nest0r Wrote:Bill Hicks, pfft, that unskilled labourer? What a cushy life he had, doing easy work. If only he had the CEO gene which allows one to become a fairly and highly paid hard worker with expertise of the sort that can be applied to any position in our meritocratic world, in contrast to the average person who can only become a lazy maid or moderately skillful scientist or technician, incapable of stepping outside their proper place, living the easy life with their simple tasks and whiny, slacker efforts--they just don't have that special something that CEOs have.

It's sad that I even have to type out this simple stuff. I was able to figure it out through my well-off parents and friends' anecdotes about their servants, and my conversations with the quaint fellows at the local commoner establishment.

You're lucky you have a reputation as the forum clown. You might have offended me

IceCream Wrote:To me at least, the hardest job there is the factory worker. Any stress, deadlines, responsibility in the other roles is more than made up for by some element of creativity and learning process. I can not imagine being able to stick a life of factory work. But other people have to, so they do. Respect!!!

in other words, the hardest job is probably the one which makes you most unhappy. The easiest job is the one that makes you happiest when you do it. Any skill you need to learn to do a job that makes you happy is easy, in a way...

And I think that's what it comes down to, definitions. I was assuming a definition where the hardest job is the one that is most difficult to perform, all other issues aside. Your definition is perfectly legit as well, and is the one I assume other people are using, which is why there's so much confusion here.

stehr Wrote:Well if you made one dollar selling papers in that 17-hour period, and the CEO made 10,000$ in his 16 hours, then who's worked harder for their money?

Since when does the amount of money you earn affect how hard a task is? Say one person is paid $10 for selling newspapers, another is paid $1,000,000. By your logic, even though they are performing the exact same work, one is working harder than the other? A≠B, my friend.

Quote:I only brought up the subject because somebody thought that CEOs are just fat cats as they are portrayed in cartoons.

Wow, I didn't know I was specifically saying that CEOs were lazy.

Imagine I'm pretty much clueless.

1:
I've noticed there are many, many high-ups who have more or less inherited their job because of family connections and so forth. Many of them supposedly still do a pretty good job. So is this coincidence? Is it some kind of trait setup that runs in the family? Is it because of the extra good upbringing their already-rich family could give them?
Would that be 'fair'? Is it the best arrangement, giving us the best CEO's?
Or is it because they're so powerful and there are so many high-ups just like them that their actual quality isn't thoroughly questioned and so on?
How important is that anyway? Could keeping an image of competence in many ways work like a substitute for the real deal?

2.
Who decides what constitutes hard work, who decides who's the REAL ones pulling the world?
Is it the powerful ones, because they have the power to influence that view?
Do the lower-class workers (ちょっと古い呼び方ですけど） even want it to be any other way, or do they want to keep dreaming about the possibility of getting up there one day?
Do we, as humans, want to keep an illusion of that we really do have representatives up there, perhaps not the best ones, but ones who HAVE control? Instead of just accepting that noone really knows IT, noone really knows what's going to happen and a large part of society is just going on automatic, driven by mostly non-contemplated individual behavior?
Is it defendable then, for all our sakes, so we can sleep well at night?

3.
To what degree can we even, all of us here, change our opinions (/attitudes), both the conscious opinions and the ones we unconsciously act on, on all this? I hear there's something called social dominance orientation that most CEO's and so on are high on, partly because being in higher positions itself causes a rise in the orientation among most people. Of course, even though that's where the effects are the most obvious, who knows to what degree we're bound by it?
And there's also the, very much related, just-world phenomenon, that's been observed even among the most collective societies and pretty much means regardless of how it 'objectively' (if there is such a thing regarding all this) is, we regulate our world-view to somehow make all this chaos make sense so that it seems we all get what we deserve.
These supposedly very basic human tendencies (and many others) that seem to feed negative spirals, how can we overcome them?
And now, assuming WE really are able to overcome them, how would one go about making the big men way up there overcome them?

