QuoteFull-time jobs are getting harder to find
Andrea Mulhearn Brobst wants a full-time job.
Despite having a four-year degree in business, she's only been able to find a low-paying part-time retail job since she was laid off "from a real job at the beginning of this economic mess," she said.
And Kathi Nguyen has been relying on temporary jobs since she lost her full-time corporate position in 2007. "It's just an extremely frustrating situation," she said. "I want full-time."
Unfortunately, finding a coveted full-time gig has gotten harder since the Great Recession hit, and last week's May unemployment data showed the problem is getting worse.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an uptick in the number of workers classified as "involuntary part time," or those who'd rather be working a 40-hour plus week. The data shows the number of people working part time for economic reasons climbed above 8 million in May.
There are two types of employees that come under the involuntary part-time category: those who are working fewer hours because their present employer cut back hours due to business conditions, and those who just can't find full-time jobs.
While the number of employees who saw their full-time work schedules cut by their existing employers stayed about even with last month, and declined 8.8 percent from last year; the number of workers who could only find part-time jobs rose about 12 percent to 2.6 million in May, and increased about the same percentage compared to the same month last year.
And since the recession began in 2008, the number of people who were part time because they couldn't find a full-time position skyrocketed by 1.4 million individuals, or 117 percent, according to research by Heidi Shierholz, economist for the Economic Policy Institute.
"It's probably more a story of job opportunities," she said. "Desperate workers have to settle with what they can find."
Companies are just not willing to take on many more workers in this economy, even though employers are starting to see signs of economic life.
"Employers are reluctant to add full-time, permanent employees and they're looking for innovative ways to respond to business," said Craig Rowley, vice president of human resource consulting company Hay Group.
The big question, he said, is how do they respond to an uptick in sales without adding fixed expenses such as permanent workers? "They look at temp workers and employing more part time employees," he said.
While Rowley said companies will add more full-time workers as the economy continues to improve, the employment world is shifting to a more just-in-time model. "They are looking for a more flexible workforce," he said, especially in retail and healthcare.
That flexibility, however, isn't good news for workers who want full-time, permanent jobs.
"The constant fluctuation in hours from week to week means that workers face ongoing uncertainty about their earnings," stated Nancy Kauthen, a sociologist and policy consultant in a 2011 report titled: "Scheduling Hourly Workers: How last minute, just-in-time scheduling practices are bad for workers, families and business." "The financial instability alone can create tremendous stress for low- to moderate-income families who never know whether their wages will cover the monthly bills."
I have a full time job.
Consider yourself lucky.
Now I just need me a white woman and I'll be livin' the American dream.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 10:58:47 PM
Consider yourself lucky.
If we're going down that route, there are millions of other things that pretty much all of us here should feel lucky for. I'm not even sure that should make the top 5.
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 11:20:13 PM
If we're going down that route, there are millions of other things that pretty much all of us here should feel lucky for. I'm not even sure that should make the top 5.
Pfft, like what? Health? Family? Living in a country with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives?
OK, I guess I'm lucky I have hands. Makes whacking off a hell of a lot easier.
Kinda in the same boat, given that my job can disappear from beneath me at any moment--and the cocksucking fucktards whose work I pass judgment on and who are coming dangerously close to fucking up our deadlines with their staggering ineptitude aren't helping one bit with the job security, since a reputation for at least basic competence for my employer would mean more subsequent projects for me.
Yet, despite garbon's sophistry, I must consider myself lucky indeed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 11:24:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 11:20:13 PM
If we're going down that route, there are millions of other things that pretty much all of us here should feel lucky for. I'm not even sure that should make the top 5.
Pfft, like what? Health? Family? Living in a country with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives?
OK, I guess I'm lucky I have hands. Makes whacking off a hell of a lot easier.
Sorry, B. I really wasn't thinking about you.
Quote from: Jaron on June 04, 2012, 11:00:03 PM
Now I just need me a white woman and I'll be livin' the American dream.
You live in Mormon-land, so you know what you must do...
Does balancing a few part time jobs count?
As management, I hate the civilian workforce. Bunch of twats. Unions too.
At home I couldn't even get a crappy part time job due to being overqualified.
QuoteKinda in the same boat, given that my job can disappear from beneath me at any moment--and the cocksucking fucktards whose work I pass judgment on and who are coming dangerously close to fucking up our deadlines with their staggering ineptitude aren't helping one bit with the job security, since a reputation for at least basic competence for my employer would mean more subsequent projects for me.
Yet, despite garbon's sophistry, I must consider myself lucky indeed.
At least you're doing something useful in the meantime even if this job is temporary, you're building experience in the field you want to enter.
I understand your comment is well meaning, but no, I'm not. Doc review is nothing like the practice of law. Well, they're both boring, I guess.
Doesn't mean I don't like it, I actually do. But there is not much future for a man who works the sea in the practice of law for me, or really for just about anybody else that isn't in it already or much, much better at it than I am. I'm pretty much at peace with that.
No island left for islanders like me. :weep:
I'm working full-time and doing a bit extra on the side. :)
Too bad I had to move 7500 miles to get the job.
So this is the paradise that you guys want me to move to?
Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2012, 05:21:48 AM
So this is the paradise that you guys want me to move to?
Oh yeah, because everybody over here speaks the two most important languages in modern business fluently. :rolleyes:
You're a dumbass, anyway. We don't even want you anymore.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2012, 05:21:48 AM
So this is the paradise that you guys want me to move to?
Article wasn't about Canada.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2012, 05:51:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 05:24:07 AM
We don't even want you anymore.
:weep:
There, there. There, there. :console:
You wouldn't be happy here anyway. Not enough endangered species parts on the menu to impress the neighbors.
I have a full time job. :)
Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2012, 05:51:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 05:24:07 AM
We don't even want you anymore.
:weep:
Mono - of course the US doesn't want you. You don't have a US passport anyways.
But you do have a Canadian passport. And the Canadian economy is thriving (well, the western portion is at least). :contract:
Quote from: The Brain on June 05, 2012, 12:33:33 PM
I have a full time job. :)
:rolleyes: You have marketable skills.
I want a green full-time shovel-ready job.
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
I think that road is paved with failed small businesses.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2012, 01:12:32 PM
I want a green full-time shovel-ready job.
Grave digger?
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Oh how I wish I could mention some stuff from The Back Room, Mr. "I'm an entrepeneur". :contract:
Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2012, 01:24:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2012, 01:12:32 PM
I want a green full-time shovel-ready job.
Grave digger?
Could be a growth industry if these here death panels come to fruition :P
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2012, 01:21:09 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
I think that road is paved with failed small businesses.
Your average small business owner fails five or six times before he succeeds. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 05, 2012, 01:39:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2012, 01:21:09 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
I think that road is paved with failed small businesses.
Your average small business owner fails five or six times before he succeeds. :)
Many of us don't live that long. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 05, 2012, 01:39:46 PM
Your average small business owner fails five or six times before he succeeds. :)
Like criminals with long rap sheets, maybe they should find something else to do.
I'm glad none of you people were around to talk Colonel Sanders out of his fried chicken business idea. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on June 05, 2012, 07:24:13 PM
I'm glad none of you people were around to talk Colonel Sanders out of his fried chicken business idea. :mad:
Or more importantly, Truett Cathy.
The more I work with entrepreneurs and small business owners, the more I wonder if the high failure rate is in relation to the high stupidity rate of the people who open businesses.
I've worked with people running their own thing that didn't even realize the first thing about balancing their books.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2012, 07:28:27 PM
Or more importantly, Truett Cathy.
I
wish you people were around to talk him out of being a Christian wacko. :(
Quote from: Caliga on June 05, 2012, 07:37:01 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2012, 07:28:27 PM
Or more importantly, Truett Cathy.
I wish you people were around to talk him out of being a Christian wacko. :(
Somebody was craving Chick Fil A on Sunday.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2012, 07:37:51 PM
Somebody was craving Chick Fil A on Sunday.
Dude, those fucking Banana Pudding shakes are liquid fucking crack.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 08:03:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2012, 07:37:51 PM
Somebody was craving Chick Fil A on Sunday.
Dude, those fucking Banana Pudding shakes are liquid fucking crack.
100+ grams of sugar will do that.
Chik-n-Minis for breakfast. BEST BREAKFAST EVER.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2012, 08:16:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 08:03:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2012, 07:37:51 PM
Somebody was craving Chick Fil A on Sunday.
Dude, those fucking Banana Pudding shakes are liquid fucking crack.
100+ grams of sugar will do that.
It has real bananas. AND. REAL. CHUNKS. OF. PIE. CRUST.
I'm glad I was accepted in plumbery/heating school this fall - the demand's so great it'll be nigh-on impossible not to find work. :cool:
Sure, but you'll be working in buildings that aren't climate controlled. :o
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2012, 09:10:22 PM
Sure, but you'll be working in buildings that aren't climate controlled. :o
After he's done with them though, watch out!
