Wealth Inequality Is Really Wealth Equality

If one person digs 1 ditch and another person digs 10 ditches then the person who digs 10 ditches should be compensated 10x what the person who digs 1 ditch is compensated. Yes, this is wealth inequality. It is healthy, moral and mathematically correct.

by Quinton Figueroa on December 28th, 2014

Oh hi, and welcome to the class of earth physics. What you do you receive and what you don't do you don't receive. It's a very simple concept, yet so quickly and easily misconstrued when it comes to political discussions where there are lots of goodies to hand out and lots of greedy people to receive.

Wealth is a measurement for the value you bring to society. People who do more, innovate more and bring more to society are compensated via resources and wealth more than those who don't. If you don't want people to have what they earn then you actually want inequality. Equality means everyone has a right to what they produce. And who wouldn't want people to earn what they work towards?

If you have a problem with people who produce more earning more then you are actually promoting wealth inequality. It is equal to give people their equal share of earnings. It is inequal to give people more or less than they deserve. So when we see an accurate representation of the wealth of people and we want to change that then we want wealth inequality.

If somebody works for an employer who pays them very little then they are getting what they agreed to get paid. If somebody makes minimum wage at Walmart then they are getting their equal share of what they are worth to Walmart. If they don't like their pay they can try to get a raise, they can find a job somewhere else or they can start their own store. People have infinite options on what they can do to change their wealth.

"If you give $1,000,000 to a poor person they will be poor again in a few years"

The difference of wealth between rich and poor people is not a representation of circumstance but of choice. People choose to be rich and people choose to be poor. Sure, some people are born rich and some people are born poor. But people change from being rich to poor and poor to rich every day. If somebody remains poor it is because they choose to remain poor.

If you take somebody like Elon Musk and remove all his money he will become rich again. This isn't an accident or a mistake or an anomaly. If you give $1,000,000 to a poor person they will be poor again in a few years. This isn't an accident or a mistake or an anomaly. This is an accurate, mathematical representation of their economic choices. Some people choose to be rich, some choose to be poor. But nobody is forced to be either, especially in freaking America where you have every chance to transform yourself into whatever you want to be.

Is it inequal that Tom Brady is a better quarterback than 99.999% of people on the planet? Should somebody who has never practiced football be as equal as Tom Brady when it comes to being a quarterback? Is it inequal that Lebron James makes more money than 99.999% of people on the planet? Should he make less money because it is inequal that he is so wealthy? Did he not earn his money fairly? Does he not continue to earn money fairly? What is wrong about the inequality of his income? Should we all make what he makes? Of course not!

So why then do we hold businessmen and people who aren't household names to a different standard? Because we are who parrot what the world tells us to parrot that's why. When you hear somebody talk about wealth equality they don't really want wealth equality -- they want wealth inequality.

 Filed under: Politics / Government, Wealth, Money, Greedy Poor People, Mad About Equality

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Facebook @slayerment YouTube

Los Angeles, CA

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...

More

34 Comments

Elias Jackson: You're missing the point

The people who are speaking out against wealth inequality in America are not advocating socialism. We're not saying that people should get free handouts for not working at all, and we're not saying the rich don't deserve to have any money, but the fact of the matter is that the amount of money that the 1% hoards is not in any way proportional to the amount of hard work they put in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vttbhl_kDoo&list=FLbZM4QyheXZSzInOYL0Uol...
http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/p771/akadjian/ownership_occupy_poste...

Quinton Figueroa: How is the money that the
@Elias Jackson (view comment)

How is the money that the richest 1% have not proportional to the work they put in?

Justin: Businessmen in general

Businessmen in general exploit there workers a lot. They underpay them so they can take home more of the profit. They basically take too big a piece of the pie for themselves. Who the heck even needs a billion or more dollars? All these CEO's can cough up more money to the working class. Many won't though because they are so greedy and selfish. Democrats, liberals and movements like Occupy Wall Street in general are not arguing for total wealth equality. They are arguing for more fair pay.

Quinton Figueroa: Workers voluntarily choose to
@Justin (view comment)

Workers voluntarily choose to work for businessmen. So if workers are exploited then they are voluntarily wanting to be exploited. No business forces people to work for them. So if exploitation happens it is of the volition of the worker.

Who are you to say what somebody needs or doesn't need? Was it wrong that Steve Jobs made a lot of money because he made the lives of many people better through technology? Is it wrong that Lebron James makes millions of dollars? Why is it okay for you to determine what people do with what they earn?