Of course, I have no clue. But thinking on it, no matter what social class or what background you might have, ought to be worth it instead of just debating within the same ol' frameworks given to us by school, parents and so on.
I'm not even saying this is particularly new, I'm well aware I'm much too young to know what are really the most important topics to bring forth.
But breaking the fourth wall of discussions... Isn't it worth a try?

(I'm sorry about the derailment but this thread already seemed to be off the tracks. If asked to I'll remove this post)

The 12th richest person in the WORLD is Christy Walton who amassed her fortune by being the widow of someone wealthy. This someone wealthy was John Walton who was one of the sons of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart.

The 15th richest person in the WORLD is Jim Walton, who is another son of the founder of Wal-Mart.

Do you think that it is just a wild fluke that some of the richest people were inheriting loads of money?

Some people work so hard to be born into wealthy families and marry into wealthy families!

Also, you seem to have neglected to my comment in response to your bit about senators.

Motley's the only wear.

For anyone who prefers to leave lagwagon to idolizing CEOs as being the apex of this utopian meritocracy and the cutting edge of Lamarckian evolution, the uomo universale, &c...

Researchers in the domain of success and expertise will tell you it's more about sociocultural environment and the opportunity to exercise deliberate practice with constant support, feedback, and application of self-awareness and metacognition that leads to success, across the board, rather than innate talent.

Innate talents: Reality or myth?

Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert performance framework

Towards a Science of Exceptional Achievement

See also Ericsson et al.'s Cambridge handbook on expertise (2006) for more comprehensive studies...

Bonus: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazine.../index.htm

Expertise: Acquisition, Limitations, and Control

Then there's 'flow' and 'grit', crystallized intelligence and reading volume, fluid intelligence and neuroplasticity and working memory training, the importance of emotions as modulators...

I'll leave the theorizing about denationalization and corporate/government biases to other moods and aliases with other foils... ;p Point being, once you unbundle these notions of innate talent and shatter the delusion that we live in a meritocracy, it's not too hard to look at the skewed power dynamics and recognize lagwagon's rhetoric as the pseudo-Social Darwinian rubbish that it is. Or leisurely byproduct licensed by endemic status within said system. In my opinion. ;p

nest0r Wrote:Motley's the only wear

It's all very well for you to pipe up with an argument now, but all you've offered so far is garbage. All you've done is insult my lack of experience and views without offering any of your own, which I'm sure is just trying to cover up your own lack thereof. I tried laughing it off, but you appear to be taking yourself seriously.

As for that research, it's cute that you've found yourself a bunch of links supporting your viewpoint, but google can work for anyone. I can google 'innate ability defines every aspect of your life' and I'd find papers from the Institute of Absolute Proof that supports such views. Not that that's my view at all, I said I don't know if it's nature verses nurture, although I doubt you've read my posts.

If you're not interested in debate and reason, then by all means paste your links away, they're a wonderful read. But if you just want to come in here insulting me and putting nothing on the table, then you can take a hike, you're just making yourself look like a typical narcissistic internet warrior. I haven't given anybody else this attitude, everyone else seems to be decent.

As for the others, I shall reply tomorrow

lagwagon:
First, I don't mean to be condescending here, I just want to say this clearly and not in a round-about.

What you seem to be missing is that while people certainly are making arguments against your viewpoint, it's also the way you debate that's off-putting.

I think that, and I've found many of the posters on the forum more or less share this viewpoint, when discussing something the goal is for all parties to be enlightened somehow. This means that we all are working to help each other develop, simultaneously being servants to each other. Debating something requires mutual respect and if you go into it expecting there to be no change in you, only in others, you are doing yourself a big disservice.

In short; you are not the main character. You are the one who will get the most out of accepting this.

Mcjon01 Wrote:

lagwagon555 Wrote:I can't believe I'm taking time to type this stuff.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

I can't believe I almost took the time to read the rest of the thread... almost

Trying to label one job as the most difficult in the world is silly.

"I know it's trendy to say 'oh the workers, toiling in the wheat fields, abused by their corporate masters', but today it's really the complete opposite. Only the CEOs don't moan."