Yeah, while I certainly am concerned about the lack of jobs, it isn't really a matter of luck.
Quote from: Drakken on June 05, 2012, 09:05:04 PM
I'm glad I was accepted in plumbery/heating school this fall - the demand's so great it'll be nigh-on impossible not to find work. :cool:
Nice. I'm think about going into something like that too. Electrician would be fun but everyone is a damn electrician already.
Plumber, there's an idea.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:05:45 AM
Yeah, while I certainly am concerned about the lack of jobs, it isn't really a matter of luck.
That is correct. It's a matter of a better Union. :lol:
Quote from: Strix on June 06, 2012, 11:57:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:05:45 AM
Yeah, while I certainly am concerned about the lack of jobs, it isn't really a matter of luck.
That is correct. It's a matter of a better Union. :lol:
I hope Scott Walker becomes governor of New York when he's done in Wisconsin.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 06, 2012, 11:28:25 AM
Plumber, there's an idea.
Good luck. When I passed my admission test we were around 200 applicants that day, for that school, and I heard through the grapevine they would take only one in three applicants. The Sec 4 Math questions weren't doozies, especially given that I haven't been in high school since the 90s. :sleep:
Everyone reasonably good in school and going the professional way attempt to enter in plumbery/heating because it's very well paid even during companionship. So come prepared, and do practice your manual/finger dexterity before, you'll need it.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Oh how I wish I could mention some stuff from The Back Room, Mr. "I'm an entrepeneur". :contract:
I am proof that anyone, no matter how crappy a businessman, can succeed as an entrepreneur. But you are proof that a Ukrainian, no matter how successful, can't spell 'entrepreneur.'
Quote from: Drakken on June 05, 2012, 09:05:04 PM
I'm glad I was accepted in plumbery/heating school this fall - the demand's so great it'll be nigh-on impossible not to find work. :cool:
No shit.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:05:45 AM
Yeah, while I certainly am concerned about the lack of jobs, it isn't really a matter of luck.
It's definitely not all a matter of luck, but to say there is no luck involved is the height of hubris. There is luck involved in being good at things that are in demand, there is luck involved in graduating during a boom economy, there is unfortunately a lot of luck in the interviewing process, etc, etc.
Yes, if you're a genius with no serious flaws, you probably won't ever stay unemployed for long. However, we can't all be at the top of the field, and the success level of people in the middle can hinge greatly on having a moment of good fortune at the right time. On average, the economy is made up of average people.
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Oh how I wish I could mention some stuff from The Back Room, Mr. "I'm an entrepeneur". :contract:
I am proof that anyone, no matter how crappy a businessman, can succeed as an entrepreneur. But you are proof that a Ukrainian, no matter how successful, can't spell 'entrepreneur.'
I would say more, but I feel bound by the TBR Oath of Secrecy. -_-
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:05:45 AM
Yeah, while I certainly am concerned about the lack of jobs, it isn't really a matter of luck.
It's definitely not all a matter of luck, but to say there is no luck involved is the height of hubris. There is luck involved in being good at things that are in demand, there is luck involved in graduating during a boom economy, there is unfortunately a lot of luck in the interviewing process, etc, etc.
Yes, if you're a genius with no serious flaws, you probably won't ever stay unemployed for long. However, we can't all be at the top of the field, and the success level of people in the middle can hinge greatly on having a moment of good fortune at the right time. On average, the economy is made up of average people.
There is also this: job fields are like investments, in that following the common wisdom leads to being victimized by boom/bust cycles. Sure,
right now, being a plumber is in demand, but it won't be forever if it is widely seen as a good job to go into.
Same happened with law. Used to be, become a lawyer, get a high-paying job ... which led to a lot of people becomming lawyers. Suddenly, it isn't so easy to get a job as one.
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:05:45 AM
Yeah, while I certainly am concerned about the lack of jobs, it isn't really a matter of luck.
It's definitely not all a matter of luck, but to say there is no luck involved is the height of hubris. There is luck involved in being good at things that are in demand, there is luck involved in graduating during a boom economy, there is unfortunately a lot of luck in the interviewing process, etc, etc.
Yes, if you're a genius with no serious flaws, you probably won't ever stay unemployed for long. However, we can't all be at the top of the field, and the success level of people in the middle can hinge greatly on having a moment of good fortune at the right time. On average, the economy is made up of average people.
There is also this: job fields are like investments, in that following the common wisdom leads to being victimized by boom/bust cycles. Sure, right now, being a plumber is in demand, but it won't be forever if it is widely seen as a good job to go into.
Same happened with law. Used to be, become a lawyer, get a high-paying job ... which led to a lot of people becomming lawyers. Suddenly, it isn't so easy to get a job as one.
Since becoming a plumber means having to work with feces on a regular basis I suspect it will always be an in-demand job...
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 03:16:48 PM
Since becoming a plumber means having to work with feces on a regular basis I suspect it will always be an in-demand job...
I've met a few master plumbers that drive nice fucking Benzes on the weekend on their way to their club level PSL season tickets for the Ravens.
Plumbers and electricians can really make beau coup bucks, but it's not a glorious enough occupation. That's why they're screaming for apprentices to get into the business--it's just not glamorous enough.
No TV dramas based on plumbers, I guess. ZOMG TURN ON THE TV "GREYS ALKALINITY" IS COMING ON
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 03:16:48 PM
Since becoming a plumber means having to work with feces on a regular basis I suspect it will always be an in-demand job...
Companions and apprentices, plus those in home repair service, deal with feces.
Plumbers can also work on installing pipes and plumbery systems on construction sites, and also both fix and install heating systems in both residential, commercial, and industrial settings. My future formation would handle both plumbery and heating, and with a Red Seal certificate I could work anywhere in Canada.
EDIT : CDM beat me to it, more eloquently. :blush:
And think of all the bored housewives you'll get to communally seduce. :)
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Oh how I wish I could mention some stuff from The Back Room, Mr. "I'm an entrepeneur". :contract:
I am proof that anyone, no matter how crappy a businessman, can succeed as an entrepreneur. But you are proof that a Ukrainian, no matter how successful, can't spell 'entrepreneur.'
I would say more, but I feel bound by the TBR Oath of Secrecy. -_-
Whatever. I release you, so you can unleash your rhetorical hounds.
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Oh how I wish I could mention some stuff from The Back Room, Mr. "I'm an entrepeneur". :contract:
I am proof that anyone, no matter how crappy a businessman, can succeed as an entrepreneur. But you are proof that a Ukrainian, no matter how successful, can't spell 'entrepreneur.'
I would say more, but I feel bound by the TBR Oath of Secrecy. -_-
Whatever. I release you, so you can unleash your rhetorical hounds.
^_^
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Oh how I wish I could mention some stuff from The Back Room, Mr. "I'm an entrepeneur". :contract:
I am proof that anyone, no matter how crappy a businessman, can succeed as an entrepreneur. But you are proof that a Ukrainian, no matter how successful, can't spell 'entrepreneur.'
I would say more, but I feel bound by the TBR Oath of Secrecy. -_-
Whatever. I release you, so you can unleash your rhetorical hounds.
Since Beeb isn't here:
You work for the fucking government, Mr. Gekko.
I'm pretty sure that's how he would've put it. :P It just happens to be the same way I'd put it, because I think I know him well enough to say that Beeb is also appalled that you, champion of private industry that you are, work for the state, while I work for a giant corporation. :lol:
Scip only partly works for the gummint, though. As far as I know, he maintains his private practice.
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Oh how I wish I could mention some stuff from The Back Room, Mr. "I'm an entrepeneur". :contract:
I am proof that anyone, no matter how crappy a businessman, can succeed as an entrepreneur. But you are proof that a Ukrainian, no matter how successful, can't spell 'entrepreneur.'
I would say more, but I feel bound by the TBR Oath of Secrecy. -_-
Whatever. I release you, so you can unleash your rhetorical hounds.
For being the proud Captain of Private Industry, you seemed pretty fucking desperate to latch onto the sweet, sweet government teet when given the option.
Not that there's anythign wrong with that - of course. Just don't put yourself out there as some kind of paragon of entrepreneureal spirit, is all.
But he doesn't do that for money, he does that for power... Which he can then misuse later for even more money :P
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 12:09:46 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Oh how I wish I could mention some stuff from The Back Room, Mr. "I'm an entrepeneur". :contract:
I am proof that anyone, no matter how crappy a businessman, can succeed as an entrepreneur. But you are proof that a Ukrainian, no matter how successful, can't spell 'entrepreneur.'
I would say more, but I feel bound by the TBR Oath of Secrecy. -_-
Whatever. I release you, so you can unleash your rhetorical hounds.
For being the proud Captain of Private Industry, you seemed pretty fucking desperate to latch onto the sweet, sweet government teet when given the option.
