Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't matter whether you do better than most people. It's not a competition
It matters whether you are happy and have your basic needs fulfilled (shelter, food, healthcare)
Well, that's the crux of the whole debate, isn't it? Are criteria for success absolute, or relative.
Let's consider this thought-experiment. In Scenario A, the time is 500 BC. You are a tribesman in a primitive village. Most villagers have a disease or two. Most have lost several children. Most have several missing teeth. And typically they might have one or two cows. Everyone is illiterate, and worries about harassment by a stronger, neighboring tribe. You, on the other hand, have only lost one child to disease. You have 5 cows. And you only have two missing teeth. In relative terms, your situation is superior in the village.
In Scenario B, the time is the present. You're an invited-speaker at Davos. Your net worth is $50M. You have a vacation house, besides your fancy condo in Manhattan. And you have a nice yacht. You flew to the meeting via charter-flight. But most other attendees flew to the meeting in their own private jets. Their net worth is >$100M. And besides a condo in Manhattan, they each have a place in London, a country-house in southern France, and a farm in Australia. And their yachts are bigger.
Actually, it was my Son who made it hit home for me. He was living in San Diego and I was visiting one time and having lunch with him and a friend of his. I offhandedly mentioned that if he stayed living there, I might "drop a hundred grand on a boat to park in San Diego harbor for when I come to visit". After his friend left, my Son scolded me severely. "Dad, you just can't talk like that. Most people can't just buy a $ 100,000 boat for when they come to visit". My first thought was, "They can't ?" So I started doing some math on how much "good jobs" pay and then I was like, "Oops, now I get it". I've never made a comment like that since.
Really?
Hahahaha. I don't believe you. You made that comment because you were bragging. Sad that you embarrassed yourself and your son, but that's O.K. Everyone makes mistakes.
Did you brag because it made you feel superior for 5 seconds? If you can push the friend down, did it make you feel that much better after your chat? Why do you have to brag to feel better about yourself?
In actuality, what you did had the opposite affect. Instead of being impressed, your son was annoyed and his friend was not impressed with your being so boastful. Maybe your son will be having lunch with you alone next time.
"Maybe I should buy a Maserati and park it in a rented garage for me to drive when I come visit you."
Well, that's the crux of the whole debate, isn't it? Are criteria for success absolute, or relative.
Let's consider this thought-experiment. In Scenario A, the time is 500 BC. You are a tribesman in a primitive village. Most villagers have a disease or two. Most have lost several children. Most have several missing teeth. And typically they might have one or two cows. Everyone is illiterate, and worries about harassment by a stronger, neighboring tribe. You, on the other hand, have only lost one child to disease. You have 5 cows. And you only have two missing teeth. In relative terms, your situation is superior in the village.
In Scenario B, the time is the present. You're an invited-speaker at Davos. Your net worth is $50M. You have a vacation house, besides your fancy condo in Manhattan. And you have a nice yacht. You flew to the meeting via charter-flight. But most other attendees flew to the meeting in their own private jets. Their net worth is >$100M. And besides a condo in Manhattan, they each have a place in London, a country-house in southern France, and a farm in Australia. And their yachts are bigger.
The wealthiest human being on the planet is Vladimir Putin, with an estimated net worth exceeding $250 Billion, and possibly as high as $500 Billion. That greatly exceeds the combined wealth of Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett.
Socialism's redistribution has worked out very well for Vladimir Putin -- the country's wealth has been redistributed to him.
Well, maybe....but if the people decide otherwise, he will lost 95% of it in a heartbeat - and many even hang for it.
Well, that's the crux of the whole debate, isn't it? Are criteria for success absolute, or relative.
Let's consider this thought-experiment. In Scenario A, the time is 500 BC. You are a tribesman in a primitive village. Most villagers have a disease or two. Most have lost several children. Most have several missing teeth. And typically they might have one or two cows. Everyone is illiterate, and worries about harassment by a stronger, neighboring tribe. You, on the other hand, have only lost one child to disease. You have 5 cows. And you only have two missing teeth. In relative terms, your situation is superior in the village.
In Scenario B, the time is the present. You're an invited-speaker at Davos. Your net worth is $50M. You have a vacation house, besides your fancy condo in Manhattan. And you have a nice yacht. You flew to the meeting via charter-flight. But most other attendees flew to the meeting in their own private jets. Their net worth is >$100M. And besides a condo in Manhattan, they each have a place in London, a country-house in southern France, and a farm in Australia. And their yachts are bigger.
Which scenario would you choose?
No yacht. No private jet (even Buffet uses net jets). And only the properties I could easily handle.
The wealthiest human being on the planet is Vladimir Putin, with an estimated net worth exceeding $250 Billion, and possibly as high as $500 Billion. .
He's also the only person on Earth who owns an American president.
When I retired at 46, I looked around and saw many of my lifetime acquaintances who were the same age or older still trying to figure it out. Some were bouncing from one minimum wage job to another, or had become content with "disability" payments of $1K/month or so (coupled with various government handouts). Others had spent their adult years working for employers that offered no hope of a retirement income other than SS at 62. One even mentioned going back to school in their 50s, hoping for a better paying career path. Another was back living with his mother in his mid-40s.
Now it's four years later, and they are still doing what they've always done, and telling me how "lucky" I am. My usual reply is that luck had nothing to do with it. If they did what I did, they'd have what I have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
