|
| Thread: The role of luck in success |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted April 14, 2011 04:22 AM |
 bonus applied by angelito on 28 Apr 2011. |
Edited by Corribus at 04:32, 14 Apr 2011.
|
The role of luck in success
Today President Obama, while addressing the US public about his proposed budget cuts for 2012, said something that really bothered me. It was merely a single word, yet it speaks volumes either about his personal philosophy or his willingness to use very calculated and clever language when it comes to swaying the public dialogue about how many taxes an individual should pay. To me it also signifies how the public debate over spending centers increasingly around class warfare.
The single word is "fortunate".
Here is a video of the telecast, which you can watch prior to reading my point, if you so wish.
Budget Address April 13 2011
The phrase in question can be heard at ~35:05, and is: "I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.”
I have noticed that Obama uses the word "fortunate" in this context very frequently. What irks me about it is that it implies, erroneously, that people who are well off, or are wealthy, or have disposable income, or are in any way advantaged, find themselves in this position merely because of luck. That is, it is nothing more than random chance that divides the successful from the unsuccessful. Obviously, this is used as an excuse here for government to intervene and “set things right”, to “make things fair” and “even the playing field”.
But is chance or luck really a major player here? No, I don’t think so. Wealth distribution is not completely random. In fact, I'd say that luck plays only a small role in it. Hard work, perseverance, sacrifice and discipline play a majority role in determining success. So why imply otherwise? Moreover, even if luck is wholly responsible for success, does this justify taking from the “lucky” and giving to the “unlucky”?
If I could ask Obama a question regarding his speech today, it would be this: Could he not have just as easily stated that “At a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most hard-working among us can afford to pay a little more.” Why did he choose to use the word “fortunate”? I believe the answer is political.
I wonder, does my alternative phrasing change anything about the validity of Obama’s message? That’s a whole separate argument I suppose. But it certainly would change the atmosphere of the debate. If nothing else, had Obama been intellectually honest with us and phrased it in these more accurate terms, I would perhaps be more inclined to accept a higher tax rate than under the rather offensive implication that my success can be chalked up to little more than luck.
I guess I shouldn’t have such high expectations of our president. After all, this is a guy who has also stated, in this very speech, that people who are against raising taxes, hold this view as “just an article of faith”. As if a person could not arrive at this conclusion based on intellectual analysis and logical thinking. It’s dismissive and disrespectful of the fact that people have different but equally valid viewpoints. To my mind it really just shows that Obama’s best talent is political cunning coupled by way of divisive and underhanded rhetoric.
Anyway, I could dissect this speech and point out everything I disagree with, but mostly I wanted to have a discussion here about two things: (1) The role of luck in success and (2) Whether or not luck’s role in success justifies government’s attempts to make everyone “equal”. Another way to frame point (2), in case it is not clear, is to ask of people who are in favor of progressive policies which redistribute wealth whether the reason they support such policies is because of the role that they believe luck plays in individual achievement.
(Let me also state right now that I am very aware that this has the possibility of being an incendiary topic. I urge everyone here to be polite and respectful of opposing viewpoints. We can be friendly and disagree at the same time.)
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 05:32 AM |
|
|
I do agree that, for the most part, luck and chance make most of the wealthy businessmen. It is far easier to earn a million dollars if you had a million dollars to work with before doing anything. With that million dollars, you could invest in a few hundred more stock brokers than, let's say, a man with one thousand dollars. If you get lucky enough to be the son of the man with one million dollars, then you will more than likely have a much easier life than the son of the man with a thousand dollars. The million dollar child will probably just take over the family business and sit on his duff while the other, less fortunate child (me) will be working for years trying to get to the point of being remotely comfortable...
Of course, the man with a million dollars could be an idiot and invest in the entirely wrong things, and the man with a thousand dollars could be a flippin' genius with investing and get more than a million dollars, but that just does not happen very often.
So should the tax rate on the rich be raised because they are lucky? No. But can they afford it and still live in luxury? For the most part, yes. There are people who have 6-7 butlers, a mansion, 2 seasonal homes, an island, their own police force on said island who ride segues, and 12-24 sports cars. (I actually can name a person with more than this...) Overall, I think that these people have just a little bit too much... (Personal opinion from the son of a public school teacher.)
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 05:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I do agree that, for the most part, luck and chance make most of the wealthy businessmen. It is far easier to earn a million dollars if you had a million dollars to work with before doing anything.
