Nah. I reject that. I have no problem saying I was wrong, but nah to this. Define "independently wealthy" for me. I'll define it...enough money coming in from somewhere to pay your bills. If someone is getting enough assistance to pay their bills, that qualifies. Now, I COULD decide that someone like that taking money from the government is a "freeloader", but I actually don't think so, so I won't make that case, BUT, if I just wanted to be right, I could easily take that stance. So, "independently wealthy" is it for this circumstance. People do not and can not just sit at home because they don't want to work (for any extended period of time) without having some money coming in in some form, either legally or illegally.
Wow, Greg is independently wealthy by this definition.
Just because a definition doesn’t match your poorly thought out argument doesn’t mean you can just redefine it.
Well, he actually is. He has not control over that money, but he has a roof over his head and enough money to put food on the table the rest of his life. So, yeah, independently wealthy. No redefining on my part. You not understanding is the thing.
Wow, Greg is independently wealthy by this definition.
Just because a definition doesn’t match your poorly thought out argument doesn’t mean you can just redefine it.
Well, he actually is. He has not control over that money, but he has a roof over his head and enough money to put food on the table the rest of his life. So, yeah, independently wealthy. No redefining on my part. You not understanding is the thing.
Who knew welfare recipients were actually independently wealthy. Good for them! I suppose the incarcerated also fall into that category as well?
Well, he actually is. He has not control over that money, but he has a roof over his head and enough money to put food on the table the rest of his life. So, yeah, independently wealthy. No redefining on my part. You not understanding is the thing.
Who knew welfare recipients were actually independently wealthy. Good for them! I suppose the incarcerated also fall into that category as well?
Its easy to always be right when you make up definitions to words to suit your purpose.
My Dad pays for our food and I've moved in with them. That said, in Canada the government can subsidize someone like myself if they leave a job for eldercare, but as I was laid off at the beginning of the Covid shutdowns I didn't qualify. I have some retirement savings, but will be forced to use them at some point as I very much doubt that retirement is any longer in the cards for me. Things can happen and they can happen fast, I sure hope no one else on this board has to go through this kind of stress.
Ok. You are obviously defensive about this. You fall into category #1. Not exactly "wealthy", but you are "subsidized" for the time being. I think you miss the whole point. The point is that people do not and can not just decide not to work because they don't want to. Money has to come from somewhere. One of the below 4 categories is where the money comes from (or doesn't come from as MIGHT be the case with homeless people, though many get money through begging).
1) Independently wealthy. If so, then more power to them. They can do with that wealth what they want. 2) Freeloaders. Someone is enabling them. Bad enablers, bad! 3) Homeless. Well, that's not good and throws up the possibility that they are not mentally able to get a job. 4) Criminals. There have been cases where people have lived in the woods or in a tent or whatever and stole what they needed for years.
I apologize for seeming defensive, I suspect I'm more likely depressed. I wish I had your confidence as you always seem so strong despite so many posters taking issue with you. How do you handle major misfortunes in your life? I assume you are not immune to trouble? This is an honest question from someone who really could use a bit of advice.
Ok. You are obviously defensive about this. You fall into category #1. Not exactly "wealthy", but you are "subsidized" for the time being. I think you miss the whole point. The point is that people do not and can not just decide not to work because they don't want to. Money has to come from somewhere. One of the below 4 categories is where the money comes from (or doesn't come from as MIGHT be the case with homeless people, though many get money through begging).
1) Independently wealthy. If so, then more power to them. They can do with that wealth what they want. 2) Freeloaders. Someone is enabling them. Bad enablers, bad! 3) Homeless. Well, that's not good and throws up the possibility that they are not mentally able to get a job. 4) Criminals. There have been cases where people have lived in the woods or in a tent or whatever and stole what they needed for years.
I apologize for seeming defensive, I suspect I'm more likely depressed. I wish I had your confidence as you always seem so strong despite so many posters taking issue with you. How do you handle major misfortunes in your life? I assume you are not immune to trouble? This is an honest question from someone who really could use a bit of advice.
Regardless of whether you are trolling here, I can honestly say I've never had any major misfortunes in my life. I recognize that I've been fortunate. I am smarter than the vast majority of people through no work of my own. I am fortunate to be born in the US. No one in my family has even died at a relatively young age. Both of my parents are alive and healthy and over 80. Same with my in-laws (though I think my MIL is 79). I have great relationships with my siblings and their families. I have the best wife ever. The company I started did well right from day 1. I've never been laid off or unemployed since I was a junior in high school. My kids are brilliant and talented and successful. I have hobbies I enjoy (running, guitar, piano, parkour, bowling, traveling, Wordle and the like, Tower Defense Games). Part of my view here is just that I am a grateful person, but I look at the misfortune of others around the world and even people here in the US, and I have nothing to complain about in my personal life.
