Is it still a good thing if it convinces the poor to not act in their self interest by not advocating for change?

OR

If we agree the american dream is fallacy then is the only purpose of it to keep the rich from being guillotined?

I'm not sure what I think of the american dream or even what it means. But I find the idea of lying to the disenfranchised so they can feel better about themselves condescending.

Socialism, or guillotines for that matter, do far less than the American dream to actually help the poor.

Source?

Part of the problem is we continue to use words like rich and poor as if they have strictly defined meanings. We get polarisation instead of sensible steps to improve things for everyone.

I'm not sure about that, the trouble is if you flip it around you end up saying people are poor because of their own failings.

Modern society looks down on poor people, labelling them as losers when they are really a product of unfortunate circumstances. Unfortunate because they had no books in their house, unfortunate because they were surrounded by family who derided learning, unfortunate because they had the wrong colour skin or wrong gender for the career they wanted.

I'm not even sure I buy your argument that they feel better about themselves. Being constantly reminded of your supposed failings isn't a great place to be.

The worst part of "work hard and you may become a millionaire" is for the majority it is a lie.

I suspect some people are missing the declension here:

* I am a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.

* You should work harder to be successful.

* They are poor because they are moral degenerates.

As long as you can keep the three attitudes separate and attached to the proper groups, you'll have no problems understanding modern American culture.

"The worst part of "work hard and you may become a millionaire" is for the majority it is a lie"

What else is there to believe in? I find the supposedly realistic belief that "life is hard and then you die" very depressing. From personal experience, the only thing keeping me going in my worst times is the thought that I can still turn things around and succeed (again) - otherwise I would just give up because what the f am I living for?

And I don't see success as being a millionaire - people define success in different ways, to each his own. You gotta have something to keep you going and it does feel better to believe that you're just temporarily down rather than being a born loser who will die a loser.

But the reality is it's much more realistic to adjust your wants to your present circumstances than adjust your circumstances to your wants.

I'm not saying you shouldn't strive to improve your situation, just that adopting the stoical attitude of appreciating what you have will result in better outcomes for most people.

> Even if people don't become rich or successful, they still feel better about themselves.

That's the thing, this line of thinking has come to equate "being successful" with "being rich/having material wealth". The fact is we cannot all be rich, because "being rich" it's relative (a "poor" American is "rich" compared to someone from Laos, for example), so what should we do?

I know of some countries that have created a "happiness index", in place of the GDP-based index, but I don't think that's the best solution, just a realization that things are probably not on the right track. For example, my personal solution is to base my views when it comes to "life success" on the views of Seneca (who was a very rich guy, incidentally), whose views have also been borrowed by early Christianity, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm pretty well-off financially, but the things that give me the most satisfaction in life have to do with parts of my life unrelated to acquiring wealth and stuff, including family, church and hacking (which doesn't really cost much of anything once you have even an inexpensive computer) and various creative endeavors.

I'll take job satisfaction when I can get it (and fortunately I have it right now after a few years of not having it), but a good job and a good salary aren't the goal of my life, but the means for me to achieve my goals.

Of course, maybe I'm too well-off to think my material possessions don't make as much of a difference and I'm just being a hypocrite.

Maybe I'd feed differently if I really were struggling like I know too many people do, but regardless, I would rate myself very successful and in no way envious of the so-called 1% (of which I am most certainly not a member).

> The "work hard and you may become a millionaire" undertone is a good thing.

I disagree. Few people will become millionaires compared to the general population, and many people who come into wealth didn't do so because of hard work. This undertone obscures the actual facts about wealth and who is wealthy, things which have a lot to do with social inequality.