Dreams are for the wealthy

cuthbertj and lausten the two of you must work for the government or you are on gov. assistance because you sound pathetic. 'oh it is so hard now. Those people back then they could get rich easy without work....and now I will have to work harder than anyone else to get rich....poor me....i might as well just give up. That whiny crap makes me sick. Where is your drive? Where is your backbone? This is what socialism breeds.....blaming other people for your misfortune. Fight harder. That is called survival. Listen to what macgyver was trying to tell you.....people are working hard to become rich right now....how ? They don't all have connections....most of them are smarter and/or have more drive and tenacity....despite the discomfort or danger or pain or suffering they dont give up or give in. That is the the only sure way to succeed. This is not a college course this is life
It's pretty difficult to deal with this type of prejudice, but just because I don't bother, that doesn't make you right. I never said anyone should give up. You can't throw around words like "hard work" and "circumstances" without some serious defining of what you mean by those term. If you knew the "sure way to succeed", I doubt you would be bothering to make posts on this little backwater of a discussion forum. Insurance costs are way up, health care is ridiculous, tuition, these things didn't just happen because of simple laws of supply and demand. It is harder to start a business today. You better supply a lot of data if you want to convince me otherwise. It's also harder to raise a family on one salary. You think mothers are working just because it makes them feel better? Are you saying the children of Sam Walton have as much wealth as 42% of Americans because they have drive? The wage disparity we are currently experiencing between the richest and poorest is at the place where, historically, there have been revolutions. With the amount and types of weapons there are today, that should be a major concern. You tell people to fight harder, that's what they're going to do.
This society isn't totally stratified and we don't have a caste system here. That's why unions were able to take hold and force the government to make changes, because someone stepped up and formed them Cap't Jack
Can't you see how perfectly backwards that statement is? If the system was already fair, and workers were represented equally and treated like their lives mattered, there would not have been a reason to create an entirely new organizational structure to attempt to correct that system. Whether or not that structure was done well or continues to serve it's original purpose is not relevant to this point. The point is robber barons like Carnegie and Rockefeller cheated their way to riches. We fixed some of the problems with monopolies, but then we deregulated the financial industry. It is a constant battle of people with limited resources trying to stop the rich from changing the rules in their favor. That's not whining, that's being aware of how the world works.
This society isn’t totally stratified and we don’t have a caste system here. That’s why unions were able to take hold and force the government to make changes, because someone stepped up and formed them Cap’t Jack Can’t you see how perfectly backwards that statement is? If the system was already fair, and workers were represented equally and treated like their lives mattered, there would not have been a reason to create an entirely new organizational structure to attempt to correct that system. Whether or not that structure was done well or continues to serve it’s original purpose is not relevant to this point. The point is robber barons like Carnegie and Rockefeller cheated their way to riches. We fixed some of the problems with monopolies, but then we deregulated the financial industry. It is a constant battle of people with limited resources trying to stop the rich from changing the rules in their favor. That’s not whining, that’s being aware of how the world works.
Where in my reply did I mention that the system was already fair? The Constitution from the beginning allowed for lassez faire capitalism. That was one of the major reasons this Democracy was created, to allow the unlimited acquisition of wealth without government restrictions. the founders didn't initially plan on the factory system and legal slavery, but it developed when single proprietor businesses evolved into corporations beholden to the shareholders who couldn't care less about the workers. Grassroots organizations became unions to protect worker's rights despite attempts by the robber barons to destroy them. my point is that union organizers, some of whom were killed by hired thugs, or the national guard persevered and unions and grassroots groups fought to make these changes I mentioned. This could never have occurred under a repressive, totalitarian government. Workers have never been treated equally, and will never receive a share of the profits until they stand together and take action, e.g. Walmart protesters. Once again, one does not sit on the sidelines and blubber about his/her fate and if one doesn't become involved by making a change for themselves or others then, yes it's just whining. Cap't Jack
(BTW - I make 6 figures, have opened more than one of my own businesses, and am personally not doing too bad. Even with that, I and others in similar situations are struggling to get our kids through college yet alone having big dreams for myself.)
Hmm, interesting Cuth. You stared businesses and now make 6 figures. You're not doing badly and probably drive a decent car, have a middle class home, job stability of course and a few perks to go along with it. Doesn't that make my point to Lausten? I mean unless you inherited the money to start the businesses, you accomplished these feats all on your own? sounds like you just realized the "American Dream". So I guess it can be done after all. FWIW, I've never made 6 figures but managed to help our kids through college, we have two cars, both Fords, have a decent home and travel expenses. When I first began my teaching career my wife and I qualified for public assistance; my salary that year was $6,300. I worked two jobs, made ends meet and put my wife through school then went back myself, twice. forty years later after staying within our budget I now have some money invested and our home is almost paid off. So I guess we can actually apply that cliche' Lausten abhors to our own lives. Cap't Jack
You can't get a crappy job without a degree these days yet alone a good one.
I missed this comment. There have been several threads bordering on this subject, but this is not really accurate. Decent jobs are out there, that don't require any degree - e.g. the trades, first responder careers, truck driving, etc. I think one problem is that many young people feel these jobs are beneath them. IMO, in this case, dreams may be an impediment. FWIW, I'm a young adult who has never attended college, and I have a fairly good job.In the 50's it was possible for someone in your type of job to have a nice house, a couple cars, take yearly vacations AND send all their kids to good colleges, thus advancing the kids, the family, and society in general. (Oh and the wife usually didn't have to work.) Nowadays it's the exact opposite. It takes two fulls incomes to just barely have a liveable house, the 2 cars it takes to have two jobs, vacations have turned into "staycations" and going to a good university puts the kids and parents into massive debt, stifling the kids, family, and taking away from their ability to give to society (since most earnings go to debt). The cost of tuition have skyrocketed, incomes have gone nowhere, the cost of everything is way higher relatively speaking. These are facts, not opinion. True, things were much better then. IMO, that good stuff is probably not coming back anytime soon. I think the younger generations are going to have to accept that a lower quality of (adult) life is what we are in for - compared to our parent"s generation.
So tell us, as a young adult, what's your dream?
Eh, I have a lot of dreams, but I don't really expect them to become reality. I try to aim for stability.
. Doesn't that make my point to Lausten? I mean unless you inherited the money to start the businesses, you accomplished these feats all on your own? sounds like you just realized the "American Dream". So I guess it can be done after all. Cap't Jack
That it can be done is not the point at all. The point is, the system where "it can be done", depends on a large labor pool of people desperate to take any kind of work. That's why there are so many laws and policies that keep that in place.

I know I’m not supposed to post things twice, but these figures show the realty of today’s situation for most of us. So take into account when making your arguments.
For the years 1977 to 2010, the wealth of the top 1 percent increased by 281 percent, whereas the wealth of the middle class grew by 16 percent. In that same period, the incomes of CEOs grew by 726 percent, whereas the average worker’s income grew by just 5.7 percent.
Today, the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. But according to a 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage should now be $21.72 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity. Even on a pure inflationary comparison, sans productivity, wageworkers should be earning a minimum of $10.25 per hour.

I know I'm not supposed to post things twice, but these figures show the realty of today's situation for most of us. So take into account when making your arguments. For the years 1977 to 2010, the wealth of the top 1 percent increased by 281 percent, whereas the wealth of the middle class grew by 16 percent. In that same period, the incomes of CEOs grew by 726 percent, whereas the average worker’s income grew by just 5.7 percent. Today, the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. But according to a 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage should now be $21.72 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity. Even on a pure inflationary comparison, sans productivity, wageworkers should be earning a minimum of $10.25 per hour.
Do you have a source for those figures? I have a lot of skeptical friends and they'd insist on a source. Lois
I know I'm not supposed to post things twice, but these figures show the realty of today's situation for most of us. So take into account when making your arguments. For the years 1977 to 2010, the wealth of the top 1 percent increased by 281 percent, whereas the wealth of the middle class grew by 16 percent. In that same period, the incomes of CEOs grew by 726 percent, whereas the average worker’s income grew by just 5.7 percent. Today, the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. But according to a 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage should now be $21.72 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity. Even on a pure inflationary comparison, sans productivity, wageworkers should be earning a minimum of $10.25 per hour.
Do you have a source for those figures? I have a lot of skeptical friends and they'd insist on a source. Lois Crucifying America - The Unholy Alliance Between the Christian Right and Wall Street - . J. Werleman

Here’s a good video on wealth inequality in America].

More info HERE], (about wealth), HERE] (about income), also HERE], and HERE].

Is it me or is anyone else getting sick and tired of all these commercials that tell us to "reach for your dreams"? I have a mortgage, two car payments, and kids to get through college. How do I go for my dreams? What about kids whose parents can't afford college or don't have good enough credit scores to take out loans? You can't get a crappy job without a degree these days yet alone a good one. I'm a fan of silent movies, and I remember reading about how these two brothers dreamed of being in the movie business, circa 1900's. They started a hotdog stand, saved enough money to buy a movie projector (a nickelodeon actually) and set up booths along the street. From those proceeds they opened an actual theater, and the rest is history. I *think* it was the Loeb brothers. In THOSE days all it took was a good idea and hard work. Can you imagine nowadays? They couldn't even start up a hotdog stand! (They were teens at the time). Nowadays it's all money and degrees and luck. Or am I all scrooged?
Times change, that's all. We live in a different world now. Some things are better some things are worse. It's not as if we have any have control, we just have to make the best of it. Complaining about how things have changed is like complaining about evolution. As if someone said, "Life was much better when we were Neanderthals. Why can't we go back to a simpler way of life? Just shoot your dinner, make clothes out of the skins, live in a cave. No money, no taxes, no mortgage payments, no credit cards, no debt, no bureaucracy, no politicians, nobody trying to sell you something. It was better in those days."
I know I'm not supposed to post things twice, but these figures show the realty of today's situation for most of us. So take into account when making your arguments. For the years 1977 to 2010, the wealth of the top 1 percent increased by 281 percent, whereas the wealth of the middle class grew by 16 percent. In that same period, the incomes of CEOs grew by 726 percent, whereas the average worker’s income grew by just 5.7 percent. Today, the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. But according to a 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage should now be $21.72 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity. Even on a pure inflationary comparison, sans productivity, wageworkers should be earning a minimum of $10.25 per hour.
Do you have a source for those figures? I have a lot of skeptical friends and they'd insist on a source. Lois Thanks. That will do nicely. Lois Crucifying America - The Unholy Alliance Between the Christian Right and Wall Street - . J. Werleman
I know I'm not supposed to post things twice, but these figures show the realty of today's situation for most of us. So take into account when making your arguments. For the years 1977 to 2010, the wealth of the top 1 percent increased by 281 percent, whereas the wealth of the middle class grew by 16 percent. In that same period, the incomes of CEOs grew by 726 percent, whereas the average worker’s income grew by just 5.7 percent. Today, the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. But according to a 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage should now be $21.72 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity. Even on a pure inflationary comparison, sans productivity, wageworkers should be earning a minimum of $10.25 per hour.
These figures have nothing to do with the topic of the post. Cuthberts claim is that it is harder to find success these days if you have a dream and you work towards it. He then used an example of two entrepreneurs from the early 1900's. I agree there is a huge disparity between the lowest earning workers and the top 1% but that doesn't refute the idea that someone of modest means with a good idea and the talent and fortitude to follow it through most likely has the same odds of success if not more compared to someone in the last century. If by "follow your dreams" Cuthbert really meant someone could get a job that paid a meaningful wage and work their way up through the company to retire on a nice pension then yes it is probably harder today but that is not how he framed the problem and that is an entirely different problem and a different discussion.

From this article http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/opinion/krugman-rich-mans-recovery.html?ref=paulkrugman
Equal opportunity?

In practice, however, the children of the wealthy benefit from opportunities and connections unavailable to children of the middle and working classes.
Rich man's recovery?
Basically, while the great majority of Americans are still living in a depressed economy, the rich have recovered just about all their losses and are powering ahead.
The power of money versus effective democracy?
In any case, however, whatever is causing the growing concentration of income at the top, the effect of that concentration is to undermine all the values that define America. Year by year, we’re diverging from our ideals. Inherited privilege is crowding out equality of opportunity; the power of money is crowding out effective democracy.
And from this article http://inequality.org/unequal-americas-income-distribution/ What is the Gini coefficient?
The Gini coefficient amounts to a kind of percentage and can run from 0 to 100. A Gini of 0 represents 0 percent concentration in a country’s income distribution. In a country with a Gini coefficient of 0, everyone receives exactly the same income.
What does a Gini coefficient of 50 mean?
A Gini of 50 could mean that half the people share all of the income while the other half get nothing. In other words, a country that literally consisted of haves and have-nots in a 50-50 split would have a Gini coefficient of 50.
Bold added by me. Obviously, this is unrealistic. However, what is possible in reality, is:
We could also have a Gini coefficient of 50 with the top 10 percent of a country’s population very well-off, the next 50 percent more or less equal, and the bottom 40 percent very poor. With some fiddling around the edges, that’s more or less the situation in America today.
True or false?
These figures have nothing to do with the topic of the post. Cuthberts claim is that it is harder to find success these days if you have a dream and you work towards it. He then used an example of two entrepreneurs from the early 1900's. I agree there is a huge disparity between the lowest earning workers and the top 1% but that doesn't refute the idea that someone of modest means with a good idea and the talent and fortitude to follow it through most likely has the same odds of success if not more compared to someone in the last century. If by "follow your dreams" Cuthbert really meant someone could get a job that paid a meaningful wage and work their way up through the company to retire on a nice pension then yes it is probably harder today but that is not how he framed the problem and that is an entirely different problem and a different discussion.
I admit I may have helped this thread stray from the OP, but it's an internet forum, not a college class. I was not clear on the original intent. To repeat, the success of a few does not prove the system is working for the many. That some make it does not prove that opportunity is equal. It is not even valid evidence. It says we are better than a feudal system of 500 years ago, but that's about all. I think Cuthbert was comparing now to about 50 years ago, not 100. That would be a valid comparison. It was a time when we were making advances in civil rights, solving problems of hunger, improving education, and taxing the rich to do it. But a lot of those dreams have died.
Times change, that's all. We live in a different world now. Some things are better some things are worse. It's not as if we have any have control, we just have to make the best of it. Complaining about how things have changed is like complaining about evolution. As if someone said, "Life was much better when we were Neanderthals. Why can't we go back to a simpler way of life? Just shoot your dinner, make clothes out of the skins, live in a cave. No money, no taxes, no mortgage payments, no credit cards, no debt, no bureaucracy, no politicians, nobody trying to sell you something. It was better in those days."
That is a weird attitude. Like you are not supposed to try to understand things and figure anything out. Just accept! New technology means new opportunities but it also means new kinds of mistakes. Since it occurred to me I find is so weird that we do not have a National Recommended Reading List if not more than one. Different people would want to promote different biases. But I think plenty of people want ignorance and confusion maintained so no lists really. The Tyranny of Words (1938) by Stuart Chase http://www.anxietyculture.com/tyranny.htm http://archive.org/details/tyrannyofwords00chas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9H1StY1nU8 The Screwing of the Average Man (1974) by David Hapgood http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape10.shtml http://www.amazon.com/screwing-average-man-David-Hapgood/dp/B0006W84KK psik
I know I'm not supposed to post things twice, but these figures show the realty of today's situation for most of us. So take into account when making your arguments. For the years 1977 to 2010, the wealth of the top 1 percent increased by 281 percent, whereas the wealth of the middle class grew by 16 percent. In that same period, the incomes of CEOs grew by 726 percent, whereas the average worker’s income grew by just 5.7 percent. Today, the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. But according to a 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage should now be $21.72 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity. Even on a pure inflationary comparison, sans productivity, wageworkers should be earning a minimum of $10.25 per hour.
These figures have nothing to do with the topic of the post. Cuthberts claim is that it is harder to find success these days if you have a dream and you work towards it. He then used an example of two entrepreneurs from the early 1900's. I agree there is a huge disparity between the lowest earning workers and the top 1% but that doesn't refute the idea that someone of modest means with a good idea and the talent and fortitude to follow it through most likely has the same odds of success if not more compared to someone in the last century. If by "follow your dreams" Cuthbert really meant someone could get a job that paid a meaningful wage and work their way up through the company to retire on a nice pension then yes it is probably harder today but that is not how he framed the problem and that is an entirely different problem and a different discussion.Actually those figures have EVERYTHING to do with my OP. In the "olden days" like early 1900's a little went a long way and hard working people could buy things like movie projectors, hotdog stands, etc like the Loeb or Warner Brothers did. Nowadays you need literally millions to start anything original OR you need connections to someone who has millions to invest. And the growing income gap ensures that hardworking middle class folks STAY OUT of innovation. (Yes there might be a few exceptions, but only a few.)
Actually those figures have EVERYTHING to do with my OP. In the "olden days" like early 1900's a little went a long way and hard working people could buy things like movie projectors, hotdog stands, etc like the Loeb or Warner Brothers did. Nowadays you need literally millions to start anything original OR you need connections to someone who has millions to invest. And the growing income gap ensures that hardworking middle class folks STAY OUT of innovation. (Yes there might be a few exceptions, but only a few.)
Just from listening to interviews and few stories, after an education, I would say it takes around 1/4 million, some free space like your parent's garage, and most importantly, a safety net. That is, if you fail, you can always just live in that garage until you work your way up to shift manager at the local fast food restaurant.

Cuthbert what makes you think the Loeb bros weren’t anything but one of the few exceptions in their own time.
I really don’t know where you’re getting your facts from when you say there are fewer such stories today. You’re just making stuff up to fit your view of the world