NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right. Well, mostly right. I've seen a lot of opinions that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Actually, poor people are some of the hardest workers you will ever see. Want proof? Go watch a hotel maid, a landscaper, a construction worker, a cashier, as well as anyone in a myriad of other jobs. They work their asses off and are still poor.

On the other hand, 2/3 of the rich got there by doing nothing. They either got an inheritance, recieved money for something, or specualte on real estate or stocks. They don't actually work. They just sit there and buy and sell or just sit there and get money for doing nothing. Example: the Hilton sisters. Rich as hell, never did anything useful.

That's right. Well, mostly right. I've seen a lot of opinions that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Actually, poor people are some of the hardest workers you will ever see. Want proof? Go watch a hotel maid, a landscaper, a construction worker, a cashier, as well as anyone in a myriad of other jobs. They work their asses off and are still poor.

On the other hand, 2/3 of the rich got there by doing nothing. They either got an inheritance, recieved money for something, or specualte on real estate or stocks. They don't actually work. They just sit there and buy and sell or just sit there and get money for doing nothing. Example: the Hilton sisters. Rich as hell, never did anything useful.
Those poor maids and landscapers aren't in a better situation because they were lazier early on. If they'd have done good in school, or even got a vocational education they'd be much better off.

And a better title might be: The rich are lazy because their rich.

ha! A family member has a college degree and is nothing more than a clerk

Those poor maids and landscapers aren't in a better situation because they were lazier early on. If they'd have done good in school, or even got a vocational education they'd be much better off.

And a better title might be: The rich are lazy because their rich.

That's assuming they had the chance at a decent education or even the chance at an education at all.

But how many really rich ppl have used schooling to get rich?

ha! A family member has a college degree and is nothing more than a clerk
what was their degree? that's also a factor.

That's assuming they had the chance at a decent education or even the chance at an education at all.
If you put the effort into it, you can get a decent education at any US public school. Teachers are willing to aid a student who comes up after class much more readily than one who just sits there.

That's assuming they had the chance at a decent education or even the chance at an education at all.
If they're here illegally than they're probably richer than they were in their home country.

But how many really rich ppl have used schooling to get rich?

really not many. You need a good education and a degree (masters or higher) to make it to the upper-middle class. The top echelon of the rich were born into is mostly. Unless you go back to the late 1800's when people started to build the supercompanies we have today.

many poor poeple are simpily not blessed with the oppertunities rich poeople are. there are so many poor street kids that can not go to school because they must work to keep from starveing!!!

If they're here illegally than they're probably richer than they were in their home country.

I didn't say they were immigrants. They happen to be where I live because I'm in Arizona, but there are plenty of white, black, arabic, asian, whatever people that are poor and in the same jobs.

I would like to make a small distinction.

Rich = Earning or Having money

Wealthy = Keeping money

Any doofus can be rich (just win the lottery, or speculate on the right stock). As for the poor not becoming rich as a result of laziness, I doubt it. I would think it is more a matter of taking (or not even having) the wrong opportunities.

The Wealthy are some of laziest people around probably because they find it easy to keep money (gotta spend money to make money)

So, it's wrong if I save up large amounts of money for my children by my own labors, so as to allow them to not to ever have any worries, and lives of ease? Isn't that something I should be allowed to do?

*side note: I don't have any children, nor am I married, and am currently attending college, for which I am paying myself.

having money and keeping money are pretty much the same thing.

On the other hand, 2/3 of the rich got there by doing nothing. They either got an inheritance, recieved money for something, or specualte on real estate or stocks. They don't actually work. They just sit there and buy and sell or just sit there and get money for doing nothing. Example: the Hilton sisters. Rich as hell, never did anything useful.

2/3 eh? Is that just a random nice sounding fraction you pulled out of your head, or do you have some solid basis for this claim?