Well, he actually is. He has not control over that money, but he has a roof over his head and enough money to put food on the table the rest of his life. So, yeah, independently wealthy. No redefining on my part. You not understanding is the thing.
Who knew welfare recipients were actually independently wealthy. Good for them! I suppose the incarcerated also fall into that category as well?
You people are funny. I'm not trying to just be right here. Not how I roll. I'll be glad to add a category if that would make you happy. It's not the categories that matter...it's the point of my initial post on this topic that people don't just decide to stay out of the work place unless their expenses are taken care of. Got another category to add, just let me know.
So, to make you happy, let's add a 5th category:
1) Independently wealthy. If so, then more power to them. They can do with that wealth what they want.
2) Freeloaders. Someone is enabling them. Bad enablers, bad!
3) Homeless. Well, that's not good and throws up the possibility that they are not mentally able to get a job.
4) Criminals (this would include incarcerated people, because they are housed and fed). There have been cases where people have lived in the woods or in a tent or whatever and stole what they needed for years.
5) People on Government Assistance. If all of their bills are covered, there is not a need to work.
Who knew welfare recipients were actually independently wealthy. Good for them! I suppose the incarcerated also fall into that category as well?
You people are funny. I'm not trying to just be right here. Not how I roll. I'll be glad to add a category if that would make you happy. It's not the categories that matter...it's the point of my initial post on this topic that people don't just decide to stay out of the work place unless their expenses are taken care of. Got another category to add, just let me know.
So, to make you happy, let's add a 5th category:
1) Independently wealthy. If so, then more power to them. They can do with that wealth what they want.
2) Freeloaders. Someone is enabling them. Bad enablers, bad!
3) Homeless. Well, that's not good and throws up the possibility that they are not mentally able to get a job.
4) Criminals (this would include incarcerated people, because they are housed and fed). There have been cases where people have lived in the woods or in a tent or whatever and stole what they needed for years.
5) People on Government Assistance. If all of their bills are covered, there is not a need to work.
What an interesting way to admit you were wrong. I hope you can continue to have a fortunate life and become wealthy to join the likes of Bill Gates, Greg (the dogkicker), or an inmate with a life sentence. All on equal footing as the independently wealthy!
You people are funny. I'm not trying to just be right here. Not how I roll. I'll be glad to add a category if that would make you happy. It's not the categories that matter...it's the point of my initial post on this topic that people don't just decide to stay out of the work place unless their expenses are taken care of. Got another category to add, just let me know.
So, to make you happy, let's add a 5th category:
1) Independently wealthy. If so, then more power to them. They can do with that wealth what they want.
2) Freeloaders. Someone is enabling them. Bad enablers, bad!
3) Homeless. Well, that's not good and throws up the possibility that they are not mentally able to get a job.
4) Criminals (this would include incarcerated people, because they are housed and fed). There have been cases where people have lived in the woods or in a tent or whatever and stole what they needed for years.
5) People on Government Assistance. If all of their bills are covered, there is not a need to work.
What an interesting way to admit you were wrong. I hope you can continue to have a fortunate life and become wealthy to join the likes of Bill Gates, Greg (the dogkicker), or an inmate with a life sentence. All on equal footing as the independently wealthy!
Nah...not wrong. The POINT I was making is correct. I accepted an amendment to the list.
You people are funny. I'm not trying to just be right here. Not how I roll. I'll be glad to add a category if that would make you happy. It's not the categories that matter...it's the point of my initial post on this topic that people don't just decide to stay out of the work place unless their expenses are taken care of. Got another category to add, just let me know.
So, to make you happy, let's add a 5th category:
1) Independently wealthy. If so, then more power to them. They can do with that wealth what they want.
2) Freeloaders. Someone is enabling them. Bad enablers, bad!
3) Homeless. Well, that's not good and throws up the possibility that they are not mentally able to get a job.
4) Criminals (this would include incarcerated people, because they are housed and fed). There have been cases where people have lived in the woods or in a tent or whatever and stole what they needed for years.
5) People on Government Assistance. If all of their bills are covered, there is not a need to work.
What an interesting way to admit you were wrong. I hope you can continue to have a fortunate life and become wealthy to join the likes of Bill Gates, Greg (the dogkicker), or an inmate with a life sentence. All on equal footing as the independently wealthy!
1) Um...criminals were already a separate category.
2) A category can still include two very disparate people/things.
3) I know you weren't stating this, but just to be clear, I wouldn't trade lives with Bill Gates for anything. He's divorced. He was a cheater, so I have superior integrity, and at some point there's just so much money that it's just a number. I have more than I need, and that's fine with me.
What an interesting way to admit you were wrong. I hope you can continue to have a fortunate life and become wealthy to join the likes of Bill Gates, Greg (the dogkicker), or an inmate with a life sentence. All on equal footing as the independently wealthy!
1) Um...criminals were already a separate category.
2) A category can still include two very disparate people/things.
