Because I shop in a grocrry store doesnt mean I owe my life to stop & shop because well without them Id starve since I dont grow my own food. This giving credit for success to everyoen involved in creating an infrastructure honestly sounds just as extreme as that.
And saying that people own their own success and that someone who have the cajones to start a business has created his or her own success does NOT mean that one is also saying that anyone who doesnt do that is a lazy sack of shit. In part, we all make our own choices. I honestly think I could have a greater career than I do... make more money, have more professional success at a higher level etc if I had really wanted to. For many many reasons, that isnt what I want. I dont want to work the hours it requires and I am not willing to make the tradeoffs for my family that it requires. To loop in another hot topic - I dont WANT Marissa Mayer's life. That means I wont get the fame or money she has and I wont get to have lunch with Oscar de la Renta. That is fine because I have made different choices. (not saying I could have been her, I dont have the creativity etc innate that she probably does).
You are STILL saying that people who aren't rich or as successful are simply making different life choices. This is pretty much saying if you're poor, you're lazy. IT'S THE SAME THING! Poor people won't make choices to work harder or not spend time with family, so they're poor.
The collective (who also uses infrastructure) is not penalized for using these same resources but not contributing in a greater way - like employing people. Part of the distribution to the collective is not only more tax revenue (and we want them to pay more) - these people hire others, pay salaries, finance other people's lifestyles. That is a payment to the collective as well - ya know.
But that's the point I'm trying to make: we're ALL part of the collective, not just those who don't employ people. Business owners are also part of our society, and I appreciate what Obama is trying to say about everyone needing help from someone else (teachers, roads, infrastructure) to be where they are today.
In the context of discussions about cutting funding to many of the necessary elements to keep society functioning (education, police, etc.) isn't it worth remembering that businesses won't have employees if our entire society becomes dimwits? We ALL (not just businesses) are suffering from a lack of civic responsibility and respect for each other.
If has nothing to do with saying those who are poor deserve it. He grew up on a farm that was taken over by eminent domain. He was not rich. Took a massive personal and professional risk to start a company. And now IS rich, and employs people who also do quite well, have very stable jobs in a growing business.
I chuckle at all of this because without someone buying your product, you don't have a successful business. We're arguing over if someone helped the small business owner. Someone helped them alright, the people who buy their stuff and utilize their services.
"Obama wants to keep the risk in business privatized, but, based on this statement, wants the rewards to be socialized. The government, on the other hand, has the opposite approach in it's examples of "crony capitalism" - it has shown that, for the most part, it has no problem socializing the risk, but the rewards are then mostly privatized. How do you recover jobs and strengthen the economy when you rely on private business but you have this philosophy? More and more voters are thinking - you can't."
Great point. Thanks a lot for articulating what I was thinking----way better than I could. :-)
..but right now, the rewards are more privatized than ever (what with lower tax rates on corporations and the very wealthy)
...while the risks are more socialized than ever (bailing out banks and auto makers as exhibits one and two).
So, why not reverse those a bit, to bring things back to neutral?
Because I shop in a grocrry store doesnt mean I owe my life to stop & shop because well without them Id starve since I dont grow my own food. This giving credit for success to everyoen involved in creating an infrastructure honestly sounds just as extreme as that.
And saying that people own their own success and that someone who have the cajones to start a business has created his or her own success does NOT mean that one is also saying that anyone who doesnt do that is a lazy sack of shit. In part, we all make our own choices. I honestly think I could have a greater career than I do... make more money, have more professional success at a higher level etc if I had really wanted to. For many many reasons, that isnt what I want. I dont want to work the hours it requires and I am not willing to make the tradeoffs for my family that it requires. To loop in another hot topic - I dont WANT Marissa Mayer's life. That means I wont get the fame or money she has and I wont get to have lunch with Oscar de la Renta. That is fine because I have made different choices. (not saying I could have been her, I dont have the creativity etc innate that she probably does).
You are STILL saying that people who aren't rich or as successful are simply making different life choices. This is pretty much saying if you're poor, you're lazy. IT'S THE SAME THING! Poor people won't make choices to work harder or not spend time with family, so they're poor.
No. It is not the same thing. I actually said that i could NOT have beeing MM. I dont have the whatever she has innate. I could not make the choice to be her if I wanted. Within my own skill set and potential I probably could work harder and do more. I dont.
Plenty of people who are poor work hard. Pletny dont. Plenty of people who are well off work hard, plenty dont. My point is that being an entrepreneur takes a LOT of work that maybe not everyone is willing or able to do. I dont think that makes the rest of us lazy. The world doesnt need everyone to start a business.
