Only rich people are happy, for the rest of us, life blows

[macdoobie]

Let me explain.

I'm poor right now. Read: I lost a good paying job and there is no way to afford my rent and bills for this upcoming month. I don't have an amazing lifestyle, hell I don't even own a TV. So I don't have bills I could just end (like cable TV) and be okay. I'm talking the BARE MINIMUM to survive in this country. And if you ask about my internet bill, I admit it, I use someone elses.

Anyway, only rich people are happy. The people in mercedes talking on their iPhone reserving seats at a fancy place to eat, smiling, happy as can be. In good health these rich people are too, afterall, they can afford health insurance! And for someone like me with medical problems (and no insurance now!) how can I afford $1300/month out of pocket with all the other crap I have to pay for? Meanwhile, rich stupid basketball players are making millions for throwing a ball in a little hoop...and 70% of america is thrown into the gutter.
:mad::mad::mad::(

[Drumjim85]

I'm sorry for your misfortune.... but money can't buy you happiness, or love...

the basketball players and rockstars have all figured out how to get people to pay a lot to come see them perform... so, good for them...

[cal6n]

Rich people aren't necessarily happy, you know.

They can afford a better class of misery, though.

[maceleven]

Isaiah 61:10
I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.
Isaiah 61:9-11 (in Context) Isaiah 61 (Whole Chapter):)

[macdoobie]

Rich people aren't necessarily happy, you know.

They can afford a better class of misery, though.

they have different struggles i know.

but they NEVER have to worry about if they have a place to live in the next 30 days, and contemplate what bridge in the city offers the best wind protection

they never have to worry about medical costs, or food

the list goes on and on

[PowerFullMac]

Sorry for what happened to you and I hope it turns out well.

Being rich wont always make you happy, if something bad happened to me and I had all the money in the world I would still be sad.

[the vj]

There is something big to learn from those situations. I have been there, with nothing, and I have been rich with everything and wasted.

Today I do not know where I am but when I see around I am sure better than most still.

[zap2]

Nope, it just the rich people can't complain about money(well at least not complain rightfully about it)

I'm sure they can be just as miserable as poor people...but possible about different things

[juanm]

And for someone like me with medical problems (and no insurance now!)

Try to find a job in a country with public healthcare. Working in the Eurozone and spending your holiday in dollarzone will -almost- give you the feeling that you're rich. :p

Edit: Also, next time you've a good job, save your money.

[Doctor Q]

The original poster is not eligible for discussion of social issues in these forums, but others may continue to discuss the topic.

[ErikCLDR]

My parents combined make almost $400,000 a year and I am not happy at all.

I wake up every morning hating my life. I go to bed every night dreading the next day. I've got friends, a future ahead of me, opportunities others probably don't, etc, but I just can't be happy. I dwell on all the bad things in my life and it brings me down. I know that I should be happy, but I'm not.

Everyone has their rough patches in life. I for what ever am in one right now. Just because people have mercedes and iPhones doesn't mean they're rich either. My uncle has a brand new company BMW, a new cell phone everytime I see him, but its all owned by his company, he hardly has a house to live in because his wife divorced him and took basically everything.

You'll find something, patience is a virtue.

[OdduWon]

Most sheltered rich people will never realize the full joy of having nothing ;)

[Badandy]

Let me explain.

You should really be looking for a job, right now.

I'm poor right now. Read: I lost a good paying job and there is no way to afford my rent and bills for this upcoming month. I don't have an amazing lifestyle, hell I don't even own a TV. So I don't have bills I could just end (like cable TV) and be okay. I'm talking the BARE MINIMUM to survive in this country. And if you ask about my internet bill, I admit it, I use someone elses.

I'm sorry to hear about your job loss, that must be terrible. If it was a good paying job, though, couldn't you have put some away in the bank for cases such as this?

Anyway, only rich people are happy.

There's actually very little correlation between monetary wealth and happiness.

The people in mercedes talking on their iPhone reserving seats at a fancy place to eat, smiling, happy as can be.

Spare me. Rich people are bad, right? :rolleyes:


Meanwhile, rich stupid basketball players are making millions for throwing a ball in a little hoop...and 70% of america is thrown into the gutter.
:mad::mad::mad::(

That's the way the economy works. If your skills are in demand, and that demand is substantial enough, you can reap the rewards. These people "throwing a ball in a little hoop" have spent far more hours on the basketball court improving their skill, athleticism, and talent than you could dream of. People like to watch them, they get paid well. So my advice is to find something in yourself that you like, and then find a job you can perform where that good quality is desired. If you like children, find a job in child services. The government is always hiring (maybe not always, but a lot). If there's a help wanted sign anywhere, do that, even if it isn't your dream job.

Good luck.

[.Andy]

That's the way the economy works. If your skills are in demand, and that demand is substantial enough, you can reap the rewards.
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9145/xin57010423091068122621la6.jpg

[dsnort]

The original poster is not eligible for discussion of social issues in these forums, but others may continue to discuss the topic.

Can't even afford to complain? :D

[killmoms]

There's actually very little correlation between monetary wealth and happiness.
Actually, studies have shown that once basic needs are accounted for, happiness scales pretty closely with additional wealth.

[PowerFullMac]

In fact, why not get a demo version of FLStudio and play 3 notes over and over again and sell it? That worked with Soulja Boy :D

Disclaimer: The above is a joke, Crank That is my favorite song :D

[Badandy]

snip

That should be an indictment on the people who pay her money to show up to parties. Otherwise, I don't see your point.

Actually, studies have shown that once basic needs are accounted for, happiness scales pretty closely with additional wealth.

I'll try to find my sources, but I'm absolutely sure that I remembered their conclusion correctly. It was one of the main tenants of this course I took, I just need to remember where I read it...

[.Andy]

That should be an indictment on the people who pay her money to show up to parties. Otherwise, I don't see your point.
No point. Just a picture of someone the economy has rewarded for their hard work at honing their skills.

[Badandy]

No point. Just a picture of someone the economy has rewarded for their hard work at honing their skills.

I did get a laugh out of that picture, BTW.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it's the closest thing the world has ever seen to equality of opportunity.

But really, she found out that the public, for some reason, buys her services to show up to parties. That's not her fault. A more apt picture would be that of the idiot parents who would hire Paris Hilton to show up to a party and part with gobs of cash for that "opportunity." ;)

[fridgeymonster3]

rich stupid basketball players are making millions for throwing a ball in a little hoop.(

I have to stop you right there. Besides the economic factors of sports in this country that propel huge salaries, professional basketball players work harder at their sport, or "job" if you are so inclined, than anything you have ever worked at. They started training when they are about 10 years old for hours on end. I went to HS with two current NBA players (both starters and large contributors to their teams) and played on the basketball team with them. They both were hard working. I have to admit that one was harder working than the other. He was in the gym every morning from 4:30-8 before classes, practiced an hour at lunch, practiced with the team for 2:30 hrs or so, and then stayed around the gym shooting for another hour or so. He spent almost 8 hrs a day in the gym DURING HIGH SCHOOL. During the summer or any other breaks, he could be found in the gym for at least 14 hrs a day, unless he was at camps where he basically played from 6:30 in the morning until 10 pm at night. Most athletes, especially the elite ones, do not take days off, have sick days, sit around and watch tv during the weekend. So, before you throw athletes under the bus, learn about what they do - they work much much harder than the average american.

Otherwise, rich people have problems and poor people have problems. Poor people have necessity problems (housing, food, etc.) while rich people usually have problems that are associated with their money. It sucks to not be rich, but I'm sorry, when you lose your job you should have at minimum 3 months salary saved in case of such emergencies, besides your retirement savings, investments, etc. That is just sound financial planning.

[NAG]

Still, the insane amounts of money professional athletes make is hardly proportional to the time they spend.

I've trained to be a scientist all my life (my parents just sent me my lab "notebook" kept when I was 5, really cute and I was actually quite observant). I spend a lot of time in the lab. I spend a lot of my free time thinking about science and honing my skills.

Do I get payed millions of dollars? Nope.

I don't even want that much money. But to say that they're getting payed in proportion to their energy spent is disingenuous.

[Prof.]

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Unfortunately, that's how it is.

Soon, there will be no middle class America. There will only be rich America and poor America.:(

[Badandy]

[QUOTE=NAG;5211093

I don't even want that much money. But to say that they're getting payed in proportion to their energy spent is disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

But to deny that they have worked so hard would also be disingenuous. Look, their skills are in extremely high demand, that's all I'm saying. Don't hate the player, hate the spectators if you want. The fact is, these ball players are just worth SO MUCH money, it's unbelievable.

[NAG]

Huh? I didn't say at all they aren't working hard. So are you saying that their working hard is somehow worth more than my working hard? They're throwing a ball through a hoop. I'm working on curing a disease. Does that really correlate to them making millions and me making the scientists pay (you should really see what they pay low on the totem pole scientists).

[LethalWolfe]

To the OP:

Getting negative and bitter won't help you. You need to stay positive and stay focused. I've been laid off before. I've qualified for food stamps. I've been flat broke (literally no money in my bank account) and survived on a food budget of $10/wk in Los Angeles. Don't fixate on problems, find solutions to them.

Good luck and keep your chin up.


I don't even want that much money. But to say that they're getting payed in proportion to their energy spent is disingenuous.

Three questions. 1. Can you generate millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars annually for your employer? 2. Is average length of your career only a few years? 3. Everyday when you go to work is there a decent chance you will suffer an injury that will severely limit, if not end, your career?


Lethal

[wonga1127]

Don't kid yourself. Professional athletes, regardless how much time they have spent practicing and training, they still are paid a disproportionate amount of money to play a game. Thats all they do. They play GAMES.

[joekix]

how bad can it be... you have a blackbook. :D

a lot people don't even have that. be grateful for what you have. there will always be someone less fortunate than you. i'm far from being rich, but i can find happiness in things. i like watching those highly paid b-ball players. the lakers won tonite. that made me happy. :)

do i wish i got paid more for being a special ed teacher? of course i do. but i find happiness when my students succeed. money can't buy that kind of happiness. good luck in your pursuit to happiness.

ever try reading the art of happiness?

[LethalWolfe]

Don't kid yourself. Professional athletes, regardless how much time they have spent practicing and training, they still are paid a disproportionate amount of money to play a game. Thats all they do. They play GAMES.
They play games that attract millions, if not billions, of spectators and generate billions of dollars in revenue. Elite players get paid millions because they can earn that money back and then some for their employers. What they do won't bring world peace, or end starvation in 3rd world countries, but that's not a determining factor in how much money an individual earns.


Lethal

[gregdrummeraz]

They play games that attract millions, if not billions, of spectators and generate billions of dollars in revenue. Elite players get paid millions because they can earn that money back and then some for their employers. What they do won't bring world peace, or end starvation in 3rd world countries, but that's not a determining factor in how much money an individual earns.


Lethal

Plus, who is going to pay a few hundred just to watch you guy's work. NO ONE! there entertainer's. They entertain everyone. if not basketball, then football, or baseball. Or some other form of entertaining.

[LethalWolfe]

Plus, who is going to pay a few hundred just to watch you guy's work. NO ONE! there entertainer's. They entertain everyone. if not basketball, then football, or baseball. Or some other form of entertaining.

To take that one step further, if firefighters or teachers made the salaries of pro sports players who could afford their services?


Lethal

[NAG]

I'm not dense, I understand the economics. We're talking about how the priorities are screwed up. That entertainment isn't worth that much. But feel free to try to belittle us by stating the obvious. :p It's kind of cute that you think we don't understand whats going and use that as justification for it happening.

To take it one step further, wouldn't it be nice if science was properly funded. That we could continue things like the mars rover projects instead of seeing them shut down due to a lack of funding (giving an item in the news here)? But I suppose those guys throwing balls around need their bling to keep them throwing those balls. Because after all, without all that money, no one would ever be entertaining.

[Pittsax]

I'm not dense, I understand the economics. We're talking about how the priorities are screwed up. That entertainment isn't worth that much. But feel free to try to belittle us by stating the obvious. :p It's kind of cute that you think we don't understand whats going and use that as justification for it happening.

To take it one step further, wouldn't it be nice if science was properly funded. That we could continue things like the mar rover projects instead of seeing them shut down due to a lack of funding (giving an item in the news here)? But I suppose those guys throwing balls around need their bling to keep them throwing those balls. Because after all, without all that money, no one would ever be entertaining.
I think you're directing your comments to the wrong group. Sports are a very closed economy: rich guy buys team, pays players, fans buy tickets, revenue goes back into team.

If you want to complain about science funding -- and as a fellow scientist, I'm behind you 100%, try looking at the government. Instead of spending billions of dollars on blowing up people with brown skin, we could have tripled the science funding in this country and STILL blown up enough brown people to satisfy most war hawks out there. The fact that the NIH budget (where people in my field get a lot of funding from) has stagnated for the majority of the time Bush has been in office says a lot. And that's not even including the stem cell BS.

[Plymouthbreezer]

Sell your MB for starters.

[NAG]

I think you're directing your comments to the wrong group. Sports are a very closed economy: rich guy buys team, pays players, fans buy tickets, revenue goes back into team.