If people want more fair pay then they don't have to work for a company that is unfair. They even have the ability to start their own company that does offer fair pay.

Ex Worker : Voluntarily?

It is a common misconception or misrepresentation of reality that your average person "voluntarily" works for others under capitalism. One might argue that people are 'free' (a loose term in this context) to sell their labor, but such a person typically neglects to mention that the same people are also not free NOT TO SELL their labor. It is really an ultimatum between starving on the streets or struggling via government benefits/ charity and being a burden on others, or submitting to the capitalist class and the small-time business owners. At no point is it anything to do with a 'voluntary' choice, if one does it begrudgingly and only due to a lack of other meaningful choices. As one who has personally loathed the fact I was born into a world with compulsory drudgery (compulsory if you want to stave off homelessness), I can assure you that I never once "voluntarily" clocked in.

It is not by choice, but rather by the coercion of societal norms that one is indoctrinated into, and with prompting from innate biological drives that are not optional to ignore. A synonym for "voluntary" is "without prompting."

Quinton Figueroa: You are perfectly free not to
@Ex Worker (view comment)

You are perfectly free not to sell your labor, you just have to accept the consequences of it.

What societal norm would you propose to alleviate this "problem"?

Ex Worker : If I do not sell my labor, I

If I do not sell my labor, I lose all freedom inasmuch as the term actually matters. Unless you consider living on the streets or leeching off the charity of others and living precariously below subsistence to be 'freedom', you must concede this point. So telling me I am 'free' not to sell my labor in this context is meaningless. I am also free to spit in a mugger's face as he points a gun at me and demands my wallet, but the result is death or life-threatening injuries from gunfire.

I should not have to present alternatives to situations I never created in order to point out that the current paradigm is woefully inadequate. I don't need to know how to change a dirty diaper to know when it stinks to high hell. But many solutions HAVE been proposed, and they are vehemently opposed by those who want to live in some Dystopian nightmare worse than the one we're currently in, wherein EVERYTHING is privatized and made exclusive. Such an ugly world is worse than the natural state in a jungle where no people have superior weaponry and technology with which to subjugate others and monopolize the means of production. At least in that world - within the context of human society - those who attempt to rise to power are quickly stopped and if one person attempts to horde resources (which would be quite counterintuitive), the masses of people can easily subdue them. People can still have personal possessions, but there would be no 'private property.' You would just have what people make, use, or share, and everything else would be 'the commons.'

Quinton Figueroa: Yes, you do have to present
@Ex Worker (view comment)

Yes, you do have to present alternatives. If you complain about something and don't have an alternative on how to do it better then you most likely don't know how to do it better. Anybody can make observations about problems everywhere. It's how we solve them that matters.

So you propose removing private property. That's what we had thousands of years ago when we lived like cavemen. If you want to live like a caveman I think that should be perfectly fine so long as you allow people who choose to live a little bit more civilized to do so as well.

Justin: That's a joke right? I

That's a joke right? I guarantee there are some working class people who work harder than Warren Buffett. Most working class jobs are a pain in the butt to work. There are people who work two or three crappy jobs just to get buy which is screwed up since America is the richest county and the problem is most of the wealth is owned by a very small amount of Americans. Why? Because they underpay there workers a lot. How's it hard for people on the right-wing to see this unfairness?

Quinton Figueroa: Is it more important to work
@Justin (view comment)

Is it more important to work hard or work smart? Should we have 1,000 people all dig ditches with a shovel or should we innovate and create a machine that can dig the equivalent of 1,000 people? It's not about how hard you work, it's about the value you create. And Warren Buffett creates more economic value than the average person. And that difference in economic value is why he is wealthier.

Karl: False equivalency

I have argued about this topic many times. Of course, I think you're wrong. The difference comes from a difference in how we see the world. To me, the world is a very unfair place. Bad things happen to good people. Bad people do horrific things and get rewarded for it. People who have your opinion, for whatever reason, are prescribers to the just world hypothesis: that is, the world is fair and people get what they deserve. This theory is absolutely ridiculous, and as an adult I'm sure your own life experience has confirmed this.