CEO's don't have a right to moan. They are earning hundreds of thousands to multi millions of dollars per year, and if they don't like their situation they have the means to change it. A slum dweller in India will work all day for like one dollar, use that to buy some scraps of food, sleep in a hut made from cardboard and plastic, probably smaller than your wardrobe, then wake up and do it all over again.

It's not trendy, it's real.

I don't see your reasoning lagwagon - to me it sounds very elitist, simple and narrow (social Darwinism maybe?).

I think our social order is WAY out of balance and those at the top that are taking/getting the most are largely responsible for continued exploitive practices that have a devastating impact on our sustainability, and the majority of the worlds peoples basic living conditions. Because of the impact of these actions, I think as a group they are not being great people (as the "deciders"), and do not take responsibility (Feasting on the Goose who lays the golden eggs while most are starving - is this a smart or kind thing to do?) - instead we hear how intelligent, hard working and deserving they are (pay raises for all my friends!!!) and that being rich is what we should all aspire to be (my own cultural observation) . The mentality you are expressing sounds to me like someone who has a world view coming from a privileged social upbringing and so justifies it's own.

Have you considered nepotism and position of social economic status for networking opportunities in all this? I'm not saying all CEO's are all evil, privileged and undeserving of their positions (I'm sure there are several rags to riches success stories out there), or that they don't possess the characteristics you describe. But my impression from your reasoning is they are better and work harder then other people, and that's the only reason they are at the "top". I think you know this is not entirely true.

And we are all one - we just decided to try having ego's and CEO's and internet forums to give us some different self perspectives...

You offer compelling, nuanced arguments shihoro, but I'm unconvinced. Can you explain what you mean by 'Academic' and explain in detail the 'never' in 'never be a CEO'? Also, by 'CEO' do you mean someone from the past '30 years', i.e. 'university educated generation who feel they deserve by right to a senior important job unlike they previous generation who often worked their way to the top on sheer talent, work and sure, luck'?

I agree, though, people shouldn't complain about the system they live in unless they're willing to strip naked. The only thing standing between calamity and third world countries are CEOs, and this system should not be criticized.

You were so fortunate to have those ladies volunteer to clean fecal matter because you were unable to afford cleaners, if only the free hand of the market had been kinder to your hard work, and if only those lazy average workers had that still-not-CEO-material but nonetheless gutsy attitude to aim for those bonuses you handed out to them at a future date.

shihoro Wrote:Without the CEOs you could not get the jeans so cheap but yet you bought them. You helped pay the CEO's bonus, knowing that some poor worker got screwed. You are guilty.

We are all guilty.

Yes, we're all guilty... to some limited extent. Are you saying that the person buying a pair of jeans without knowing where and how they were manufactured is as guilty as the CEO who signed the contract to have them manufactured by some shady company in a third world country, fully aware of the conditions in which the jeans would be manufactured? You're trying to remove the blame from CEOs by saying that everybody is just as bad, or guilty, as them. Well, that's not true. Customers might have some vague awareness that some jeans might have been manufactured by poor starving children but they have no way of knowing which pairs of jeans were manufactured by poor starving children. So they buy the cheapest jeans having no other information upon which to base their decision. If some jeans were branded, with a big sticker, as having been made by starving children then maybe customers wouldn't buy them. Look at fair trade coffee. A lot of people ARE willing to pay more for goods that are produced ethically. To say that everyone is just as guilty is complete ****.

shihoro:
While I think you have something of a one-sided view on this I can definitely see where you're coming from and I'm only going to focus on one point that I think is worth discussing:
there ARE those of us who were raised in today's "oh gof it's too early don't let them see the real world" community and are pissed at it even while we're in the middle of it all.
It's like, I meet so many my age who don't seem to have any goal, they're just living because where are they supposed to go? They don't know, they haven't the guts to think their whole life through and parents&co wanted to leave all paths open so they haven't been told what to do either.