If you want to complain about science funding -- and as a fellow scientist, I'm behind you 100%, try looking at the government. Instead of spending billions of dollars on blowing up people with brown skin, we could have tripled the science funding in this country and STILL blown up enough brown people to satisfy most war hawks out there. The fact that the NIH budget (where people in my field get a lot of funding from) has stagnated for the majority of the time Bush has been in office says a lot. And that's not even including the stem cell BS.
I'm not singling out athletes by any means. They're just the example that is being used in this thread. While I'm not saying all athletic funding should be reallocated into science, I am saying that our society has some messed up priorities. You can even look at the war and athletes. Why are people so caught up over march madness right now when there are people over in Iraq dying? Lots of reasons, I suppose.

[sushi]

My parents combined make almost $400,000 a year and I am not happy at all.
Yep, wealth does not make one happy.

IMHO, there are basically two types of people. Those who have a positive outlook on life and those who have a negative outlook on life.

Money is just an additional factor. I have great friends that are dirt poor, and others who are very wealthy. The linking thread is the zest and positive outlook on life.

Visualize where you want to be in the future. Then focus on making that happen and ignore the nay sayers. Perseverance is key. :)

To the OP:

Getting negative and bitter won't help you. You need to stay positive and stay focused. I've been laid off before. I've qualified for food stamps. I've been flat broke (literally no money in my bank account) and survived on a food budget of $10/wk in Los Angeles. Don't fixate on problems, find solutions to them.

Good luck and keep your chin up.
Wise words.

Best to focus on the positive. I forget the famous person who had numerous goals everyday. And believe it or not, having a good bowel movement was one of them. Sounds funny, but is nonetheless an accomplishment if you will.

Sell your MB for starters.
Good point.

Just think of all the folks who cannot afford to have a nice laptop computer. :)

[psychofreak]

Isaiah 61:10
I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.
Isaiah 61:9-11 (in Context) Isaiah 61 (Whole Chapter):)

I'm a very happy, reasonably well off-ish, and an atheist. I guess that serving God isn't the only way to make me happy...

[::Lisa::]

I'm sorry to hear. I also agree with the stay positive comment. You will get through this, how? Because you have no choice but to really. Life goes on. I have been there, I know it's awful. But we will always get through it. I wish you the very best.

Rich people aren't necessarily happy, you know.

They can afford a better class of misery, though.I agree with this. It's like if you were rich and surrounded by 'friends' do those friends actually like YOU or your money?

[leekohler]

Yep, wealth does not make one happy.

IMHO, there are basically two types of people. Those who have a positive outlook on life and those who have a negative outlook on life.

Money is just an additional factor. I have great friends that are dirt poor, and others who are very wealthy. The linking thread is the zest and positive outlook on life.

Visualize where you want to be in the future. Then focus on making that happen and ignore the nay sayers. Perseverance is key. :)


Wise words.

Best to focus on the positive. I forget the famous person who had numerous goals everyday. And believe it or not, having a good bowel movement was one of them. Sounds funny, but is nonetheless an accomplishment if you will.


Good point.

Just think of all the folks who cannot afford to have a nice laptop computer. :)

All very true. I think the OP is just having a rough patch. I know I have them from time to time. It does get frustrating when you're trying just to stay afloat and then you get slammed. I think he was just venting for the most part.

And just for the record- taking a good s*** once a day is the best. :)

[sushi]

All very true. I think the OP is just having a rough patch. I know I have them from time to time. It does get frustrating when you're trying just to stay afloat and then you get slammed. I think he was just venting for the most part.
Yeah, that's probably true. Many of us have been there one time or another.

Builds character! :)

And just for the record- taking a good s*** once a day is the best. :)
I am with you on that! :D

[Mord]

All you need is love.

Seriously, a good relationship and you can be penniless but still fundamentally happy.

[Prof.]

Sell your MB for starters.
No, don't sell your MacBook. If your MB is your only computer and you sell it, you'll have to go out and spend another $1,500 on another computer once you get financially stable again.

Plymouthbreezer, I'm not attacking you or anything but I would love to see you sell every camera you own if you were in the same situation as the OP. Chances are you wouldn't want to do it. Even if you did sell them, you'd be very sad and depressed for a long time.

[Doctor Q]

If money directly correlates with happiness, then I've really blown my chances by doing so much volunteer work. Oh well, I'll just have to stay miserable doing what I like do to.

[Everythingisnt]

No, don't sell your MacBook. If your MB is your only computer and you sell it, you'll have to go out and spend another $1,500 on another computer once you get financially stable again.

Plymouthbreezer, I'm not attacking you or anything but I would love to see you sell every camera you own if you were in the same situation as the OP. Chances are you wouldn't want to do it. Even if you did sell them, you'd be very sad and depressed for a long time.

I agree with Prof. about not selling the MB.. It's probably still useful to have around, and when you do get back on your feet then you'll definitely need it. I guess you had better define your priorities: what's the most important right now?

[Blue Velvet]

If money directly correlates with happiness, then I've really blown my chances by doing so much volunteer work.



But it doesn't. According to this, anyway.


Money may not buy you love but it might buy you happiness if you spend it in the right way, US researchers say. In studies they found that the old adage "it's better to give than to receive" is correct: spending money on others or giving to charity puts a bigger smile on your face than buying things for yourself.

"Most people would think that if you make more money you are going to be a lot happier," said Michael Norton, a professor at Harvard Business School. "Our results, and a lot of other people's results, show that making more money makes you a little bit happier, but doesn't really have a huge impact on you. Our studies suggest maybe that little changes in how you spend it make a difference."

The researchers' work is published today in the journal Science. Norton and his colleagues questioned 632 Americans about how much they earned and how they spent their cash. They also asked them to rate their own happiness.

Regardless of income level, those people who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/21/medicalresearch.usa

[LethalWolfe]

I'm not dense, I understand the economics.
Really? Didn't seem like it.:p

To take it one step further, wouldn't it be nice if science was properly funded. That we could continue things like the mars rover projects instead of seeing them shut down due to a lack of funding (giving an item in the news here)? But I suppose those guys throwing balls around need their bling to keep them throwing those balls. Because after all, without all that money, no one would ever be entertaining.
Bitter much? If the general population would rather pay money to see a sporting event than to see both Mars rovers fully operational how is that the pro athlete's fault?


Lethal

[Doctor Q]

Did anybody see Into the Wild (http://imdb.com/title/tt0758758/), the true story of a young man who graduated college, gave his savings to charity, abandoned his car, burned his remaining cash, and found some happiness while living with nothing?

That was an unusual case, but it certainly shows that money and possessions can be a burden to some.

[skunk]

I was never more relaxed than when I went bankrupt.

[shu82]

Here here! Helping out your fellow man is the best way to spend your extra free time and money. I always have the feeling that if I help others personally, I have better chances if one day I need help. It just urks me when the gov't makes me do it.

There really is no poverty in the classical sense. Even if you work for minimum wage, you can survive here. It just involves not affording much meat, and walking to work. I have done it while going to school. Some of the happiest people I have ever met are the poorest too.

You could always move to Alabama. You can live like a king if you're making $10/hr.

[Blue Velvet]

I was never more relaxed than when I went bankrupt.


That should be a motto for all Monopoly players. I swear, that board game can bring out the absolute vilest behaviour in people, including my little brother. :D

[leekohler]

Really? Didn't seem like it.:p


Bitter much? If the general population would rather pay money to see a sporting event than to see both Mars rovers fully operational how is that the pro athlete's fault?


Lethal

It isn't the athlete's fault. It's our fault for being stupid and non-forward thinking. Just my 2 cents. ;)

[Doctor Q]

I played Monopoly with some visiting teenagers on Sunday. When they were younger, they were very serious about winning any board game we played. Now, they enjoy the game no matter who wins. I wonder if they will turn cutthroat again when they get to college age.

Do they still hold Monopoly Championships every year? Those are serious players!

[Desertrat]

I guess I'm lucky. My mother's father worked two full-time jobs for two years in the 1930s, which gave him the cash to buy some bankrupt acreage outside of town. During that time he also did a couple of small-time, part-time jobs.

I had that example of, "If one job won't cut it, do something else, as well." So I did. Never made a lot of money, but I always had plenty for the wife&kid and for various avocations.

I've never been anywhere near rich, but my wrinkles come from grinning. And I keep adding wrinkles...

:D:D:D

'Rat

[fridgeymonster3]

I think that rich people are happier than poor people, assuming that everything else is the same (relationships, family life, etc.). If everything isn't the same, than just because you are rich doesn't mean you are happy. I know a lot of rich people who were not happy from the time they were teenagers.

My parents are in the top 1% of US in terms of income and I had a happy childhood and was happy throughout growing up. My wife's family made considerably less money when she was growing up but she was happy as could be growing up. In that case, just because my family had more money didn't at all mean I was happier than her. Now, I obviously can't speak for the happiness of her parents or mine when I was a child (anyways, it is hard to compare married couples because each relationship is different, sometimes very different).

Furthermore, I am happier now than I was growing up - because of my wife and our life together. I am finishing school, she graduated college recently, and we do not have nearly as much money as my parents, yet I am happier.

Lastly, to the poster who talked about a scientists equivalence to a professional basketball player. I agree you put in a lot of work, but a lot of it was in the classroom and educational work. Athletes have to go through high school and college like the rest of us (yes, if they are great athletes school doesn't matter much to them but they still have to attend class and hold a certain GPA (i think 2.0 or 2.33) or else the NCAA or college will deem them ineligible to play). They do this work on top of school and practice, which at the college level can be at least 4 hours a day. Now, if you have a PhD in a science field, than I would say that is comparable to professional athlete because a MS and PhD is schooling way above and beyond the average American.

[Cooknn]

As I was scarfing a ham and cheese sandwich the other day at Jimmy John's (http://jimmyjohns.com/) I read this story on the wall. I think it applies here...

The Story of the Mexican Fisherman

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, ‘only a little while.’

The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish?

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs.

The American then asked, ‘but what do you do with the rest of your time?’

The Mexican fisherman said, ‘I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.’

The American scoffed, ‘I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.’

The Mexican fisherman asked, ‘But, how long will this all take?’

To which the American replied, ‘15 - 20 years.’

‘But what then?’ Asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, ‘That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!”

“Millions - then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”

[NAG]

Really? Didn't seem like it.:p


Bitter much? If the general population would rather pay money to see a sporting event than to see both Mars rovers fully operational how is that the pro athlete's fault?


Lethal

Aw, you think responding to an argument by name calling is cool. Do you ride a tricycle to work too?

Seriously, are you going to respond to my points or just continue name calling and adding nothing to this conversation?

By the way, thanks for giving me a job at NASA. I had no idea I worked for NASA on the mars rover project. Thats neat. Hey, why don't you give yourself the ability to argue without name calling or using strawmen while you're at it. You deserve a treat.

[Badandy]

Aw, you think responding to an argument by name calling is cool. Do you ride a tricycle to work too?

Seriously, are you going to respond to my points or just continue name calling and adding nothing to this conversation?

By the way, thanks for giving me a job at NASA. I had no idea I worked for NASA on the mars rover project. Thats neat. Hey, why don't you give yourself the ability to argue without name calling or using strawmen while you're at it. You deserve a treat.

From what I've read, your back and forth with LethalWolf seemed to be completely benign and good-tempered. What's with this?

[NAG]

From what I've read, your back and forth with LethalWolf seemed to be completely benign and good-tempered. What's with this?

Whats with you? :p I explained my reasoning and arguement and the response I get has nothing to do with my points but rather claims I don't understand economics and that I'm bitter. How does that relate to my arguement? I don't know. Hence why I asked for clarification (responding with the same tone he used).

Now then. Is that enough off topic replying to get a response to my arguement which responded to the last one he made or shall I taunt you a second time?[/outrageous accent]

[Desertrat]

No 'sta verdad para todos Gringos. :D Bust hump 'til the bills are paid and you've "tithed" to the savings account--and then it's time to party.

'Rat

[LethalWolfe]

Aw, you think responding to an argument by name calling is cool. Do you ride a tricycle to work too?
Pot. Kettle. Black.


Seriously, are you going to respond to my points or just continue name calling and adding nothing to this conversation?
So does this mean you do or don't think that the willingness of the general public to give more money to pro sports rather than science is directly the fault of the pro athlete?


By the way, thanks for giving me a job at NASA. I had no idea I worked for NASA on the mars rover project. Thats neat. Hey, why don't you give yourself the ability to argue without name calling or using strawmen while you're at it. You deserve a treat.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. You brought up the NASA budget cuts and I asked what that has to do w/Tiger Woods making a butt load of cash.

Whats with you? :p I explained my reasoning and arguement and the response I get has nothing to do with my points but rather claims I don't understand economics and that I'm bitter. How does that relate to my arguement? I don't know. Hence why I asked for clarification (responding with the same tone he used).
Okay, so just to make sure we are on the same page since this thread is moving so fast. We both agree that basic economics is why Michael Jordan has lots of bling and Stephen Hawking doesn't have 17 beamers in his garage. We both agree that there are more important jobs out there than pro sports. Where I'm still in the dark is why you keep lashing out at pro athletes like it's there fault people would rather pay money to see them play than see pictures from Mars.

BTW, since you want to play the blame game, you busted out the condescending comments in post #32.


