That statement isn’t true. There are people that have but you’re saying this generally and that’s incorrect. Not everyone works “hard” to get a job that’s in high demand. There are plenty of people that know others and get in on that merit or they happen to have a set of skills that pertain to a job that pays a lot of money. Does this mean they worked harder? No, not at all. Did that pharmacist who spent years in school learning about medicine/medication work less than someone who spent years in school and now has a job because availability in that field is higher?
Again, you're missing the point which at this point is no surprise. Going to school for 8 years for higher education to become a pharmacist IS working hard. We are not debating what happens when they get to the certain position.
It has little to do with how hard you’ve worked and that’s the problem. You’re associating landing decent jobs and making loads of money with working harder and my fundamental criticism of that belief is that these people really are not working harder but happen to have jobs that are in demand.
And you've associated financial success with "luck and timing".
Why, because I didn’t directly state that rich people don’t deserve their wealth? They don’t. No one individual should have so much money. It’s insanity
This is ignorance at its finest. So rich people don't deserve their wealth, but poor people are poor because it's outside their control. How naive can you be?
LeBron is not the only one. There are people that work harder, if not as hard, that make SO much less. No one is saying that LeBron, or anyone else, sat on their ass and didn’t put all they could into it to be where they are but LeBron’s work ethic isn’t why he makes hundreds of millions of dollars. There are people that SHARE that ethic and do not make as much.Why? I’ve answered that.
You're literally repeating everything I just said. Lebron works hard. There are people that work harder. His job is higher demand. He gets paid more. Fair? Probably not.
No, it’s not in demand because only LeBron can do what he does. There’s other substantially less popular sports and events where people make a LOT less doing things “other people cannot.” As I’ve said, basketball is the second most popular sport on Earth. It’s viewed by many, which means it generates huge income. THIS is why LeBron gets what he does, in terms of financial gain.
Yes, and if Lebron was Sasha Vujecic, he wouldn't be generating the income he does. Lebron did not wake up one day and start making millions. While his freakish abilities helped, he had to work hard to develop his skill. You really seem to be focusing mostly on "luck" and societal forces and not enough on the work he put in. Again, do I agree it's fair that Lebron makes more than a doctor saving lives? Not necessarily but at the same time, the market has spoken. Do I think the Situation deserves anything than a big kick in the ass. No.. But it's the stupid Americans who keep him wealthy.
Who are you to say most people don’t want to work hard or do not?
And who are you to say most people do want to work hard? Who are you to say poor people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. If you're going to invoke the blatantly illogical and emotional "who are you to" clause, then we can agree to disagree and move on.
You said it yourself that Jews make money because they work hard (a problematic statement for a variety of reasons). You associate lots of money with lots of hard work and that’s a false cause fallacy. The hard work is parallel to how rich these people are, not the cause of how rich they are.
No, I said the Jews that I know came to this country with nothing, started at the bottom, spend a decade or two and moved to the middle or somewhere near the top. For someone claiming "strawman", you seem to be suffering from a reading deficiency.
I didn’t say no hard work. I was just explaining the two largest factors, which are factually why he’s wealthy. There’s no double standard here. I believe the middle and poor class are where they are due to market value as well. Stop strawmanning. It’s clogging the discussion./quote]
I'm not strawmanning, I'm calling out your premise that the MAIN or ONLY (I'm still not sure which one you're saying) difference between the rich and the poor is market demand.[quote]As I said in my previous post, Mark Cuban has made some HORRENDOUS business deals but has the capital to survive the falldown
But Mark Cuban was successful enough to obtain the funds necessary to make more liberal business deals.
The rich have much more room for failure, which is why they don’t fall as hard when it occurs. Why do you think we haven’t discussed that? Do you honestly believe the rich are rich because they’re just walking success machines, incapable of lackluster endeavors and investments? This is just unattached from reality.
Just as unrealistic claiming what you just claimed, and then claiming the poor are poor because it's out of control.
We don’t hold them as accountable because they have money and have a lot more than they reasonably should. Hell, the government doesn’t either. Look at the reaction of America’s government to the 2008 economic crisis. The major players failed miserably and were reimbursed for that failure via bailouts. How can we defend this model logically?
The rich don't often hold the rich accountable, I do. I didn't say it's a logical model, but unless you have a better model other than "let's adopt one that works for 5 million people!", you're just blowing smoke.
P.S. Don’t ask me why I’m responding. I most likely won’t again because you’ve failed to address more than half of my points in your last post. Beside that, I hope you appreciate the free education. I engage only a handful of people who express this potent strain of naivete. Feel blessed.
You haven't addressed any of my points. You haven't educated me. You've essentially said that rich people are responsible for A, B, and C, while poor people are essentially not responsible for anything because they're poor. That kind of logic resembles grade school naivete (which is ironic since you called me naive).
Theres generally no point to seriously discussing things with psmith. He'll just be belligerent and aggressive towards you while not really addressing the points.
This is amusing since I directly addressed your points, to which you responded with sarcasm. There's a reason people only keep debates with you focused on star wars, and not social issues.