Kevin's Watch

As a business owner, I am acutely aware of start up costs. The guy I was writing about does this out of his house and makes everything from scratch.

Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence...

I prefer factual anecdotes:

I ordered box lunches for my employees. We had an extra. Here are some pics:www.flickr.com/photos/37harbinger73/

Make sandwich=Make $$$$

The guy does this out of his house.
So could you.

Harbinger and Malik:
You guys seem to have a never ending need to label everybody who does not fulfill the american dream as lazy and useless.

Harbingers line "Everybody wants somebody else to do it for them" is a clear example of that.

Saying that everyone can make it big regardless of starting oportunities, and judging them because they don't, is turning the blind eye/ignoring the vastly different starting opportunities that people have. But I know you like to do that. That's the crux of ignoring any degree comon responsibility and placing 100% responsible on the individual.

This whole thread has turned into a contest into who can start from scratchest, and hold most contempt for those who don't make it.

Harbinger wrote:As a business owner, I am acutely aware of start up costs. The guy I was writing about does this out of his house and makes everything from scratch.

Surely gentleman needs a place to make sandwhiches which has been approved by the board of health. Possibly he needs permits in order to sell food and to obtain those BOH inspections. Etc. Etc.

I'm not disagreeing that its a kind of start-up that many people could accomplish if they choose. I am disagreeing that someone truly poor could do it. They wouldn't have a house, for starters.

Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that the people who have started their own businesses, and survived the process whereby all but a few such enterprises thrive and succeed, tend to look back and say what amounts to "anyone could do it" --- when it is the farthest thing from true. Looking back, the path may be clear, but that's a view from a mountaintop that very few get to reach. Many others start the climb, and fall away.

How many box lunch makers are in your community? If there were a thousand of them, how many would remain viable for a significant amount of time? Is the market large enough to support such a number of vendors? If not, then "sandwhiches == $$" is a gross oversimplification. Your sandwhich maker, perhaps unwittingly, relied on finding a market where there was an open niche. That's a resource; that's a cost.

I have to agree with Prebe, although perhaps not as vehemently.

Perhaps if we put it this way: Are there circumstances under which you would agree that it is not the fault of the individual for not being successful?

--A

Too many sandwiches? Sell a pie, trim a bush. In the USA, someone truly poor can mow grass, walk dogs, pick up dog shit from yards, babysit, clean gutters, rake leaves, paint, collect junk, do farm labor, canvass, clean houses, etc., etc. The list is as big as your imagination.

I absolutely hate Hillary Clinton, but I respect her for something- How she earned her seat in the senate. She went door to door throughout New York and sold herself to voters.

Anyone in this country with the ability to communicate can go door to door and sell a labor based service that they can personally do. A hustler would do this while working a job and leave the job when demand allowed.

Motivation=$$$$

EDIT:

Perhaps if we put it this way: Are there circumstances under which you would agree that it is not the fault of the individual for not being successful?

I'll have to think on this. My first response was, in the USA- No.

Prebe wrote:Harbinger and Malik:
You guys seem to have a never ending need to label everybody who does not fulfill the american dream as lazy and useless.

I don't believe I've called anyone lazy or useless (lately ), but certainly there are millions of lazy people in the world. You disagree? Laziness has been eradicated from the human psyche? We can all be lazy. Even people who go to work everyday can find ways to give the very least amount of effort. We all see coworkers who do just this. After all, we are all posting on the Internet when we could be earning a buck.

However, I know that bad luck and adversity can strike people. As I've said up-thread, I've been extremely poor myself.

But let's flip this coin. Let's look at the other side. If success isn't a choice, then all the 100s of millions of people who are successful didn't work for it? They didn't choose actions which led them to it? They did exactly the same thing poor people did, and yet miraculously ended up prosperous? If success isn't a choice, then how do you account for it? Pure luck? Is that how you explain your own accomplishments, too?

Saying that everyone can make it big regardless of starting oportunities, and judging them because they don't, is turning the blind eye/ignoring the vastly different starting opportunities that people have. But I know you like to do that. That's the crux of ignoring any degree comon responsibility and placing 100% responsible on the individual.

I'm not saying everyone can make it "big," though in America and other capitalist countries, more people than ever before have the opportunity to do so. I'm just saying "make it." Support themselves. On their own. A huge slice of our global population is doing just that. And the ones who are doing it are the ones with the highest standard of living. I'm not *judging* people . . . I want them to have the same prosperity as we do!