3) I know you weren't stating this, but just to be clear, I wouldn't trade lives with Bill Gates for anything. He's divorced. He was a cheater, so I have superior integrity, and at some point there's just so much money that it's just a number. I have more than I need, and that's fine with me.
Wow someone's obviously defensive. You were wrong and you admitted it, don't flip flop and change your mind.
I apologize for seeming defensive, I suspect I'm more likely depressed. I wish I had your confidence as you always seem so strong despite so many posters taking issue with you. How do you handle major misfortunes in your life? I assume you are not immune to trouble? This is an honest question from someone who really could use a bit of advice.
Regardless of whether you are trolling here, I can honestly say I've never had any major misfortunes in my life. I recognize that I've been fortunate. I am smarter than the vast majority of people through no work of my own. I am fortunate to be born in the US. No one in my family has even died at a relatively young age. Both of my parents are alive and healthy and over 80. Same with my in-laws (though I think my MIL is 79). I have great relationships with my siblings and their families. I have the best wife ever. The company I started did well right from day 1. I've never been laid off or unemployed since I was a junior in high school. My kids are brilliant and talented and successful. I have hobbies I enjoy (running, guitar, piano, parkour, bowling, traveling, Wordle and the like, Tower Defense Games). Part of my view here is just that I am a grateful person, but I look at the misfortune of others around the world and even people here in the US, and I have nothing to complain about in my personal life.
I assure you I'm no troll and I appreciate your honest answer, I aim to be grateful as well. Peace.
1) Um...criminals were already a separate category.
2) A category can still include two very disparate people/things.
3) I know you weren't stating this, but just to be clear, I wouldn't trade lives with Bill Gates for anything. He's divorced. He was a cheater, so I have superior integrity, and at some point there's just so much money that it's just a number. I have more than I need, and that's fine with me.
Wow someone's obviously defensive. You were wrong and you admitted it, don't flip flop and change your mind.
Regardless of whether you are trolling here, I can honestly say I've never had any major misfortunes in my life. I recognize that I've been fortunate. I am smarter than the vast majority of people through no work of my own. I am fortunate to be born in the US. No one in my family has even died at a relatively young age. Both of my parents are alive and healthy and over 80. Same with my in-laws (though I think my MIL is 79). I have great relationships with my siblings and their families. I have the best wife ever. The company I started did well right from day 1. I've never been laid off or unemployed since I was a junior in high school. My kids are brilliant and talented and successful. I have hobbies I enjoy (running, guitar, piano, parkour, bowling, traveling, Wordle and the like, Tower Defense Games). Part of my view here is just that I am a grateful person, but I look at the misfortune of others around the world and even people here in the US, and I have nothing to complain about in my personal life.
I assure you I'm no troll and I appreciate your honest answer, I aim to be grateful as well. Peace.
Having a grateful heart (and that can be driven by religion or not...mine is not) goes a long way toward being happy and content. Good luck to you.
You considered welfare recipients to be "independently wealthy." Objectively speaking you were wrong.
Nah. Disagree. If someone has a roof over their head paid for along with food and medicine (like Greg does), then in my opinion they qualify as independently wealthy. If they don't have all of those basic needs taken care of, then they do not. If someone had worked their whole lives to put themselves in a position to have their housing and food and medicine take care of the rest of their lives, I would call them independently wealthy, so there's really no difference between that and if the government has provided that to a person due to a disability.
I DO understand that not everyone accepts my definition there (because people are allowed to be wrong), so I happily made a 5th category to appease you, but only for that reason.
You considered welfare recipients to be "independently wealthy." Objectively speaking you were wrong.
Nah. Disagree. If someone has a roof over their head paid for along with food and medicine (like Greg does), then in my opinion they qualify as independently wealthy. If they don't have all of those basic needs taken care of, then they do not. If someone had worked their whole lives to put themselves in a position to have their housing and food and medicine take care of the rest of their lives, I would call them independently wealthy, so there's really no difference between that and if the government has provided that to a person due to a disability.
I DO understand that not everyone accepts my definition there (because people are allowed to be wrong), so I happily made a 5th category to appease you, but only for that reason.
So you consider a person dependent on the government to be independently wealthy? That's objectively nonsensical. How are you not realizing what a moron you are?
I'm conservative and I think this is more about supply and demand. Basic market dynamics. For so many years employers have had all of the leverage. I don't fully understand how it's happened with COVID and all of that, but the leverage has shifted to the employee, at least for now. It's very interesting to watch it play out.
I don't think it's anti work. There have always been lazy people. Some % of the population is lazy, and that's always been true. What is happening now is more about supply and demand in the labor market, in my opinion. Person A is not going to do job x for pay Y if he has better options. Just as company A is not going to pay employer B more than they have to. Company A is typically not going to bother with employee preferences (e.g. working from home) if they don't have to. Now they do. Which companies and employees can adapt well to the new environment? I love it.