Starting a business CAN yield great reward. It can also yield financial and personal ruin. Which is ONE part of the reason why not everyone does it.
My dad was in the Korean war, too. And he went to college on the GI bill. So, yeah. I actually know how that goes. This probably means both of our parents are roughly the same age. I always think it's odd when people who grew up during the Great Depression are so pro Social Darwinism. Do they not remember the Dust Bowl? Do they not recall the desperation of the Hoover years? Or maybe they figure that the reason 25% of the male workforce was unemployed was because 1 in 4 Americans was lazy and lacked an entrepreneurial spirit.
Sorry for the confusing bit there. He wasnt in the Korean War. He served in Korea during Vietnam. He was not alive for the great depression; he is a baby boomer.
So basically, you agree with Obama. But you really wish you didn't.
If he had said that, sure. But he didnt. The belief that people who dont like Obama think that the poor are lazy and the rich are the ones who work hard is not true and has never been.
Sorry for the confusing bit there. He wasnt in the Korean War. He served in Korea during Vietnam. He was not alive for the great depression; he is a baby boomer.
Well, that explains a ton. Fucking boomers.
Oh dont worry. My (late) WW2 Vet (he did enlist since we are talking about that lol) was also actually an entrepreneur. He started an electrical distributor company. This is on my mom's side. Not all people who lived through the depression have the same mentality... he made really poor financial decisions and ended his life completely destitute. Cautionary tale when told in full. But yeah, he was part of the "greatest generation." Was an entrepreneur. Who fwiw refused to help my father when he asked for help in starting his own business in case that is assumed.
Yeah fucking boomers, helping create jobs and all that. They really suck.
If he had said that, sure. But he didnt. The belief that people who dont like Obama think that the poor are lazy and the rich are the ones who work hard is not true and has never been.
I don't think that people who don't like Obama believe the poor are lazy. I think that people who believe in Social Darwinism, which is what you're espousing here, believe the poor are lazy. I find that offensive.
I don't think that people who don't like Obama believe the poor are lazy. I think that people who believe in Social Darwinism, which is what you're espousing here, believe the poor are lazy. I find that offensive.
Believing that not everyone has the personality and willingness to take the enormous risks involved in starting a business = the poor are lazy? Um no.
There are plenty of poor people who started businesses for one thing. New businesses have a really high failure rate. Which is why not everyone goes there.
I chuckle at all of this because without someone buying your product, you don't have a successful business. We're arguing over if someone helped the small business owner. Someone helped them alright, the people who buy their stuff and utilize their services.
Anywho, carry on!
But isn't this really a chicken, egg argument? If someone isn't taking the risk to put the product out there, people can't buy it.
I'm not saying that small business owners only have themselves to thank for their success, but they do hold a huge role in their own success. Not because they work harder, but because they take bigger risks than most of us are willing to take.
Post by downtoearth on Jul 19, 2012 11:03:31 GMT -5
What...WW2 vets and Korean war vets becoming an entrepreneur and social darwinism thinking people who are poor are lazy?!
The point of Obama's quote (not taken out of context...his exact point as he stated in his full speech) was, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
So the point was that we should unite together to succeed in business and government, but instead it's degenerated to an anecdotal discussion of who's dad worked harder to succeed? [Palm to head]
The Baby Boomer generation has, on the whole, been pretty reprehensible. They've bankrupted the country with unfunded wars and social programs that benefit solely them, polluted the waters and the sky, moved our jobs to India and Mexico, caused not one, but through rampant deregulation spurred on by unadulterated greed THREE near depressions including the instant one. And I know I'm not the only one on here with some Boomer hate. It is not a foregone conclusion that the Baby Boomers were the bestest thing ever to happen to America.
Except you said "that explains it. Fucking boomers" when I said "no, my father is a baby boomer." We werent talking about boomers in general. As if he is some awful example of a generation gone bad. The person I said started a successful business, worked really freakin hard and still does, and has the respect and appreciation of his employees for giving them great jobs with generous benefits in a nice work environment. But yeah fucking boomers. In my life, the members of the greatest generation were the ones to frittered away everything they had, ending their lives living off the state.
There are plenty of poor people who started businesses for one thing. New businesses have a really high failure rate. Which is why not everyone goes there.
I'd love to hear more about these poor people who start businesses. Anecdotally, everyone in my generation who's started a business has wealthy parents who can bankroll it for the first difficult years.
Not moving the target. that was what I said from the get go.