Not that there's anythign wrong with that - of course. Just don't put yourself out there as some kind of paragon of entrepreneureal spirit, is all.
Wow, I was actually pretty close. :lol:
That's par for the course. Hans rails on the government all the time, but that doesn't prevent him from holding six jobs in it.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 01:51:46 AM
That's par for the course. Hans rails on the government all the time, but that doesn't prevent him from holding six jobs in it.
That's what happens when you keep firing your commanders.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:05:45 AM
Yeah, while I certainly am concerned about the lack of jobs, it isn't really a matter of luck.
It's definitely not all a matter of luck, but to say there is no luck involved is the height of hubris. There is luck involved in being good at things that are in demand, there is luck involved in graduating during a boom economy, there is unfortunately a lot of luck in the interviewing process, etc, etc.
Yes, if you're a genius with no serious flaws, you probably won't ever stay unemployed for long. However, we can't all be at the top of the field, and the success level of people in the middle can hinge greatly on having a moment of good fortune at the right time. On average, the economy is made up of average people.
There is also luck involved in simply being in the right place at the right time. I would probably not have applied for a summer trainee programme at my law firm had I not met my future boss who was one of the judges at a moot court competition I participated in - and he told me to apply. Twelve years on I am being considered for partnership at the same firm, even though I used to think I would never cut it out in the corporate world and wanted to go into academia instead before that competition.
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 03:16:48 PMSince becoming a plumber means having to work with feces on a regular basis I suspect it will always be an in-demand job...
This, metaphorically, works for being a lawyer too. :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:05:45 AM
Yeah, while I certainly am concerned about the lack of jobs, it isn't really a matter of luck.
It's definitely not all a matter of luck, but to say there is no luck involved is the height of hubris. There is luck involved in being good at things that are in demand, there is luck involved in graduating during a boom economy, there is unfortunately a lot of luck in the interviewing process, etc, etc.
Yes, if you're a genius with no serious flaws, you probably won't ever stay unemployed for long. However, we can't all be at the top of the field, and the success level of people in the middle can hinge greatly on having a moment of good fortune at the right time. On average, the economy is made up of average people.
There is also this: job fields are like investments, in that following the common wisdom leads to being victimized by boom/bust cycles. Sure, right now, being a plumber is in demand, but it won't be forever if it is widely seen as a good job to go into.
Same happened with law. Used to be, become a lawyer, get a high-paying job ... which led to a lot of people becomming lawyers. Suddenly, it isn't so easy to get a job as one.
I am not sure about that. Sure, it seems so on the face value, but there have always been tons of lawyers around - but good lawyers are actually quite hard to find. We get tons of applications from young graduates but most of them prove sub-par, whether intellectually or because they are simply not willing to work hard enough. I think a lot of people in the 2000s went into lawyering thinking it is big but also easy money. It can be big but you also need to work your ass off and sacrifice a lot in terms of personal life, quality of life and personal health. Otherwise you are just a glorified clerk.
Edit: I think the thing was that, at least in Poland, 1990s was the first decade where high flying lawyers actually started earning really big buck. So people started to look at them and go into law to earn the same money. But it's a bit like professional sports or acting - the people who earn a lot of money are really the top tier 1% - the rest do not really earn that much.
Marty, I always thought your great stroke of good fortune was your parents decision to get you private English lessons, resulting in you being one of three English-speaking Polish lawyers when the Wall came down.
There is a tremendous amount of luck involved, being born in modern times in countries like the USA or the UK is a huge piece of luck for example.
Having been dealt one's cards, however, the hand can be played well or badly.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 07, 2012, 03:04:15 AM
There is a tremendous amount of luck involved, being born in modern times in countries like the USA or the UK is a huge piece of luck for example.
Having been dealt one's cards, however, the hand can be played well or badly.
That's right. How many of you fuckers could've survived being born female in Mali?
Well, maybe Ide. Fucker's skinny enough. Would probably have won the Boston Marathon.
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 12:09:46 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Working for yourself, for fuckssakes. Where's the entrepreneurial spirit? Whining see-you-next-Tuesdays!
Oh how I wish I could mention some stuff from The Back Room, Mr. "I'm an entrepeneur". :contract:
I am proof that anyone, no matter how crappy a businessman, can succeed as an entrepreneur. But you are proof that a Ukrainian, no matter how successful, can't spell 'entrepreneur.'
I would say more, but I feel bound by the TBR Oath of Secrecy. -_-
Whatever. I release you, so you can unleash your rhetorical hounds.
For being the proud Captain of Private Industry, you seemed pretty fucking desperate to latch onto the sweet, sweet government teet when given the option.
Not that there's anythign wrong with that - of course. Just don't put yourself out there as some kind of paragon of entrepreneureal spirit, is all.
I never said I was a Captain of Private Industry; I said that I could make a living. Did I get a part-time government job? Absolutely. I've got three part time jobs because my wife and I plan to be debt-free, including the mortgage, within seven years.
I'm sorry that I have to work to get ahead. But I've never not worked since I was in high school.
And it's not like Scip is working down at the local Medicare office; he's wielding the velvet gauntlet of justice.
Quote from: Scipio on June 07, 2012, 06:54:36 AM
I've got three part time jobs because my wife and I plan to be debt-free, including the mortgage, within seven years.
:hug:
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 03:16:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:05:45 AM
Yeah, while I certainly am concerned about the lack of jobs, it isn't really a matter of luck.
It's definitely not all a matter of luck, but to say there is no luck involved is the height of hubris. There is luck involved in being good at things that are in demand, there is luck involved in graduating during a boom economy, there is unfortunately a lot of luck in the interviewing process, etc, etc.
Yes, if you're a genius with no serious flaws, you probably won't ever stay unemployed for long. However, we can't all be at the top of the field, and the success level of people in the middle can hinge greatly on having a moment of good fortune at the right time. On average, the economy is made up of average people.
There is also this: job fields are like investments, in that following the common wisdom leads to being victimized by boom/bust cycles. Sure, right now, being a plumber is in demand, but it won't be forever if it is widely seen as a good job to go into.
Same happened with law. Used to be, become a lawyer, get a high-paying job ... which led to a lot of people becomming lawyers. Suddenly, it isn't so easy to get a job as one.
Since becoming a plumber means having to work with feces on a regular basis I suspect it will always be an in-demand job...
Hey, lawyers have to work with feces on a regular basis too - only, the two-legged variety. ;)
Quote from: Caliga on June 07, 2012, 06:57:59 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 07, 2012, 06:54:36 AM
I've got three part time jobs because my wife and I plan to be debt-free, including the mortgage, within seven years.
:hug:
I wish I could do that...but I am working towards my Engineering degree still and that sorta takes up all my non-kid rearing non-working non-Languish time.
However I think everything should be paid off, except the house but that is ok because we are going to sell once I finish my degree, in less than three.
Debt = just a bad idea. Never again.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2012, 08:24:36 AM
Debt = just a bad idea. Never again.
Actually, you got rid of crazy debt-maker - THAT never again ;)
:cool:
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2012, 08:24:36 AM
Debt = just a bad idea. Never again.
Definitely; I've got nothing on me but a mortgage and a car payment in addition to monthly living expenses.
Until they totally eliminate the mortgage interest deductions, you should have at least
something in the way of a mortgage, even if it's a little one that has a negligible impact on your expenses.
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2012, 02:14:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 03:16:48 PMSince becoming a plumber means having to work with feces on a regular basis I suspect it will always be an in-demand job...
This, metaphorically, works for being a lawyer too. :P
Bah. Lots of jobs have you working with metaphorical shit all the time.
There's a world of difference between that, and dealing with literal shit.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2012, 08:24:36 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 07, 2012, 06:57:59 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 07, 2012, 06:54:36 AM
I've got three part time jobs because my wife and I plan to be debt-free, including the mortgage, within seven years.
:hug:
I wish I could do that...but I am working towards my Engineering degree still and that sorta takes up all my non-kid rearing non-working non-Languish time.
....
Isn't it going to take a long time to get you engineering degree at the rate of one hour per fortnight ? :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2012, 08:24:36 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 07, 2012, 06:57:59 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 07, 2012, 06:54:36 AM
I've got three part time jobs because my wife and I plan to be debt-free, including the mortgage, within seven years.
:hug:
I wish I could do that...but I am working towards my Engineering degree still and that sorta takes up all my non-kid rearing non-working non-Languish time.
However I think everything should be paid off, except the house but that is ok because we are going to sell once I finish my degree, in less than three.
Debt = just a bad idea. Never again.
My celebration of D-Day (debt-free day) is comming soon. :) On August 1, to be exact!
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 08:44:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2012, 02:14:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 03:16:48 PMSince becoming a plumber means having to work with feces on a regular basis I suspect it will always be an in-demand job...