Lethal

[fridgeymonster3]

Talking about NASA and the Mars rovers. I've been to JPL (my college does joint work with CalTech) and I have to admit the work they do is awesome - they need more money to design cool stuff. I'm pretty sure the last Mars rover was designed there. My college designed our own Mars rover that we used to play with around campus chasing stupid campus security. We had gps and a camera feed back to our lab which was pretty cool, until we drove the rover into the President's car. Playtime was over :mad:

sorry for the tangent, but the NASA talk just got me excited :D

[Desertrat]

No sweat, fridgey. A buddy of mine worked on the Mars Mariner probe project, at Cal-Berzerkeley, forty-some years back. He's STILL reminscing, from time to time. Back then, I learned more about probe design than I really wanted to know. After the launch at the Cape, it got worse. :D

'Rat

[ErikCLDR]

Yep, wealth does not make one happy.

IMHO, there are basically two types of people. Those who have a positive outlook on life and those who have a negative outlook on life.

Money is just an additional factor. I have great friends that are dirt poor, and others who are very wealthy. The linking thread is the zest and positive outlook on life.

Visualize where you want to be in the future. Then focus on making that happen and ignore the nay sayers. Perseverance is key. :)


I agree with you.

I had the opportunity to meet a boy from Ecuador that was living in the US temporally because he needed a surgery done. This boy was 14, one of his arms was amputated just above the wrist because of a fireworks accident. Later I saw pictures of his "house" back in Ecuador. It basically was a shack in the middle of slums. He was considered somewhat wealthy because he owned a TV. I wish I could get a picture of the neighborhood he lived in, it was from a western point of view, very very sad.

I must say that the boy was very happy. He looked past his disability and seemed perfectly content with his life. The kid that goes to my school that hosted him in the US visited him and confirmed that he lived a very happy life.

Here I look at my life, I am in good health, I have a nice house, I have a car, and an education, yet I am not happy with my life. It makes me feel worse to see how selfish I am, in addition to basically everyone else around. We're always looking for better things, but there are people in the world that have absolutely nothing and are completely content. You see TV shows that show it, and the news, but when you actually meet a real person, it's really an eye opener.

[SMM]

I have been on both sides of the economic lifestyle. There was a period of ~2 years where my day was devoted to scrounging enough to have a basic meal, buy a pack of cigarettes and a six-pack to get to sleep. Many days, there was no food, cigarettes, or the six-pack.

One day I decided I did not want to die this way. One day I was walking down the street and I found an old penny. I remembered the old saw about 'lucky pennies', so I picked it up and headed to the unemployment office. There was a job posted for a warehouseman, no experience required. I got the job and it turned out to be a teamster union job. In today's dollars, it payed $25/hour and after a year $30/hour. There was lots of overtime. Everything changed for me that day.

There is a lot to be said for going to the 'school of hard knocks'. I makes you appreciate what you have earned and gives you strength.

[Doctor Q]

Could it be the case that it's not important how rich you are, and that satisfaction comes from having a economic situation that is improving rather than getting worse? In other words, it's not the value, it's the delta value.

[Rodimus Prime]

I have been on both sides of the economic lifestyle. There was a period of ~2 years where my day was devoted to scrounging enough to have a basic meal, buy a pack of cigarettes and a six-pack to get to sleep. Many days, there was no food, cigarettes, or the six-pack.

One day I decided I did not want to die this way. One day I was walking down the street and I found an old penny. I remembered the old saw about 'lucky pennies', so I picked it up and headed to the unemployment office. There was a job posted for a warehouseman, no experience required. I got the job and it turned out to be a teamster union job. In today's dollars, it payed $25/hour and after a year $30/hour. There was lots of overtime. Everything changed for me that day.

There is a lot to be said for going to the 'school of hard knocks'. I makes you appreciate what you have earned and gives you strength.

Something about that just is rather shocking and I am not quite sure how to take it.

I get 25/hour if you take my salary and convert it to a 40 hour week and I am in a job that requires a college degree. I am also going to assume the job was very labor intensive. Not something I would want to do but that is beside the point.

More on teh orginal post. Rich people are not happier. Hell I know plenty of rich people who struggle to get by every day and are living pay check to pay check. There income supporting there means.

Trust me money has little to with happiness. Really all you need is enough money to fund what you enjoy doing and when you break it down required amount of money for most people is pretty little.

Now if you have a sudden lost in income it can really mess with you because one is used to living a higher life style.

In the end money or more so not enough to cover one expenses is a stress point in life but little to do with what makes them happy. Life is what you make of it. Enjoy it. Find the things you enjoy doing and then just make sure you have the funds to cover it. It should not be to difficult.

[solvs]

Did anybody see Into the Wild (http://imdb.com/title/tt0758758/), the true story of a young man who graduated college, gave his savings to charity, abandoned his car, burned his remaining cash, and found some happiness while living with nothing?
Not to spoil it, but didn't that end rather badly?

Anyway, I don't know if you're still reading this. I hope you are. I've been there. It was like a country western song. Gf left me after a very rocky relationship, car was dying, lost my job, side business went under costing me way more money than I ever made, I was being kicked out of my place, and I had a ton of medical bills for health issues that still weren't fixed. And on top of that, both my beloved Grandmother and my dog passed away within a week of each other. I was seriously considering driving my barely running car off a cliff. I was seriously in debt and nearing bankruptcy, fighting with unemployment to get a couple hundred dollars a month. That was right around Sept 11th. Instead of staying in my self pitying state, I sold most of my stuff. Kept 1 computer to stay on the net to look for work, temping when I could. Moved in with family and friends until I could get back on my feet. It was tough, but I moved up to WA with around a thousand bucks and started a new life. Temped at better and better jobs. Insurance sucked if I even had any (was mostly going to free clinics or just suffering), and I lost a few jobs when my illness flared up, but eventually I found a good one, worked my ass off to make money, and moved back down to CA with a ton of experience and a ton of money. I now have a great apt, a paid off car, lots of electronic equipment, and a job I love that pays fairly well for not a lot of work, surrounded by friends who I love. Volunteering when I get time, which I did a lot more of before I took this job.

But no, I'm still not happy, because happiness comes from within, and my within ain't happy.

[Queso]

Money isn't really related to happiness. Set goals, work towards them, and enjoy the feeling of accomplishment when you strike them off. Feel like you're progressing in life and the money side of it seems less important.

Of course, as you achieve your goals and gain in confidence your finances tend to improve as a result. Not in every case but enough to note as a trend IMO.

[Doctor Q]

Not to spoil it, but didn't that end rather badly?Sort of, but that question could be debated. Actually, the movie cheated a tiny bit on the details at the end of the story. But I didn't mean to take a detour into movie talk. I brought it up because, having just seen the movie, I wanted to point out that the intersection of happiness and money depends on attitude.

[iBlue]

Could it be the case that it's not important how rich you are, and that satisfaction comes from having a economic situation that is improving rather than getting worse? In other words, it's not the value, it's the delta value.

Very good point. I think everyone needs a bit of hope.
Financial stress is among the worst types of stress. Money itself cannot buy happiness. I like how this person put it:
Rich people aren't necessarily happy, you know.

They can afford a better class of misery, though.

[latergator116]

Sort of, but that question could be debated. Actually, the movie cheated a tiny bit on the details at the end of the story. But I didn't mean to take a detour into movie talk. I brought it up because, having just seen the movie, I wanted to point out that the intersection of happiness and money depends on attitude.

Agreed. I would also suggest reading the book if you haven't already.

[mactastic]

I was never more relaxed than when I went bankrupt.
Typical contractor! :p

[SMM]

Something about that just is rather shocking and I am not quite sure how to take it.

I get 25/hour if you take my salary and convert it to a 40 hour week and I am in a job that requires a college degree. I am also going to assume the job was very labor intensive. Not something I would want to do but that is beside the point.




I am not sure what you find shocking. Union jobs generally pay very well.

[chrmjenkins]

One thing about wealth correlation and happiness.

People who make more money are likely doing a job they like. For instance, if someone makes 50,000+, they probably went to college for something they enjoy and got a job in that field. If someone only makes 20,000 or under, it's likely they didn't finish college and aren't doing something they would consider their ideal occupation. Job satisfaction plays a big role in one's happiness.

I would venture to say there are other hidden contributors that nullifies the concept that more money makes you happier directly.

[Badandy]

One thing about wealth correlation and happiness.

People who make more money are likely doing a job they like. For instance, if someone makes 50,000+, they probably went to college for something they enjoy and got a job in that field. If someone only makes 20,000 or under, it's likely they didn't finish college and aren't doing something they would consider their ideal occupation. Job satisfaction plays a big role in one's happiness.

I would venture to say there are other hidden contributors that nullifies the concept that more money makes you happier directly.

Good thought, but you're right, it could also go in reverse. Say someone graduates from college but is really an aspiring artist. They go it alone, get a loft in the city, and really don't make that much money at all. They could be making close to nothing, but still be happy. I'm still trying to find my source for money not correlating to happiness, I'm so frustrated for not being able to thus far.

[skunk]

People who make more money are likely doing a job they like.That simply is not true. Many vocational occupations, like teaching, nursing, art and music, are notoriously badly paid, but give immense job satisfaction. Whoring yourself out for huge sums of money is rarely so satisfying.

[chrmjenkins]

That simply is not true. Many vocational occupations, like teaching, nursing, art and music, are notoriously badly paid, but give immense job satisfaction. Whoring yourself out for huge sums of money is rarely so satisfying.

You're missing the point. I never impllied the converse was false or that people who just do it for the money don't exist. It was not a blanket statement, so I don't see the grounds for your exact comments.

[skunk]

You're missing the point. I never impllied the converse was false or that people who just do it for the money don't exist. It was not a blanket statement, so I don't see the grounds for your exact comments.Au contraire, "People who make more money are likely doing a job they like" is a pretty clear opinion, which I believe is false.

[chrmjenkins]

That simply is not true. Many vocational occupations, like teaching, nursing, art and music, are notoriously badly paid, but give immense job satisfaction. Whoring yourself out for huge sums of money is rarely so satisfying.

Au contraire, "People who make more money are likely doing a job they like" is a pretty clear opinion, which I believe is false.


That's fine that you disagree, but your original post gives examples of jobs that do not pay well but provide job satisfaction as well as the implication that some people do jobs that pay well that they do not necessarily like. I didn't say either of these are true. However, I'd be willing to wager that of all the people making around 50,000 a year, they are happier than the people making around 20,000.

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but nurses and teachers tend not to be paid well initially in the US, but make very liveable salaries as their years of experience goes up. I would agree with the notion that they are underpaid for the most part, though.

[fridgeymonster3]

That's fine that you disagree, but your original post gives examples of jobs that do not pay well but provide job satisfaction as well as the implication that some people do jobs that pay well that they do not necessarily like. I didn't say either of these are true. However, I'd be willing to wager that of all the people making around 50,000 a year, they are happier than the people making around 20,000.

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but nurses and teachers tend not to be paid well initially in the US, but make very liveable salaries as their years of experience goes up. I would agree with the notion that they are underpaid for the most part, though.

I think your point is that a percentage of higher paying jobs require advanced education (B.A., MA/MS, Professional Degree, PhD); therefore, the people who are in those fields enjoy their work because they specifically went to school to get into that field. That is a pretty fair assumption that people who get into advanced education chose a field they are interested in. However, there are also many high paying jobs that require experience, not specific education, just perhaps training or self-learning (i.e. a computer programmer can learn languages on their own and just need to demonstrate proficiency to employer - they do not need to present a Computer Sci degree).

[Cromulent]

(i.e. a computer programmer can learn languages on their own and just need to demonstrate proficiency to employer - they do not need to present a Computer Sci degree).

Fancy putting me in touch with said employers? I find it hard to believe (mainly because it is a subject I am very keen on) that a degree is not required, especially when dealing with maths and / or physics heavy computer programming.

Sure, if you don't mind doing web development or something then it maybe possible but to do the interesting stuff I'm almost certain a degree in Maths, Physics or Comp Sci would be required.

[fridgeymonster3]

Fancy putting me in touch with said employers? I find it hard to believe (mainly because it is a subject I am very keen on) that a degree is not required, especially when dealing with maths and / or physics heavy computer programming.

Sure, if you don't mind doing web development or something then it maybe possible but to do the interesting stuff I'm almost certain a degree in Maths, Physics or Comp Sci would be required.

A degree in math is not a degree in computer programming! If you majored in mathematics in college, sure it is going to help you, but that isn't what you went to school for. My mother was a computer programmer (just stopped a year or two ago) for many years and never went to school for it - she does happen to have a degree in Math. I have a cousin who never went to college and is a computer programmer also. I have to admit he is very smart, but never took over high school physics or math classes. I admit that you have to have an aptitude for it and I should have picked a better example. Maybe a better example might be my wife who is a manager. She has a psych degree which helps her zero. Her boss, who is an area manager makes about 150,000 a year with a BA in history. Those jobs are because of training, not specific education. That might be a better example, but again you do need a college degree of some type to be on that track.

[Cromulent]

A degree in math is not a degree in computer programming!

I would disagree. Maths is an integral part of computing. Where does the word computer derive from? Computer... to compute... to perform a calculation... maths. See where I am going? Everything to do with computers is to do with maths at a fundamental level.