The Hilton sister's are an extreme example. As well as that, why not look back to where that money came from. Some very hardworking family members in the past. The money didn't just come from nowhere. Sure the sisters were lucky, because they were born into it and havn't had to work for it, doesn't mean the money didn't come from hardwork to begin with. Besides, why shouldn't a hardworking member of society that makes alot of money be able to provide for their future generations.

Isn't that kind of wealth only about 6% of the population anyway? Haha, there's me without a source, I read it somewhere 'kay :P

people who are poor do not have time to linger after class becaue they have to report to jobs at any time. I have classmates that are on call 24hr a day. I know a person who was told that she would be fired if she decided taht school was a higer priortiy then working at a 18 year and older adult establishment. and she was only 15 years of age at the time.

2/3 eh? Is that just a random nice sounding fraction you pulled out of your head, or do you have some solid basis for this claim?

The Hilton sister's are an extreme example. As well as that, why not look back to where that money came from. Some very hardworking family members in the past. The money didn't just come from nowhere. Sure the sisters were lucky, because they were born into it and havn't had to work for it, doesn't mean the money didn't come from hardwork to begin with. Besides, why shouldn't a hardworking member of society that makes alot of money be able to provide for their future generations.

Isn't that kind of wealth only about 6% of the population anyway? Haha, there's me without a source, I read it somewhere 'kay :P

aye, we might be seeing examples of the ever classic "anecdotal evidence" which mainly cites outliers.

And the 2/3 figure seems to be born of individual prejudice against people who have money.

That's right. Well, mostly right. I've seen a lot of opinions that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Actually, poor people are some of the hardest workers you will ever see. Want proof? Go watch a hotel maid, a landscaper, a construction worker, a cashier, as well as anyone in a myriad of other jobs. They work their asses off and are still poor.

On the other hand, 2/3 of the rich got there by doing nothing. They either got an inheritance, recieved money for something, or specualte on real estate or stocks. They don't actually work. They just sit there and buy and sell or just sit there and get money for doing nothing. Example: the Hilton sisters. Rich as hell, never did anything useful.


good job on singling out 2 rich people and using them to generalize all rich people. what you forgot to mention is how they got rich, which means you have to forget that somewhere in their family someone had to work to get rich. your 2/3's claim is wrong also. 90% of millionaires in america are first generation, most of which recieved little or no inheritance at all. that means that only 10% got their money for "doing nothing"

people who are poor do not have time to linger after class becaue they have to report to jobs at any time. I have classmates that are on call 24hr a day. I know a person who was told that she would be fired if she decided taht school was a higer priortiy then working at a 18 year and older adult establishment. and she was only 15 years of age at the time.
They can get another, more tolerant job. They are out there.

good job on singling out 2 rich people and using them to generalize all rich people. what you forgot to mention is how they got rich, which means you have to forget that somewhere in their family someone had to work to get rich. your 2/3's claim is wrong also. 90% of millionaires in america are first generation, most of which recieved little or no inheritance at all. that means that only 10% got their money for "doing nothing"
give us a source and I'll consider you as having been the victor.

point well taken. but in the old days it was 90% of the people were rich because they were born into royality, and 10% who earned their money the honest way.
In the old days it was considered that anyone who rose out of the social class they were born in were by products of the devil himslef. It was not until the Medivichi family of the Renasunce that the poeple changed their views. and in places like INdia it is still consirdered evil to rise or fall out of the social class you were born in!

This is very intresting indeed. I think through tre ages it wil rotate between welth being a byproduct of inharanatace and welth being a byporduct of ambion and smart investing. Or cuthrought ruthlessness. (whatever your opinion of getting to the top of the money permid is)

Even Alen Greenspan the most insightful midn of american money agrees that it will be in constarnt change as treands in money movement change it is a great cycle of life!

what was their degree? that's also a factor.

You'd be surprised how many people I know who have masters in Software engineering or ECE and still type & file as a job. My own sister, graduating cum laude with ChemE and a certificate in Materials, can use it for no reason except to explain how the makeup & perfume she sells is produced.