This, metaphorically, works for being a lawyer too. :P
Bah. Lots of jobs have you working with metaphorical shit all the time.
There's a world of difference between that, and dealing with literal shit.
What every plumber wants is to end up being the guy who orders his apprentices to deal with the literal shit. ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 08:41:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2012, 08:24:36 AM
Debt = just a bad idea. Never again.
Definitely; I've got nothing on me but a mortgage and a car payment in addition to monthly living expenses.
Until they totally eliminate the mortgage interest deductions, you should have at least something in the way of a mortgage, even if it's a little one that has a negligible impact on your expenses.
I can't wait for my car to be paid off at the end of this month! :w00t:
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2012, 10:02:15 AM
I can't wait for my car to be paid off at the end of this month! :w00t:
That's awesome. I hated getting a car payment after years of not having one. :cry:
Quote from: mongers on June 07, 2012, 08:45:24 AM
Isn't it going to take a long time to get you engineering degree at the rate of one hour per fortnight ? :P
Well it sure is not going to be fast :P
I just got accepted into the program at the end of last year after several years of hard work. Now probably three more years to go.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 08:41:00 AM
Until they totally eliminate the mortgage interest deductions, you should have at least something in the way of a mortgage, even if it's a little one that has a negligible impact on your expenses.
If I really want deductions I will just donate money to charity.
Quote from: Malthus on June 07, 2012, 07:47:52 AM
Hey, lawyers have to work with feces on a regular basis too - only, the two-legged variety. ;)
Mostly other lawyers.
So we decided that people with full time jobs really are lucky, because they were born in the USA or the West in general?
Hmmm. I think I will stick with "Yeah...sure, except that it isn't really about luck...."
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 11:26:14 AM
So we decided that people with full time jobs really are lucky, because they were born in the USA or the West in general?
Hmmm. I think I will stick with "Yeah...sure, except that it isn't really about luck...."
I dunno man.
First we are absolutely lucky to have been born in the West, and not to Chinese peasant farmers or Indian slum dwellers.
Second, within the west we are lucky to have been born to middle-class or working-class families. Every day I deal with adults who I know never got a fair crack at life by virtue of being born to unemployed, drug or alcohol-addicted parents. As an aside I dealt with a file yesterday where police responded to a complaint of unattended children. Sure enough there were 4 kids, ranging from 5 to infant, a couple of whom were wandering the halls of the apartment building, and the 4 adults present were each one passed out drunk.
Finally, I'm pretty sure each of us has had a few lucky breaks in our careers. Sure I could've been luckier still, but while my last few jobs have been because I've built a solid resume, my first couple... they could have hired any number of people, and I can't say why they chose me.
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 11:32:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 11:26:14 AM
So we decided that people with full time jobs really are lucky, because they were born in the USA or the West in general?
Hmmm. I think I will stick with "Yeah...sure, except that it isn't really about luck...."
I dunno man.
First we are absolutely lucky to have been born in the West, and not to Chinese peasant farmers or Indian slum dwellers.
Of course. But I don't think that is the point the article is trying to make.
After all, that is true no matter what the economic times are right now.
Quote
Second, within the west we are lucky to have been born to middle-class or working-class families.
You might have been, I was not. My parents never made enough money to be above the poverty line until after I moved out of the house, and I was the 4th of 5 kids.
Quote
Every day I deal with adults who I know never got a fair crack at life by virtue of being born to unemployed, drug or alcohol-addicted parents.
Yeah, know how they feel.
But did they really not get a "fair" crack? Their shot at a decent life was a hell of a lot better than probably about 2 billion other people on the planet by virtue of the fact that they were born in Canada, for example, instead of Zimbabwe.
So are they unlucky to be born to loser parents, or lucky to be born in Canada?
Quote
As an aside I dealt with a file yesterday where police responded to a complaint of unattended children. Sure enough there were 4 kids, ranging from 5 to infant, a couple of whom were wandering the halls of the apartment building, and the 4 adults present were each one passed out drunk.
That does suck.
But while it is unfortunate those kids are not getting as good a shot as we would all like, the idea that they have NO shot is bullshit. And when two of them figure it out and make it anyway, and the other two do not, the two failures will decry their lack of "luck" and the two successful ones will think "Damn, I am so lucky to have gotten out of there....".
But it won't be about luck in either case, not really.
Quote
Finally, I'm pretty sure each of us has had a few lucky breaks in our careers. Sure I could've been luckier still, but while my last few jobs have been because I've built a solid resume, my first couple... they could have hired any number of people, and I can't say why they chose me.
No question everyone has some lucky breaks.
But there are unlucky breaks as well.
It is like someone complaining that they always end up with assholes in their relationships, and why can't they catch a break and find someone nice for a change - lets go down to the bar and see who we can hook up with tonight...
Yes, there is a lot of luck in life, but mostly your success or lack thereof is driven by you. It was not "luck" that got you a law degree, it is not "luck" that gets you to work every morning.
Yes, some people are truly unlucky, and some people are truly fortunate. But mostly everyone gets out of life about what they are willing to put into it - the idea that "luck" is a primary driving factor for most people is an excuse, for better or worse.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 11:44:08 AM
That does suck.
But while it is unfortunate those kids are not getting as good a shot as we would all like, the idea that they have NO shot is bullshit. And when two of them figure it out and make it anyway, and the other two do not, the two failures will decry their lack of "luck" and the two successful ones will think "Damn, I am so lucky to have gotten out of there....".
That misses a larger point, though. Being born in circumstances that require you to excel just to pull yourself out of vicious cycle is bad luck on its own. We can't all be geniuses with infinite willpower and resourcefulness. Someone with average skills will thrive if he were born as a trust fund baby, and flounder if he were born to two drug addicts. You can't say that luck had nothing to do with the secound guy's life sucking, because it is possible to overcome these circumstances. Just becuase a skilled poker player can win with a bad hand doesn't mean that getting a bad hand is not bad luck.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 11:53:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 11:44:08 AM
That does suck.
But while it is unfortunate those kids are not getting as good a shot as we would all like, the idea that they have NO shot is bullshit. And when two of them figure it out and make it anyway, and the other two do not, the two failures will decry their lack of "luck" and the two successful ones will think "Damn, I am so lucky to have gotten out of there....".
That misses a larger point, though. Being born in circumstances that require you to excel just to pull yourself out of vicious cycle is bad luck on its own. We can't all be geniuses with infinite willpower and resourcefulness. Someone with average skills will thrive if he were born as a trust fund baby, and flounder if he were born to two drug addicts. You can't say that luck had nothing to do with the secound guy's life sucking, because it is possible to overcome these circumstances. Just becuase a skilled poker player can win with a bad hand doesn't mean that getting a bad hand is not bad luck.
I think that misses the even larger point though - when the skilled poker player wins the game over all the hands he gets, we don't say "Oh yeah, he was lucky..." No, we say "Yeah, that is a skilled player". You can't just look at one hand, you have to look at the overall result. Those with skill know how to overcome the bad luck and exploit the good luck.
Someone with average skill, intelligence, willpower, whatever, will have average results. And that isn't a matter of luck either - that is a matter of them getting the results their skill and dedication achieved for them.
The larger point here is that the fundamental good luck we all enjoy is that we live in societies where your success or failure is largely dependent on your own abilities, rather than on your particular circumstances. There is enough opportunity in both Canada and the US that even those who are not fortunate enough to be born with that silver spoon still have enough opportunity to excel, or even have an average, middle class life.
Of course everyone's success is dependent on things outside their control as well, and their family background is part of that. But it is a small part compared to their own ability, at least in our modern societies anyway.
So again, having a full time job is not really a matter of luck. Just like winning a game of poker is not a matter of luck, even if there is plenty of luck involved.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2012, 10:14:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 08:41:00 AM
Until they totally eliminate the mortgage interest deductions, you should have at least something in the way of a mortgage, even if it's a little one that has a negligible impact on your expenses.
If I really want deductions I will just donate money to charity.
lol, like there are any charities out there you'd shovel that much money to.
I think DGullers poker analogy really does an excellent job of ullustrating just what I mean.
Bad poker players will lose at poker, and say "Man, I just don't have any luck!" and focus on those bad hands where they couldn't draw to that inside straight, and think "Yeah, I lost because I was just not lucky!"
Good poker players just keep winning the bad players money, and they don't do it because they are so damn lucky, but because they know how to mitigate the bad hands, and make their opponenets pay on the good hands, and how to tell the difference between the two.
The outcome, however, is rarely in doubt. Those who are better will do better than those who are not as skilled. And that has nothing to do with luck, even if there is a lot of randomness in the mechanics of the game.
Berkut, I don't know your family background, and don't wish to pry about it.
I would suggest money though has little to do with it. I know plenty of people raised in poverty, but by parents who taught their children the value of hard work and stressed education, and whose children have done very well.