I guess I'm more interested in different areas of programming, but I think a computer science degree would be incredibly handy (either that or maths or physics) especially if you are looking at making games or any other maths heavy area.

If you majored in mathematics in college, sure it is going to help you, but that isn't what you went to school for.

You'd be surprised. Computer science courses are not about teaching you to program as such, they teach you computer science. Rather different concept.

My mother was a computer programmer (just stopped a year or two ago) for many years and never went to school for it - she does happen to have a degree in Math. I have a cousin who never went to college and is a computer programmer also. I have to admit he is very smart, but never took over high school physics or math classes. I admit that you have to have an aptitude for it and I should have picked a better example. Maybe a better example might be my wife who is a manager. She has a psych degree which helps her zero. Her boss, who is an area manager makes about 150,000 a year with a BA in history. Those jobs are because of training, not specific education. That might be a better example, but again you do need a college degree of some type to be on that track.

Well, good on her :). I'd still question the ability of new people going into the field to get work in major research or low level programming without a degree though.

[Rodimus Prime]

A degree in math is not a degree in computer programming! If you majored in mathematics in college, sure it is going to help you, but that isn't what you went to school for. My mother was a computer programmer (just stopped a year or two ago) for many years and never went to school for it - she does happen to have a degree in Math. I have a cousin who never went to college and is a computer programmer also. I have to admit he is very smart, but never took over high school physics or math classes. I admit that you have to have an aptitude for it and I should have picked a better example. Maybe a better example might be my wife who is a manager. She has a psych degree which helps her zero. Her boss, who is an area manager makes about 150,000 a year with a BA in history. Those jobs are because of training, not specific education. That might be a better example, but again you do need a college degree of some type to be on that track.

while it may be true some people can get into those feilds with out a degree for most people it is not the case.

Hell the stuff one learns in college is a foundation but a vast majority of the stuff required for the job is learned on the job.

Back to the orginal point on for example the computer programing job. Getting into the field with out a degree now is next to impossible. Reason being is no one wants to higher some one with out a degree. A new hire is always has a chance of being bad. Just the one with the degree is by far less likely to be a bad new hire so if they had to choose between a degree and no degree person the degree person will almost always get it.

[Gelfin]

(i.e. a computer programmer can learn languages on their own and just need to demonstrate proficiency to employer - they do not need to present a Computer Sci degree).

Did you just step out of a time machine from 1999?

I would strongly, strongly advise you not to rely on this assumption.

[Doctor Q]

I played it safe myself, getting a degree in Math and a degree in Computer Science. When I hire programmers, I don't consider applicants without a bachelor's degree, but I might consider someone with a bachelor's degree in the "wrong" but related subject, depending on their experience.

One programmer I worked with had a degree in psychology, and turned out to be a great programmer (I didn't hire him myself). So a Computer Science degree isn't necessary to do the work, but it's a definite factor both in preparing you for that line of work and in making it to the interview in the first place.

As a programmer, I find that making a program do what I want, and feeling proud of the software I create, are just as important for job satisfaction as salary. I'm glad to take home both the cash and the smiles. I'd earn more if I worked only as a manager or CIO, but I don't want those jobs.

I guess if your job is acting in toothpaste commercials or greeting people at Wal-Mart, you can take your smiles to the bank directly! :)

[fridgeymonster3]

Man, everybody is attacking me :eek:. I just meant that some jobs do not require specific degrees. I am sorry my programmer analogy seemed to offend so many people - I should have mentioned something completely away from computers to shelter myself from criticism :).

I was just saying that certain high paying jobs require specific education and the vast majority of people who chose to get that education are interested in that field and therefore are happy with their job. I cannot think of many low-paying jobs that require specific schooling (when I mean low-paying I mean average salary across the field compared to avg individual income in America, which is what, say about $30,000 or so?). Otherwise, there are also many other high paying jobs were general education is key, but specific education isn't - meaning there is most likely much more room for people being dissatisfied with their work or unhappy at work. That's all I was saying. If you all want to say a programmer needs a Comp Sci degree, than throw it in with my specific schooling analogy, that's fine by me. What the hell do I know, I'm a Psych major, Poli and Math minor, pursuing a law degree; I shouldn't have said anything :)

[fridgeymonster3]

Did you just step out of a time machine from 1999?

I would strongly, strongly advise you not to rely on this assumption.

I really have to say I was talking about general, middling programming and easy programming. Nothing overly advanced, because than I totally agree that you need a degree.

[SMM]

I played it safe myself, getting a degree in Math and a degree in Computer Science. When I hire programmers, I don't consider applicants without a bachelor's degree, but I might consider someone with a bachelor's degree in the "wrong" but related subject, depending on their experience.

One programmer I worked with had a degree in psychology, and turned out to be a great programmer (I didn't hire him myself). So a Computer Science degree isn't necessary to do the work, but it's a definite factor both in preparing you for that line of work and in making it to the interview in the first place.

As a programmer, I find that making a program do what I want, and feeling proud of the software I create, are just as important for job satisfaction as salary. I'm glad to take home both the cash and the smiles. I'd earn more if I worked only as a manager or CIO, but I don't want those jobs.

I guess if your job is acting in toothpaste commercials or greeting people at Wal-Mart, you can take your smiles to the bank directly! :)

I will usually give greater weight to a resume with a CS degree. There are some companies who will not consider any candidate without it. Some of the large consulting companies even go as far as specifying acceptable universities (Ivy League, Stanford, Cal Berkley getting priority), and will not consider degrees from Tier III schools. Microsoft's job application form does not even have a place for work experience, other than to just list them. But, they focus heavily on education. MS likes to hire people with math and physic degrees.

[Doctor Q]

Some of the large consulting companies even go as far as specifying acceptable universities (Ivy League, Stanford, Cal Berkley getting priority), and will not consider degrees from Tier III schools. Microsoft's job application form does not even have a place for work experience, other than to just list them. But, they focus heavily on education. MS likes to hire people with math and physic degrees.How does that compare with Apple?

[fridgeymonster3]

Some of the large consulting companies even go as far as specifying acceptable universities (Ivy League, Stanford, Cal Berkley getting priority), and will not consider degrees from Tier III schools.

Don't forget to throw in the baby-Ivy's (aka Top Tier Liberal Arts Schools) such as Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Pomona, etc.

[SMM]

How does that compare with Apple?

I have no clue Doctor Q, although I would be interested in learning. The only reason I know about MS is because it is in my backyard, so to speak. I actually worked there for a brief period in 1984. But, I had a totally BS job, debugging Fortran and 8088/80286 Assembler :(. Being the financial wizard I was back then, I thought these stock options were worthless and would never amount to anything. Most of my friends, who stuck with it, retired in their early 40's.

[Doctor Q]

I have no clue Doctor Q, although I would be interested in learning.I was asking anyone who might know.

The only reason I know about MS is because it is in my backyard, so to speak. I actually worked there for a brief period in 1984. But, I had a totally BS job, debugging Fortran and 8088/80286 Assembler :(. Being the financial wizard I was back then, I thought these stock options were worthless and would never amount to anything. Most of my friends, who stuck with it, retired in their early 40's.Ah, that explains your avatar.

[sushi]

Could it be the case that it's not important how rich you are, and that satisfaction comes from having a economic situation that is improving rather than getting worse? In other words, it's not the value, it's the delta value.
I would agree with this. If you believe that the future is brighter (better), then going forward is a positive effect on your health and well being.

I think that as long as you have enough money to live comfortably, then money takes on a secondary roll. If on the other hand, you do not have enough to live comfortably, then money becomes much more of an issue.

The difficulty with this is determining what is living comfortable. In the US, there is such a push to keep up with the Jones syndrome if you will. Nothing wrong with buying what you personally want. But to buy something just because your neighbor does, makes no sense to me. For some, this is their lifestyle and these types rarely seem happy when you meet them.

I have a very wealthy friend, who if you looked at him, you would think he is barely getting by. His wealth is well hidden. Other things matter much more to him. I remember a few years ago, he had some land that some folks wanted to purchase. The value for this small piece of land was in the millions. I asked him if he was going to sell, and he said that he liked the view so no. I then asked him about how he would feel if at a later time he changed his mind and wanted to sell, but the value was much less, or he could not sell his property. He just smiled and shrugged his shoulders.

What I think is more important, is living within your means. No one, not even Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, can purchase everything in the world. They have limits. Granted they are vast limits, but still limits. And both are giving away huge amounts to charities that they believe in.

That simply is not true. Many vocational occupations, like teaching, nursing, art and music, are notoriously badly paid, but give immense job satisfaction. Whoring yourself out for huge sums of money is rarely so satisfying.
So true.

I know a few professional folks who earn a lot, but have little job satisfaction. in some cases, they would like to change jobs, but cannot afford to and at the same time maintain their current life style. Basically, they have painted themselves into a corner and cannot get out unless they change their lifestyle, which for them unfortunately seems impossible.

[Desertrat]

Tangential or peripheral: I recall an interview with J. Paul Getty, at the time the world's richest man. He was asked what he did on vacations. "Vacations? From what? Making deals is what I do for enjoyment. The money is just counters in the game."

[jfull15]

Still, the insane amounts of money professional athletes make is hardly proportional to the time they spend.

I've trained to be a scientist all my life (my parents just sent me my lab "notebook" kept when I was 5, really cute and I was actually quite observant). I spend a lot of time in the lab. I spend a lot of my free time thinking about science and honing my skills.

Do I get payed millions of dollars? Nope.

I don't even want that much money. But to say that they're getting payed in proportion to their energy spent is disingenuous.

hold up. these athletes earn what they get. Many don't make millions, just a select few - and these athletes work their asses off, every day - all day. Sure, some are jerks and probably don't deserve it. Yet, many deserve every dollar. There are scientists who get payed loads of money too. Just like you, there are many athletes who don't get paid millions.

Anyways, if you're doing what you love why are not happy? The athletes are playing a sport because they love it. If you stop whining, and instead slow down & enjoy what you do - you'd probably be a lot happier.

[jfull15]

Let me explain.

I'm poor right now. Read: I lost a good paying job and there is no way to afford my rent and bills for this upcoming month. I don't have an amazing lifestyle, hell I don't even own a TV. So I don't have bills I could just end (like cable TV) and be okay. I'm talking the BARE MINIMUM to survive in this country. And if you ask about my internet bill, I admit it, I use someone elses.

Anyway, only rich people are happy. The people in mercedes talking on their iPhone reserving seats at a fancy place to eat, smiling, happy as can be. In good health these rich people are too, afterall, they can afford health insurance! And for someone like me with medical problems (and no insurance now!) how can I afford $1300/month out of pocket with all the other crap I have to pay for? Meanwhile, rich stupid basketball players are making millions for throwing a ball in a little hoop...and 70% of america is thrown into the gutter.
:mad::mad::mad::(

why don't you quit posting on macrumors and start working? Do work and you'll be able to live. Don't just rant and expect money to be thrown at you. BTW those rich people aren't all happy, a lot of them are insecure and do those things to comfort them.

[Rodimus Prime]

I want to know what the OP defined as rich. How much does one have to bring into t fall in the "rich" category and there for be happy.

[iJohnHenry]

This should be a poll.

The OP might be in for a shock.

[BoyBach]

Crisis of Confidence

The Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan has been tracking American economic perceptions since the 1950s. On Friday the center released its latest estimate of the consumer sentiment index — and it was a stunner. Americans are more pessimistic about their situation than they have been for more than a quarter century.

Meanwhile, a recent Pew report found that the percentage of Americans saying that they’re better off than they were five years ago is at its lowest level in 44 years of polling.

What’s striking about this bleak mood is that by the usual measures the economy isn’t doing that badly — at least not yet. In particular, the official unemployment rate of 5.1 percent, though rising, is still fairly low by historical standards. Yet economic attitudes are worse now than they were in 1992, when the average unemployment rate was 7.5 percent.

Why are we feeling so down?

Our bleakness partly reflects the fact that most Americans are doing considerably worse than the usual economic measures let on. The official unemployment rate may be relatively low — but the percentage of prime-working-age Americans without jobs, which isn’t the same thing, is historically high. Gross domestic product is up, but the inflation-adjusted income of the median family is probably lower than it was in 2000.

Beyond that, perceptions of the current economy are strongly influenced by the public’s sense of the larger pattern.

When Ronald Reagan famously asked, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?,” the correct answer was “Yes.” Median household income, adjusted for inflation, was higher in 1980 than it had been in 1976. But gas lines and double-digit inflation made people feel that things were falling apart.

Conversely, unemployment was still historically high when Reagan proclaimed “Morning in America.” But people were ready to hear an upbeat message, because the economic storm seemed to have passed.

More recently, economic confidence held up relatively well during the 2001 recession, maybe because people were willing to see it as no more than a temporary interruption of the great 1990s boom.

A major reason we’re feeling so down now is that for working Americans the boom never did come back. Job creation in the post-2001 recovery was pathetic by Clinton-era standards; wages barely kept up with inflation. Instead, corporate profits and the incomes of a tiny elite surged — sucking up so much of the economy’s growth that only crumbs were left for everyone else.

Now the boom that wasn’t has gone bust — and Americans, understandably, have lost confidence in the prospects for a return to real prosperity.