Versus the current director at the Ohio DOT, with a bachelors in geography, earns $200K/year.


There is non appreciable relation between income and any other field dependent on the individual's own self. There are outliers, though few and far between.

If rich people are so rich because they did nothing and are lazy and never worked hard then how come there aren't more rich peolpe than poor people?

They can get another, more tolerant job. They are out there.

it is a sad story. her mom works there too so it was a natural move for her. plus it is the only job she can afford the rent on becuase houseing where I live is so expensave.

You'd be surprised how many people I know who have masters in Software engineering or ECE and still type & file as a job. My own sister, graduating cum laude with ChemE and a certificate in Materials, can use it for no reason except to explain how the makeup & perfume she sells is produced.

Versus the current director at the Ohio DOT, with a bachelors in geography, earns $200K/year.


There is non appreciable relation between income and any other field dependent on the individual's own self. There are outliers, though few and far between.
Also, during college it's vital to get things like internships and co-ops, so as to acquiant oneself with a company, or the government for that matter.

it is a sad story. her mom works there too so it was a natural move for her. plus it is the only job she can afford the rent on becuase houseing where I live is so expensave.
I'm still saying that such a job isn't worthy of keeping. Espescially if the place of employment is what I think it is (and if it's hiring 15 year olds...)

specualte on real estate or stocks

This is a valid career choice which requires a lot of training and pays quite well. It is known as "investment banking."

Isn't that kind of wealth only about 6% of the population anyway? Haha, there's me without a source, I read it somewhere 'kay :P

I wouldn't know for certain (I don't live in the US) but wouldn't that 6% of ppl with large inheritantnessesism make up a substantial part of the economy?

Well, as much as I'd hate to piss on this class-warfare/libertarian parade, there are a few other factors we might want to consider.

First of all, the growing disparity between rich and poor in America, as well as globally, is not a sustainable system. Modern capitalist economics rely on the strength of the middle class as the primary producers and consumers of society. Indeed, economics as we know it today did not evolve untill European mercantilism developed to the point where it could support a large middle class. However, the American middle class is actually shrinking, under increasing financial assault by higher costs of living, mushrooming public and private debt, and dwindling wages. Now since it is true the rich generally make thier money through investments, which only grow in value through the productivity of others, or through some sort of management system, which is only valuable so long as the productivity of others beneath them is valuable, then a collapse of the middle class, a collapse of economic productivity, will trickle all the way up. Back down, too, as people stop spending and employers stop employing.

The debt situation is perhaps the most dire of all, potentially entailing a severe economic depression in the not-too-distant future unless we can somehow adjust our macroeconomics to encourage saving and stabilize the national financial situation, as well as provide for stable growth of the middle class. In short, rich or poor, our economic programs need to reflect the need to strengthen the middle. Since the market is fundamentally reactionary, not anticipatory, we cannot rely on market forces to produce the desired results. As such, we need new programs for debt relief, job training, and measures to reduce the cost of living burden, especially health care. Particularly as America offshores more and more jobs, we need social and educational programs that produce a highly skilled workforce, ensuring that America always has a competitive advantage in something (the only way to remain an economically vibrant society in a world of globalization). Now the fundamental question, who will pay for all this? Well, the rich will.

Now here's where any libertarian worth their salt will cry foul. "But surely, if a man makes a a bajillion dollars, it's his right to keep it!" Well, not really. Social mores say one thing, but the harsh pragmatism of economics dictate that somebody has to foot the bill to keep our system afloat. They don't call economics "the dismal science" for nothing. Ultimately, it's best that everybody has something than nobody has anything. The trick is making it as equitable as possible and I feel, (here's where I put in my opinion) that an economic system that doesn't aim to create a decent standard of living for all productive citizens is hardly a system worth supporting. That is, after all, why most of us who don't have to worry about where tomorrow's meals will come from bother lurching through our careers: in the hope that at some point we'll wake up and have a comfortable lifestyle. In short, if it's broke, and our system's plenty broke, then fix it.

