Re: Hurricane relief

[Dan Luke]

"gregg" wrote:

>
> Is it not possible for someone to be unlucky and still work their way
> out
> of poverty through hard work?

Of course it is, but it is much more difficult than building on the
advantages of a higher economic birthright. That is why relatively few
people do it: it requires an exceptional person, and exceptional persons
are, by definition, rare.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[AKA gray asphalt]

"gregg" > wrote in message ...
> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>
>>
>> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:36:08 -0400, "Steve S" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So if you were born poor, can't read, don't have the skills to purify
>>>>water
>>>>(which I, a college graduate, don't have. Do you just boil it?) you
>>>>should just die.
>>>
>>> Boiling works. Keep it on the boil for several minutes, however. (They
>>> say 12, but that might be overkill.)
>>>
>>> If you aren't prepared to live, then you must be prepared to die when
>>> you get into trouble. The other week in Greenland, I found that I'd
>>> gone out hiking without a compass. I managed with my wris****ch (and
>>> it digital!). I have very little sympathy with people who grow to
>>> adulthood without some basic survival skills.
>>>
>>> And yes, I was born poor, in a poverty that today's welfare cases
>>> can't begin to imagine. I learned to read in school, in a hillbilly
>>> town in New Hampshire. I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who
>>> grow to adulthood without learning to read.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>>
>> So what do you attribute your success: because you were lucky
>> enough to get the help out of a rought childhood or lucky enough
>> to have the intellilgence and health and every thing else that had
>> nothing to do with you ... unless you created yourself.
>
> Your question to Dan is amusing because you only allow for luck.
>
> Is it not possible for someone to be unlucky and still work their way out
> of poverty through hard work?
>
> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
>

No, imo. Being hard working is a matter of luck too.
I could be wrong, if I'm unlucky.

[AKA gray asphalt]

"gregg" > wrote in message ...
> AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>
>>
>> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:36:08 -0400, "Steve S" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So if you were born poor, can't read, don't have the skills to purify
>>>>water
>>>>(which I, a college graduate, don't have. Do you just boil it?) you
>>>>should just die.
>>>
>>> Boiling works. Keep it on the boil for several minutes, however. (They
>>> say 12, but that might be overkill.)
>>>
>>> If you aren't prepared to live, then you must be prepared to die when
>>> you get into trouble. The other week in Greenland, I found that I'd
>>> gone out hiking without a compass. I managed with my wris****ch (and
>>> it digital!). I have very little sympathy with people who grow to
>>> adulthood without some basic survival skills.
>>>
>>> And yes, I was born poor, in a poverty that today's welfare cases
>>> can't begin to imagine. I learned to read in school, in a hillbilly
>>> town in New Hampshire. I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who
>>> grow to adulthood without learning to read.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>>
>> So what do you attribute your success: because you were lucky
>> enough to get the help out of a rought childhood or lucky enough
>> to have the intellilgence and health and every thing else that had
>> nothing to do with you ... unless you created yourself.
>
> Your question to Dan is amusing because you only allow for luck.
>
> Is it not possible for someone to be unlucky and still work their way out
> of poverty through hard work?
>
> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
>

Here's another way to look at it. If someone is succesful and
attrubutes is to being lucky, we all say, well I think we all usually
say "Yeah, he was lucky to have good parents or a mentor or
to be born in the US ... but when someone ends up screwed,
luck had nothing to do with it.

[Doof]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> Is it not possible for someone to be unlucky and still work their way out
>> of poverty through hard work?
>
> Of course it is, but it is much more difficult than building on the
> advantages of a higher economic birthright. That is why relatively few
> people do it: it requires an exceptional person, and exceptional persons
> are, by definition, rare.

So rare that about one third of our present day millionaires (according to
Walter Williams) were born into the bottom half of economic households.

Only in America
by Walter Williams (May 4, 2005)
/excerpt

"Let's talk about the rich -- those people who, according to former
Congressman Richard Gephardt, are "winners in life's lottery." Or the people
whom director Michael Moore preaches, in his book "Dude, Where's my
Country?" got rich off the backs of the poor.
Farrah Gray was raised in a predominantly black Chicago neighborhood. At age
8, he started a lemonade stand business, later a venture capital business, a
food business and a magazine. By age 17, Farrah Gray was a millionaire, had
been chief executive of four companies, and had offices on Wall Street, and
in Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

While becoming a millionaire by age 17 is rare, eventually becoming a
millionaire isn't. According to TNS Financial Services' 2004 Affluent Market
Research survey, there are an estimated 8.2 million American households with
assets, excluding primary residences, worth over $1 million.

