Rich people are better than poor people

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on July 28, 2011, 12:48:25 PM

Let's take this logic back to Nazi Germany

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 10:20:32 PM

Q. Are Aryan people better than non Aryan people?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Are Aryan people smarter than non Aryan people?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. I disagree. There are plenty of non Aryan scientists and non Aryan professionals out in the world.

A. Well, if they were so smart they wouldn't be in a concentration camp now, would they?

Q. What about all of the people who were just born Aryan. You can't really say that they are smarter or better than a non Aryan.

A. Yes you can. When parents reproduce they are really just making copies of themselves. The people born Aryan are copies of their parents who worked hard and succeeded. Children are a continuation of one's self

It's a shit analogy.

In that case, it should be stickied, or put in the faq.

I read and interesting article that suggests rich people are older than poor people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14294021

Young people are better than old people.

Young people are better than old people.

If that is so then newbies on this forum are better than us old pros.

Rich people http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2018959/Ashley-Olsen-steps-39k-croc-backpack-The-Row-handbag-line-Barneys.html

It's stories like that that make me wonder if they grasp how much $39,000 is to some people.

She might understand when someone hacks her emaciated arm off, to get the bag.

It's stories like that that make me wonder if they grasp how much $39,000 is to some people.

I honestly doubt that they care.

Money only has arbitrary value to those who use and spend it, we are all guilty of giving it a relative value. As children, we are raised to learn the value of money, and distinctions between rich and poor in one place are as meaningful as types of currency internationally. America's minimum wage can seem like vast wealth to people in India and Africa, as is our spending habits. To criticize the spending of 'the rich', means we should also question our own spending from the perspective of the starving homeless.

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

I agree.

The smartest people work up enough money to get maximum enjoyment out of their free time.

If the way they get enjoyment is actually making more money then fine, but most people just keep making money because they think it will make them happier, not because it does.

The greatest intellectual triumph is to understand your own wants.

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

There are other factors to consider.  If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.

Quote from: Raist on August 08, 2011, 11:35:25 AM

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

There are other factors to consider.  If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.

But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family.  You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress.  Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 13, 2011, 04:42:30 PM

Quote from: Raist on August 08, 2011, 11:35:25 AM

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

There are other factors to consider.  If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.

But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family.  You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress.  Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.

You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house?  I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days.  Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly

Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on August 13, 2011, 07:09:47 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 13, 2011, 04:42:30 PM

Quote from: Raist on August 08, 2011, 11:35:25 AM

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

There are other factors to consider.  If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.

But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family.  You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress.  Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.

You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house?  I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days.  Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly

Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.

20 years doesn't sound like a short period of time.  Especially when you put it in the context of how many years people actually work.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 13, 2011, 07:20:08 PM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on August 13, 2011, 07:09:47 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 13, 2011, 04:42:30 PM

Quote from: Raist on August 08, 2011, 11:35:25 AM

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

There are other factors to consider.  If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.

But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family.  You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress.  Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.

You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house?  I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days.  Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly

Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.

20 years doesn't sound like a short period of time.  Especially when you put it in the context of how many years people actually work.

Maybe replace short with unprofitable, same thing really.  When you are raising kids you usually arent earning to your full potential.

rich people are smarter than poor people, i don't think so

What a winning debate strategy.  Keep it up.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on August 13, 2011, 07:09:47 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 13, 2011, 04:42:30 PM

Quote from: Raist on August 08, 2011, 11:35:25 AM

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

There are other factors to consider.  If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.

But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family.  You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress.  Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.

You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house?  I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days.  Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly

Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.

So the rich are better because you say having money is better than not having money? Your only argument is "you'll have a few more million dollars for sacrificing years of your life" please keep your tautology elsewhere. In fact most studies suggest that earning more than ~100K a year does not increase your happiness significantly compared to earning 100k a year.

Money only has arbitrary value to those who use and spend it, we are all guilty of giving it a relative value. As children, we are raised to learn the value of money, and distinctions between rich and poor in one place are as meaningful as types of currency internationally. America's minimum wage can seem like vast wealth to people in India and Africa, as is our spending habits. To criticize the spending of 'the rich', means we should also question our own spending from the perspective of the starving homeless.