And if you don't think our system's broke, or at least in dire need of some improvement, then your deluding yourself, my friend.

really not many. You need a good education and a degree (masters or higher) to make it to the upper-middle class. The top echelon of the rich were born into is mostly. Unless you go back to the late 1800's when people started to build the supercompanies we have today.
Interesting, My dad didn't make it past high school and now owns his own business with a close friend, from the same situation. This past year they ran through 2 and a half mil in sales, just started 2 years ago. My great-uncle Dan out in California was in the military, enlisted, and yet has managed to build his own industrial vaccum business there, owns a half mil RV and a Mini Cooper S. My uncle Brian James has been the assistant coach to the Pistons, Raptors, and Wizards. all without a college education. They all worked pretty damned hard and smart.

I wouldn't know for certain (I don't live in the US) but wouldn't that 6% of ppl with large inheritantnessesism make up a substantial part of the economy?

Neither do I, but my point would be that his example relied on a proportion of society that is only slightly less than 2/3. 6% is a far cry from 66.7%.

Those poor maids and landscapers aren't in a better situation because they were lazier early on. If they'd have done good in school, or even got a vocational education they'd be much better off.

And a better title might be: The rich are lazy because their rich.

I know several landscapers, construction workers and the like who did well in school, went to college and are doing it because they like it. And what about, oh, say, teachers. We work our arses off to get a teaching certificate and to pass the content knowledge tests. We then work even harder to teach your children, with almost no resources. And we get paid barely enough ro live on (in the genourous states).

Hmmmph. I have proof regarding this.

My grandfather started off as a trucker in the fifties. A lowly, lower middle class trucker, shiping colas and evaporated milk. But he worked hard until he got to be a manager of the company (Benthien Transport). His son (my father) got a Business Degree in Hamburg U, and so with this knowledge started an Insulation company. And so I am upper middle class, due to two generations of hard work. And I'll work my way into the upper classes, see if I don't.

People are 'rich' (or 'poor') because that is an inherent trait of any human economic system other than those where all resources and assets are artificially regulated to ensure equality of distribution. The words derive their meaning from the existence of unequal wealth distribution.

I've not come across a discription yet of a system that will provide equal distribution, that I would support the application of, so the alternative is to ensure that the inherent trait of creating inequality of wealth, in the economic systems we employ, be harnessed for it's beneficial effects and that we minisimise or if pheasable eliminate the possible negative effects. However we cant even begin to make sense of such issues, when our focus is on proving that poverty and richness are caused by the lazyness of this or that group.

Basically unless the economic system is actually (as opposed to ideologically) communistic, there will be wealth differentation, so obviously some will have more (rich) and some less (poor), often there will be a group in between (average 'middle class').

On the other hand, 2/3 of the rich got there by doing nothing. They either got an inheritance, recieved money for something, or specualte on real estate or stocks. They don't actually work. They just sit there and buy and sell or just sit there and get money for doing nothing. Example: the Hilton sisters. Rich as hell, never did anything useful.


Ok, please don't make grand generalizations.

My family is upper middle class and my father came from a very poor, non college educated family. He went to college (several times actually) and is working his [fill in general curse word here] off. He is by far the most hard-working man I know.

The most truthful generalization you can make is the difference between 'old money' and 'new money'. Generally, it's the 'old money' families that see money as no object and are lazy, while 'new money' still finds traits such as being hard-working important.

Investment and starting your own business is probably the only way you can become rich.

Most inheritors from rich families tend to squander away their wealth, and like the Chinese says, The Rich lasts 4 generations (tops). Eventually you'll have to start again.

Well, as much as I'd hate to piss on this class-warfare/libertarian parade, there are a few other factors we might want to consider.

You don't know what a Libertarian is, do you?

That's right. Well, mostly right. I've seen a lot of opinions that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Actually, poor people are some of the hardest workers you will ever see. Want proof? Go watch a hotel maid, a landscaper, a construction worker, a cashier, as well as anyone in a myriad of other jobs. They work their asses off and are still poor.