In a meritocracy, what you describe is reasonable. More pay for more valued, or useful work. In the real world, there is no meritocracy. I would say that a propensity to work hard and never give up will increase your chances of becoming rich, but other factors involving sheer luck (happened to be born in a rich, first world country, happened to be born good-looking, without birth defects, to caring parents, or what have you) are all extremely influential. Furthermore, there are plenty of rich people who did absolutely nothing to earn their wealth. Look at people like Paris Hilton. The Paris Hiltons of this world far outweigh the Elon Musks. I hate how all these self-styled 'entrepreneurs' (a word for CEOs of things that aren't worth anything) attribute all their success to hard work, and are totally unaware of how the real world actually functions.

Quinton Figueroa: Let's say that you are right
@Karl (view comment)

Let's say that you are right and the world is unfair and many rich people do not deserve their wealth and many poor people do not deserve their poverty. How do you fix or change that?

Y2K: Society is naturally unequal

The ideal is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Most of us work as hard as we can, and we all the need the same things. The problem in the completely free market is 1. The naturally skilled get paid more 2. Those born wealthy have an unfair advantage 3. Those who are black, women, boring, ugly, etc, will suffer. Also, those who make it to the top of the ladder have far more security than those starting at the bottom. They then easily abuse that lack of security. That's why we need redistribution of wealth coupled with strong regulations to fix society.

Quinton Figueroa: 1. A free market isn't about

1. A free market isn't about making more or less money. A free market is about having the freedom of choice to do what you want with your money as opposed to having it violently taken away from you as is with other systems.

2. People shouldn't be allowed to be born wealthy? Can people be born blind? How do you plan on changing how people are born? And what makes you qualified on knowing what is best for other people?

3. Those who are "black, women, boring, ugly, etc" suffer worse under non-free market systems.

4. Yes, the people at the top of government do have more security than all of us. It's a big shame that the people at the top of government are allowed to run a monopoly that abuses our lack of security.

Econo-clueless in PDX: Meh

I struggle with how pro sports players create more "value" than others............ I guess that is a reflection of what our society as a whole values, and the money professional sports, reality show "stars," etc. generate.

Zoe': Work for what you get

Thank you Mr. Figueroa - Everything you are saying here - makes total sense. I happened upon this conversation and glad I did. It's frustrating to have so many people try to turn the world upside down. I only want to get paid for my honest work. To get something for nothing is not what I would call fair. If I want to give some of my resources to someone in need - I want it to be my choice.

Sean Eby: I don't get it...

... I think I agree with at least some, or a lot, of what you're getting at. What I am not sure about is what any of this changes? Assume the entire rest of the world felt/believed/agreed everything stated here.

Are you trying to stay "nothing to see here, move on"? Or is your article just trying to clarify people's use of the terms "equal" and "inequal" when it comes to wealth?

Quinton Figueroa: I'm showing the blatant

I'm showing the blatant misuse of terms commonly used by the media and how they purposefully use it to their advantage. We misconstrue terms and then pass laws which are built on misconstrued terms. If we can't understand our terms or the concepts correctly then we shouldn't be passing laws which force one side to cough up money for another side. I don't expect anything to change, I'm just showing how confused and easily manipulated by words most people are.

eks: a convenient fantasy

ah. freedom! choice! the perfect competition argument, rehashed in.. well, the exact same way it has always been served up. blindly and unyieldingly.

being rich is a choice, you say? one also assumes, because you brought sports into the picture, that great sporting ability is also a choice. a choice to practice hard and consistently, over time, in order to become the best sportsperson in your field.

natural talent is also important no? so some people are born with more sporting ability than others. if you were born without legs, for example, could you be a quarterback? how about a blind pitcher? congenital heart problems?

no, we don't start out fair. some of us are born richer, have more access to education, to good parenting, to bank loans. some are born with a different colour of skin, into broken homes, into poverty. some things you don't have a choice about.

hard work matters, but it's also relative. is a rich man who leaves a $500 tip generous? is he more or less generous than the homeless man who gives another homeless man a dollar?

elon musk would probably be rich again if you took away all his money. he was also able to access private education. at age 10, he was tinkering with computers (this would be in 1981, not 2011, so let's not pretend like there was a computer in every home then). he is the person he is today, not only because of the choices he made, but because of the choices that were made for him, the circumstances he was born into.

transfers from the wealthy to the less fortunate shouldn't be simply robbing from the rich to pay the poor. it should be in the form of advancing equal opportunities for education, nutrition, healthcare, mental health. it won't make people equal, but as far as possible, the opportunities should be equalised.

you think a black single mother with no education, stacking shelves at walmart can simply decide to be rich and start her own business? with what money? which bank will offer her a loan?