And I keep reminding them about how badass our parents and especially our grandparents were, how there really is NO good reason to whine about exams, part-time jobs or full-time jobs that only take 40h of active work a week. Because if you just shut up and WORK with it you become happier, more productive and can make your way somewhere. Even if it's not the ideal (a concept that is extremely overestimated today) just going forward in some direction will clear so many problems.

At the same time, we can't all just go back to the old days. Wanting to make it big, to aim for money and all that, doesn't work. The soon-to-be academics you talk of were probably born into an okay economy to start with and the illusion of money being THE thing is fading. For good reason; everyone can tell by now that if we just go on like this it won't work, and it's been proven time and again that while it certainly can help, money doesn't guarantee happiness.

We live in world that is more complex, or at least being presented as such, than ever. There are so many issues to deal with, so many "what-if"s, so many things you COULD do with your life, so much emptiness as old traditions, and it's not just money I'm talking about here, are removed and most of us don't really know what to do.

Criticizing is one thing, and I think it's very important (though easy to overdo). Figuring out what to do about it all is another, and I do believe there is some hope my generation will be able to do that, if not for our sakes then for our kids'.

Edit: By the way, here is one academic who stressed himself out on purpose and, I'd argue, for good reason
http://www.paulgraham.com/hamming.html
Of course, I'm not saying that's what most 'academics' (a VERY broad category by the way, you'd do well to watch how you use it) are like, I'm only linking it in hope that you can, as you yourself said, respect people - even academics - for the job they do.

Oh, last note: what are your thoughts on psychopathic CEO's? There has been research suggesting that they are relatively, as in compared to other lines of work, common (though, of course, not as common as the media made it seem when they sensationalized said research)

lagwagon555 Wrote:I can google 'innate ability defines every aspect of your life' and I'd find papers from the Institute of Absolute Proof that supports such views.

You'll find a boatload of self improvement websites is what you'll find... and a link to this post.

Anyway, arguing against someone that cites research without citing some of your own is amusing. I'm sure neither of your are experts on the topic, so backing up your opinion with opinions by those who are experts on it is really the only way to argue it, right? Anyways, if you can do it so easily, then please do.

Just funny how you're not really looking to discuss something interesting, just wanting to show people how right you are.

Also, why is this even posted on koohii.com? Aren't there thousands (tens of?) different forums on the internet more suited for this discussion?

zanzou Wrote:Also, why is this even posted on koohii.com? Aren't there thousands (tens of?) different forums on the internet more suited for this discussion?

I guess I should have made this thread on a Cannabis forum or something. In that case there wouldn´t be so much negative arguing.
Seems like topics like this are really a pandora´s box (at least on this forum) and not so well suited for this forum.

Warning: Religious nonsense follows....Please ignore

A. We are all one consciousness
B. We are not all one consciousness
Both A and B are correct. It has to do with the ultimate and the relative. As a vastly simplified example, there are countless sentient beings living in your body. They all think they are the most important being in their environment. They are all unaware that they collectively make up a larger consciousness (you).

Commerce is a very positive karmic endeavor. Prior to commerce, if one country wanted another's riches, it would invade, kill the inhabitants and take what it wanted.
The whole American military industrial economy has given commerce a bad name.
Also within the theory of karmic cause and effect, whether a CEO becomes rich through his own hard work or has it given to him by other means, it is said one should celebrate his good fortune. It is thought to be a direct result of saintly activity in past lives. If in maintaining that wealth in this life, very unsaint-like practices are used, impoverished future lives will follow.

jettyke Wrote:Seems like topics like this are really a pandora´s box (at least on this forum) and not so well suited for this forum.

I love opening Pandora's box Pandora is the consort of Amithaba Buddha and deals with the energies of passion and desire . When her box is opened...... Oh Boy!

Wait a minute?

Why are we writing off sweat shops as something inherently evil. They're are plenty of men, women, and children who gladly work in these shops for dollars or less per day. Some make good money even if "we" only see it as chump change.

Quote:Also, why is this even posted on koohii.com? Aren't there thousands (tens of?) different forums on the internet more suited for this discussion?