Trucking companies dont get credit for his success any more than his company gets credit for the trucking companies success. They both use one another but that doesnt mean that they own the others' success.
Needing roads doesnt mean that those who make them own the success of those who use them. Any more than road pavers owe their success to people who need the roads (ok that was awkward phrasing but Im trying to rush here).
We are looking at the same relationships - that yes, we live in a society and all use the services and goods others provide- and making different assumptions from them. I disagree that those relatinships mean that any success is also owned by the others. Not everyone has others lending a direct hand to them - some do and for those people, yes they should thank those people for their support. For those who dont, no, the people who pave the roads are important to a functioning society, no one is saying that their jobs dont matter or arent important. They are. But they are not directly responsible for the success of an entrepreneur.
I chuckle at all of this because without someone buying your product, you don't have a successful business. We're arguing over if someone helped the small business owner. Someone helped them alright, the people who buy their stuff and utilize their services.
Anywho, carry on!
But isn't this really a chicken, egg argument? If someone isn't taking the risk to put the product out there, people can't buy it.
I'm not saying that small business owners only have themselves to thank for their success, but they do hold a huge role in their own success. Not because they work harder, but because they take bigger risks than most of us are willing to take.
The argument here is "I did it BY MYSELF!! Ain't NOBODY HELP ME DO ISH!!"
No one is disputing: 1. Small Business Owners Assume Great Risk 2. Small Business Owners Are Fantastic For Doing What They Do (Go SBO!)
The crux here is - SBOs had some level of help. No matter how much risk you take, someone has to 1) buy the product and like it enough to tell other people to go buy your stuff or 2) small business loans or other assistance.
I really don't understand why this has people so pissy. You have the gumption to start something, but it doesn't become successful just because you started it or thought it up.
You can see it as chicken and egg thing if you want, but I really don't see it that way. Even if your product is needed, if the marketing is poor, or you can't get the loan to get your business off the ground, or whatever other tool you need to get the word out about your product, you won't succeed.
Not moving the target. that was what I said from the get go.
Trucking companies dont get credit for his success any more than his company gets credit for the trucking companies success. They both use one another but that doesnt mean that they own the others' success.
Needing roads doesnt mean that those who make them own the success of those who use them. Any more than road pavers owe their success to people who need the roads (ok that was awkward phrasing but Im trying to rush here).
We are looking at the same relationships - that yes, we live in a society and all use the services and goods others provide- and making different assumptions from them. I disagree that those relatinships mean that any success is also owned by the others. Not everyone has others lending a direct hand to them - some do and for those people, yes they should thank those people for their support. For those who dont, no, the people who pave the roads are important to a functioning society, no one is saying that their jobs dont matter or arent important. They are. But they are not directly responsible for the success of an entrepreneur.
What entrepreneurs have been successful without any help from anyone else?
There are plenty of poor people who started businesses for one thing. New businesses have a really high failure rate. Which is why not everyone goes there.
I'd love to hear more about these poor people who start businesses. Anecdotally, everyone in my generation who's started a business has wealthy parents who can bankroll it for the first difficult years.
That was a somewhat tongue in cheek comment meaning that people who started businesses are now poor after said business failed.
Anecdotally, my dad was not POOR but wasnt rich at all either. Very solidly middle class. And he has basically no relationship wtih his family, and his in laws refused to help him. Not every business is bankrolled by rich family. He mortgaged the house and cancelled everything extra, made sacrifices and the company started very small in his house.
I chuckle at all of this because without someone buying your product, you don't have a successful business. We're arguing over if someone helped the small business owner. Someone helped them alright, the people who buy their stuff and utilize their services.
Anywho, carry on!
But isn't this really a chicken, egg argument? If someone isn't taking the risk to put the product out there, people can't buy it.
I'm not saying that small business owners only have themselves to thank for their success, but they do hold a huge role in their own success. Not because they work harder, but because they take bigger risks than most of us are willing to take.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with kateaggie I think it takes both a supportive govt and an entrepreneur to make a business work. Govt creates business- friendly policies and support, but at the end of the day, the entrepreneur is risking almost EVERYTHING to make a business work. So while I do agree with what obama said in its full context, I think he's not giving business owners enough credit, either.
Post by mominatrix on Jul 19, 2012 11:20:47 GMT -5
Honestly, I fail to see how a business could possibly become remotely successful without the following:
...customers to buy products.