Agree. You gasp at her bag, others gasp at your diet.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 13, 2011, 07:20:08 PM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on August 13, 2011, 07:09:47 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 13, 2011, 04:42:30 PM

Quote from: Raist on August 08, 2011, 11:35:25 AM

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

There are other factors to consider.  If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.

But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family.  You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress.  Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.

You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house?  I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days.  Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly

Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.

So the rich are better because you say having money is better than not having money? Your only argument is "you'll have a few more million dollars for sacrificing years of your life" please keep your tautology elsewhere. In fact most studies suggest that earning more than ~100K a year does not increase your happiness significantly compared to earning 100k a year.

You are (deliberately?) missing my point.  I was replying to the comment that there is no point working once you have accumulated enough money to support you for life.

I was pointing at the fact that if you have accumulated enough wealth to retire, then you are at the peak of your profession, and can consider working a few more years to set up a legacy for your family  (as opposed to the "zero net gain" comment)

Quote from: Raist on August 15, 2011, 11:48:00 AM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 13, 2011, 07:20:08 PM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on August 13, 2011, 07:09:47 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on August 13, 2011, 04:42:30 PM

Quote from: Raist on August 08, 2011, 11:35:25 AM

@opening post

all of this assumes that gaining money is our ultimate goal. If it is not then smart people will attain only enough money to maximize their happiness. If more money will not make you any happier then working to attain more money is actually an economic loss. only an idiot would spend time (one of our most limited resources) on a marginal gain of 0.

There are other factors to consider.  If you have achieved success in your field, and are able to make a lot of money per hour/day of work, then it is in the best interest of your family and children to accumulate a nestegg of wealth that allows them to enjoy life without wasting time on inefficient service/trade based careers.

But, to echo you, there are other factors to consider when determining the best interests of your family.  You may have a job that is highly rewarding financially, but such jobs usually carry long hours and harsh stress.  Your family might consider that your happiness and availability in the evenings is more valuable to them than the extra money.

You are referring to the short period of time (20 years) when you have children in the house?  I was referring to the peak of your career, when you are very highly compensated and work very short days.  Most of my colleagues, when they try to retire, are retained as consultants, each time they try to quit their compensation is increased significantly

Sacrificing another couple of years in your 50s, by working a 30-35 hour week, to add a couple million to your savings is definitely worth it.

So the rich are better because you say having money is better than not having money? Your only argument is "you'll have a few more million dollars for sacrificing years of your life" please keep your tautology elsewhere. In fact most studies suggest that earning more than ~100K a year does not increase your happiness significantly compared to earning 100k a year.

You are (deliberately?) missing my point.  I was replying to the comment that there is no point working once you have accumulated enough money to support you for life.

I was pointing at the fact that if you have accumulated enough wealth to retire, then you are at the peak of your profession, and can consider working a few more years to set up a legacy for your family  (as opposed to the "zero net gain" comment)

I wasn't suggesting you stop working when you get enough money to live on. I simply meant only trying to attain a wage that maximizes your happiness. Working generally has a positive effect on health and attitude so working later into your life is not necessarily a negative. Like I said working to maximize happiness.

Q. Are rich people better than poor people?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?

A. Yes, they are.

Not always, there are plenty of rich people who are complete douchebags, and there are plenty of poor, or middle class people who are some of the nicest people I have ever met.

There are also plenty of rich people who are idiots, except for knowing how to make money (or maybe they just inherited it).  I also know a few people who are between poor and middle class, and they're rather smart.

Money is corruptible... a new holistic mode of transaction must take its place and will either porogressivley and steadily or, abruptly take hold; in the case people ignore the fact that money don't make the world go round, instead it drives it into the ground ...
 
there is no debate on this, people need to find ways of filling their lives with meaning and satisfaction which is less than 50% materially derived (this is the ideal) taking at least equal with what you give or less.