But let's talk about your own judgment of them. You think that they don't have the ability to rise above their circumstances. You think they are victims helpless to help themselves, that their choices don't matter as much as yours, because their choices can't ever possibly turn their lives around. What about that judgment of people? I have more optimism in the human potential than you do--my "judgment" of them is a lot more positive.

You think some people have a different starting point? Well, I acknowledge that. But people can rise above their circumstances.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help them do it. I'm just saying the best way to help them become prosperous is to help them become more like us. Help them help themselves, by exporting capitalism and giving them jobs. Make them productive. Give that little Thai girl a choice besides prostitution. What's the alternative? Wealth redistribution? Well, we're already giving billions in charity. Enforced wealth redistribution through taxation isn't the way to do it.

This whole thread has turned into a contest into who can start from scratchest, and hold most contempt for those who don't make it.

Contempt. Disdain. Hatred. Honestly, I don't see where you guys are seeing these emotions. I think you're talking about your own feelings, not mine.

Avatar wrote: Are there circumstances under which you would agree that it is not the fault of the individual for not being successful?

--A

I don't think either of us has explicitly assigned blame for failure. We've noted a prescription for success. That's not exactly the same thing.

However, I do think you can blame people in America, a country where people who don't even speak the language can sneak in, make a 1000 mile journey through desert, border police, and too many other obstacles to name--they can come here a prosper even more than many of the legal inhabitants. You guys want to talk about starting points? What about that one? What about the people who start off with worse conditions--living in Mexico--and still manage to rise above people with better starting points here in America? You can't explain it without talking about drive and motivation. Sacrifice and choices.

I will conceded however that there are people who face obstacles bigger than themselves. That's why I said we should help them. And, again, the best way to help them is to help them help themselves. Not only does this get the job done faster, but it gives them a sense of pride and accomplishment that doesn't come from wealth redistribution.

wayfriend wrote:I am disagreeing that someone truly poor could do it. They wouldn't have a house, for starters.

Am I detecting a certain disdain toward these people? A lack of faith?

wayfriend wrote:Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that the people who have started their own businesses, and survived the process whereby all but a few such enterprises thrive and succeed, tend to look back and say what amounts to "anyone could do it" --- when it is the farthest thing from true. Looking back, the path may be clear, but that's a view from a mountaintop that very few get to reach. Many others start the climb, and fall away.

Ye of so little faith in others...

It's hard work to build a business. Falling away is not limited to the poor. But success among the poor can and has been accomplished. And will be again. In spite of your smug prognostications that it is the farthest thing from true., to turn your own words back on you.

wayfriend wrote:How many box lunch makers are in your community? If there were a thousand of them, how many would remain viable for a significant amount of time? Is the market large enough to support such a number of vendors? If not, then "sandwiches == $$" is a gross oversimplification. Your sandwich maker, perhaps unwittingly, relied on finding a market where there was an open niche. That's a resource; that's a cost.

Open niches are not restricted to sandwiches. There are many such niches in our economy. Limited only by imagination.

Farsailer wrote:It's hard work to build a business. Falling away is not limited to the poor. But success among the poor can and has been accomplished.

I agree. I disagree with the assertion that anyone (rich or poor) can start their own business and assuredly succeed. Which you seem to agree with. So then, if follows that the assertion that anyone - specifically a poor anyone - can start their own business and assurredly succeed - and that WAS the premise I was responding to! - is something I would disagree with.

Farsailer wrote:Open niches are not restricted to sandwiches. There are many such niches in our economy. Limited only by imagination.

I agree. I don't agree that there is a niche for everyone making sandwhiches. Which you seem to agree with. But that was the original assertion. Sandwiches == $$ and all that.

WF is right that not everyone can succeed. I have a guy working for me that used to do what I do now. He can't hold a business together. I'm asserting that there are almost unlimited opportunities for success in the USA.

How can you not compete for a job with someone who can't speak English?

I do have contempt for many of our nation's poor. I have seen them first hand at a homeless shelter, as an equal, and that's when I decided to sleep in my car for a while. They don't want help, they want handouts. Maybe the way they grew up wasn't their fault, but the way they live as adults is.