Nah. Those forums aren't nearly as cool.

@shihoro

Your argument started off good then spiraled into a "They don't know what it's like being me sort of rant."

Dissonance produces stress. It's a different kind of stress from that caused by executive type work, but it is stress and it is "real." It cannot be trivialized as humans cannot take action while experiencing dissonance. The sheer volume of information, choices, and paths available to us, currently, produces a lot of dissonance.

Before criticizing people, perhaps, try to understand why it is they make the choices they do. If I had to guess, those model employees who did more than what their job called for had little to no dissonance in their lives (single, few friends, essentially cut off). I could be wrong, though.

Also, they were given bonuses. Were they promoted to executive positions?

Surreal Wrote:lagwagon:
First, I don't mean to be condescending here, I just want to say this clearly and not in a round-about.

Reading back maybe some of my posts do appear to be quite belligerent. I didn't mean it, as you can see when IceCream made a point I conceeded to him straight away. The same with Kazelee. But I definitely see where you're coming from. Especially with my last post to Nestor Then again, when I've been insulted, I don't see anybody giving them a talking to.

thegeelonghellswan Wrote:CEO's don't have a right to moan.

I agree!

TaylorSan Wrote:I don't see your reasoning lagwagon - to me it sounds very elitist, simple and narrow (social Darwinism maybe?)...

Indeed I may have come off that way, but to make such a conclusion about me over a few posts isn't fair at all. I'm a student on a baked bean diet, I don't spend any money on alcohol or typical student life, and I don't receive any money at all from my parents. And what's more, if you want to know the reason why my Dad went overseas to work was because while we were living a middle class lifestyle, we were flat out of cash. We didn't have enough money to put petrol in the car in some cases. I'm taking a page from Surreals notebook here, and remaining calm. But that really was quite insulting and unfair.

zanzou Wrote:Just funny how you're not really looking to discuss something interesting, just wanting to show people how right you are.

I've wrote enough here to write a small book, replying to as many peoples responses as time permits, and then because I don't give a decent reply to someone who just blatantly insults me, you say I'm only interested in showing people how right I am?!
*Head explodes*

kazelee Wrote:Wait a minute?

Why are we writing off sweat shops as something inherently evil. They're are plenty of men, women, and children who gladly work in these shops for dollars or less per day. Some make good money even if "we" only see it as chump change.

I couldn't agree more. Sweatshops bring money into areas of complete poverty. The dollars the workers earn are dollars they use to feed their families. Without the sweatshops, they'd be doing jobs which would be even less paying, or jobless. It's sadly still low pay, but there's nothing that can be done about it. Our ancestors all had to work for the same wages when our nations were developing.

Why can't a company just pay them more? Because, if you increase the wages, you have to increase the prices. The clothing market is very elastic; if you raise the prices slightly, while your competitors keep the same prices, you will lose alot of your customers. This simply isn't viable for large companies. You may ask "So what? It's just less profits!". But less profit = less investment, and as shareholders leave companies, it will fold. Uncompetitive companies simply can't exist in the mainstream. You get small niche uncompetitive products, like fair trade goods. But as IceCream explained, most people won't go for them. Especially when people have a family to feed.

But, what if all companies decide to pay their workers more? Again, this isn't viable. If you look at game theory, it will be impossible for such a balance to be sustainable. Any company in the industry which breaks the agreement and pays less (and due to the massive amount of companies in the clothing industry, it's inevitable that someone will) will gain such an advantage that the others will be put out of business. Similar to the prisoner's dilemma, it won't be possible for the companies to cooperate on such a scale when their own welfare is at stake.

@lagwagon

I really did not mean to sound like I was attacking your personal economic position or your family (and I can see how it could be seen as such - ごめんなさい )- It was your reasoning and mentality that I felt had an elitist air (if you reread my post perhaps you will see this is the case)- what you were saying, not who you are as a person. I was reacting to your opinions and providing my own (which given a broader perspective are incomplete and limited as well). As a person I only wish you and your family the best - truly. And my impression is that you have probably good values and a strong personal work ethic (maybe in part learned from your father?).