They have also, I’d suggest, lost confidence in the integrity of our economic institutions.

Early this decade, when the great corporate scandals broke — Enron, WorldCom, and so on — I expected big-business corruption to become a major political issue. It didn’t, partly because the march to war had the effect of changing the subject, partly, perhaps, because Americans weren’t ready to take a broadly negative view of the system that brought them the previous decade’s boom.

But my impression is that the subprime crisis — with its revelation that titans of finance were dealing in funny money and its tales of failed executives receiving hundred-million-dollar going-away presents — has resurrected the sense that something is rotten in the state of our economy. And this sense is adding to the general gloom.

The question is, can the next administration end America’s malaise?

Some of the causes of poor economic performance since 2000 are probably beyond any administration’s control. Raw materials were cheap in the 1990s, but in the years ahead the rise of China and other emerging economies will place increasing pressure on world supplies of oil, copper and so on, no matter what the next president does.

But reinvigorated regulation could help restore confidence to the financial system. A return to pro-labor policies could help raise real wages. Pro-competitive policies — which are not the same thing as giving powerful businesses whatever they want — could help America regain its leadership in information technology. In other words, there’s a lot that could be done to perk up our sagging confidence.

That won’t happen, however, unless the next president is someone who understands what went wrong. And right now, that doesn’t look at all certain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14krugman.html


Seems appropriate to this discussion.

[NAG]

hold up. these athletes earn what they get. Many don't make millions, just a select few - and these athletes work their asses off, every day - all day.
Again, I was only addressing the argument that effort put in to a job reflects the value a society places on it. Reread my posts. No where in there did I say they weren't working.

Sure, some are jerks and probably don't deserve it. Yet, many deserve every dollar. There are scientists who get payed loads of money too. Just like you, there are many athletes who don't get paid millions.
Again, reread my posts. I was mostly addressing how society has a skewed resource allocation. Science funding is on the decline. Since you brought it up though (even though I don't really care about how much I'm being payed) it is extremely disingenuous to imply that there are scientists out there making the millions that athletes make. I don't expect you to know about the science funding problems since again, society has a skewed sense of resource allocation. This is a problem exactly because of societies ignorance of it.

Anyways, if you're doing what you love why are not happy?
Who says I'm not? You? Not me. Again, reread my posts, I was only addressing the argument that effort put in = societies value. That isn't the case. Effort has no real impact on whether or not athletes in general make millions because if it did science (among other fields of work) would be better funded by society (in other words, I'm using science as an example to show how the argument of effort being correlated to value is wrong).

The athletes are playing a sport because they love it. If you stop whining, and instead slow down & enjoy what you do - you'd probably be a lot happier.

So saying something you don't agree with something is whining? Nice. Hope you don't meet every intellectual challenge you encounter in life with that kind of attitude.

In other words, stop and read what I'm saying and maybe you won't get the impression that I'm whining about my pay scale. You're overly focused with sour grapes (that says more about you than me).

[Desertrat]

BoyBack, the article was fine, insofar as delineating cause and effect. The author fails miserably when he gets to his final paragraphs.

World competition in the labor market reduced our "smokestack" employment. Changes in banking regulations in the 1980s allowed the rise of these giant financial corporations--which made 50% of all US corporate profits. (Which means everything from family farm corporations to Big Oil split the rest of the profit pie.)

So, his "But reinvigorated regulation could help restore confidence to the financial system. A return to pro-labor policies could help raise real wages."

Regulation? Whatever regulations are promulgated will address these recent events--and won't foresee the next set of problems, whatever they may be.

Pro-labor policies? Past pro-labor policies are what priced us out of the world labor market.

The only thing that's unchanging is the ancient adage, "Find a need and fill it." That's the answer to the opening poster's problem, same as for anybody who is dissatisfied with their present economic status. It doesn't matter if one is trying to invent the proverbial better mousetrap or seeking a salaried position. It is incumbent upon the individual to create the ability to fill the need.

'Rat

[jfull15]

I've trained to be a scientist all my life (my parents just sent me my lab "notebook" kept when I was 5, really cute and I was actually quite observant). I spend a lot of time in the lab. I spend a lot of my free time thinking about science and honing my skills.

Do I get payed millions of dollars? Nope.


sounds like whining to me. And if you're just "proving a point" or stating you don't like something, why don't you do something about it, instead of just complaining?

[NAG]

sounds like whining to me. And if you're just "proving a point" or stating you don't like something, why don't you do something about it, instead of just complaining?

Hehe, very confrontational, I see. So, since you know me so well and know everything I do, would you care to tell me what I should have for lunch? I can't decide.

Look, we're on this forum to argue about various things. If you have a problem with that I question why you are in this specific forum. There are many parts of macrumors that cater to all sorts of things. They don't all have to make you happy. So stop whining. :p

[PowerFullMac]

Hey, people, I dunno if this thread has gone off-topic (although looking at the previous post I would say it has) but I just wonna say I will be rich soon as I am learning card counting :D So there! :D

Anyway, yeah, nothin' better to do and I might as well be learning something profitable! Its very very easy TBH.

EDIT: And with that post, I am now a 68000!

[miniConvert]

Money definitely makes me happy. You need somebody to spend it with, of course.

[jfull15]

Hehe, very confrontational, I see. So, since you know me so well and know everything I do, would you care to tell me what I should have for lunch? I can't decide.

Look, we're on this forum to argue about various things. If you have a problem with that I question why you are in this specific forum. There are many parts of macrumors that cater to all sorts of things. They don't all have to make you happy. So stop whining. :p

I know people like you, the ones who are arrogant, and all they can do is run their mouths. They will never actually do anything, just critique everyone else. Honestly, why should I even bother arguing with you? Once you actually start doing instead of talking, let me know. Until then, you can't complain about anything.

[skunk]

I know people like you, the ones who are arrogant, and all they can do is run their mouths. They will never actually do anything, just critique everyone else. Honestly, why should I even bother arguing with you? Once you actually start doing instead of talking, let me know. Until then, you can't complain about anything.Do you really need to be so gratuitously unpleasant? Your attitude reeks of the arrogance you are so keen to ascribe to others.

[Badandy]

... I was only addressing the argument that effort put in = societies value. That isn't the case. Effort has no real impact on whether or not athletes in general make millions because if it did science (among other fields of work) would be better funded by society (in other words, I'm using science as an example to show how the argument of effort being correlated to value is wrong).




I think this paragraph is the sticking point. As you know, athletes have probably put in just as much if not more effort than the average scientist, but the argument here is that their effort is not as valuable to society as the effort put forth by scientists. There are arguments against that, but it seems reasonable to say that effort does not equal the wage you earn, but it does seem to equal the wage you earn within your field (whether it be athletics or science).

[LethalWolfe]

Still, the insane amounts of money professional athletes make is hardly proportional to the time they spend.
.
.
.
But to say that they're getting payed in proportion to their energy spent is disingenuous.

No where in there did I say they weren't working.
That sounds like you don't think they are working very hard to earn their paycheck.;)


Lethal

[NAG]

I think this paragraph is the sticking point. As you know, athletes have probably put in just as much if not more effort than the average scientist, but the argument here is that their effort is not as valuable to society as the effort put forth by scientists. There are arguments against that, but it seems reasonable to say that effort does not equal the wage you earn, but it does seem to equal the wage you earn within your field (whether it be athletics or science).

I'm mostly staying that benefit to society the money awarded to them is not exactly proportional if you gauge by time/effort spent (as was used to justify the pay earlier) (especially when you consider how things like the sciences and arts are getting cuts). Also, are you implying that scientists don't basically live in the lab and work at weird hours to further our knowledge?

[Gelfin]

I'm mostly staying that benefit to society the money awarded to them is not exactly proportional if you gauge by time/effort spent (as was used to justify the pay earlier) (especially when you consider how things like the sciences and arts are getting cuts). Also, are you implying that scientists don't basically live in the lab and work at weird hours to further our knowledge?

The issue has nothing to do with the amount of work contributed by either worker. If you want more money as a scientist, find a way to make it exciting to Joe Q. Nascar and start pasting corporate logos all over your white lab coat. You want athletes to make less money, stop buying Pepsi and Budweiser and Toyotas.

I'm not saying sports are actually worth more to humanity than science, much less that "the market" is qualified to decide such a thing, but if you want anything about that to change, the dragon you need to slay is on Madison Avenue, not Madison Square Gardens.

[NAG]

The issue has nothing to do with the amount of work contributed by either worker.
Thank you for realizing that. That is all I was arguing. If you look back at the post I responded to he implied that the money is proportional to effort spent. I was being skeptical of this point using myself as an example since that is the example I am most familiar with and was able to illustrate more fully. I did not feel confident using the example of the arts for instance, because I did not want to make up facts and figures like the people arguing about the sciences in this thread seem keen to do.

If you want more money as a scientist, find a way to make it exciting to Joe Q. Nascar and start pasting corporate logos all over your white lab coat.
Again, you're setting a great strawman. Here, I'll make it painfully clear. I am not asking for a higher salary. I was merely pointing out that effort and societies priorities were somewhat skewed. This leaves a disproportional amount of money is a very small area to the detriment of others (such as science with funding cut backs).

You want athletes to make less money, stop buying Pepsi and Budweiser and Toyotas.
Ah, I was waiting for you to continue the "you're whining so shut up" riff. Here, let me put it this way, you're being defensive by continually attacking me and not arguing my point. Since my point has been missed a billion times regardless of how I state it here it is again:

The effort put in is not substantially correlated to the resources obtained but is instead dictated by the skewed resource allocation deemed acceptable by society.

Is that clear enough for you or are you going to continue to attack me and not my arguement?

I'm not saying sports are actually worth more to humanity than science, much less that "the market" is qualified to decide such a thing, but if you want anything about that to change, the dragon you need to slay is on Madison Avenue, not Madison Square Gardens.
Actually the dragon to slay, so to speak, would be to increase science literacy of the general populace. There are many ways to do this (and many are being tried).

In the end, this isn't just about science though, but it is about skewed resource allocation in general. There are lots of resource allocation problems and a lot of them are going to become more and more visible as the baby boomers retire. Another good question is asking how much we should really spend on someone in their last month or so of life? It's a cold and callous question but it's going to have to be addressed. Just like how we can't keep throwing away money but cut science funding, we can't keep throwing unlimited money at someone to only increase his/her life by a few weeks or months.

[Gelfin]

Wow. Persecution complex much? You could not have read me more wrongly.

I don't think you're whining. In fact, I'm quite sympathetic to what you're trying to say. The paragraph you interpret as a strawman and an accusation of whining, I thought were obviously so unrealistic no one could take them as an actual proposed solution.

What they were was a characterization of the problem. Frankly, I do think science ought to be better funded, and I do think athletes are probably overcompensated relative to the objective value of the work they do. All I was saying is it isn't like there's somebody on a throne saying "sports is worth X to society, science Y." It's an emergent market thing, and as a matter of trying to work out why it happens (instead of just saying it should be otherwise), we must take note of the fact that all those insanely large piles of sports dollars come from advertising. I wish I knew what to do about that, but I don't.

Science education, as much as I support it, isn't going to address this. It's not going to tune people out of sporting events, or make science exciting enough that we'll ever see "Large Hadron Collider, sponsored by the new Cadillac CTS with OnStar! Look for the Higgs boson in style!"

It's just a bit funny how you can ask individual people whether sports or science is more important to society, and even the science illiterate will generally say "science," but our collective behavior as a species suggests a quite different priority. I know how to educate a person. I haven't the foggiest idea how to educate the gestalt of millions of them. I don't think anyone does.

[NAG]

Wow. Persecution complex much? You could not have read me more wrongly.

Well when most of the responses to you in a thread consist of "you're whining" (and yes, most were) you tend to expect the worst from people. I apologize for misinterpreting you.

What they were was a characterization of the problem. Frankly, I do think science ought to be better funded, and I do think athletes are probably overcompensated relative to the objective value of the work they do. All I was saying is it isn't like there's somebody on a throne saying "sports is worth X to society, science Y." It's an emergent market thing, and as a matter of trying to work out why it happens (instead of just saying it should be otherwise), we must take note of the fact that all those insanely large piles of sports dollars come from advertising. I wish I knew what to do about that, but I don't.
Yeah, the economics of it makes sense in a weird, twisted sort of way. Economics results in all sorts of inequitable allocations. About advertising, look at how problems with pharmaceuticals were seemingly amplified by them advertising medications all over the place. Weirdness for sure.

Science education, as much as I support it, isn't going to address this. It's not going to tune people out of sporting events, or make science exciting enough that we'll ever see "Large Hadron Collider, sponsored by the new Cadillac CTS with OnStar! Look for the Higgs boson in style!"
Oh, I know education alone won't fix it. You also have to get scientists out of the lab and into political positions to help bring the scientific perspective/representation to more areas. This goes for things like the arts or anything else is getting cut these days due to lack of the nascar effect (as you put it).

It's just a bit funny how you can ask individual people whether sports or science is more important to society, and even the science illiterate will generally say "science," but our collective behavior as a species suggests a quite different priority. I know how to educate a person. I haven't the foggiest idea how to educate the gestalt of millions of them. I don't think anyone does.
I really peg the problem with science education k-12. Science at that level is perceived as so exclusive and hard (like how there was a barbie that said she hated math). And for the most part, they're right. Science at k-12 is nothing more than rote memorization of incomplete information.