It's not that hard to change your life. You can do it now. You could make a choice right this minute to alter your future. That's why most of us are fat. It's easy to be fat. It's hard to stay fit. Diets are a billion dollar industry because people can't choose to be fit and commit to it.

Life is really about habits, when you think about it. And good habits generally require more effort and sacrifice than bad habits. But guess what? It only takes about 21 days to make or break a habit. I read of a man who every day looks at a cigarette and asks it, "who is stronger, you or me?" Hey, whatever it takes. Good job, bro.

wayfriend wrote:

Farsailer wrote:It's hard work to build a business. Falling away is not limited to the poor. But success among the poor can and has been accomplished.

I agree. I disagree with the assertion that anyone (rich or poor) can start their own business and assuredly succeed. Which you seem to agree with. So then, if follows that the assertion that anyone - specifically a poor anyone - can start their own business and assurredly succeed - and that WAS the premise I was responding to! - is something I would disagree with.

Farsailer wrote:Open niches are not restricted to sandwiches. There are many such niches in our economy. Limited only by imagination.

I agree. I don't agree that there is a niche for everyone making sandwhiches. Which you seem to agree with. But that was the original assertion. Sandwiches == $$ and all that.

I started my own business....and failed...due to the failure of one my major clients, due to rising gas prices. Success is not a guarantee.

Harbinger wrote:

How can you not compete for a job with someone who can't speak English?

That's easy. Farmers truck in non English speaking workers all the time because they can afford to survive for pennies.

When I was in my early 20's I tried to be an air traffic controller and was told not to be bother because I was white and they hadn't filled their quota of minority hires.

It's easy to get beat by someone who has language issues.

Having working in the tobacco fields of Kentucky alongside Hispanics, and having employed hundreds of them as a contractor, I can tell you that they are better workers. They have the work ethic and attitude of our ancestors- the ones who came here for opportunity. In many industries, they make just as much as we would. And they beat out English speaking welfare recipients for these jobs.

When I was in my early 20's I tried to be an air traffic controller and was told not to be bother because I was white and they hadn't filled their quota of minority hires.

And you let that stop you? How many airports did you apply to? Would a stint in the military with training have helped you achieve your goal? I got a buddy that's an investment banker. Non Ivy League education didn't stop him. MBA from University of Kentucky. He sent 100 query letters to 100 frims and got three responses which led to two interviews and one job. Lehman Bros. Guaranteed 1.1 million for three years. He is now a vice-president with Think Equity Partners. Grew up in a four room Kentucky farmhouse. Destined to be a redneck. Did that stop him? Nope.

Malik23 wrote: I will conceded however that there are people who face obstacles bigger than themselves. That's why I said we should help them. And, again, the best way to help them is to help them help themselves. Not only does this get the job done faster, but it gives them a sense of pride and accomplishment that doesn't come from wealth redistribution.

There ya go. That's about all I was looking for thanks. And I agree, on all counts, including help them to help themselves.

Harbinger asserts that there are almost unlimited opportunities for success in the US, and again I'm going to agree because I'm sure there are.

But, as Malik said, there are some obstacles that some people cannot overcome. That doesn't make them automatically stupid or lazy or worthless (not that anybody is saying they have to be).

And for some of those people, (and many more in the wider world), succeeding is getting enough every day for their family to eat. And that is a kind of success too. And there are people that cannot even achieve that, but it still doesn't mean they're not doing the best they can.

Everything and everyone is different for everybody. Remember, it's all just life doing its best.

--A

Good post Avatar.

And Malik, sorry for making assumptions about your feelings toward those who don't make it.

The only point I was trying to make (in a somewhat shrill voice, which I appologize) was: I am sure that the "success is a choice" bumper sticker makes it easier for people to abdicate themselves of all responsibility toward the community. Now, you may feel that we as individuals have no responsibility toward the community (in the shape of the well being and productivity of your fellow man), in which case we differ.

Though I like your idea about helping those who are off to a poor start, I have to doubt your sincerity if your wallet stays in your pocket

Malik wrote:But let's flip this coin. Let's look at the other side. If success isn't a choice, then all the 100s of millions of people who are successful didn't work for it?

I'm sure you'll agree that it is a truism that some of those worked themselves to death, and some of them worked very little or not at all (born to wealth). And all things in between the two extremes. THAT's why the one size fits all bumper sticker "Success is a choice" is bollocks.

