The man who pulled a plow through the dirt all day worked hard, but the man who harnessed a horse to it created more wealth (he then patented this new invention and retired to a life of luxury - which according to Capitalist principles is perfectly OK).

In our modern world very few people have to work hard, and those that do are usually in crappy low paying jobs that will never get them anywhere. This is how Capitalism works. It isn't how hard you work that matters, it's how much wealth you create.
 
Venom said:
or have the goalposts just moved. I always hear bits and pieces about it from people I consider pretty knowledgeable.

I hear that Reagan killed it, which I hear a lot from liberals. That is why today it's harder for poor people to get to the top than it was decades ago when we had actual progressive presidents. But others say today the middle class just owns a lot more stuff per household, stuff that in the 50s and 60s we couldn't have had in large quantities, like computers and boats, more than one car per family, etc. Is it a matter of the different skills you need for jobs today, cause back then it appears to have been manufacturing heavy.

I'm attracted to the progressive vision of liberals like Bernie Sanders. But I know populism doesn't really like nuance; conspiracy theorists, Ron Paul bots, etc. and there may be a bigger picture here.

I'd like to hear from people in this forum who are knowledgeable.
Click to expand...

Reagan mostly allowed it when the republicans turned into republickers around 1980 by allying themselves with the xtian right wing religionist ********.
 
The Don said:
Is anyone in this thread advocating that ? There are however a range of things the US could do to improve economic and social mobility. If you don't want to look at other countries because of American exceptionalism then look to your own past.
Click to expand...

Why aren’t we doing that? Giving them barely enough to get by has done so much in these other countries, wouldn’t giving them double make the country even more prosperous?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Wrong! Capitalism isn't about 'hard work', it's about creating maximum wealth. That means producing the most with the least effort. The man who pulled a plow through the dirt all day worked hard, but the man who harnessed a horse to it created more wealth (he then patented this new invention and retired to a life of luxury - which according to Capitalist principles is perfectly OK).

In our modern world very few people have to work hard, and those that do are usually in crappy low paying jobs that will never get them anywhere. This is how Capitalism works. It isn't how hard you work that matters, it's how much wealth you create.
Click to expand...

There are so many different jobs, there is no way to define all the different aspects that go into them. “Hard work” usually covers all that as a definition. The Amish still plow with a horse and I don’t know any poor Amish-men. They’re literally buying up the farm land all over. You’re simply wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom