Skerret wrote:

Brooks wrote:

Does anyone actively choose to make less than "the best of a situation"? By what metric? Incredible.

The metric of success, apparently.

yes they do brooks. Some people just sit around doing fuck all with their lives. Thats a measure of choosing to make less than they could of their situation. Stop being obtuse.

mk64 wrote:

so are you all now saying that all of those in the lower half of the socioeconomic gap (if we view it as wealthy and poor as seems to be the polarised point of view - not that the middle class is growing...) are all people with disabilities stopping them from achieving? And I also infer from the uproar is that the wealthy should create more high paid jobs for people with disabilities?

No and no. I fucked my own life up at points, to the point where my options of work now are severely limited. I could change that via going back to college/uni, but why when it'll merely open me up to being a barely employed mid 30s guy with a few qualifications (I cannot do any work that requires me to stand for roughly 15 minutes or more, max)?

Its why I'm giving writing a (slow but steady) go. Its something I enjoy, feel I can do, and if it comes off, way. If not then no harm lost. There's a lot more to my circumstances than is readily known on here (including what I've just put up in the mental health thread).

Brooks wrote:

No, they don't, you halfwit. An outsider can call their information lacking, the actor will not when he acts. It takes a remarkable pathology to consciously inflict harm on oneself, and in fact those that do will rationalise it as a positive. Actually this is slightly worthless in that I'm guessing he has me on his Ignore roster, and only noticed my presence via the quote.

Peter when you have a mo do you think you could enlarge spinningdog.gif, overlay over every page of this thread, opacity on say 30%?

A couple of points picked out of many:

mk64 wrote:

He's seemingly happy with his set up and i'm seemingly happy with mine. If at any point he wants to change to a 20 euro main course then he's going to have to change his ideology and gameplan.

I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head here with the word 'ideology'. You're basically saying that anyone who wants to achieve a financially comfortable existence should fall in line with the same mode of thought you have. If only people would stop trying to see things differently and comform to systemic expectations, they'd be just fine.

So why doesn't everyone just agree to do things the 'right way' seeing as that way leads to success and happiness? Either because they're psychologically deficient in some way, or because they can see something doesn't quite add up, like, say, that there has to be losers even if everyone tries incredibly hard (because somebody has to be exploited), or that the kind of jobs that are available are soul destroyingly pointless and cause misery, or that the highest possible level they can dream of reaching is still far lower than what some people will end up at even if they spend their whole lives fucking around. I wonder which.

mk64 wrote:

Coming back to the op, my point is that yoss says that the socio-economic gap is widening and thats a bad thing. I'm saying people who want to change their situation can to a larger extent than people think.

There's a clear correlation between the socio-economic gap widening and people's ability to change their situation. They are completely connected and to bang on about how people should change their situation without bothering to acknowledge what a widening socio-economic gap signifies for that very thing beggars belief. 

Why is there a widening socio-economic gap if opportunities for people to change their situation are so readily available? What does a widening socio-economic gap mean for people's attempt to change their situations in the future?

And you're going to work in finance you say? For some reason, that's the least surprising thing of all.

While we're still at this and with no expectation of this being conclusive re: anything - how many of you are earning more or at least equal to what your breadwinning parent earned at your current age, adjusted for inflation etc.?

Nope, nowhere fucking near.

I often wonder where such disparate ideologies come from and why both sides are so sure they are right.

n0face wrote:

I often wonder where such disparate ideologies come from and why both sides are so sure they are right.

Well, according to one meta-analysis:

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management

Of course, I would believe that being a limp-wristed, pinko, lefty liberal.

mk64 wrote:

Brooks wrote:

Well as a matter of stats I'm not seeing a whole lot that greatly supports an individualist thesis. The chances of "making it" are demonstrably diminishing, to the extent that the only useful defence is, apparently, to dismantle definitions of "making it" to something less psychologically traumatic for its closer adherence to "reality". Apparently.

I'm seeing it differently to you. We do not live in a country where there is child slave labour. People have more opportunity and choices than ever before.

No, they don't. You keep on insisting this despite the evidence to the contrary. Wealth inequality means less opportunity for social mobility, and we currently have some of the greatest wealth disparities in centuries.

Stop repeating things which are demonstrably false, it won't and will never make them true.

mk64 wrote:

I am saying if you want to be wealthy then you have to play the system/game.

Which is rigged, so isn't it understandable that some people find the idea rather unappealing?

The only way for nearly everyone to make money through the system/game is by someone richer making more. There's no way of catching up.

I gather you need at least 70 grand a year for happiness, they dun studies.

Yossarian wrote:

mk64 wrote:

Brooks wrote:

Well as a matter of stats I'm not seeing a whole lot that greatly supports an individualist thesis. The chances of "making it" are demonstrably diminishing, to the extent that the only useful defence is, apparently, to dismantle definitions of "making it" to something less psychologically traumatic for its closer adherence to "reality". Apparently.

I'm seeing it differently to you. We do not live in a country where there is child slave labour. People have more opportunity and choices than ever before.

No, they don't. You keep on insisting this despite the evidence to the contrary. Wealth inequality means less opportunity for social mobility, and we currently have some of the greatest wealth disparities in centuries.

Stop repeating things which are demonstrably false, it won't and will never make them true.

Less opportunity for social mobility.

What does that mean to you? People keeping saying how hard it is and disability is one reason. What others?

Poor schooling/training; geographical remoteness; lack of technological access and investment; lack of (nepotistic) support networks; lack of access to info; lack of wage bargaining power; lack of a say in the organisation of institutions; mental illness; the need to care for invalids; lack of enlightened leadership to negotiate macroeconomic challenges; under-reformed legislation including bureaucratic flab; empathy gaps between demographics; institutional racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, irrational fear/mistrust of the poor and ex-offenders; poorly designed housing and city planning; corporate and state propaganda including divisive bouts of nationalism and deceptive advertising...