how about a young white man with a college degree, a business plan consulted on by college-friends or their patents? maybe daddy has a nice home that can be put up for collateral, or even a little seed money. how hard will it be for this guy to get a loan, to start a business?

the only people who object to a level playing field are the people who are ahead, because they know something about how the world works. despite the fiction we create for ourselves, about how money is limitless - it isn't. the planet is a close system. there is only that much resource available for all of us to share. when one person takes more, someone else has to have less.

that, in and of itself is still fine. until we have people who take, and take, and take. those people aren't welfare bums. it's the well meaning entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, property magnates. you can complain about the bums taking and never giving back, but it's a closed system, remember. the only people who aren't "giving back" are those who accumulate.

even the bum who takes the dole and blows it all on bourbon is stimulating the economy. sitting on a pile of accumulated wealth, watching the interest ticker grow is not. that "profit" from investment comes from others who fail at investing - no product changes hands, so no actual work is done.

so get off your high horse and lose the sunglasses and gimp hat. that fantasy you keep feeding yourself about "inequality" makes about as much sense as saying that all grapes are sweet, so long as you only eat the sweet ones, conveniently ignoring the reality that everything from the weather to soil conditions to the varietal affects the eventual grape.

Quinton Figueroa: "being rich is a choice, you

"being rich is a choice, you say? one also assumes, because you brought sports into the picture, that great sporting ability is also a choice. a choice to practice hard and consistently, over time, in order to become the best sportsperson in your field.

natural talent is also important no? so some people are born with more sporting ability than others. if you were born without legs, for example, could you be a quarterback? how about a blind pitcher? congenital heart problems?"

Of course there are exceptions. So? The vast, vast majority of cases (as will later be shown in your very examples) are choice, not circumstance.

"no, we don't start out fair. some of us are born richer, have more access to education, to good parenting, to bank loans. some are born with a different colour of skin, into broken homes, into poverty. some things you don't have a choice about."

Fair is subjective. Additionally, you can't hold somebody being born rich against them if you can't hold somebody being poor against them. People don't choose how they are born, the same goes for rich people. You can't hold being rich against somebody if they are born rich. That is, if you want to be fair about it.

"elon musk would probably be rich again if you took away all his money. he was also able to access private education. at age 10, he was tinkering with computers (this would be in 1981, not 2011, so let's not pretend like there was a computer in every home then). he is the person he is today, not only because of the choices he made, but because of the choices that were made for him, the circumstances he was born into."

There were also thousands of other people who had a very similar or what some would call a better start than Elon Musk yet none of them became rich. Why? Because they chose not to. They may have chosen to explore the world, have families or whatever else, which are all choices. To tell people that they are the condition they are born into is to make people into victims. I have far too much respect for all people to treat them as victims and less than themselves.

"transfers from the wealthy to the less fortunate shouldn't be simply robbing from the rich to pay the poor. it should be in the form of advancing equal opportunities for education, nutrition, healthcare, mental health. it won't make people equal, but as far as possible, the opportunities should be equalised."

How do you plan on doing this without stealing from people with money? Charity is an option and that's great. Just don't force rich people, via government, to pay for it. Let people choose what to do with their money. If you want to help poor people great, do it with your own time and money.

"you think a black single mother with no education, stacking shelves at walmart can simply decide to be rich and start her own business? with what money? which bank will offer her a loan?"

You've already mentioned 3 HUGE choices without even realizing it: single, mother and education.

Choosing to have children is a choice that you should only do if you are ready to take on this responsibility. Children cost lots of money and take a huge amount of time. Children is one of the largest responsibilities that people choose to embark on so if you they choose to embark on it they can't use the problems of it as an excuse. They chose it.

Next, being a single mother, another choice. If a women chooses to have a child she obviously chooses who to have that child with. Why would a woman choose to have a child with somebody that will leave her? She didn't know he would leave her? Oh really? Many women seem to be pretty good at deciding which guys are marriage material and which ones aren't. Did this woman just somehow happen to choose the first bad boy that flattered her without taking anything else into consideration? Women choose who they date and have children with. Nobody forces a women to be with a man. If she chooses a man that isn't stable and decides to leave her then she made a bad decision. Why is it my problem if a woman makes a bad decision? Women have a wide range of possibilities of men to choose from, if they choose poorly then that is their choice.

And of course, anybody can educate themselves at any time. Almost all "poor" people have Internet or Internet access. Libraries are free and have unlimited educational books. And of course anybody has access to the best education: life itself and doing. Anybody can try anything to start learning.