What does that have to do with being lucky?
Quote:
So should the tax rate on the rich be raised because they are lucky? No. But can they afford it and still live in luxury? For the most part, yes. There are people who have 6-7 butlers, a mansion, 2 seasonal homes, an island, their own police force on said island who ride segues, and 12-24 sports cars.
This is a myth - most of the "rich" that are affected by the proposed higher tax rates (of which I am not a member, just to be clear) do not live like this. They are wealthy, yes, but they aren't THAT wealthy.
Quote:
Overall, I think that these people have just a little bit too much...
What does this mean, to have "too much"? Too much to be healthy? Too much to be moral? Too much by what metric? Who decides what is "too much"?
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 05:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What does that have to do with being lucky?
You were born and then basically given a million dollars for being born because of who your father/ mother is. How is this not lucky?
Quote:
This is a myth - most of the "rich" that are affected by the proposed higher tax rates (of which I am not a member, just to be clear) do not live like this. They are wealthy, yes, but they aren't THAT wealthy.
I know. I was just using the most extreme example of a person I have met with and talked to. (Dean Kamen, richer than God on steroids) I know that the vast majority of people (around 99.99%) Do not own an island and most rich people only own a single summer house and a decently sized regular house. Do they need the summer house? No. Can the top 25% keep it? Yes.
Quote:
What does this mean, to have "too much"? Too much to be healthy? Too much to be moral? Too much by what metric? Who decides what is "too much"?
You have so much that you actually become bored with everything, so you start the downward spiral of loosing your health and doing immoral deeds. This definition brought to you by, 95% of the American population, and 100% of the Chinese. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 06:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I do agree that, for the most part, luck and chance make most of the wealthy businessmen. It is far easier to earn a million dollars if you had a million dollars to work with before doing anything.
What does that have to do with being lucky?
What does this mean, to have "too much"? Too much to be healthy? Too much to be moral? Too much by what metric? Who decides what is "too much"?
It is lucky to have wealthy parents because no one choose your parents. But there is one possible metric to decide if people have too much and that is by how much of it they throw away. Here we are the richest county in the world and surpise, we throw away alot of food. In fact I experince this in person everytime I go to work. You see I do the dishes for rich people and what I notice is dozens of plates with expensive food that has barley been touched.
If we repealed the bush tax cut I don't think it would hurt the wealthy standred of lving one bit. It would just mean they would throw away less and spend more carfully and their standred of living would be intact.
One more thing. I greatful for the job that rich people give me, but then they better be equally greatful of my work. Lets face it, the rich need us poor just as much as we need them. So it would be very imprudent to let us die.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 08:16 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:21, 14 Apr 2011.
|
1) Luck and Riches
Sure, some people become financially well off due to luck. Most of those people are lotto winners. Sure, some people have a great tragedy in their life that helps keep them down. Others overcome tragedy for their own success story. Some people start off in deep poverty and rise to riches. Some people start off with riches and sink to poverty.
For the most part a person who is financially well off is so because of hard work when we are talking about a free nation. America is still at this point a free nation with plenty of economic opportunities.
Hard work is not particularly pleasant. It may be working multiple jobs (like I did) or long hours. I was born in deep poverty. Nothing was expected of me. I was expected to amount to nothing. I had an excuse. I could have said "Oh, man, 'the man' sure is keeping me down" and people around me would have agreed. But I did not want to remain in poverty. I saw a way out. I worked. I worked long. I worked hard.
I saved. I lived in a ghetto apartment putting money away. I worked 3 jobs for 100+ hours per week for 3 years to get enough to start a business. I planned. I scouted out a location for my planned business. I took a risk and started the business. I continued to work long hours to establish the business. I worked long hours to keep the business going.
I keep my eyes open. I scouted neighboring cities. I saw opportunity. I worked long hours. I established new places of business. I worked long hours to establish each place of business. I worked long hours to keep them going and make them successful.
Obama says my success is the result of luck. I say my success is the fruit of my labor.
2)Riches and the government
No. It is not the role of government to make sure everyone has an equal amount of wealth or an equal lot in life. There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that. In fact, such a goal cannot be attained in a free society. and has not been attained in communist nations.
Life is not "fair." The government can't make it "fair."