That's a 33 percent increase over the 6.2 million millionaire households in
2003.

Who are these people portrayed either as winners in life's lottery or who
got rich by exploiting the poor? One thing for sure is that they're not the
sons and daughters of the Rockefellers, the Kennedys or the Vanderbilts.
According to Drs. Thomas Stanley and William Danko's research published in
their book "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's
Wealthy," 80 percent of today's American millionaires are first-generation
rich.

Drs. Stanley and Danko listed other characteristics of these 8.2 million
millionaire households. Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more
of their wealth. More than half never received as much as a dollar in
inheritance. Fewer than 25 percent received "an act of kindness" from a
relative greater than $10,000, and 91 percent never received, as a gift, as
much as $1 from the ownership of a family business.

Being first-generation rich is not new for Americans. Drs. Stanley and Danko
say, "More than 100 years ago the same was true. In The American Economy,
Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American
millionaires. He reports that 84 percent were nouveau riche, having reached
the top without the benefit of inherited wealth.""

/end

America's one boom industry, other than entertainment, has got to be making
excuses.

[Dan Luke]

"Doof" wrote:

>>> Is it not possible for someone to be unlucky and still work their
>>> way out
>>> of poverty through hard work?
>>
>> Of course it is, but it is much more difficult than building on the
>> advantages of a higher economic birthright. That is why relatively
>> few people do it: it requires an exceptional person, and exceptional
>> persons are, by definition, rare.
>
> So rare that about one third of our present day millionaires
> (according to Walter Williams) were born into the bottom half of
> economic households.

Yes. Success would be expected of exceptional individuals, wouldn't you
agree?

Mr. Williams' statistic supports my point: one has a 100% better chance
of achieving millionaire status if one is born into an above-median
houshold.

What portion of the general population is made up of millionaires? If
1/3 of them come from the low side of the economic bell curve, how many
of that third come from poverty? That number, I believe you will find,
comprises a tiny portion of the total population.

I stand by my original point: it requires an exceptional person to rise
out of poverty.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"gregg" wrote:

>> And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?
>
> Basic precautions for disasters, or working your way out of poverty,
> do not
> require being the one who brings the potato salad to the Mensa Picnic.

Hee-hee! Good one.

Sadly, many poor people could not *find* the Mensa picnic. The reasons
for this are cause for much scientific debate, but it is nevertheless a
fact.

So what shall we say of these people, that they deserved what happened
to them? That we should not be too anxious about rescuing them from
their predicament because they did not have the intelligence, judgement
and resources to avoid it in the first place?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

On 4-Sep-2005, Cub Driver > wrote:

> Somehow I think the Londoners would have managed better.
>
> And did manage better, not only in the recent bombings but those of
> WWII. And believe me, Londoners in the East End in the 1940s also had
> nothing.

You do realize that the disaster area is the size of the UK, the entire
UK, don't you?

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

[[email protected]]

On 4-Sep-2005, "AKA gray asphalt" > wrote:

> And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?

I for one would not call it luck.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

[Doof]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doof" wrote:
>
>>>> Is it not possible for someone to be unlucky and still work their way
>>>> out
>>>> of poverty through hard work?
>>>
>>> Of course it is, but it is much more difficult than building on the
>>> advantages of a higher economic birthright. That is why relatively few
>>> people do it: it requires an exceptional person, and exceptional persons
>>> are, by definition, rare.
>>
>> So rare that about one third of our present day millionaires (according
>> to Walter Williams) were born into the bottom half of economic
>> households.
>
> Yes. Success would be expected of exceptional individuals, wouldn't you
> agree?

Not necessarily. Many exceptional people lack even basic success skills.
>
> Mr. Williams' statistic supports my point: one has a 100% better chance of
> achieving millionaire status if one is born into an above-median houshold.

You better re-read the article. While it's certainly and advantage, the
benefits come not from transfers of wealth, but from a CULTURAL perspective.
>
> What portion of the general population is made up of millionaires? If 1/3
> of them come from the low side of the economic bell curve, how many of
> that third come from poverty?

Check some of Williams other articles, but about 10% come from poverty. Now,
note, too, that success doesn't necessarilty mean being a millionaire. One
thing, though, that you will find is how many millionaires are only two
generations out of poverty.

> That number, I believe you will find, comprises a tiny portion of the
> total population.

Yes it is. But the point is that it's not impossible, only difficult.
However, the major hurdles are almost exclusively between the ears, not in
the wallet.

>
> I stand by my original point: it requires an exceptional person to rise
> out of poverty.