On the other hand, 2/3 of the rich got there by doing nothing. They either got an inheritance, recieved money for something, or specualte on real estate or stocks. They don't actually work. They just sit there and buy and sell or just sit there and get money for doing nothing. Example: the Hilton sisters. Rich as hell, never did anything useful.
be more accurate: they aren't rich BECAUSE of their laziness, they can afford to be lazy because of their wealth. being lazy is not the cause of their wealth, in other words. your title is inaccurate.

That's right. Well, mostly right. I've seen a lot of opinions that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Actually, poor people are some of the hardest workers you will ever see. Want proof? Go watch a hotel maid, a landscaper, a construction worker, a cashier, as well as anyone in a myriad of other jobs. They work their asses off and are still poor.

On the other hand, 2/3 of the rich got there by doing nothing. They either got an inheritance, recieved money for something, or specualte on real estate or stocks. They don't actually work. They just sit there and buy and sell or just sit there and get money for doing nothing. Example: the Hilton sisters. Rich as hell, never did anything useful.

Exactly, 'Equal Opportunity'? Are Capitalists nuts? Tell me that somebody going to an inner city school and living in a flat on benefits has the opportunities I have going to one of the best schools in Britain and being able to afford tutors e.t.c. Fact is if you are the son of a rich man or daughter you will end up in a good position. If you are the son or daughter of a poor man you will have to work 10x harder to get anywhere.

Ok, please don't make grand generalizations.
My family is upper middle class and my father came from a very poor, non college educated family. He went to college (several times actually) and is working his [fill in general curse word here] off. He is by far the most hard-working man I know.

Clearly you never saw the miners in The North of Britain who worked in awful conditions 200ft underground for 12 hours a day just to put bread on the table. If you think your Dad is some kind of well hard working bloke compared to those guys then your a complete idiot. And I bet most of the other poor people your Dad grew up with are still poor - Fact is, it's only about 1 in 20 who make it. And Business is all about luck - Being in the right place at the right time, my Dad handles rich mens bank accounts, people who are multi millionaires, he handles their portfolios for them e.t.c. And you should meet some of them, their idiots, they dont work hard, they just found themselves in the right place at the right time when a business boomed all of a sudden.

That's right. Well, mostly right. I've seen a lot of opinions that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Actually, poor people are some of the hardest workers you will ever see. Want proof? Go watch a hotel maid, a landscaper, a construction worker, a cashier, as well as anyone in a myriad of other jobs. They work their asses off and are still poor.

On the other hand, 2/3 of the rich got there by doing nothing. They either got an inheritance, recieved money for something, or specualte on real estate or stocks. They don't actually work. They just sit there and buy and sell or just sit there and get money for doing nothing. Example: the Hilton sisters. Rich as hell, never did anything useful.
damn straight.

Exactly, 'Equal Opportunity'? Are Capitalists nuts? Tell me that somebody going to an inner city school and living in a flat on benefits has the opportunities I have going to one of the best schools in Britain and being able to afford tutors e.t.c. Fact is if you are the son of a rich man or daughter you will end up in a good position. If you are the son or daughter of a poor man you will have to work 10x harder to get anywhere.
and if you are born really ugly you will have to work 10X as hard to get a date. what's your point? life ain't fair, and we all have different handicaps. i went from homeless to class valedictorian with full college scholarship, and i'm not very bright or particularly special in any way...if i can do it, anybody can.

and if you are born really ugly you will have to work 10X as hard to get a date. what's your point? life ain't fair, and we all have different handicaps. i went from homeless to class valedictorian with full college scholarship, and i'm not very bright or particularly special in any way...if i can do it, anybody can.
Yup hard work is the key … no financial backing and pulling 80 + hr work weeks but graduating dual bachelors degree at the end of the year (4 years for 2 degree’s)

You can do it.