So in this one small example, before taking anything else into account, you are already supporting this woman's choice to be poor. She already made 3 decisions which helped to promote her very poverty. Please stop enabling people to be victims of their own choices. I have far too much respect to treat them differently than anyone else.

"how about a young white man with a college degree, a business plan consulted on by college-friends or their patents? maybe daddy has a nice home that can be put up for collateral, or even a little seed money. how hard will it be for this guy to get a loan, to start a business?"

Have you ever started a business? You don't need a loan or college degree or any of that crap. That's all the stupid stuff they tell people at school. Starting a business has nothing to do with the stupid stuff you hear about in business school. Starting a business is about taking action in solving a problem -- and anybody can do that. Yes, even a blind person or somebody without legs. But of course, those are rare, rare exceptions and the 99% of people complaining are not in any way handicapped other than their own mental handicap they place on themselves. Can you imagine that, people choose to make themselves unequal to others calling themselves disadvantaged. Yeah, right.

"the only people who object to a level playing field are the people who are ahead, because they know something about how the world works. despite the fiction we create for ourselves, about how money is limitless - it isn't. the planet is a close system. there is only that much resource available for all of us to share. when one person takes more, someone else has to have less."

The playing field is already level. So you are objecting to it, not the people who are ahead. Come play with us, there's nothing stopping you but yourself. Stop being a victim and pointing your finger at everyone but yourself.

Money is limitless. Yes, of course resources are finite, but the amount of money you make is only limited by yourself. You have the ability to create anything you want. When somebody makes money that doesn't mean that somebody else is loosing money. The basis of capitalism is two people exchanging goods and services for mutual benefit. When society advances we are able to do more with less, until eventually things are free. It's called ephemeralization. We see this already with websites. Websites used to cost thousands of dollars. Now they are free. This is how society works without the government restricting it.

"that, in and of itself is still fine. until we have people who take, and take, and take. those people aren't welfare bums. it's the well meaning entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, property magnates. you can complain about the bums taking and never giving back, but it's a closed system, remember. the only people who aren't "giving back" are those who accumulate.

even the bum who takes the dole and blows it all on bourbon is stimulating the economy. sitting on a pile of accumulated wealth, watching the interest ticker grow is not. that "profit" from investment comes from others who fail at investing - no product changes hands, so no actual work is done."

Do you even economics bro? You can't take in capitalism without somebody choosing to give you their money. So people who are rich are not rich because they took, they are rich because they did something for people who chose to voluntarily give them their money in exchange for what they did. Yes, of course there are rich people who use the government to make money. Get rid of government and they won't be able to do that. But people don't want to get rid of government.

Stimulating the economy... lol. An economy doesn't need stimulation. An economy is the sum of all economic activity. An economy just is. There isn't some magic way an economy is supposed to be that is only known by the masters in charge of the government. Economies exist outside of government you know. An economy is people having the freedom to choose how to exchange property.

We could steal money from rich people, give it to a bum, and then say that we are having economic stimulation because the bum spent it. But what if the rich people would have instead spent that money on technology that would have made it so food was much cheaper? What if that money was spent on technology that made it so we could travel for cheaper? What if that money was instead spent on technology that made it so we had less bums to begin with?

You probably have never done business because you are misrepresenting what investment and profit is. Every business takes a risk that what the business produces will be valuable to consumers. Nobody knows 100% ahead of time if something will work and make money. The vast majority of businesses never make money. HINT: doing business is not easy. Investors are the people who see the vision and support the risk of a business through their capital. If the business does produce and makes money by people VOLUNTARILY CHOOSING to give the business their money, then the investors make profit. Profit is the reward for taking a risk that met a demand.

This is how most of the innovations we have today came about. The mobile phone came from investment and profit. The computer came from investment and profit. The airplane came from investment and profit. The automobile came from investment and profit. Farm equipment came from investment and profit. And so on. If you want to take away people voluntarily participating in risk and rewards then we can all go back to the stone age and live life at that standard of living. We can instead spend all our time hunting food and looking for shelter. We can go back and devolve if you have a problem with people voluntarily choosing to take place in commerce. It's quite telling that you are upset about people voluntarily choosing to do things without using force on you or anyone else.

Yes I know, I know, it's all about the greedy capitalists exploiting workers in sweatshops and lining their pockets through Wall Street. All possible, of course, through the government. If you really cared about poor people and really wanted equality you would remove the very engine which sustains it: government. Oh wait, we can't do that, can we?