The kids who hardly have a chance are those who taught their children how to live on welfare, taught their children that school is not important, that it's okay to get drunk out of your mind at 2 in the afternoon. And lets not forget those children born with brain damage due to pre-natal substance abuse.
As to DGuller's poker analogy - it works when you consider that you only get one hand of cards to play. Over a whole series of games the cards do tend to average out and skill can begin to show. But you don't get a whole series of lives to live - you only get one. As a result it takes a hell of a lot of skill to win when your hand is a 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 of different suits.
How does the poker analogy even work? The circumstances you are born into define who you are. Maybe some stuff is innate, but I don't think I would have the same values, etc. if I was born in precolumbian mesoamerica.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 07, 2012, 12:38:28 PM
How does the poker analogy even work? The circumstances you are born into define who you are. Maybe some stuff is innate, but I don't think I would have the same values, etc. if I was born in precolumbian mesoamerica.
What value is there in saying someone is lucky to not have been a precolumbian mesoamerican?
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2012, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 07, 2012, 12:38:28 PM
How does the poker analogy even work? The circumstances you are born into define who you are. Maybe some stuff is innate, but I don't think I would have the same values, etc. if I was born in precolumbian mesoamerica.
What value is there in saying someone is lucky to not have been a precolumbian mesoamerican?
Depending on your personality and role in society, it could have been pretty sweet.
What I was getting at is that who we are is a product of our environment. It doesn't make so much sense to compare a person's outcome in life to whether they were a "good" or "bad" poker player.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 12:10:27 PM
I think DGullers poker analogy really does an excellent job of ullustrating just what I mean.
Bad poker players will lose at poker, and say "Man, I just don't have any luck!" and focus on those bad hands where they couldn't draw to that inside straight, and think "Yeah, I lost because I was just not lucky!"
Good poker players just keep winning the bad players money, and they don't do it because they are so damn lucky, but because they know how to mitigate the bad hands, and make their opponenets pay on the good hands, and how to tell the difference between the two.
The outcome, however, is rarely in doubt. Those who are better will do better than those who are not as skilled. And that has nothing to do with luck, even if there is a lot of randomness in the mechanics of the game.
The problem is that you're taking my analogy, and drawing a completely different conclusion than I intended. The reason I brought in poker analogy is that it is precisely the game where good luck can easily overcome good skill for a pretty long duration. In poker, a mediocre player who runs well will easily crush a shark who runs badly. Conversely, an average player will lose if he gets bad cards, but even if he is average, he is still unlucky. He's not any less or more deserving of good results than the average player who gets AA all the time.
Yes, on average, both players will get average cards, and skill will win out. However, actual poker games are what they are, they're not statistical average. I think you vastly overestimate the role of skill in short term run, which made you draw the unintended conclusions from my analogy.
But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.
Your initial hand is only that - the hand you start with. You are not doomed to only being as good as the hand you start life with, not in America anyway. There is plenty of social and economic mobility available.
So yeah, I am drawing a completely different conclusion than you intended - that is the point. Your analogy doesn't lead to the conclusion you intended because life is not a single hand of cards, but lots and lots and lots of hands of cards. And skill does in fact win out over luck of the draw, MUCH more often than not.
To the extent that results are driven by luck, all of our "luck" to be born into a society with excellent (relative) social and economic mobility vastly outweighs the luck of where you are born within that society.
Of course there are outliers -some people are so unlucky that no amount of subsequent good luck will matter. And some people will make it regardless, because theya re lucky enough to be the kids of Bill and Melinda Gates or whatever.
But overall, for most people, having a full time job is not a matter of luck, but a matter of work ethic, intelligence, and ability.
Whatever Berkut. It's just a different perspective - there's no way to statistically "prove" how much a person's success comes down to "luck".
As a philosphical point I try to see myself as being very lucky in life. It keeps me humble and gives me perspective. :)
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 12:26:23 PM
Berkut, I don't know your family background, and don't wish to pry about it.
Pry all you like, I don't mind in the least.
Quote
I would suggest money though has little to do with it. I know plenty of people raised in poverty, but by parents who taught their children the value of hard work and stressed education, and whose children have done very well.
So do I, actually. Not my parents, but I know many who have done just that. No question that there is a cultural aspect of how you raise your kids, what values you instill in them, etc., etc.
However, it isn't ironclad - you have plenty of examples of people whose parents did not instiall those values, and yet realized them anyway, and the reverse as well, of course - plenty of people who do the right things by their kids, and they still turn out to be losers.
Quote
The kids who hardly have a chance are those who taught their children how to live on welfare, taught their children that school is not important, that it's okay to get drunk out of your mind at 2 in the afternoon.
Wait, I thought you said you didn't know my background??? :P
I don't want to paint TOO bleak a picture (because lord knows there are worse examples than my own), but lets just note that I have two older brothers who are both alcoholics, drug addicts, and if they lived anywhere near you, you would have an extensive and long lasting professional relationship with both of them. In their cases, anyone would look at them, look at my parents, and think "Yeah, that figures".
On the other hand, I have one sister who pretty much got lucky and dodged that because she was fortunate enough to meet a great guy after she dropped out of high school who adores her, and works his ass off to make a very good life for them and their children. Absent that, I wonder how she would have turned out.
My youngest sister went more my route - saw her older brothers, the drugs, the booze, the jail, and responded with "No fucking way, that isn't going to be me..." and is now a nurse in NYC, very typical middle/upper class lifestyle.
So yeah, results vary enough even within a single consistent environment that IMO it is clear that the driving variable is not environmental in most cases, but rather the individual.
Quote
And lets not forget those children born with brain damage due to pre-natal substance abuse.
Now we are getting into the realm of those who have a sitty enough starting hand that they really are fucked. But statistically, they are a small enough total as to not effect the overall average results much - nor has it gotten worse because the economy stinks, so not really relevant to the claim that if you have a full time job today (as opposed to say 10 years ago)you are lucky.
Quote
As to DGuller's poker analogy - it works when you consider that you only get one hand of cards to play. Over a whole series of games the cards do tend to average out and skill can begin to show. But you don't get a whole series of lives to live - you only get one. As a result it takes a hell of a lot of skill to win when your hand is a 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 of different suits.
Your life is a series of hands. You are not doomed to the one hand you get. You get new hands all the time.
You find a great job because you bump into some guy at a party.
You get laid off because your company is bought by someone else.
You meet some awesome woman who makes you incredibly happy.
Your mother is killed in a car accident.
Life is not a single hand of cards, but an almost infinite number of hands. You have to deal with the good and the bad.
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 01:23:34 PM
Whatever Berkut. It's just a different perspective - there's no way to statistically "prove" how much a person's success comes down to "luck".
I disagree - there certainly is a way to evidence just that.
You look at things like social mobility, and economic mobility. You look at examples of how people break the molds they are born into.
If you cannot "prove" how much it comes to luck, how can you "prove" that it IS luck?
Quote
As a philosphical point I try to see myself as being very lucky in life. It keeps me humble and gives me perspective. :)
Nothing wrong with that - if nothing else, even if I am right, it is just luck that makes one person smart or hard working anyway. My son is wicked smart (short bragging - he just took the 7th grade math assessment test where they cover everything gone over in the year. He got a 98%. He is in 6th grade), but like I tell him "You did nothing to make yourself smart, so don't think it makes you all that special. You don't control how smart you are, but you do control what you accomplish with it".
I don't look at my modest success and say "Yeah, aren't I awesome!" That isn't my point. My results have largely been a little above average in any case. I am not wealthy, and almost certainly never will be.
My point is much more aimed at those who I know, like my brothers, who go through life convinced that nothing is there fault, they are all just victims of shitty circumstances. And it is not just in things like economic success, but in relationships as well. It isn't luck that makes the happy people happy. There are a lot of people like that, who blame everything on everything and everyone, but never, ever, EVER themselves.
When the reality is that in most cases, it is in fact themselves who are to blame.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 07, 2012, 01:02:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2012, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 07, 2012, 12:38:28 PM
How does the poker analogy even work? The circumstances you are born into define who you are. Maybe some stuff is innate, but I don't think I would have the same values, etc. if I was born in precolumbian mesoamerica.
What value is there in saying someone is lucky to not have been a precolumbian mesoamerican?
Depending on your personality and role in society, it could have been pretty sweet.
What I was getting at is that who we are is a product of our environment. It doesn't make so much sense to compare a person's outcome in life to whether they were a "good" or "bad" poker player.
But that doesn't really get at what I was trying to ask. I don't really see what the tangible benefit is in assigning such statuses of "being lucky". Don't really see it helping out the person who was born in precolomobian mesoamerica or the modern day middle class individual reading the OP that has a full time job.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.
I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing. If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.