Obama could have suggested a law that an individual can only be taxed on the first 40 hours of any job he works. Obama could have looked into the camera and said, ""Yes, you can. You can work jobs you don't work. Yes, you can work more than one job. Yes, you can live beneath your means and plan for your future."
However, that did not happen. Instead of motivating people to build their future Obama said he wants to tear down what others have built through their hard work and give the pieces to those who have not succeeded in building their dreams.
One of the founding principles of America is the right to private property. Obama does not share that core belief. Obama believes that the right to private property and the fruits of one's labor was dreamed up by the wealthy elite to keep others oppressed.
Our founding fathers knew that private property rights serve as motivation. The ability to accumulate wealth and keep the fruit of one's labor provides motivation to work and the will to endure another day of toil. It keeps the economy rolling on. It makes it possible to not only dream but to make your dream a reality.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490
He also wrote: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
Redistribution of wealth is taking the fruits of the labor of one to give said fruit to another who has not labored for it. Such actions are in opposition to the natural order and to the spirit of liberty. Such actions were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers as appropriate for the government to undertake.
I shall let Jefferson have the last word in this post. I only wish Obama would listen to him.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 08:23 AM |
bonus applied by angelito on 28 Apr 2011. |
|
*Lifts a warning finger*
Corribus, Corribus, you are applying the same - even worse - methods than President Obama: as fasr as I have an idea about language, LUCK and LUCKY have different meanings than FORTUNE and FORTUNATE, if you dig a bit deeper.
That said, OF COURSE blind Luck plays a starring role:
1) Genetics - not your own doing.
They give you mental and bodily prerequisites necessary for certain well-paidjobs
2) Heritage and upbringing - not your own doing.
Give you more or less opportunities and connections
3) General surroundings/relative stability and wealth of your respective country - not your own doing.
Also, everything rests on what has been done before by people - so that we are not sitting in caves anymore, can visit schools, have social peace (if we have) and so on.
There are lots of people who don't need to work at all and don't need any talent and will still be "fortunate", while there are lots of people who do work hard and have some talent who are not, at least not in the sense we are talking about.
Indeed, if you think about it - if a doctor or a lawyer, a judge or a politician, an architect or estate agent is wealthy, can you really say their comparative wealth has nothing to do with luck, when you look at a policeman? A nurse? A truck driver? A trashman?
"Fortunate" is a very apt description: it shows, that the individual is nothing without the backing of society that provides the foundation for everyone. That means, "the fortunate" have an obligation to society, because what they are they couldn't be alone and without it.
Naturally, there are jobs who are more useful to society than others. A doctor, for example, is a lot more useful to society than a Real Estate Agent - however, a trashman is rather useful as well, and what happens when they are on strike is a good reminder here.
Of course there is even more luck involved: Having just the right teacher (seeing a talent, encouraging and promoting it), for example. Meeting just the right person at the right time who's just looking for someone like you...
The REAL question is definitely not whether the fortunate are indeed fortunate, because they are. The real question is, WHEN are you to be called fortunate, and WHAT should you pay extra?
My personal opinion is, that those who actually aren't THAT fortunate are paying too much, relatively spoken, while those who really are, don't, again relatively spoken.
This is where FORTUNATE enters a new dimension, because the FORTUNATE are indeed so, since they have a lot more opportunities to make sure they KEEP that way. If you have a normal job - do you have a tax advisor who tells you that you need to buy a Jet to save a million in taxes (and have a jet instead)? When you have a normal job, and you went to Vegas on a whim losing a quarter of your yearly salary - can you declare that as a loss and save taxes? On the other hand, if you have a business and made a bet on the wrong article that you can't sell now because of no demand, you CAN declare it.
And so on. So the fortunate are fortunate indeed - but there are people called fortunate who in fact are not more fortunate than milk cows.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 08:36 AM |
|
|
Be careful what you ask in front of the president Corribus 
You know how overly sensitive the president is.
If you call him a poop poo head, he will make sure you never work in your state again!
Anywho he has tried many many ways to help the budget, but alas failed.
His feeble words are as promising as his inaugural speeches & Promises.
Everyone praised him as being the first black president & he is going to help us through all the crisis our former BUSH had led us.
He cant even fill out a half way bracket of the NCAA tournament
He shoots hoops in basketball better then coming up with a proper medical plan!
No one is lucky as long as he is president.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 10:29 AM |
|
Edited by Jabanoss at 10:34, 14 Apr 2011.
|
(Why is it that every time I feel like making a post in the OSM Jolly Joker have already been there and made all the points that I wanted to make? :/)
Isn't everything governed by luck? (and yes, lets ignore what luck really is...)