Jm: There probably are more

There probably are more people who were as careful with planning as they were able to, basically had the entreprenial mindset, yet failed, than there are ones who succeeded by that strategy. Often times the ones who failed were even quite visionary. I'm thinking of how Nickola Tesla died poor. Society lets people who are too much of outliers not get support that they need.

Cormac Mulhall: Naive

"If you take somebody like Elon Musk and remove all his money he will become rich again. This isn't an accident or a mistake or an anomaly. If you give $1,000,000 to a poor person they will be poor again in a few years."

That doesn't make any sense. If you removed all of Musk's money he would be a poor person, which by your definition would mean he will continue to be poor.

I assume what you mean is that if you removed all the money from someone who has demonstrated they can make money before in the past, they will make money again because of who they are. But history is littered with examples contradicting that, people who made a fortune, lost it all and never made it back. Or made a fortune, lost it all and only made it back with help from wealthy friends or government.

For example Elon Musk himself has taken millions of dollars in loans from the government when his companies are losing money. He can do that because he is Elon Musk, he already has a reputation. Your average poor person working 3 jobs without a college degree can't walk up to the government and say "Hey, I want to build space rockets and live like Iron Man, give me a few billion dollars, I promise to pay it back"

You have a very naive view of how the world works. Stop believing the hype, the vast majority of what Musk does is paid for by the government and by investors. He is not generating this money, other people are giving him this money, and he could still lose it all.

Quinton Figueroa: Yes, that's exactly what I'm
@Cormac Mulhall (view comment)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Elon Musk has a much, much greater chance of making money than a random person.

So out of my entire argument you want to bring up Elon Musk? Replace Elon Musk with Steve Jobs, or Peter Thiel, or Robert Kiyosaki. There are certain people that have it in them to think like rich people. It's not about how much you make, it's what you make and how you think. To think like a poor person is to live life at a lower level than to think like a rich person. I'm not talking about the bullshit rich people who fleece the sheep and make money through government. I'm talking about the real rich people who make money by making the lives of other people better. And this is most rich people.

And stop making excuses. Anybody can be like Elon Musk. Anybody can build a reputation and get money from investors. See, you are already thinking like a poor person when you talk about a college degree. Rich people don't care about college. They care about what you know and how you think. I don't blame you, the whole world is built around teaching people to be poor and not rich. If a poor person is working 3 jobs without a college degree then you first have to ask how they got there. What are their expenses? Why do they need 3 jobs? A single person can live off of one job pretty easily. Do they have children? Why do they have children? Do they have a high school education? Why or why not? What do they do in their free time? All these things are choices and they are free. So don't give me this poor me crap, people are where they choose to be. It's really not that hard, people just like to make excuses for their own bad decisions. You can be anything, stop making excuses.

Yeah, I'm naive because people who get money from government and investors are somehow bad because they don't make this money themselves. That's how investment works. You take a risk on people. If it's somebody who thinks like a rich person it will most likely pay off and they will create something that yields a net gain for all of society. How does government giving money to poor people pay off? It doesn't because they just take and give nothing back while having bad decisions encouraged. I want to teach people how to fish, I don't want to give them fish. I would give my money to somebody like Elon Musk over a poor person any day. Elon Musk knows how to make his money work for him. Poor people do not.

Landon: hmmm... I'm starting to get

hmmm... I'm starting to get it. maybe talking in these comment areas has no real value. He has his beliefs and know one will ever tell him any different. Its just about trying to win an argument, and learning to keep getting better and more refined at thinking he is winning em. That and truly growing are 2 very different things. Sad. Maybe ill keep trying to get through, who knows, at some point effort need to be put where it is being reciprocated and producing results/utility.

Quinton Figueroa: It's the exact opposite. I'm
@Landon (view comment)

It's the exact opposite. I'm completely open but you never bring about any points. All you are doing is trying to tell me what I am. Control issues have you?

Anonymous: I have the same idea with you

I have the same idea with you

Nela: You have a point, but..

You have a great point, but you are smart enough to go deeper than that!! Wealth is NOT the best and only way to measure the value of a person, that's your american conditioning talking. Does Tom Brady adds HUGE value to our society by playing sports and Malala doesn't add value by fighting for women's right for education? If so, why the HUGE difference in wealth between them?? Should Malala chose different and start being more like the Kardashians in order to have more wealth to survive or start playing sports? Besides from that i loved your general thinking: we are not victims of our circumstances and we can change our reality at all times by changing our mindset. Awesome!