You don't need 20 years for your hands to approximate a normal distribution. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2012, 02:53:24 PM
You don't need 20 years for your hands to approximate a normal distribution. :huh:
Not sure what you mean by that, nor what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from that.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:54:24 PM
Not sure what you mean by that, nor what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from that.
Perhaps I misunderstood. What did you mean by statistical significance etc?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2012, 02:57:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:54:24 PM
Not sure what you mean by that, nor what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from that.
Perhaps I misunderstood. What did you mean by statistical significance etc?
I mean your win rate (in the poker world, it's typically expressed as number of big blinds won per 100 hands). To estimate your bb/100 within a passable margin of error, you need the results of hundreds of thousands of hands (exact number depends on many conditions). In a live poker setting, you typically can play 20-30 hands of No Limit Holdem per hour.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.
I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing. If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.
So you are saying that from the standpoint of judging whether or not individual success is more predicated on luck or individual ability, life is a short term run? That the number of variables and things that change that go into the overall outcome, that luck plays a significant enough factor so as to safely dismiss variables you can actually control yourself?
If there is "nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan" then, how do you conclude "life is pretty short term run"?
I find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.
Myabe we are just talking past one another, because this honestly makes no sense to me at all.
Decisions DO matter. Choices DO matter. And many of the things that determine an individuals success and happiness in their life (and this includes their ability to get a full time job) are very much under their personal control.
I think this represents very destructive thinking, at least when it is held by people who are under-achievers, whether that be because of inate ability or cultural programming. Why bother making good decisions - your fate is per-ordained by the fact that you were born to a alcoholic mom, or your dad was poor, or you just aren't very smart. To the extent that it is "held" by those aho do achieve, it is likely mostly harmless in and of itself, although I bet a million fake internet dollars they do not actually teach their own children based on this fiction that what you do doesn't matter as much as luck.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.
I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing. If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.
So you are saying that from the standpoint of judging whether or not individual success is more predicated on luck or individual ability, life is a short term run? That the number of variables and things that change that go into the overall outcome, that luck plays a significant enough factor so as to safely dismiss variables you can actually control yourself?
If there is "nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan" then, how do you conclude "life is pretty short term run"?
I find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.
Myabe we are just talking past one another, because this honestly makes no sense to me at all.
Decisions DO matter. Choices DO matter. And many of the things that determine an individuals success and happiness in their life (and this includes their ability to get a full time job) are very much under their personal control.
I think this represents very destructive thinking, at least when it is held by people who are under-achievers, whether that be because of inate ability or cultural programming. Why bother making good decisions - your fate is per-ordained by the fact that you were born to a alcoholic mom, or your dad was poor, or you just aren't very smart. To the extent that it is "held" by those aho do achieve, it is likely mostly harmless in and of itself, although I bet a million fake internet dollars they do not actually teach their own children based on this fiction that what you do doesn't matter as much as luck.
Ahem. It was pre-ordained by God. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.
I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing. If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.
That is irrelevant. We don't need statistical significance, we just need to know that the distribution of hands in a given set of hands is basically random, and not likely to be significantly skewed. That does not take thousands of hands at all. Moreover, you don't need to guarantee a statistically significant distribution of "good" and "bad" hands to know that good poker players beat bad ones even if the bad players have somewhat better hands in any given match - because poker is a very skill based game.
If it did, those who are good at poker would be routinely beaten by those who are not good - in which case, the game would be changed so that it wasn't based on so much luck. Poker is a designed game to strike the right balance between luck and skill. You can't just generalize based on the number of hands of some game. It depends on the game.
We can play WAR, or Go Fish, and see that skill matters very little. We can play poker and see that even if the game is based on random chance in what you get in your hand, it is heavily dependent on skill to play those hands to their best possible result. You are confusing randomness with luck.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2012, 03:04:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 03:02:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 01:19:37 PM
But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.
I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing. If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.
So you are saying that from the standpoint of judging whether or not individual success is more predicated on luck or individual ability, life is a short term run? That the number of variables and things that change that go into the overall outcome, that luck plays a significant enough factor so as to safely dismiss variables you can actually control yourself?
If there is "nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan" then, how do you conclude "life is pretty short term run"?
I find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.
Myabe we are just talking past one another, because this honestly makes no sense to me at all.
Decisions DO matter. Choices DO matter. And many of the things that determine an individuals success and happiness in their life (and this includes their ability to get a full time job) are very much under their personal control.
I think this represents very destructive thinking, at least when it is held by people who are under-achievers, whether that be because of inate ability or cultural programming. Why bother making good decisions - your fate is per-ordained by the fact that you were born to a alcoholic mom, or your dad was poor, or you just aren't very smart. To the extent that it is "held" by those aho do achieve, it is likely mostly harmless in and of itself, although I bet a million fake internet dollars they do not actually teach their own children based on this fiction that what you do doesn't matter as much as luck.
Ahem. It was pre-ordained by God. :rolleyes:
Is DG a Calvinist?
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 03:02:59 PM
So you are saying that from the standpoint of judging whether or not individual success is more predicated on luck or individual ability, life is a short term run? That the number of variables and things that change that go into the overall outcome, that luck plays a significant enough factor so as to safely dismiss variables you can actually control yourself?
Probability theory never works in black and white. Both luck and skill always play a part, neither one can be dismissed, we're just negotiating over the contribution of each.
QuoteIf there is "nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan" then, how do you conclude "life is pretty short term run"?
Gut feel. I just don't think that life has enough meaningful decision points to diversify away luck.
QuoteI find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.
I did nothing to be born to educated parents that are not fucked up in any meaningful way. I did nothing to win the lottery of being able to move to US. I did nothing to be born with a mathematical ability that is superior to 99% of the population, and be in a place and time where that ability is very well renumerated. I did nothing to get in very good public schools in Brooklyn. I'd like to think that I took what luck gave me and made good use of it, and didn't fuck it up too much, but I can't see any amount of effort overcoming what was gifted to me.
As for what I will teach my children? Of course I will teach them to do the best they can. Success may depend on luck, but there are ways to fuck up for sure. Winning at a blackjack table requires some luck, but losing can be all skill.
QuoteI think this represents very destructive thinking, at least when it is held by people who are under-achievers, whether that be because of inate ability or cultural programming. Why bother making good decisions - your fate is per-ordained by the fact that you were born to a alcoholic mom, or your dad was poor, or you just aren't very smart. To the extent that it is "held" by those aho do achieve, it is likely mostly harmless in and of itself, although I bet a million fake internet dollars they do not actually teach their own children based on this fiction that what you do doesn't matter as much as luck.
No argument here that this kind of thinking can be a harmful crutch. I am not the one to argue that the most useful beliefs are also the most truthful beliefs.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 03:07:17 PM
That is irrelevant. We don't need statistical significance, we just need to know that the distribution of hands in a given set of hands is basically random, and not likely to be significantly skewed. That does not take thousands of hands at all.
In poker, what constitutes a hand is your hand, the hand every other player is holding, and the order the cards are arranged in a deck. That's a shitload of permutations. Other factors affect the results as well, such as the playing styles of other players (one player my fold the ultimate winner pre-flop, while another player will play it and ultimate crack your AA).
QuoteMoreover, you don't need to guarantee a statistically significant distribution of "good" and "bad" hands to know that good poker players beat bad ones even if the bad players have somewhat better hands in any given match - because poker is a very skill based game.
If it did, those who are good at poker would be routinely beaten by those who are not good - in which case, the game would be changed so that it wasn't based on so much luck. Poker is a designed game to strike the right balance between luck and skill. You can't just generalize based on the number of hands of some game. It depends on the game.
I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of poker, but you sound like someone who never played poker seriously. Good players go on soul-crushing downswings all the time. The vast majority of top professional poker players have gone busto, many of them multiple times. Real life poker is not like in the movies, where the cunning pro always takes a sucker to the cleaners, unless he's intentionally losing.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 03:21:00 PM
QuoteI find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.
I did nothing to be born to educated parents that are not fucked up in any meaningful way.
But lots of people with that exact same luck manage to fail anyway. And lots of people without that luck succeed.
Quote
I did nothing to win the lottery of being able to move to US.
So? Lots of people come to the US and fail, lots of people are born here and fail, lots of people never get the chance to come to the US, and still suceed.
Quote
I did nothing to be born with a mathematical ability that is superior to 99% of the population, and be in a place and time where that ability is very well renumerated.
All true, but plenty of people are successful without that luck, and plenty of people with it are not successful.
Quote
I did nothing to get in very good public schools in Brooklyn. I'd like to think that I took what luck gave me and made good use of it, and didn't fuck it up too much, but I can't see any amount of effort overcoming what was gifted to me.
I think you are very wrong - lots of people with less luck than you have had as good an outcome, some even better, and a very few much, much better - and not because they were lucky.
And lots of people with even better luck than you won't achieve as much.
Which is all a rather long way of saying...it isn't about luck.