Great, Johnny knows the organelles of the cell. Johnny also knows that the cell has a nucleus. Johnny also knows that nucleuses are made of protons and neutrons. Johnny knows that nothing is smaller protons and neutrons so cells are really really tiny.

Thats the extent of high school science education. (This isn't a joke, I've seen answers to quizes that follow that exact train of thought.) They know a bunch of trivia but nothing else. Science classes might as well be called the history of science because thats all they're being taught.

I'll use myself as an example again, since I'm great at doing that. lol

When my parents were effectively teaching me science they gave me a "lab notebook" and just sent me out to record and make observations. They'd then talk to me about those things and ask me to explain myself. Stuff like that.

That is science. Not this memorizing junk so you can pass the test and get into a good university that is in vogue these days. In the end we need the populace to understand science, not have a bunch of "facts" (that are usually out of date in a few years anyway) crammed into their heads.

Anyway, there is my extremely off topic rant on science education. I tried to not get into it but frankly it is more fun to talk about that then to talk about our societies resource allocation problems (which is a huge issue that we'll be lucky to fix to any degree).

[fridgeymonster3]

Can we please stop comparing a "scientist" to an athlete - the whole argument has become ridiculous. First of all, not all scientists are working towards advancing science or the greater good of humanity. Second, just because athletes only play a game, again, doesn't mean they do not do anything for humanity (besides economics).

For example, I had a friend in high school whose little brother, Timmy, had a terminal disease his entire life, where he lived until he was only 15. Now, Timmy loved baseball - his older brother and I played together and he would come to all the games. He could never play because of his disease. His favorite player was Torii Hunter. One day he wrote Hunter a letter, a little while later he got a return letter and a phone call from Hunter personally. From there, Hunter and Timmy became friends. Hunter had Timmy and his entire family out for a four-game weekend series, paid all expenses, let them sit in his luxury box, and basically spent the entire four days with him. Also, from then on, anytime the Hunter played the Yankees (we lived in NJ) he would get the family tickets and go to dinner with the family.

Now, this kid had nothing to live for. Because of his disease, he knew from a very young age that he would only live a very shortened life. In addition, he was physically deformed (tumors), a condition that worsened with age, that kept him from participating in baseball and from fitting in with fellow classmates. Hunter changed his life - you have never seen a kid smile so much when talking about another person in your life.

You can say that athletes don't deserve money, you can compare your "thinking about science" to hours in the wieght room or on the practice fields, you can say that scientist have a more noble and important job, but than you are just stereotyping all athletes into form. Over course not all athletes care about the underprivileged, just as all scientists do not work to advance humanity. However, athletes have the resources to do so and many do help make people's lives better, personally. If you are a "scientist" but actually haven't done anything substantial to advance our understanding of science or help humanity than you don't deserve your salary, at all, until you do so. You should hold yourself to the same standard you are holding that athletes to And I don't want to here what you have "done" because you cannot substantiate any claim here, so just think about it yourself.

[NAG]

Huh? Did you read my posts at all or are you just talking to some imaginary person?

First off, if i can't use examples in my argument, what can I use? Shall I just spout fabrications and nonsense? That would make it easier to dismiss me, wouldn't it.

Second, where did I say athletes don't deserve money? Time and time again that line is used. I am honestly shocked that you seem to be so stubbornly misreading my post (even the one with obnoxious bolding).

The tone of your post is incredibly telling. You love to use quotations in an effort to imply it is a pejorative and then talk about something completely unrelated (aka: strawman).

Maybe you missed the bolding because it was in the middle of the post. So here is the point at the end of the post. Hopefully you'll understand it this time and actually talk about it:

You cannot use effort spent as a justification for skewed resource allocation because it is not correlated as seen in previous examples given.

[leekohler]

I know people like you, the ones who are arrogant, and all they can do is run their mouths. They will never actually do anything, just critique everyone else. Honestly, why should I even bother arguing with you? Once you actually start doing instead of talking, let me know. Until then, you can't complain about anything.

Hi kettle, you're black. Looked in the mirror lately? It takes one to know one, doesn't it? OK, I'm out of cliches now.

[fridgeymonster3]

Huh? Did you read my posts at all or are you just talking to some imaginary person?

First off, if i can't use examples in my argument, what can I use? Shall I just spout fabrications and nonsense? That would make it easier to dismiss me, wouldn't it.

Second, where did I say athletes don't deserve money? Time and time again that line is used. I am honestly shocked that you seem to be so stubbornly misreading my post (even the one with obnoxious bolding).

The tone of your post is incredibly telling. You love to use quotations in an effort to imply it is a pejorative and then talk about something completely unrelated (aka: strawman).

Maybe you missed the bolding because it was in the middle of the post. So here is the point at the end of the post. Hopefully you'll understand it this time and actually talk about it:

You cannot use effort spent as a justification for skewed resource allocation because it is not correlated as seen in previous examples given.

I didn't quote you on purpose, other people were talking about science vs. athletes too. That's the reason I didn't quote anybody. Second, I used the pronoun you to say that anybody can say these things about athletes, but they are just broad generalizations. I agree effort spent cannot be a justification for pay scale, overall - never argued otherwise, but I will clarify it with an additional post. By all means, I take back my previous statement, tell me how you have changed humanity as a scientist. But, please, offer me your credentials beforehand - I have heard many people say they are scientist and they only have a B.S. or M.S., which just makes you a science major, not a scientist. I apologize that I'm skeptical of people.

P.S. - Did you like how I didn't use quotations at all?

[juanster]

I'm happy "not rich, I'm a poor man with money, its not thE same thing" GGM

[fridgeymonster3]

I agree, that across all jobs in America, that time spent working on that job does not translate into pay. I know people who are janitors and grounds crew at colleges, high schools, etc. who work long hours and do not get paid nearly as well as the college professor who sometimes skate through a semester.

I have to admit, however, that I have not seen any academic put in as much work in high school as my friend, counting classroom hours and basketball hours. I didn't go to a slouch high school either. In terms of college, I cannot say specifically about D1 athletics because I went to a liberal arts college; however, as a member of the football team - I put in more time, again combined athletics and academics, than almost all of my other friends who were only students, counting all the time they spent doing anything school related. So, from my experience, the amount of work to get into the profession of basketball is substantially higher than to get into many other fields. Now, I had a similar post to this earlier, in which I was vague and you construed my musings to be translated across jobs. I am only talking about work put into getting the said job. I janitor might work as much as a professional basketball player; however, the janitor didnt have to work to become one. I feel becoming a professional basketball player, requires more work than any job that does not require a Master's degree. I agree that people who pursue professional degrees (JD, MD) or academic degrees (PhD) will put in the equivalent work, but over a longer period of time.

[trebblekicked]

i don't care to read four pages of thread drift (and from what i can tell, a fair amount of flaming), so i'll just say my piece:

two years ago, i made two big changes in my life. i stopped smoking and i stopped relying on my car. those two moves freed up enough money that my relatively average salary leaves me enough spare cash to eat decently and cover the copays on my anti-depressants. simplify, simplify, prescriptify.

[NAG]

P.S. - Did you like how I didn't use quotations at all?

Can we please stop comparing a "scientist" to[...]

What now? :p

...Moving on...

Hi kettle, you're black. Looked in the mirror lately? It takes one to know one, doesn't it? OK, I'm out of cliches now.

For the record, I often respond in a similar style (or at least what I interpret to be similar). It just makes it more fun.

[fridgeymonster3]

What now? :p

...Moving on...


You do know that you just misquoted me, right? The P.S. came after my original "scientist" remark.

Thanks for ignoring what I wrote - I guess you cannot back anything up can you. You wanted to tell us how science helps understanding and humanity - well enlighten us all on your credentials and how you have done so being a scientist. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm interested.

[NAG]

You do know that you just misquoted me, right? The P.S. came after my original "scientist" remark.

Thanks for ignoring what I wrote - I guess you cannot back anything up can you. You wanted to tell us how science helps understanding and humanity - well enlighten us all on your credentials and how you have done so being a scientist. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm interested.

I ignored what you wrote? I addressed what you wrote the post before. You said nothing new. You, on the other hand, have failed to address my point. (ie: whats with your use of quotation marks?)

[fridgeymonster3]

First off, if i can't use examples in my argument, what can I use? Shall I just spout fabrications and nonsense?

I changed my stance and said, go ahead, use examples. I would like to hear some.

(ie: whats with your use of quotation marks?)

I used "scientist" because I seriously doubt you are a scientist. Hence, the quotation marks.

[NAG]

Okay...you're changing your position a lot here. Let me outline what I think you said so you can correct me if I misinterpreted.

First you say I can't use examples (specifically in reference to science).

Then you concede that I can use the example after all.

But you now claim I made no examples.

And to finish it off you first were sniping me with a series of pejoratives or whatnot but finally just came out and said that you think I'm lying with no proof of your claim.

So in summary, you think I shouldn't use examples given yet should provide examples since apparently the examples given were not given. All the while you were making this point you were personally attacking me.

Did I miss something?

If not, what exactly is there for me to address? How can anyone respond to such a cunning argument?

[fridgeymonster3]

Did I miss something?


On the first page of this thread, I said that during HS and college top-tier athletes work harder than students. I gave an example of a high school friend of mine who is know in the NBA and how he worked harder than anyone I knew during HS and college. You said I was incorrect, because you are a scientist and have put a lot of work in. I'm asking about that work. I'm saying please be specific. Here I'll start by being 100% specific:

My friend is Luol Deng who plays for the Bulls and went to Duke. We went to HS together. He worked harder than anyone I knew in high school, cumulatively (academics and athletics). Even harder than friends who went to Harvard and other Ivies, much harder than me and I went to a very prestigious liberal arts school. I went into detail on page one, so you can reference back if you want more.

Now, please. Give me your example of how becoming a scientist, for you, has required extreme amounts of time. You keep saying you got your first notebook at 5, you spend time in the lab, you spend other time thinking about science and honing your skills. Please enlighten me in more specific detail. Do you have a PhD, a M.S., a B.S. or are you a high school student in some AP Physics class calling yourself a scientist? How am I supposed to know, all you say is you are a scientist working hard. Elaborate please.

EDIT: Yes, I flip-flopped. I first noted that if you gave examples of how you personally have furthered humanity with science, through your own personal work, there would be no way for us to know if you are being sincere. I take that back, nobody knows if anybody is sincere here. So, go ahead and tell me anything you want.

[fridgeymonster3]

you said that you think I'm lying with no proof of your claim.

I do have serious doubts when I have asked several times for you credentials and you have refused to give them to me. That is a non-denial denial. At least to me it is.

[jng]

I just came across this thread and haven't read it in its entirety but definitely seems like it lost its track in the last 2 pages.


Anyway, my 2 cents:
Happiness doesn't have to do with effort or money. I've never been so happy before in my life nor have I ever earned less or worked less (and I don't just mean job wise). It's all perspective.

[NAG]

I do have serious doubts when I have asked several times for you credentials and you have refused to give them to me. That is a non-denial denial. At least to me it is.

Several times? You issue snarky personal attacks and try to off them as intelligent discourse. Only after I called you on it did you issue the more specific claim in an effort to evade the fall out of such inappropriate form.

Where do you get off making such inane demands as a way to argue a point? If you can't see how personal attacks do not an argument make then, wow, I'm sorry for you. You must have a very unhappy and bitter life.

[skunk]

II've never been so happy before in my life nor have I ever earned less or worked less (and I don't just mean job wise). It's all perspective.Let me guess. You must be an architectural draughtsman.

[jng]

Actually I teach English at the moment.

[skunk]

Pearls before swine.
:cool:

[jng]

Pearls before swine.
:cool:

I'm lost.

[skunk]

Low pay, not much work at the moment, dealing with perspective = architectural draughtsman. It could have been quite amusing if I hadn't had to explain it... ;)

[NAG]

Your explanation killed the thread. This is all your fault. Are you happy now?

[skunk]

Your explanation killed the thread. This is all your fault. Are you happy now?Never been happier. Don't mind me, you carry on digging if you want. Here, you can borrow my shovel.

[zap2]

That sounds like you don't think they are working very hard to earn their paycheck.;)


Lethal

The superstar work hard, yes, but its for a game. I'd imagine they love it, which rocks. But millions of dollars when people are staving? I know people who part tons of time in at work, and barely get by.


The superstars are overpaid.

[NAG]

Never been happier. Don't mind me, you carry on digging if you want. Here, you can borrow my shovel.

My shovel is bigger than yours! I reject your shovel and replace it with my own!

[LethalWolfe]

The superstar work hard, yes, but its for a game. I'd imagine they love it, which rocks. But millions of dollars when people are staving? I know people who part tons of time in at work, and barely get by.
NAG originally said pro athletes got paid too much for the amount of effort they have to put into their career (i.e. they don't work hard enough for their money). He has since changed his position to "pro athletes get paid too much for playing a game" and denied ever stating anything else (even though it's plain as day on the first page). That was the only point of my post that you quoted.