Vee vee: liberal arts maj. ,private college debtors = " unfortunates"

This whole argument is so shamelessly selfish of the so-called "unfortunates" = liberal arts maj. ,private college dumbass loan debtors and bums in general. You simple lazy minded fatties want money handed out to you, and that money should come from the 1%?? Let me tell you monkeys something , I am born into an immigrant family that was in the top 10% , my parents pushed all their kids to focus on math related degrees, work hard etc etc .,, after joining my family business and growing it 5x in 10years and now we are each in 1% .. Over 500000 a year. And I pay half of that to taxes for entitlements to fatties , 14% state CA, 35% obama and Others, and now I find out if my parents die a new tax amounting to half of the Biz (death tax) will be levied on children.. Wtf .. I worked 12 hrs a day to build That business with my father , and he already paid taxes on the money he used to buy business assets as we grew... Now we have to be taxes when we make money , when we spend and then when we die... You dumb broke ppl don't realize risk+ work+ brains=reward ... You guys can make burgers and want our money ....,, how can you act shamelessly like a modern Robin Hood . Rememeber we are the first society where the poor ppl are fat, and lazier than all others:. That is why top 10% pay 95% of all taxes and the fairs want more .

Sam: Immigrants can do it, what's your excuse

I will never understand how far some people will go to defend being poor. Here's a crazy idea - being poor is not a good thing. As someone who has been poor, it's offensive how many poor people identify as this helpless victim.

Being poor is awful in every way possible. So if you are poor no matter how you got there, you should feel bad about it and you should despise it. That's how you get out of poverty. You don't get out of poverty by wearing your "being poor" as a badge of honor that you constantly defend and believe it isn't your fault whatsoever.

So many poor people embrace being poor and defend it. They defend how it can't be helped, how it's not their fault, and how everyone who is poor is poor by bad luck - just as everyone with money got there through complete luck and they don't deserve any of it. I wasn't aware that everyone is determined at birth if they'll be poor or rich, and that it will never change during their lifespan.

Being poor sucks - why on earth would you sit there and defend its existence?
And why would you defend it at all? You defend being poor in the same way as if someone accused you of getting cancer. Like if was totally and utterly inevitable. Are you serious?

Being poor is a state of being - meaning temporary or permanent depending on what you're willing to do about it. It's a choice. It's a harder choice and a long term series of choices and consequences but in the beginning and the end, being poor is about choice.

Being an immigrant and growing up poor, I personally know dozens of people who came to this country with no money, no English and started off as janitors. Some of these people are millionaires now. If they can do it with no money, no help, not speaking the language, and with everything going against them - what the hell is everyone else's excuse? Seriously.

All your arguments can be laid to waste if you look at the sheer number of Asian immigrants that come to this country penniless and succeed. If they can do it despite all the odds, then what excuse does an American born person, have as an excuse? They're already starting off ahead of my immigrant friends because at least you speak the language.

Granted they aren't handicapped or other some rare circumstance, what the hell is your excuse for being poor if some poor guy who doesn't speak English can arrive to America on a boat and become rich by sheer will...how can you have NONE of those insanely difficult challenges and still be poor?

The only logical answer is that you, either voluntarily or involuntarily, choose to be and stay poor.

You simply cannot argue any of this if you've ever met an immigrant and heard their success stories. Impossible. Period.

Dynx: You're finally wrong

I mostly agree with you but Tom Brady is actually a slightly above average QB in a great system with a great coach.

Kathryn: Interesting photo

Interesting photo - 3 lovely young ladies and an older homeless man. Do you really know his life? Did he ever have a family, career, mental illness...? Are all these women living within their means?

Let's run a test. One of those women apply for a job along with an equally if not more qualified woman who is less attractive. Studies show, the less attractive woman loses out and attractive people win. More attractive people also tend to get paid more. There is an infrastructure that favors certain qualities and behaviors and disregards and excludes others. Yes, effort, education, communication skills, career choice can lead to wealth, but you are overlooking the mountain of qualities you acquire growing up. Perhaps the homeless man was physically and sexually abused, had a parent who was a drug abuser, was bullied... The fruit does not fall far from the tree; your " pull yourself up by the bootstraps" attitude naively overlooks psychological factors, upbringing, and the difficulty to overcome them. If you were short, had a crooked nose, drooping eyelids, a lisp, darker skin, less education, poor language skills, less personable... perhaps your income would drop.