Quote
As for what I will teach my children? Of course I will teach them to do the best they can. Success may depend on luck, but there are ways to fuck up for sure. Winning at a blackjack table requires some luck, but losing can be all skill.
Blackjack is a game of almost all luck though - the very best players with the most liberal rules over the long run only win 51% of the time. Under the rules most people play by, in the long run they will all lose, even if they play "perfectly". I don't think life is a game of Blackjack where the outcome is mostly based on getting good cards - I think it is more like poker, where the outcomes is mostly based on how you play your cards, not what cards you happen to get.
The best way to make the poker analogy is to take actual money. Let's say you are in a no limit holdem against Bill Gates, and he has all his money and you have all your money. How bad would Gates have to be, and how good would you have to be, to beat him or even get to equality in money? Let's set the big blind, small blind to 1/100 and 1/200 of the starting smaller stake, doubling every hour.
His net worth is ~$61 billion, you are at say $61,000 (to make the math easy). Your goal is to double up against him, without losing (and presumably swapping blinds), nineteen times in a row. That would make you roughly even.
Quote from: frunk on June 07, 2012, 03:42:09 PM
The best way to make the poker analogy is to take actual money. Let's say you are in a no limit holdem against Bill Gates, and he has all his money and you have all your money. How bad would Gates have to be, and how good would you have to be, to beat him or even get to equality in money? Let's set the big blind, small blind to 1/100 and 1/200 of the starting smaller stake, doubling every hour.
His net worth is ~$61 billion, you are at say $61,000 (to make the math easy). Your goal is to double up against him, without losing (and presumably swapping blinds), nineteen times in a row. That would make you roughly even.
That would be an excellent analogy if "success in life" is held to be "are you as rich as Bill Gates". Most of us, however, have rather more limited aspirations.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 03:46:31 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 07, 2012, 03:42:09 PM
The best way to make the poker analogy is to take actual money. Let's say you are in a no limit holdem against Bill Gates, and he has all his money and you have all your money. How bad would Gates have to be, and how good would you have to be, to beat him or even get to equality in money? Let's set the big blind, small blind to 1/100 and 1/200 of the starting smaller stake, doubling every hour.
His net worth is ~$61 billion, you are at say $61,000 (to make the math easy). Your goal is to double up against him, without losing (and presumably swapping blinds), nineteen times in a row. That would make you roughly even.
That would be an excellent analogy if "success in life" is held to be "are you as rich as Bill Gates". Most of us, however, have rather more limited aspirations.
Gotta dream big to win big, Berkie!
Berkut, for example, has the ambition to one day be as handsome as Bill Gates. :P
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 03:32:06 PM
I think you are very wrong - lots of people with less luck than you have had as good an outcome, some even better, and a very few much, much better - and not because they were lucky.
And lots of people with even better luck than you won't achieve as much.
Which is all a rather long way of saying...it isn't about luck.
It is a rather long way of saying that it isn't
all about luck. It may be only one extra word, but there is a world of difference between the two statements. On average, people who are lucky have better outcomes than people who aren't. You seem to operate under a very common fallacy that if some variable doesn't explain the outcome perfectly, it doesn't explain it at all. You can't apply 0 and 1 thinking to probabilistic concepts.
Logit and probit. :nerd:
Berkut,
Nobody is saying that people don't make choices, and those choices have consequences.
I think it's a matter of perspective, and why it's useful to keep that in perspective. Certainly for someone who is down and out they should not focus on the "woe is me, I never stood a chance". Of course not - there are plenty of choices you can make starting right now to sober up, to get a residence, get a job, go to school, and make something of yourself. You have lots of control over your destiny.
But for someone who is successful I think it's almost dangerous to focus too much on the "I'm a self-made man and I didn't need anybody's help on the way up". I think that kind of thinking can lead to a certain hubris and a lack of empathy for others. Everyone who has achieved any level of success has had help, assistance, and luck in doing so. People who took a chance on you, who imparted a useful lesson, people who believed in you.
That's all I'm trying to say. I'm certainly not a determinist or think that people have no control over their destiny.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 03:49:40 PM
On average, people who are lucky have better outcomes than people who aren't.
Wouldn't that depend on how you define luck?
I mean looking at Berk's luck examples, they could easily be turned around dependent on the skill/personality, etc of the individual involved...and then I wonder how lucky we'd consider a person in each situation.
You find a great job because you bump into some guy at a party.
But then you lose it as you weren't actually qualified and couldn't get yourself up to speedYou get laid off because your company is bought by someone else.
which finally inspires you to start that own business of yours that you'd always wanted but been afraid to tryYou meet some awesome woman who makes you incredibly happy.
but then because you are incredibly awkward, thinks you cold and distant and leaves youYour mother is killed in a car accident.
Well having a difficult time speaking a positive here though I guess...and you inherit her money which allows you do to x...
Sure, some people don't have guller's advantages and succeed anyway and some do have them and fail miserably, but I suspect any statistical analysis will show that a higher percentage of people with such advantages do succeed and thus they were helpful to have. As those advantages weren't the result of decisions he made, they must be chalked up to "luck".
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 03:46:31 PM
That would be an excellent analogy if "success in life" is held to be "are you as rich as Bill Gates". Most of us, however, have rather more limited aspirations.
Ok, let's say your goal is to get to a net worth of $122,000. That's one doubling up without losing. $244,000 is two, a million is ~4. Would you be willing to risk your life savings at least 4 times to get to multiply it by 16?
If you start out with less money, let's say $6100, that's more than 7 times you'll have to risk your life savings to get to a million. Even if you assume you are a superior poker player and only push in when you have 70% odds that's about an 8% chance of success. If you aren't that good it gets much worse.
I'm thinking if Berkut waited for odds like that, Gates would just keep buying the pot.
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 03:57:04 PM
Berkut,
Nobody is saying that people don't make choices, and those choices have consequences.
I think it's a matter of perspective, and why it's useful to keep that in perspective. Certainly for someone who is down and out they should not focus on the "woe is me, I never stood a chance". Of course not - there are plenty of choices you can make starting right now to sober up, to get a residence, get a job, go to school, and make something of yourself. You have lots of control over your destiny.
But for someone who is successful I think it's almost dangerous to focus too much on the "I'm a self-made man and I didn't need anybody's help on the way up". I think that kind of thinking can lead to a certain hubris and a lack of empathy for others. Everyone who has achieved any level of success has had help, assistance, and luck in doing so. People who took a chance on you, who imparted a useful lesson, people who believed in you.
That's all I'm trying to say. I'm certainly not a determinist or think that people have no control over their destiny.
I don't disagree with anything in your post.
And note that nowhere in your post is there any mention that success is more about luck than anything else.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 03:49:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 03:32:06 PM
I think you are very wrong - lots of people with less luck than you have had as good an outcome, some even better, and a very few much, much better - and not because they were lucky.
And lots of people with even better luck than you won't achieve as much.
Which is all a rather long way of saying...it isn't about luck.
It is a rather long way of saying that it isn't all about luck. It may be only one extra word, but there is a world of difference between the two statements. On average, people who are lucky have better outcomes than people who aren't. You seem to operate under a very common fallacy that if some variable doesn't explain the outcome perfectly, it doesn't explain it at all. You can't apply 0 and 1 thinking to probabilistic concepts.
But that is what started all this - the claim that it IS in fact, ALL about luck. Look at the OP - "Full time job? Consider yourself lucky". No, it isn't lucky to have a full time job - certainly not enough so that if you have one, the thing you should think is "Gosh, I sure am lucky!" and the reverse of if you don't have one "Gee, sure wish I could get some good luck!".
Rather having one or not having one is MUCH more dependent on a variety of variables, only one of which is luck. And excluding some truly extraordinary bad luck, luck is a very small factor in the overall equation.
It is rather odd - you are saying I am making exactly the opposite mistake that I said the OP made - that there isn't any luck. I never said anything of the kind. The only thing I said that start all this was "No, it isn't about luck". Because it isn't.
No, I do NOT consider myself lucky to have a full time job. I don't think you or Beebs are lucky to have one either, nor do I think my brothers are unlucky because they have NEVER had a full time job.
Ok, I agree that it isn't all luck. If that's the statement being contested, then clearly we don't disagree.
I consider myself either lucky, right time/right place, or charmed. Dont know which. Since retiring from the Army in '04, I have never been unemployed and always a full time job.
"knock on wood"
Well, if I couldn't get killed with the BPD, as a bail bondsman, as a private investigator, and as somebody with a penchant for unhappily married women, then hell, maybe I am lucky.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2012, 12:10:27 PM
I think DGullers poker analogy really does an excellent job of ullustrating just what I mean.
Bad poker players will lose at poker, and say "Man, I just don't have any luck!" and focus on those bad hands where they couldn't draw to that inside straight, and think "Yeah, I lost because I was just not lucky!"