I mean it's all very simple, if you are a successful football player then you have either been blessed with a good physique or an usually good ability to train. In both cases you have been lucky enough to have good genes.
Same thing could be applied to success in all kinds of fields whether it's writing, acting, singing or programming. It has all been the "decided" by luck...
And just like JJ has already said, you can also be lucky in other ways such being born in the right family, born at the right time, right country, right conditions.
For example would we consider Bill Gates or Steve Jobs lucky? What if they were born 50 years earlier or 50 years later, under other conditions would they have been able to make their fortunes?
My point is that more or less everything is based on luck, however if I instead should try to give my thoughts on your second question.
"(2) Whether or not luck’s role in success justifies government’s attempts to make everyone “equal”."
I do not believe that the government neither could or should try to make everything equal for the people. However I do believe that the government should strive to give it's people equal opportunities.
In the first part of my post I wanted to say that there is possible to be lucky in various ways, for example someone could be lucky and have a remarkable talent at writing. However at the same time be extremely unlucky in another way that the person don't even have access to proper schooling and therefor will be unable to be successful.
So wondering, would it be okay to have taxation that takes money from those who are fortunate, to help those who are not fortunate enough so that they may have an "easier" chance at finding success?
Yes I personally think that such redistribute of wealth is appropriate.
To me it is all very simple, life isn't fair but if we want to profit the most, we must make sure that at least everyone as a chance at being successful. Everyone is lucky in some way, everyone has their own gifts, so no matter how lucky you are you should be given help* to succeed at what you are good at. (*that help is of course within reason)
Many people might want to think that if you are unlucky you should just work your way up in order to be successful. While it true that more or less everyone can achieve and come closer to their dreams, it is not necessarily the best way of thinking.
Not everyone will be able to work their way up like this, for whatever reason. I understand if this sounds a bit stupid, I mean why should the society invest in someone that cannot even work their way up?
Well because the society might actually benefit from helping these people, not everyone can, will or should have to work 100+ hours a week just so that they "overcome" their bad luck.
I think it is only reasonable that some redistribute of wealth exist, not everything in this world is equal, but we can at least strive to give people equal chances.
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 12:06 PM |
|
|
Maybe you are reading too much into it? I know what it implies but I've always associated it with success, prosperity and the like. Just like I've heard the poor be called less fortunate, doesn't sound like something that can be taken too literally.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 02:24 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 14:25, 14 Apr 2011.
|
talking about lucky people is probably not very true, but hard-working is as wrong. I don't need to explain there are a lots of hard-working poor people (well, maybe not many in USA alone)
in france there is that distinction between people who don't work and people who do. people who don't work receive help that people who work can't have and also pay less taxes, which makes them actually richer than the poorest working people.
Quote:
I worked 3 jobs for 100+ hours per week for 3 years to get enough to start a business.
it's like 16h per day??
Quote:
Obama could have looked into the camera and said, ""Yes, you can. You can work jobs you don't work. Yes, you can work more than one job. Yes, you can live beneath your means and plan for your future."
well, that would be copying sarkozy.
and how would that work? I hear there isn't enough work for everyone, so each time you work one more job, you take it from someone else.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 02:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For the most part a person who is financially well off is so because of hard work
*stops reading*
*facepalms*
On topic: success - financial, at least - is 100% luck based. Even if not via rich parents and profitable friendships, but through intelligence or some other talent - that talent is still nothing of a person's effort, but rather, a lucky dice roll at birth.
You can hardwork all your life and be extremely poor. Miners, for instance. Their work is most likely ten times harder then any of smartmouths like Elodin (excuse me, Elodin, if it isn't - just guessing.) , yet their payment is probably 20 times less or whatever.
But yeah, people attuned for business, with business talents, will go around praising their hardworking, skipping the fact how lucky they are to be able to make good decisions and have great ideas (which isn't their doing at all). Typical.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 04:02 PM |
|
|
While the issue of inheritance is usually very exaggerated by people, I have to agree that saying most wealthy people got to where they were because of hard work is inadequate. Not wrong, but inadequate. There's more to it.
To explain it more thoroughly, wealthy people get to where they are because they are providing something that few people are able to provide. Any competent, physically unmarred adult has the necessary means to make a decent miner. They might put a lot of work into what they're doing, but they're doing something that billions of other people could also do. If they die for whatever reason, another newly hired employee can easily enough take their place.
