In my experience I've met far more people who began with native talent, than those who ended with success. From what I've seen the difference lay in seeking to reach the pinnacle of one's potential, maximizing strengths and strengthening weaknesses, hard work, the courage to seek opportunities... and various other things that were more a matter of choice and action that of luck.
Obviously we aren't going to see eye to eye here.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
This may come as a surprise to you but that's not what your poll was.In a sense what I am really asking is that is everyone that is poor in that situation because they are lazy?
Even then, the word "everyone" makes it just as pointless. Use better wording, with more options, and you'll likely get more of the information you're looking for.
All else equal, same job, same potential, yes, on average you are far more likely to obtain a higher income, via hard work. You can game the system by acting like you work hard, but it carries risk, and depends on co-workers/transparency. In generaly, yes, the harder you work all else equal, the more you make.
However, you can also work hard at planning your income path, and work less, and make more, than someone who didn't work hard at planning their income/career. Somehow hard work seems to keep popping up.
But I 'd think this would be changing, if the companies wish to be successful. And one should have the ability to play politics, its part of survival.
Hard work at the job also includes improving oneself....which I never really did, as an auto mechanic...
Many of the welfare receivers are simply not very bright, cannot even push a broom....., which is a thing of the past anyway...
This "lazy" thing - I do not buy.
The problem is much more complex, wish I had an answer..
Lazy or not is irrelevant in the primary argument.
The primary argument has nothing to do with how hard people work, it has to do with wealth redistribution.
Use your own example.
1. happy to work 10-11 hours at their wage level
2. choose not to become supervisors which carries higher pay
So they didn't choose to work for more, according to you. So why would the person who does choose to be supervisor, have to give some of their money to the rest of the people who chose not to take on a similar supervisor position? Isn't that the real question?
Laziness and income are then entirely irrelevant. No one would give a crap what the correlation was, if you were not redistributing wealth in the first place, then everyone is presumably choosing to do what makes them happy....be it a care-free minimum wage job, or a doctor.
Last edited by Mach; 04-27-10 at 04:30 PM.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)