🚀 go-pugleaf

I appreciate a reasoned response that uses logic instead of
emotionalism for the sake of driving the points. 

Fact is, I was quite happy to see you start a sentence:
>Ford no, 
since that tells me you have been doing a bit of reading. I just hope
that for a dystopian contrast to the world of love and soma you did
not leave out Orwell, who has a much darker view.  The fruition of
such a dark view i think now was averted largely by our becoming a
throwaway society, which is also found in Huxley's AF.

But on your points --

Captains of Industry:
Perhaps i should have said 'some' instead of 'most'.
And yes, it is quite possible that our definitions of captains of
industry do differ quite a bit.  Most of the ones i can think made
their fortunes or started in the 19th century.
Hmmm....Carnegie,Rockefeller,Morgan come to mind, but there were as
many more.

Socio-economic mobility:

I maintain that there is some mobility even within the blacks, i can
say nothing about the northern irish.
It may be as you say 'exceptions to the rule', but Colin Powell didn't
get where he is by hanging on the public tit.

Cultural differences.  I can't help but see the success around me, and
have read statistics that were astounding, concerning the
asian-american immigrants.  First wave, or their children for sure.
Now it seems that their cultural traditions are about as far from
Americans as possible.
 
A view from the side -- Did you ever notice how many of the really
rich of the 19th century became great philanthropists in their old
age?  Since i was young i have had a theory that perhaps some of them
were trying to assuage the guilt they had of their ruthless business
life.  (Hey, pretty liberal, eh.)

Now, we must assume a frictionless surface..........


On 22 Oct 2000 21:45:43 GMT, sport death <pointy1@angband.org> wrote:

>jim patterson <jrp32@nospambellsouth.net> said on git.general:
>
>> Sorry but experience in life, not in listening to what others say life
>> is, shows me a very different story.
>
>I agree.  And actually I have some first and experience and some
>secondhand experience with these things.  Plus I've done plenty of
>reading on the subjects.  
>
>Experience is very good.  But it's also good to hear from others to get
>different points of view.
>
>> Many of the poor of the past have been able to rise out of their
>> situations.  That is hardly immobile.
>
>But we're talking about two groups who haven't:  the blacks in this country
>and the Irish (more specifically the N. Irish) in GB.  Just because
>other groups of poor people were able to rise out (often in spite of
>social barriers) doesn't exclude other groups from not rising out.  
>
>In this country, the typical pattern is that the first generation (after
>immigrating) is poor and probably will not move up from that.  Part of
>the reason for this is probably due to not fitting in with the culture.
>Often immigrants will hang onto the customs of the Old Country and
>simply won't be able to completely adjust.  I could go live the rest of
>my life in France or Egypt or Australia and never truly fit in.  Plus,
>there's usually a language barrier with the new immigrants.  The second
>and third generations have the benefit of growing up in this country and
>growing up with American customs and not so much of the influence of the
>Old Country and subsequently are able to land better jobs and go further
>in society.
>
>Blacks in this country still have social barriers that they have to
>face.  If they didn't, then affirmative action would not be an issue
>(and no, I don't think affirmative action is a great way to break the
>cycle of poverty).  There is still racism in this country and there is
>still prejudice against those who are of the black race.  There is still
>segregation in this country, too.  I know in my neighboorhood growing up
>that everyone was white.  It is/was a nice middle class neighboorhood,
>but no blacks.  Now there are I think 3 black families living there.
>But I remember a lot of talk about how "property values" were going to
>go down just before that first black family moved in.  
>
>As for the N. Irish, the area is poor.  There aren't many jobs there.
>For the most part, you live and you die in the same place, and you don't
>have many choices as far as getting jobs.  There's a pretty good chance
>that you won't be college educated.  There's a pretty good chance that
>you will drink in the same pub that your daddy drinks at.  And not
>everyone can just pick up and move to a place where there is a job.
>
>> Although i am sure the Captains of Industry have been painted as evil
>> capitalists to you, you will find that most of them, not all, had very
>> poor childhoods.
>
>Ford no, I like being poisoned and sold out for the sake of someone
>else's profit.
>
>Andrew Carnegie is a good example of a poverty stricken lad who made
>some nice dough in his life.  If I remember correctly, it was kind of a
>fluke:  apparently as a boy he saved the life of someone important and
>that person taught him Morse code and he was then able to get a job as a
>telegraph operator which lead him on the fath to fortune.
>
>I dispute your figures that most had poor childhoods, though.  Yes,
>there are some who did, but I doubt that it would be most.  I would
>think most came from middle to upper class families.  Then again, you
>could be using a different defininion of "Captians of Industry".  
>
>It is possible for some people to go from being dirt poor to fabulously
>rich (and vice-versa), but I think you'll find that is very rare, even
>in our "free" and "classless" society.
>
>I also think you're misusing your statistics:  let's assume for a moment
>that 90% of the upper 1% of our society did start out poor.  Saying that
>there is significant social mobility is making an incorrect assumption
>for not taking into account the other 99% of the population's mobility.
>You've only proven that it is possible to go from being dirt poor to
>filthy rich.  
>
>
>> But all the sociologist types continually harp on how once poor,
>> always poor, throughout the succeeding generations.
>
>> Sorry, it just ain't so.
>
>I never said that once poor, always poor was a general rule for
>everyone, only that it seems to be the case for blacks in this country
>and the N. Irish.  And even in those cases there are exceptions to the
>rule.  
>
>I'm merely trying to point out that despite your beliefs to the
>opposite, there might be social causes at play.  You sound almost like a
>fizzix teacher start a problem with "assume a frictionless surface..."