Many pro athletes get paid exponentially more money to play a game than police or firefighters get paid to save people's lives and that's because what people get paid is based on economics, not subjective interpretations of what jobs are more important than other jobs. If we ranked professions by "importance", and paid based on that, then farmers should be the richest of all, IMO. You don't have very much time to be a scientist or a basketball player if you spend 80hrs a week growing the food you and your family need to live.


Lethal

[NAG]

NAG originally said pro athletes got paid too much for the amount of effort they have to put into their career
NAG originally said no such thing and you are perpetuating the strawman that you have so kindly laid out in the first posts. Since you are incapable of reading back that far here is my point in my first post replying to the statement that effort and pay is proportional:

Still, the insane amounts of money professional athletes make is hardly proportional to the time they spend.

I've trained to be a scientist all my life (my parents just sent me my lab "notebook" kept when I was 5, really cute and I was actually quite observant). I spend a lot of time in the lab. I spend a lot of my free time thinking about science and honing my skills.

Do I get payed millions of dollars? Nope.

I don't even want that much money. But to say that they're getting payed in proportion to their energy spent is disingenuous.

Was in reference to:

So, before you throw athletes under the bus, learn about what they do - they work much much harder than the average american.

I was providing a counter argument to the effort argument given. That argument being, pro athletes work harder than everyone so they deserve the pay.

I provided a counter argument to that. So far the only counter to my argument has been personal attacks.

Hardly compelling evidence.

[LethalWolfe]

Still, the insane amounts of money professional athletes make is hardly proportional to the time they spend.
.
.
.
But to say that they're getting payed in proportion to their energy spent is disingenuous.

NAG originally said no such thing and you are perpetuating the strawman that you have so kindly laid out in the first posts.
Sure looks like NAG said it. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I was providing a counter argument to the effort argument given. That argument being, pro athletes work harder than everyone so they deserve the pay.

I provided a counter argument to that. So far the only counter to my argument has been personal attacks.

Um, to me that still looks like you are saying pro athletes don't work hard enough for their paychecks, not that pro athletes get paid too much for playing a game.


Lethal

[NAG]

Yes, you can also say you think the sky is green and strobes various colors at night.

[LethalWolfe]

Yes, you can also say you think the sky is green and strobes various colors at night.
I could, but it's much easier to post quotes of you saying something you said you never said in a an academic discussion about how wealth should be distributed based on subjective opinions about who has a more important job. :D


Lethal

EDIT: Notice I said "job"and not who works harder.:D:p

[NAG]

Eh, at this point we both know we're just jerking each other off. :p I don't think either of us has said anything new in a few pages. I wonder if the OP of this thread got any useful information out of this. lol

[dukebound85]

supply and demand is why athletes are crazy rich

Odds are alot better that you can become an engineer/scientist whatever if they work at it as opposed to the very few can be 6'8" and dominate in basketball

[Krafty]

Eh, at this point we both know we're just jerking each other off. :p
:eek:

[NAG]

supply and demand is why athletes are crazy rich

Odds are alot better that you can become an engineer/scientist whatever if they work at it as opposed to the very few can be 6'8" and dominate in basketball

Yup, which is what I've been saying about societies resource allocation problems. Society kind of has a skewed sense of priorities (I've outlined quite a few, ranging from the war to the baby boomers retiring).

[LethalWolfe]

Eh, at this point we both know we're just jerking each other off. :p
I'll admit to pulling your leg, but I don't know you well enough to jerk you off.;)


Lethal

[NAG]

Nuts. We're still in disagreement then.

[dukebound85]

Yup, which is what I've been saying about societies resource allocation problems. Society kind of has a skewed sense of priorities (I've outlined quite a few, ranging from the war to the baby boomers retiring).

skewed sense of proriies i agree but at the same time i do appreciate the fact that our society is run by a free market system. if that means some rich athletes so what.

i mean all you have to do is look at the quality of life in the US with these rich athletes compared to societies that dont have free market like China

I realize im fortunate to have been born in a society such as the US

[fridgeymonster3]

I've trained to be a scientist all my life (my parents just sent me my lab "notebook" kept when I was 5, really cute and I was actually quite observant). I spend a lot of time in the lab. I spend a lot of my free time thinking about science and honing my skills.

Huh? They're throwing a ball through a hoop. I'm working on curing a disease. Does that really correlate to them making millions and me making the scientists pay (you should really see what they pay low on the totem pole scientists).

I just asked for some clarification on your job as a scientist. That is all. I did not get into personal attacks, all I said was that after you repeatedly chose not to elaborate on what you were doing curing a disease, that I began to doubt you were an actual scientist. A scientist is someone with a PhD; therefore, I asked if you had one. Again I received a non-denial denial. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just saying that your credibility has diminished in my eyes as you have not chosen to elaborate or enlighten me. Don't take that as a personal attack.

Oh, and I'm not bitter or anything. I've been happy my whole life. But I appreciate the desperate attempt to insult me. Nice one. Did you read it on the back of your Hello Kitty notebook? Oh, sorry, I meant scientist notebook! Oops.

[fridgeymonster3]

By the way NAG, here is a sample of your post times today in this thread (PT time)

10:46
1:29
2:15
2:42
3:12
4:05
4:13
4:44
5:17
5:41
5:51
5:56

Maybe you should work more trying to cure that disease you were talking about. People are dying from it, you seem to be very cavalier with their lives by selfishly defended science in this thread. If you were a legit scientists, wouldn't you think that you would work some more? I'm sorry, but I made a legitimate claim that I feel your credibility has plummeted. If you are in school to be a scientist, than say that. If you are a research assistant, or researcher than I am sorry to break it to you but you aren't a scientist. You have no reason to answer me, but don't personally attack me when I have a legitimate claim that you are not being truthful. Either convince me I'm wrong or keep up with the childish personal attacks and calling me bitter.

[dukebound85]

you do not need to have a Phd to be a scientist lol

there are many who work on disease cures without having a doctorate. namely research assistants, grad students etc

[fridgeymonster3]

you do not need to have a Phd to be a scientist lol

there are many who work on disease cures without having a doctorate. namely research assistants, grad students etc

That makes you a researcher, not a scientists, hence the name researcher. You have to have a PhD to be a scientist, otherwise you are just a researcher. Sure, there are many people who work on legal cases, doesn't make them lawyers. You can major in psychology in college, but you aren't a psychologist. To be a scientist, you have to have expert knowledge of a aspect of science - you do not get expert knowledge through a B.S. or M.S.

[Iscariot]

That makes you a researcher, not a scientists, hence the name researcher. You have to have a PhD to be a scientist, otherwise you are just a researcher. Sure, there are many people who work on legal cases, doesn't make them lawyers. You can major in psychology in college, but you aren't a psychologist. To be a scientist, you have to have expert knowledge of a aspect of science - you do not get expert knowledge through a B.S. or M.S.

You do not need a PhD to be a scientist. While a PhD is typically considered an entrance exam into the scientific community, it is by no means a requisite to the title of scientist.

I am curious to learn more about what NAG does, though, if he's willing to share.

[fridgeymonster3]

it is by no means a requisite to the title of scientist.

So you consider people with a B.S. in Physics scientists? Where do they get this title of scientist? I'm actually interested because from everything I know a PhD is required. Of course you can call yourself whatever you want, but almost always a PhD is required - at least to be taken seriously by your peers. Everyone I know would laugh at a non-PhD calling him/herself a scientist. Maybe that is because of my academic background, but as dual psychology and politics major, I never have called myself a psychologist or political scientist.

[Iscariot]

So you consider people with a B.S. in Physics scientists? Where do they get this title of scientist? I'm actually interested because from everything I know a PhD is required. Of course you can call yourself whatever you want, but almost always a PhD is required - at least to be taken seriously by your peers. Everyone I know would laugh at a non-PhD calling him/herself a scientist. Maybe that is because of my academic background, but as dual psychology and politics major, I never have called myself a psychologist or political scientist.

I don't really consider people anything, I'm not in charge of handing out titles. If I were, they'd have much more clean cut definitions, and, frankly, sound way cooler. Scientist is such an umbrella term encompassing so many different disciplines with different academic backgrounds that the lines are quite blurry. I'm not taking issue with PhD being a very reasonable measure of expertise, just pointing out that it's not a de facto standard.

[fridgeymonster3]

I don't really consider people anything, I'm not in charge of handing out titles. If I were, they'd have much more clean cut definitions, and, frankly, sound way cooler. Scientist is such an umbrella term encompassing so many different disciplines with different academic backgrounds that the lines are quite blurry. I'm not taking issue with PhD being a very reasonable measure of expertise, just pointing out that it's not a de facto standard.

Well, they do have physicist, biologist, chemist, etc. but, I agree, there should be cooler names. Maybe kids would be more interested in science and math in school then, making better teachers (of those who decided to teach), and better overall understanding of math and science in America down the road.

[mrgreen4242]

Let me explain.

I'm poor right now. Read: I lost a good paying job and there is no way to afford my rent and bills for this upcoming month. I don't have an amazing lifestyle, hell I don't even own a TV. So I don't have bills I could just end (like cable TV) and be okay. I'm talking the BARE MINIMUM to survive in this country. And if you ask about my internet bill, I admit it, I use someone elses.

Anyway, only rich people are happy. The people in mercedes talking on their iPhone reserving seats at a fancy place to eat, smiling, happy as can be. In good health these rich people are too, afterall, they can afford health insurance! And for someone like me with medical problems (and no insurance now!) how can I afford $1300/month out of pocket with all the other crap I have to pay for? Meanwhile, rich stupid basketball players are making millions for throwing a ball in a little hoop...and 70% of america is thrown into the gutter.
:mad::mad::mad::(

I really do feel for you. And I'll tell all the people who tell you that money can't buy you happiness to piss off on your behalf, because that's crap (and they know it, they've just been trained to think that way).

We're in this boat because we've spent the last 60+ year funneling all of our wealth the the top 1% or so. The top 5% of families in the US control over 70% of the wealth. That's what capitalism really is - a way to shuffle money upwards to a select few while the rest of us hopefully don't notice.

Best of luck to you, and for the record I advocate just stop paying your bills and get rid of any phones you have (get a new prepaid mobile line if you need to and don't give out the number) so they can't harass you too much. They'll kick you out of your apartment, but not for at least 90 days - hopefully you can find a friend or relative who will let you rent a room or a couch for a few bucks a month. You can dodge the collectors for a good year, and settle for half or less of what you really owe. The who system is on it's way down, anyways, so you won't be alone.

If I didn't have a family I (seriously) would probably do this... run up some debt, bail on paying it off, spend a few months preparing myself and go "into the wild" (except much better prepared than that asshat, and I have access to a couple of cabins that are extremely isolated).

To everyone who tells me that's irresponsible and blah blah blah, corporate America has been doing it for decades (privatize profit and socialize risk and loss) so it's no worse than what's going on around us in the business world everyday.

[Iscariot]

Well, they do have physicist, biologist, chemist, etc. but, I agree, there should be cooler names. Maybe kids would be more interested in science and math in school then, making better teachers (of those who decided to teach), and better overall understanding of math and science in America down the road.

Calvin and Hobbes had it right: the Big Bang should have been called the Horrendous Space Kablooie.

I wish that my maths and sciences in high school were actually taught instead of recited from text books. Nothing facinates me more as an adult than the two things that bored me most as a kid.

[NAG]

You do not need a PhD to be a scientist. While a PhD is typically considered an entrance exam into the scientific community, it is by no means a requisite to the title of scientist.

I am curious to learn more about what NAG does, though, if he's willing to share.

Since someone asked politely I work on Fanconi Anemia. I can get into more detail but that would derail this thread completely. If you'd like to learn more feel free to ask me (politely I, unfortunately, have to add).

About the post times. There is this lovely device called an iPhone. It lets you surf the net when you have down time, such as waiting on something to wash or whatnot (and to be honest, it wasn't like there was much to replying to your posts, here is a summary of them "blah blah blah I think you're not a "scientist" blah blah blah I know lots of people in the NBA blah blah blah blah" nothing horribly complex to what you're trying to offer as an argument...I might have waited until later to have access to a computer to type a more elaborate response if your argument actually warranted such...but your posts were just such comedy gold that it made for a nice diversion while waiting for some stuff to finish). If you'd like to learn more about the iPhone I'd also be happy to share. :p

[fridgeymonster3]

Since someone asked politely I work on Fanconi Anemia. I can get into more detail but that would derail this thread completely. If you'd like to learn more feel free to ask me (politely I, unfortunately, have to add).

About the post times. There is this lovely device called an iPhone. It lets you surf the net when you have down time, such as waiting on something to wash or whatnot (and to be honest, it wasn't like there was much to replying to your posts, here is a summary of them "blah blah blah I think you're not a "scientist" blah blah blah I know lots of people in the NBA blah blah blah blah" nothing horribly complex to what you're trying to offer as an argument...I might have waited until later to have access to a computer to type a more elaborate response if your argument actually warranted such...but your posts were just such comedy gold that it made for a nice diversion while waiting for some stuff to finish). If you'd like to learn more about the iPhone I'd also be happy to share. :p

I've heard of Fanconi Anemia, it is actually close to the disease that my friend's little brother had (of which I forget the exact name for because it has been years). It would be nice if you stopped insulting me like a child, I never personally attacked you, I never misquoted you, or exaggerated what you said - you have done all those things towards me. Furthermore, I never argued with you, I just stated that I believed athletes worked harder in high school and college than others and gave my example of my one friend. I'm sorry if I believe you need a PhD to be called a scientist, but so does most of the rest of the world. I'm not the one masquerading as an expert academic.