An astronaut is not so easy to replace. Their job requires enormously more extensive training and extensive more ability. Most people would make piss poor astronauts. If an astronaut dies, they are not as easy to replace.
An artist or business entrepreneur can also make a lot of money - possibly an obscene amount of money - through providing a unique idea that the public gobbles up. Billions of other people failed to produce and enact the idea that that person produced. Of course, the wealth of successful artists or business entrepreneurs is more controversial. Few people whine about an aviation engineer taking home a respectfully high paycheck.
(I'll stop talking here to see where this goes)
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 04:13 PM |
|
|
Luck is almost the all-deciding factor of "wealth".
As previously said: You do not pick your genetics, you do not pick to start out in a country where you get a proper education and healthcare, and you do not pick where you start your "expansion towards wealth" from.
Even the wealthiest has to admit that he or she had not found a investor to kick of their new idea, or had started with the wealth they had worked their arses off to acquire, they would never have to work hard for it in the first place, just invest and then profit.
To make it clear:
Just because someone can work and get wealth of hard work, does not mean that everyone that is wealthy have have actually worked for it.
Not everything is luck, but it won't help to be the next Einstein if you are born and stuck in poverty due being born in the wrong society.
As for the "core issue" that has spawned this:
The cost of living well is fixed, which means that all you earn above that threshold is nothing but luxury, but we don't tax everything above that do we?
Even a flat tax would be unfair, because it would mean that those under the cost of living would be paying harsh taxes.
Lets then say we start the "tax" at some point over this fine line of good living, that would still be unfair because the wealthy earn proportionally more money than those just above it. And unless the wealthy actually invested it all, they are hoarding gold and slowing down the economy by hoarding.
That means a proportional tax is the only "sane" method, if setup properly.
This of course implies that the state wanting taxes actually has something reasonable to spend them on.
If they do have something reasonable to spend it on, and they use a sane tax scheme, the people should bless their state for using a sane tax scheme on sane issues.
____________
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 04:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But yeah, people attuned for business, with business talents, will go around praising their hardworking, skipping the fact how lucky they are to be able to make good decisions and have great ideas (which isn't their doing at all). Typical.
Hard work will always beat talent until talent starts working hard.
Sure some of us are better fashioned for thinking jobs while others aren't as fotunate but that doesn't mean that you have to be a born talent to be good at what you and get somewhere doing it.
Being able to make good decisions and have good ideas isn't just a fluke of nature it comes from hard work.
Sure there are people who were born managers etc. they have it easier than others but not easy in general. Hard work will always get you somewhere unless you're an imbecile or have powerful opponents.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 04:26 PM |
|
|
|
Hard work will earn you a broken back and an early death more often than a fortune, that's for sure.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 04:31 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 16:32, 14 Apr 2011.
|
But you'll have done the best you can.
I guess compared to not giving it your best and just slacking off making an small but easy living while going nowhere in life that's not so attractive anymore?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 04:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you'll have done the best you can.
I guess compared to not giving it your best and just slacking off making an small but easy living while going nowhere in life that's not so attractive anymore?
But if we turn it around: What if you where given the money you needed to get of the inital investment, and because of that you become filthy rich?
You would work equally if not less than the "slacker", but you would magically earn money without extra effort.
Doing your best is only worth it if you actually get something for it. If all it earns you are a false pat on the back, and a more broken body, it is not worth it.
____________
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 04:42 PM |
|
|
I feel what we see here is a big difference in the understanding of the term well off and difference of cultures.
Seems to me that some people here are considering the well off as the rich people, while some consider doctor level richness well off or even less.
DF seeing his polish viewpoint where doctors get less than people who sold jeans is quite valid compared to the american viewpoint.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 14, 2011 04:48 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 16:50, 14 Apr 2011.
|
lol you're almost funny diablo.
"If you were given the money"? Yeah that's a probable scenario. Not to mention that for an investment to pay off to make you "filthy rich" it'd have to be quite a big investment. That kind of money isn't "given" to you (given... lol you were being serious?) you have to earn stuff like that. So prior to the investment the person would have had to work a lot more than any slacker.
And doing your best at something simply to do the best of your ability isn't a "false" pat on the back. If you can't see that that's your loss.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
| |
|
|