Good poker players just keep winning the bad players money, and they don't do it because they are so damn lucky, but because they know how to mitigate the bad hands, and make their opponenets pay on the good hands, and how to tell the difference between the two.
The outcome, however, is rarely in doubt. Those who are better will do better than those who are not as skilled. And that has nothing to do with luck, even if there is a lot of randomness in the mechanics of the game.
This is pretty preposterous considering how "better" is usually a function of at least one quasi-random process that has almost no design whatsoever if you reach far enough back, i.e. human mating. No one chooses the genes, connections, and wealth they are born with, and no amount of perseverance can acquire it.
Beyond that, everything anyone does is built upon the labor of a trillion human lives and the invention of a trillion human minds. It's ridiculous to suppose otherwise--that any individual human has succeeded in the slightest task solely upon his or her own merits. You don't take a shit without every human who's ever lived helping you wipe your ass.
:bleeding:
Habbaku chopped down his own trees, made his own toilet paper, crafted his own toilet, laid his own pipes, and built his own mother fucking water treatment facility, and learned how to do it all by himself. I am: impressed.
Or maybe he just jumps into a river buck naked because clothes would involve other people's industry, and lets fly. I'm not ruling that out.
More likely is he just recognizes your statements for what they are : some of the biggest strawmen ever posted on Languish, including anyone ever encountered by grumbler.
Look, I still think it sounds cool.
The point is, however hyperbolically expressed, that we cannot choose most of the things that make us who we are, and which guide and constrain and sometimes dictate the choices we do make. Certainly not before we are born; and in many cases, most of the time thereafter.
Therefore it makes more sense to suppose that we're all in this shitty, chaotic world together and to help each other to the best of our abilities, not to cry "personal responsibility!" when one of our cousins stumbles, or--as is at least as often the case--pushed.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Therefore it makes more sense to suppose that we're all in this shitty, chaotic world together and to help each other to the best of our abilities, not to cry "personal responsibility!" when one of our cousins stumbles, or--as is at least as often the case--pushed.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Therefore it makes more sense to suppose that we're all in this shitty, chaotic world together and to help each other to the best of our abilities, not to cry "personal responsibility!" when one of our cousins stumbles, or--as is at least as often the case--pushed.
If the world is so shitty, why should we care about our cousins? Why shouldn't just try and milk as much personal happiness as we can?
Quote from: garbon on June 08, 2012, 12:21:24 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Therefore it makes more sense to suppose that we're all in this shitty, chaotic world together and to help each other to the best of our abilities, not to cry "personal responsibility!" when one of our cousins stumbles, or--as is at least as often the case--pushed.
If the world is so shitty, why should we care about our cousins? Why shouldn't just try and milk as much personal happiness as we can?
That's zero-sum thinking, my friend.
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 11:32:54 AM
First we are absolutely lucky to have been born in the West, and not to Chinese peasant farmers or Indian slum dwellers.
Considering that my parents were (and are) Swedes living in Sweden I find it extremely unlikely that I would have been born to Chinese or Indians.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Look, I still think it sounds cool.
The point is, however hyperbolically expressed, that we cannot choose most of the things that make us who we are, and which guide and constrain and sometimes dictate the choices we do make. Certainly not before we are born; and in many cases, most of the time thereafter.
Therefore it makes more sense to suppose that we're all in this shitty, chaotic world together and to help each other to the best of our abilities, not to cry "personal responsibility!" when one of our cousins stumbles, or--as is at least as often the case--pushed.
:hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Look, I still think it sounds cool.
The point is, however hyperbolically expressed, that we cannot choose most of the things that make us who we are, and which guide and constrain and sometimes dictate the choices we do make. Certainly not before we are born; and in many cases, most of the time thereafter.
Therefore it makes more sense to suppose that we're all in this shitty, chaotic world together and to help each other to the best of our abilities, not to cry "personal responsibility!" when one of our cousins stumbles, or--as is at least as often the case--pushed.
It's a balance. Sometimes people do need to be able to fail in order to learn their lesson.
You need both a carrot and a stick.
Heh this thread reminds me of calvinists and catholics arguing about predestination vs. free will. ;) Believe that luck is all doesn't necessarily lead to compassion for the luckless - can lead to fatalism instead. Just like believing that individual effort is all can lead to the arrogant assumption that those who haven't succeeded deserve their fate.
As is so often the case, I think the reality lies somewhere between - both luck and effort are required.
Quote from: Malthus on June 08, 2012, 12:27:33 PM
Heh this thread reminds me of calvinists and catholics arguing about predestination vs. free will. ;) Believe that luck is all doesn't necessarily lead to compassion for the luckless - can lead to fatalism instead. Just like believing that individual effort is all can lead to the arrogant assumption that those who haven't succeeded deserve their fate.
As is so often the case, I think the reality lies somewhere between - both luck and effort are required.
But you can only control one of those, so it makes sense to focus on the thing you can control, rather than the things you cannot.
But yes, this is my point. It is NOT just about luck.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 08, 2012, 12:21:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 08, 2012, 12:21:24 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Therefore it makes more sense to suppose that we're all in this shitty, chaotic world together and to help each other to the best of our abilities, not to cry "personal responsibility!" when one of our cousins stumbles, or--as is at least as often the case--pushed.
If the world is so shitty, why should we care about our cousins? Why shouldn't just try and milk as much personal happiness as we can?
That's zero-sum thinking, my friend.
Not really as I'm not saying that other people can't also have happiness, it just seems like in such a shitty world, people would be inured to the pain of their cousins as its a common occurrence. So why feel compelled to help each other out if the world is still going to be shitty at the end of the day?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Therefore it makes more sense to suppose that we're all in this shitty, chaotic world together and to help each other to the best of our abilities, not to cry "personal responsibility!" when one of our cousins stumbles, or--as is at least as often the case--pushed.
What should we do when one of our cousins loafs?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
What should we do when one of our cousins loafs?
Well sometimes helping your cousin may mean being tough love -_-
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2012, 12:21:45 PM
It's a balance. Sometimes people do need to be able to fail in order to learn their lesson.
You need both a carrot and a stick.
Yep. Being an enabler is not helping.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2012, 01:50:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
What should we do when one of our cousins loafs?
Well sometimes helping your cousin may mean being tough love -_-
What does that mean?
What is wrong with loafing? Working hard doesn't get you anything anyway - it is mostly just luck. Might as well loaf. If things work out, awesome. If not, hey, you just can't catch a break, whaddya gonna do?
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2012, 01:52:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2012, 01:50:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
What should we do when one of our cousins loafs?
Well sometimes helping your cousin may mean being tough love -_-
What does that mean?
What is wrong with loafing? Working hard doesn't get you anything anyway - it is mostly just luck. Might as well loaf. If things work out, awesome. If not, hey, you just can't catch a break, whaddya gonna do?
Well actually its all shitty at the end of the day.
Quote from: garbon on June 08, 2012, 02:04:40 PMWell actually its all shitty at the end of the day.
Exactly. Your philosophy of "everyone for himself, grab your happiness and fuck the world" leads to shittiness, especially for yourself.
Quote from: Jacob on June 08, 2012, 04:02:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 08, 2012, 02:04:40 PMWell actually its all shitty at the end of the day.
Exactly. Your philosophy of "everyone for himself, grab your happiness and fuck the world" leads to shittiness, especially for yourself.
That isn't my philosophy but rather what it seems like makes more sense in Ide's posited world.
Personally, I don't think of the world as a horrible, shitty place. And really a great reason to help others is that you can effect change and make it an even better place.
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2012, 01:52:33 PM
What is wrong with loafing? Working hard doesn't get you anything anyway - it is mostly just luck. Might as well loaf. If things work out, awesome. If not, hey, you just can't catch a break, whaddya gonna do?
If I knew you weren't kidding I'd have to say you just got a Union job. :secret:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Therefore it makes more sense to suppose that we're all in this shitty, chaotic world together and to help each other to the best of our abilities, not to cry "personal responsibility!" when one of our cousins stumbles, or--as is at least as often the case--pushed.
What should we do when one of our cousins loafs?
Be content that he has relaxed some of the pressure on a very tight job market?
Quote from: BerkutBut you can only control one of those, so it makes sense to focus on the thing you can control, rather than the things you cannot.
On an individual basis, I agree. But on a societal basis, that is a high-level policy basis, you suggest a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quote from: garbonNot really as I'm not saying that other people can't also have happiness, it just seems like in such a shitty world, people would be inured to the pain of their cousins as its a common occurrence. So why feel compelled to help each other out if the world is still going to be shitty at the end of the day?
One day, it wouldn't be. That's the point.
QuotePersonally, I don't think of the world as a horrible, shitty place. And really a great reason to help others is that you can effect change and make it an even better place.
:hug:
I'd be happier with a full-time job right now. Of course, I'd also be happier with a job that paid more than the one I've got now. <_<