And it's comedic gold, not comedy gold. At least I am able to use proper grammar in my "blah blah blah" posts. It isn't like you have said anything of substance either, I just really didn't have anything better to do today than read macrumors with my iPhone.

[NAG]

It would be nice if you stopped insulting me like a child, I never personally attacked you, I never misquoted you, or exaggerated what you said - you have done all those things towards me.
So first implying and then outright stating that I was lying is not an insult? You need to work on your argumentation skills if you think that will fly.

Furthermore, I never argued with you,
That much was apparent.

I just stated that I believed athletes worked harder in high school and college than others and gave my example of my one friend. I'm sorry if I believe you need a PhD to be called a scientist, but so does most of the rest of the world. I'm not the one masquerading as an expert academic.
See, I don't even know what you're going on about. How is any of this related to resource allocation and the effort argument you put forth way back when on page 1? You're just using personal attacks.

And it's comedic gold, not comedy gold. At least I am able to use proper grammar in my "blah blah blah" posts. It isn't like you have said anything of substance either, I just really didn't have anything better to do today than read macrumors with my iPhone.
Nice, so you're a grammar nazi now. Are you going to address anything I say or just continue to be obtuse?

[Rodimus Prime]

I really do feel for you. And I'll tell all the people who tell you that money can't buy you happiness to piss off on your behalf, because that's crap (and they know it, they've just been trained to think that way).

No the saying is true. Money can not buy happiness trust me on this. I have been on the side with the money and it does not buy happiness. I would of gladly given up all that money if I could of been happy.

Now what money does it is makes life a hell of a lot easier and having enough reduces that stress. having less stress can make it easier to find happiness but only so much. Money just can not buy you happiness.

We're in this boat because we've spent the last 60+ year funneling all of our wealth the the top 1% or so. The top 5% of families in the US control over 70% of the wealth. That's what capitalism really is - a way to shuffle money upwards to a select few while the rest of us hopefully don't notice.

Best of luck to you, and for the record I advocate just stop paying your bills and get rid of any phones you have (get a new prepaid mobile line if you need to and don't give out the number) so they can't harass you too much. They'll kick you out of your apartment, but not for at least 90 days - hopefully you can find a friend or relative who will let you rent a room or a couch for a few bucks a month. You can dodge the collectors for a good year, and settle for half or less of what you really owe. The who system is on it's way down, anyways, so you won't be alone.

If I didn't have a family I (seriously) would probably do this... run up some debt, bail on paying it off, spend a few months preparing myself and go "into the wild" (except much better prepared than that asshat, and I have access to a couple of cabins that are extremely isolated).

To everyone who tells me that's irresponsible and blah blah blah, corporate America has been doing it for decades (privatize profit and socialize risk and loss) so it's no worse than what's going on around us in the business world everyday.

I would avoid getting kick out of your apartment. it is a quick way to get blacklisted. This means you will not be able to rent for quite some time and the places that would rent to you. You would not want to live there.

[Badandy]

In short, don't mind mrgreen's victim mentality and find a job and work hard at it.

[Iscariot]

In short, don't mind mrgreen's victim mentality and find a job and work hard at it.

I've been introducing myself as Thor these days. As long as you have a good backstory, people don't doubt you.

[glocke12]

I make good money, and have alot of nice toys, but Im pretty miserable at the moment due to some life events that were out of my control. It is a temporary situation though, and will be better in a year or two. In the meantime I just make the best of a bad situation.

I dont think rich people are happy either. They have just as many problems, if not more as poor people.

Having money can lead to a less stressfull life, but it does not result in happiness.

True happiness involves knowing who you are and being comfortable with that, and having a good network of family and friends. Without either of those you'll be miserable no matter how much money you have.

[CorvusCamenarum]

There is an article over at Freakonomics that discusses this.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/the-economics-of-happiness-part-1-reassessing-the-easterlin-paradox/

[Desertrat]

Seems to me that rich folks just have a different set of problems to interfere with "happiness" than poor folks. Sure, if you don't have enoughmoney to support your lifestyle, you're unhappy. But there are many other problems that can mess up the playpen for those with money.

What I see quite often is that way too many folks have unjustified expectations of what life should be. What "toys" are NEEDED for them to be happy. I dunno. I think a lot of it is inculcated by the TV ads for what people supposedly deserve for just being upright and breathing.

Heck, consider sit-com movie sets where the protagonists were supposedly poor. Looked like pretty damned nice kitchens, furniture and carpets to me! About the only show where I felt like it was my house was the old Redd Foxx program. :D

I never figured I "deserved" anything beyond being left alone to work at making life better. I didn't go to Cancun on the VISA card; I tried to figure how to make that money grow, so I could kick back in my old age.

I just found other people's needs and filled them and now I'm kicked back.

For those without imagination and knowledgeable ambition, however, "Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends on what you put into it." -- Tom Lehrer.

'Rat

[leekohler]

I've heard of Fanconi Anemia, it is actually close to the disease that my friend's little brother had (of which I forget the exact name for because it has been years). It would be nice if you stopped insulting me like a child, I never personally attacked you, I never misquoted you, or exaggerated what you said - you have done all those things towards me. Furthermore, I never argued with you, I just stated that I believed athletes worked harder in high school and college than others and gave my example of my one friend. I'm sorry if I believe you need a PhD to be called a scientist, but so does most of the rest of the world. I'm not the one masquerading as an expert academic.

And it's comedic gold, not comedy gold. At least I am able to use proper grammar in my "blah blah blah" posts. It isn't like you have said anything of substance either, I just really didn't have anything better to do today than read macrumors with my iPhone.

Your grammar has been dreadful throughout this thread. I just have to point that out. NAG has been making very substantial posts. You're the one who's been making personal attacks from what I've seen. Sorry for the hijack.

[solvs]

I can get into more detail but that would derail this thread completely
Wouldn't want that to happen. :p

In short, don't mind mrgreen's victim mentality and find a job and work hard at it.
C'mon, we can have a little sympathy for someone venting. I've been there. It's frustrating. I've said the same thing more or less, but I'm sure you realize that no matter how hard you work, it isn't always that easy.

On the points raised, not responding to anyone in particular, some people make a lot. Some of them deserve it, some don't. Some people don't make a lot. Some of them work hard, some don't. Not to state the obvious, but apparently some people have to. For the record, I work less hard than I ever have, and make far more. I paid my dues doing the reverse, so bite me.

Heck, consider sit-com movie sets where the protagonists were supposedly poor. Looked like pretty damned nice kitchens, furniture and carpets to me! About the only show where I felt like it was my house was the old Redd Foxx program. :D
That's TV poor. What most of us would consider middle class. When you're as rich as the people making these shows are, you lose perspective. Trust me, I work with a lot of them. It's hard to show real poor in a sitcom anyway, as it would be depressing. Some shows have tried, but they don't last very long or are retooled. It's like TV ugly. It's not like they're going to show real ugly. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Sorry for the hijack.
Like it already hasn't been.

Wait, I already said that.


Oh, and a scientist is, according to Apple's dictionary:
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences
You pusillanimous pilsner-pushers. :p

[Desertrat]

solvs, I certainly agree with you about "tv poor". My point is that it's part of a package, including advertising, which affects expectations. "If they live like that and are supposed to be "poor", how about me?" Then you have the ads hollering "You deserve..." and that's all followed by a run-up of the balance on the VISA card.

Hard to get rich when you spend more than you earn, or if you're paying 18% interest on goodies and toys.

I guess I've been happier in "doing", instead of "having". Just the way I'm wired up: I'm not defined by what I have or have had. I'm better defined by the things I've done.

'Rat

[Eraserhead]

The top 5% of families in the US control over 70% of the wealth. That's what capitalism really is - a way to shuffle money upwards to a select few while the rest of us hopefully don't notice.

Source please.

Seriously I've recently looked at the figures myself, and the position is 80/20 (i.e. 80% of the wealth is controlled by 20% of the people), but it really isn't that bad.

I guess I've been happier in "doing", instead of "having". Just the way I'm wired up: I'm not defined by what I have or have had. I'm better defined by the things I've done.

'Rat

I completely agree with this.

[Schnebar]

As bad as it is having pro sports players and CEO's make so much more money than regular people, I think it is fair.

They probably tried hard in school or spend a lot of time practicing. What they do in their job affects the lives of more people than what a construction worker does.

A pro sports player is entertains more people than a street performer. If we calculated their salary per persons life effected it might even out.

[Shotglass]

Professional athletes are paid a disproportionate amount of money to play a game. Thats all they do. They play GAMES.Any professional athlete will tell you it's not a game. You obviously don't know any.

To the OP: When I was growing up, we got food stamps because we were too poor. 5 years later, my dad had a well-paying job, we had a big house, we all had Macs (I digress), etc. 5 years later, my dad got bullied out of his job and we were at zero again. Something tells me there's a pattern here.

What I'm trying to say is don't be negative, this kind of thing happens. Keep your head up and look for opportunities.

[LethalWolfe]

Any professional athlete will tell you it's not a game. You obviously don't know any.
Of course most of them would because they tend to be young and lack perspective because sports have been their main focus for most of their lives. Saying , "I play a game for a living" doesn't exactly jive w/the machismo typical in pro sports either. They can psych themselves up w/all the warrior hyperbole they want but in the end they are playing a game. They are not warriors. They don't go out and take lives. They don't watch their buddies get killed right next to them or go home maimed, disfigured, and changed forever by the horrors of professional sports.

The guys that have been around for a while tend to have a different perspective though. For example, guys that retire early due to injury because they don't want to risk getting a debilitating injury for the rest of their life just to play a game. Or guys like Tony Romo (and this is coming from a Redskins' fan) who said, "If something on the football field is the worst thing that ever happens to me, then I probably have lived a pretty good life"


Lethal

[zap2]

As bad as it is having pro sports players and CEO's make so much more money than regular people, I think it is fair.
.

:eek::eek::eek:

So, when a company loses money, you think its fair for the CEO to fire people at the bottom(whose fault it likely is NOT, that the company lost money), while make millions of dollars for him/herself?


Pro Sports player work hard, but the also have natural talent, or physically lucky(tall for basketball)....there are people working 12 hour days just to make ends meet....but since they didn't go to college, they barely get by.

Comments like that one are a bit out of touch, I think

[zap2]

Any professional athlete will tell you it's not a game. You obviously don't know any.
.

They'd be wrong

It IS a game.

They work hard for it, but its still a game. They get paid a lot, but its still a game. They put a ton of time into it, but its still a game.

[iJohnHenry]

Sorry, it is a business.

The NCAA, etc. is a game.

Money in - game out.

As to whether or not it is still a sport, that is a good question.

[FleurDuMal]

They probably tried hard in school or spend a lot of time practicing. What they do in their job affects the lives of more people than what a construction worker does.


Wow...you should try talking to a nurse. Work hard, positively influence the lives of 1000s of people = ***** pay and ***** conditions.

If you honestly beleive all the rich deserve to be rich, then you're either living in your own world or the 15th century.

[LethalWolfe]

Pro Sports player work hard, but the also have natural talent, or physically lucky(tall for basketball)....there are people working 12 hour days just to make ends meet....but since they didn't go to college, they barely get by.
Natural ability and luck factor into everyone's lives, not just pro athletes.


Sorry, it is a business.

The NCAA, etc. is a game.

Money in - game out.

As to whether or not it is still a sport, that is a good question.
There is obviously a business side to pro sports, but the athletes themselves get paid to play a game. Peyton Manning gets a ton of money for playing football. Kobe Bryant gets a ton of money for playing basketball. Neither one of these guys were drafted for their keen business sense or deep understanding of economics. They were drafted 'cause they are great at playing their respective games.


Lethal

[jfull15]

Wow...you should try talking to a nurse. Work hard, positively influence the lives of 1000s of people = ***** pay and ***** conditions.

If you honestly beleive all the rich deserve to be rich, then you're either living in your own world or the 15th century.

yea. and look at public school teachers. they get paid just about nothing.

[Shotglass]

A game is for fun. Entertainment of others, however, is a sport at best.

[jng]

They can psych themselves up w/all the warrior hyperbole they want but in the end they are playing a game.

Has anyone ever seen the poster that goes "without sports there'd be no miracles?"

I'm a red sox fan. :D

[stevegmu]

Wow...you should try talking to a nurse. Work hard, positively influence the lives of 1000s of people = ***** pay and ***** conditions.



I couldn't live off a nurse's salary, but they seem to do alright.
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=+nurse&l1=Fairfax%2C+VA

[solvs]

I couldn't live off a nurse's salary
You couldn't live off of that amount in VA, but call us elitists? :eek:

[NAG]

I couldn't live off a nurse's salary, but they seem to do alright.
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=+nurse&l1=Fairfax%2C+VA

It is variable like every field of work. But one universal aspect of it is how it is a dirty, hard, and often thankless job (especially if the doctor is an ass).