...schools to educate workers and customers (cuz, if they can't read your labels, or have jobs to earn money, they can't buy your shit)
...police forces to be sure nobody is smashing in your windows and stealing your shit
...fire departments to be sure that your shit doesn't burn to the ground in a warehouse
...patent laws and procedures to be sure nobody is infringing on your intellectual property rights
...courts to allow you to sue people who fuck with you
...regulatory agencies to be sure that the materials you're buying are actually what they claim they are and will do what your suppliers claim they will do. Also, to be sure your drinking water won't kill you or your workers.
...other businesses, small and large, to distribute your shit
...state and federal departments of transportation to be sure that there are roads, bridges, and the like to be sure your shit can actually get to your customers
...see, also, postal services.
ETC, ETC ETC
...and, yes, individuals use those services, too... but not as much as businesses do. There are whole rafts of government that are meant to support the machinery of business. Now, I'm not enough of a commie to say that we should tear all that down... but I think it's disingenuous in the extreme to try to claim that none of it exists, or that somehow the middle class uses as much of it as the 1%.
But isn't this really a chicken, egg argument? If someone isn't taking the risk to put the product out there, people can't buy it.
I'm not saying that small business owners only have themselves to thank for their success, but they do hold a huge role in their own success. Not because they work harder, but because they take bigger risks than most of us are willing to take.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with kateaggie I think it takes both a supportive govt and an entrepreneur to make a business work. Govt creates business- friendly policies and support, but at the end of the day, the entrepreneur is risking almost EVERYTHING to make a business work. So while I do agree with what obama said in its full context, I think he's not giving business owners enough credit, either.
I'm not completely disagreeing with her either. All I'm saying is that, there was a level of help here. Again, this goes back to the Bootstraps mentality of Ain't Nobody HELP ME!!!!!!!!!! And that's just not entirely the case - SBOs, local tax incentives, Federal tax incentives, the ability to write off loss on your taxes, consumers, family support, etc. are needed to get your SBO off the ground.
I'd like to say ain't nobody help me either - but it's not true. The women who fought to get the right to vote, suffragists, the black folk who came before me and paved the way, the professor that gave me a recommendation ... etc., etc. Yes, I interviewed. Yes I did the work, but someone was a mentor and gave me a helping hand.
But isn't this really a chicken, egg argument? If someone isn't taking the risk to put the product out there, people can't buy it.
I'm not saying that small business owners only have themselves to thank for their success, but they do hold a huge role in their own success. Not because they work harder, but because they take bigger risks than most of us are willing to take.
The argument here is "I did it BY MYSELF!! Ain't NOBODY HELP ME DO ISH!!"
No one is disputing: 1. Small Business Owners Assume Great Risk 2. Small Business Owners Are Fantastic For Doing What They Do (Go SBO!)
The crux here is - SBOs had some level of help. No matter how much risk you take, someone has to 1) buy the product and like it enough to tell other people to go buy your stuff or 2) small business loans or other assistance.
I really don't understand why this has people so pissy. You have the gumption to start something, but it doesn't become successful just because you started it or thought it up.
You can see it as chicken and egg thing if you want, but I really don't see it that way. Even if your product is needed, if the marketing is poor, or you can't get the loan to get your business off the ground, or whatever other tool you need to get the word out about your product, you won't succeed.
No, I think the problem is you hear him say "you didn't do this by yourself." I hear him say "you didn't do anything more than anyone else." So my argument isn't that SBOs are an island, my argument is that SBOs have to be willing to swim in a new area, while people like me prefer to swim where it's safe. We may swim the same distance, but the SBO takes the path of greater risk, and deserves to be rewarded more than me if they don't get eaten by Jaws.
Post by EllieArroway on Jul 19, 2012 11:35:07 GMT -5
I honestly can't fathom why some people are offended by him saying that no one did it on their own. He isn't saying that business owners don't get any credit for their successes, he's saying that EVERYONE has had help from society to get where they are and it's time that we start recognizing that instead of pretending that a person's success or failure depends solely on how hard they work.
methinks meg is espousing the glory of what she THINKS her father deals with, but the reality is much more "shared" than she realizes.
This is what I'm getting at, really.
The government is so intertwined into our every day lives (which is both good and bad) that saying wholesale that a business owner hasn't had any help at all is just shooting your argument in the foot and shows a lack of being able to look at the big picture. Whether people realize it or not, the government DOES help small business owners, and I'm not talking about the infrastructure that enables the business to run.
No, I think the problem is you hear him say "you didn't do this by yourself." I hear him say "you didn't do anything more than anyone else."
Where do you get that he is saying that, though? I mean, in the actual quote he credits individual initiative as well as societal help, so I don't understand why some of you are thinking that he is saying no one does more than anyone else.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."