Why are all the top positions at my employment dominated by white men? Why do certain fields pay significantly more money than say childcare?

There are also unwritten biases that limit certain people and favor others. Yes some people can learn to align themselves with a "winning" formula, but only to a certain extent. Others can find another acceptable way outside of the dominant infrastructure but this usually takes a group or social alignment creating a minor infrastructure -- Immigrants, some minority groups, families... connect together to create their own circle, strengthening through common ties. The lone wolf personality typically will still be outside this minor infrastructure and continue to have a difficult time.

Who is inside the dominant infrastructure in the US? White men, educated, raise middle class or better, good vocabulary, good social skills, career in high demand, works well with others, presentable in looks

Someone can access this dominant infrastructure if they are quite attractive and lack some of the above, but continue to have good people skills.

If you are a highly intelligent white male with less social skills you can still excel in some areas if you are in a field with high demand and have a decent education and a bit of grit. A woman with less " social graces" will be a target of many comments unless she is tough as nails , of course her income will be lower. The same can be expected of minorities.

I can go on and on... my point is that their are unwritten and unacknowlwdged biases that can limit certain people. These people would be best to align themselves with others who are similar or try it on their own. This is tough because not everyone is is skilled and has the needed personality to do so.

As for me, I was raised lower middle class and worked my @ss off. It was difficult for me to walk in a high end store much less be paid what I deserved. At one job, I learned a male with less experience was paid more. The "cute " women ( like the ones above) had less education, less experience, and did less work were paid 25% more. They basically revised people's typos and packaged work to be sent to clients. They initiated no new work. It took me decades and several jobs to finally get to middle class. If I want to get wealthy at this point in my life, I will need to be self-employed and align myself with someone else. I could also be risky and hope I could get lucky with investments- haha. Time is ticking and I'm tired of being known as a workhorse. The American dream that you can get what you want by solely working hard is a lie. There are so many unseen stipulations, society needs to wake up to the reality that it is not fair and unbiased.

I know disagree with what I say, but not everyone has the ability to do it your way. Spend a week dressed like a ragged homeless man and see how you are treated, then ask, how you expect people to pick themselves up?

Quinton Figueroa: People come from different
@Kathryn (view comment)

People come from different starting points in life. Some people have advantages while other people have disadvantages. Of course. The difference is whether they choose to remain a victim their whole life or whether they choose to take steps to improve their situation.

If you have a problem with this you should take it up with nature and life.

"Spend a week dressed like a ragged homeless man and see how you are treated, then ask, how you expect people to pick themselves up?"

I've considered doing this exact experiment and filming it to show people how to work your way out. The problem is it still wouldn't work for me because of what I know now. I would pull myself out of poverty fairly easily I think. I've talked about this exact thing quite a bit with my business partner. The problem is people would still say, "you're not truly poor, you already have education, you already have X, Y, Z" and all the other excuses they will come up with. People love excuses, it's way easier than honest thought. And people especially love blaming others and playing the victim. If things aren't 100% right for people then it's not fair and they don't even have a chance. And when it is 100% right they still will find something to complain about. Don't you get it? People just can't handle being at a disadvantage even though that is nature and that it makes you stronger. People look at things as a victim and consequently live like a victim.

Back to the homeless man. What I have considered heavily doing is some type of documentary with people that come from shit starting points and that people would call disadvantaged and show how they can work their way out of it. And you know what the most important thing will be to make sure they can pull themselves out? Desire. People need to want it. And the vast majority of people don't want something better, so they don't get it. Wanting something means changing yourself. And changing yourself means taking accountability for everything in your life. It means understanding that you may have come from a shit start but you're not a victim. Everything is a lesson and an experience. So ironically the people who I would choose to help out of poverty would be the ones with the same attitudes that would lead themselves out of poverty anyway. What a coincidence. You can't help people who don't want help and who will make every excuse possible to defend their own poverty.

Anonymous: Derp

Are you trying to imply that this is actually how pay works in society?

Its not. Some people get paid 1,000x for digging 10 ditches while most get paid 1x for digging 1 ditch.

BTW...your bot screen is retarded. Black and White are not colors. Gawd the dumbness of people

Quinton Figueroa: "Some people get paid 1,000x
@Anonymous (view comment)

"Some people get paid 1,000x for digging 10 ditches while most get paid 1x for digging 1 ditch."

Give me an example. Inb4 a CEO making 100x the janitor.

Add new comment