My accomplishments? They were made easy by intelligent, loving parents and a safe childhood, a good school and (in all modesty) and a good genetical disposition for learning and reasoning. Take all those away, and I might as well have ended up in the street, and I doubt that I would have had the psyche to pull myself out of it. I know some do, and that's excellent, but let's not ignore those who don't, by saying "Success is a choice".

Malik wrote:I have more optimism in the human potential than you do

And due to that optimism, people without your mental and physical drive and stamina are dying in the gutter. The american dream is built on the dogma that everybody is created equal; everybody isn't. Neither from a material, physical or mental point of view.

Harbinger wrote:Having working in the tobacco fields of Kentucky alongside Hispanics, and having employed hundreds of them as a contractor, I can tell you that they are better workers. They have the work ethic and attitude of our ancestors- the ones who came here for opportunity. In many industries, they make just as much as we would. And they beat out English speaking welfare recipients for these jobs.

When I was in my early 20's I tried to be an air traffic controller and was told not to be bother because I was white and they hadn't filled their quota of minority hires.

And you let that stop you? How many airports did you apply to? Would a stint in the military with training have helped you achieve your goal? I got a buddy that's an investment banker. Non Ivy League education didn't stop him. MBA from University of Kentucky. He sent 100 query letters to 100 frims and got three responses which led to two interviews and one job. Lehman Bros. Guaranteed 1.1 million for three years. He is now a vice-president with Think Equity Partners. Grew up in a four room Kentucky farmhouse. Destined to be a redneck. Did that stop him? Nope.

Back then, you didn't apply to airports, you applied to the Federal Government (this was before deregulation of the controllers). And when the Federal Government says to you "yes, we know you scored in the 98th percentile but we don't have room for you right now because we have minority quotas to meet", where would you suggest I should have gone?

And I'm glad for your buddy. Way to go (high five!).

Prebe wrote:I am sure that the "success is a choice" bumper sticker makes it easier for people to abdicate themselves of all responsibility toward the community. Now, you may feel that we as individuals have no responsibility toward the community (in the shape of the well being and productivity of your fellow man), in which case we differ.

You are correct. I don't think I have a responsibility to the welfare of my fellow man. How can I be responsible for something I didn't cause or do? You might as well hold me responsible for the weather. Why am I responsible for anyone besides myself and my children? Where does that responsibility come from?

Though I like your idea about helping those who are off to a poor start, I have to doubt your sincerity if your wallet stays in your pocket

You have no idea how much I give to charity. Or how much my taxes go to helping others. Or how I choose to spend my money (which sustains people's jobs and provides them a living.)

But if you think my wallet is the gauge of my sincerity, you have missed my point. I said the best way to help people is to help them help themselves. How does that involve my wallet or my pocket? I'd like to help them in a way that they are not dependent upon my wallet. Or my sincerity. If they are producing their own living, then it relieves me of the necessity of supporting them. That's the whole point.

Malik wrote:But let's flip this coin. Let's look at the other side. If success isn't a choice, then all the 100s of millions of people who are successful didn't work for it?

I'm sure you'll agree that it is a truism that some of those worked themselves to death, and some of them worked very little or not at all (born to wealth). And all things in between the two extremes. THAT's why the one size fits all bumper sticker "Success is a choice" is bollocks.

You are pointing to the aberrations, rather than the norm. Most people aren't born into wealth. I assume none of us here were. I also assume most of us here are supporting ourselves. How did that happen? How did it come about that you were able to support yourself and your family? Your choices were the single largest factor in that outcome.

Perhaps my bumper sticker doesn't "fit all sizes," but that's only when looking at the relatively few exceptions. And notice that your exceptions are the ones at the "rich" end of this spectrum, not the poor end. I'm not talking about those people. We're talking about how to make poor people better off. It IS a truism that the person with the most power to change your circumstances is you.

If we can define "success" as supporting yourself and your family, 99% of the people who are able to do this are doing through their own efforts. And by supporting my family, I'm removing them from the "we need society to take care of us" group. Thus, my responsibility to my fellow man is fulfilled. I'm not burdening any of you with my needs, or my existence. You're welcome.

Sorry man, that sucks. My brother went to medical school (University of Louisville) with 3 minority women who got to take less courses per year than everyone else and complete med school in 5 years not 4.