But the way things are at the moment it needs to change to more like 30 receive / 70 give ratio. . . the bright side is that part of giving can be to ones self not just others if you know how, things like growing your own veggies going camping and to the beach, playing a musical instrument etc.

Non religiously defined meditation or creative relaxation whatever you wanna call it, is a very easy way to sustain ones sanity without external props once you get the real hang of it, and it doesn't take a 15 years as a monk to achieve sound meditation skills either.

sure it costs fuel to go places for now, but if you can at least feed yourself without having more paid for food in your home than unpaid, then its going to be a lot easier to give more than you receive.

Those who have more money tend to use more resources and then complain that others are too unsuccessful (unhappy) so shouldn't use their money on cheap thrills Alcohol/drugs junk food etc and save but the rich do the same its just they spend on expensive thrills and then feel better happier whilst they are doing what they enjoy. But deep down there is no difference in mental state, when you take away the material distractions people are all the same and we all know that everyone is responsible for this world.

The Native American Quechoa Peoples have a saying that goes: if an individual fails or does something bad, the community all take the blame, recognising that they weren't attentive enough themselves at seeing the signs of alienation that the individual was experiencing or tending to their individualised needs...on the other hand when someone achieves or does something wonderful the whole community celebrates as though they have all achieved...there is no word in their language that denotes "I" only "we" indicating the sense of unity in the comm-unity

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 10:20:32 PM

Q. Are rich people better than poor people?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?

A. Yes, they are.

Not always, there are plenty of rich people who are complete douchebags, and there are plenty of poor, or middle class people who are some of the nicest people I have ever met.

There are also plenty of rich people who are idiots, except for knowing how to make money (or maybe they just inherited it).  I also know a few people who are between poor and middle class, and they're rather smart.

I said better, not nicer.

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 21, 2011, 12:05:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 10:20:32 PM

Q. Are rich people better than poor people?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Are rich people smarter than poor people?

A. Yes, they are.

Not always, there are plenty of rich people who are complete douchebags, and there are plenty of poor, or middle class people who are some of the nicest people I have ever met.

There are also plenty of rich people who are idiots, except for knowing how to make money (or maybe they just inherited it).  I also know a few people who are between poor and middle class, and they're rather smart.

I said better, not nicer.

What, other than monetary worth, makes one person better than another?

What, other than monetary worth, makes one person better than another?

Please see my FAQ in the first post. Rich people are better than poor people because they

- are smarter than poor people
- are more driven than poor people
- can maintain a better quality of life for themselves and their family

If the high school drop out single mother at your local soup kitchen had decided to stay in school and pursue an education then perhaps she wouldn't need to be begging for scraps to feed her family. Other women who had the wherewithal to stay in school, get a degree, and become skilled in a field are smarter and more driven in life. They will succeed where she failed. They are better than her.

Please see my FAQ in the first post. Rich people are better than poor people because they

- are smarter than poor people
- are more driven than poor people
- can maintain a better quality of life for themselves and their family

If the high school drop out single mother at your local soup kitchen had decided to stay in school and pursue an education then perhaps she wouldn't need to be begging for scraps to feed her family. Other women who had the wherewithal to get a degree and become skilled in a field are smarter and more driven in life. They will succeed where she failed. They are better than her.

So Paris Hilton is more driven than my friendly, neighborhood hobo?

So Paris Hilton is more driven than my friendly, neighborhood hobo?

Correct. Glancing over Paris's Wiki, I see quite a number of accomplishments. However, when I tried to search for "friendly, neighborhood hobo", Wiki wondered if I meant "friendly, neighborhood hbo" but then informed me that that article doesn't even exist.

Correct. Glancing over Paris's Wiki, I see quite a number of accomplishments. However, when I tried to search for "friendly, neighborhood hobo", Wiki wondered if I meant "friendly, neighborhood hbo" but then informed me that that article doesn't even exist.

Or does she have more accomplishments because she has more money to blow on lame tv shows, stupid little drugs, and designer purses holding cocaine? My neighborhood hobo works hard to sell his newspapers and is driven by his daily need for food.