Of course I'm only doing what we all do - filtering things through my own ego/incomplete world view. But the nice thing about our beliefs/attitudes biases judgments culture/educations is that there is always opportunity to learn/change outgrow them. Maybe exchanging here on the forum is a part of that (good) rather than just sounding boards for our own ego babble (not always good LOL).

I think the problems we are discussing are much bigger then CEO's and sweatshops, cheap prices and our own individual consumerist attitudes etc. (though all of these things are important). It seem to me that our very survival on this planet is coming into a more and more precarious position. And answering to shareholders (who are not a community) as a basis for making decisions that impact the management of resources and sustainable systems (communities) has become an irresponsible and nasty state of affairs, and will be eventually very harmful to us ALL (SUPER OMEGA RICH people included - or are they planning on building private space station luxury resorts -> oh but can they stay in the material plain fore all eternity!!!???!!! Shit hits the fan eventually right LOL ) if we don't take responsibility and work together for futures sake (and present).

I think the counter movements in communities worldwide is vital to changing the system (http://www.wiserearth.org/ - this site networks over 100k such organizations worldwide)- most corporate practice simply does not have a wider vision to support a better future for all (quarterly reports trump impact on future perhaps?).

Again, I only write here to share my opinions. Sorry if I sound flammey lagwagon. You are as entitled to your opinions as me or anyone else.

Peace, love, and blessing to you all!

Quote:I've wrote enough here to write a small book, replying to as many peoples responses as time permits

Why did you not respond to the person you originally responded to? Honestly just talking as if this were behind my back:

Quote:I only brought up the subject because somebody thought that CEOs are just fat cats as they are portrayed in cartoons.

I have been reduced to a straw man.

これをあげる

脳

kazelee Wrote:Wait a minute?

Why are we writing off sweat shops as something inherently evil. They're are plenty of men, women, and children who gladly work in these shops for dollars or less per day. Some make good money even if "we" only see it as chump change.

You might find this interesting, though these arguments have been going on for years before and since, in many arenas: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=245 or http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/MLB/...Myths.html

Kristof on the topic: http://community.nytimes.com/article/com...istof.html

Krugman: http://www.slate.com/id/1918 (1997)

Confessions of a Sweatshop Inspector

Interesting stuff. ;p

shihoro Wrote:@ Kazelee. I think you have missed the point. I'll just leave that there.

It would do us both better if you elaborated how.

Quote:Re stress. I take your point but I think you need to give my academic friends a talking to because I am fed up with them pontificating about how the economy is not that bad from the comfort of their safe jobs.

They sound kind of ignorant if that's true.

Quote:All I ever hear them talk about is how stressed they are. Dissonance!? My commercial sector friends are losing their jobs and houses. That is stress. My partners company has lost 43% staff and the remaining staff have had to take a 10% pay cut from the M/D down. Try getting a public sector worker or an academic to do that.

I'm sure the academics are just as insistent that their stresses are more real, however.

So, let's compare losing a job to walking an arbitrary distance just to get clean drinking water. Let's compare having to walk to get water with having to walk to get water but having no legs. Let's compare having to walk to get water but having no legs with being born in "first-world" country but say... being abused in every way possible before the age of 12 then spending the rest of one's life in an institution. Let's compare that with getting brain cancer.

It's terminal so surely its more stressful than all the others. Right?

There are million stresses and each person deals with them on an individual level.

Quote:I must be honest, I will be hard to convince otherwise. I have worked in both worlds and my views are firm now. I respect learning but have lost alot of respect for many academics.

I can respect that. They have yet to understand that there are worse things to be stress about. All they'd have to do is realize this fact. Once they realized that there are worse things in this world to be stressed about, they'd develop a sense of gratefulness and not complain nearly as much.

Note: They = All humans

Quote:Toilet cleaners of the world unite!

I've cleaned quite a few toilets so... WOot!

@Icecream

All not bad.