Considering that poverty is FAR MORE a cultural issue, you're right. It
means going against the grain that permeates the area in which you were born
and raised. But again, rising out of poverty to become a millionaire is not
the issue so much as rising out of poverty to become independent and
self-sufficient. Take a good look at the mindsets that characterize both
segments of society and the contrast is astounding. For one group to
understand the others is virtually impossible, going in either direction.

[Doof]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>
> So what shall we say of these people, that they deserved what happened to
> them?
Did they deserve a massive hurricane? Certainly not. Did they deserve what
happened prior to the hurricane? To a great extend, yes they did.

> That we should not be too anxious about rescuing them from their
> predicament because they did not have the intelligence, judgement and
> resources to avoid it in the first place?

First you rescue those in danger; then you make damn sure they understand
HOW they got there. Notice after most disasters, you hear little of
gratitude and a lot of whining and "buy me... get me...gimme".

[Doof]

AKA gray asphalt wrote:
>
>
> "Doof" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> If you think it was merely "luck", then obviously you don't understand it
>> (success) at all.
>>
>> Being lucky whilst being stupid will get you into next week or next
>> month, but not much further.
>
> And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?

Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.

[Dan Luke]

"Doof" wrote:

>> And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?
>
> Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.

Where did you get that number?

[Dan Luke]

"Doof" wrote:
>>> So rare that about one third of our present day millionaires
>>> (according to Walter Williams) were born into the bottom half of
>>> economic households.
>>
>> Yes. Success would be expected of exceptional individuals, wouldn't
>> you agree?
>
> Not necessarily. Many exceptional people lack even basic success
> skills.

Not the kind of exceptional people under discussion. Charles Manson was
an exceptional person in his way, but we're not talking about
psychopaths.

>> Mr. Williams' statistic supports my point: one has a 100% better
>> chance of achieving millionaire status if one is born into an
>> above-median houshold.
>
> You better re-read the article. While it's certainly and advantage,
> the benefits come not from transfers of wealth, but from a CULTURAL
> perspective.

Nevertheless, the advantage is real, and a person who achieves
millionaire status without it is exceptional. There are kinds of
material advantages other than financial that are transferred from
parents to children.

>> What portion of the general population is made up of millionaires?
>> If 1/3 of them come from the low side of the economic bell curve, how
>> many of that third come from poverty?
>
> Check some of Williams other articles, but about 10% come from
> poverty. Now, note, too, that success doesn't necessarilty mean being
> a millionaire. One thing, though, that you will find is how many
> millionaires are only two generations out of poverty.
>
>> That number, I believe you will find, comprises a tiny portion of
>> the total population.
>
> Yes it is. But the point is that it's not impossible, only difficult.

I never said any different.

> However, the major hurdles are almost exclusively between the ears,
> not in the wallet.

That is an assertion I would not necessarily argue with, but I do not
know of any hard data that back it up.

>> I stand by my original point: it requires an exceptional person to
>> rise out of poverty.
>
> Considering that poverty is FAR MORE a cultural issue, you're right.
> It means going against the grain that permeates the area in which you
> were born and raised. But again, rising out of poverty to become a
> millionaire is not the issue so much as rising out of poverty to
> become independent and self-sufficient. Take a good look at the
> mindsets that characterize both segments of society and the contrast
> is astounding. For one group to understand the others is virtually
> impossible, going in either direction.

No doubt.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Doof]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doof" wrote:
>
>>> And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?
>>
>> Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.
>
> Where did you get that number?
From the inverse...that which is physical impairment.

What proportion would YOU say is volitional?

[Gary Drescher]

"Doof" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Doof" wrote:
>>
>>>> And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?
>>>
>>> Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.
>>
>> Where did you get that number?
>>
> From the inverse...that which is physical impairment.

So your belief is that in the absence of a rare physical impairment, anyone
can just *will* themselves to be smart? So a person with an IQ of 80 (well
within the range designated as "normal") could become a nuclear physicist,
if only she or he chose to work hard enough at it?

I realize it's almost beside the point to ask, but: do you have any evidence
to support such a belief?

--Gary

[Dan Luke]

"Doof" wrote:

>>>> And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?
>>>
>>> Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.
>>
>> Where did you get that number?

> From the inverse...that which is physical impairment.
>
> What proportion would YOU say is volitional?

I'm sorry; at this point, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Doof]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doof" wrote:
>
>>>>> And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?
>>>>
>>>> Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.
>>>
>>> Where did you get that number?
>
>> From the inverse...that which is physical impairment.
>>
>> What proportion would YOU say is volitional?
>
> I'm sorry; at this point, I have no idea what you are talking about.

How much of "smarts" is volitional and how much is luck?

Okay?