The number of people that can win an Olympic Gold is arbitrarily fixed. The number of people that can become financially successful isn't.
And yet, for the last 30 years, the number of those who are successful relative to the rest of the population has suffered sharp decline.
Do you honestly not know this? Or are you simply the sort of person who just doesn't mind?
Re:No Money, No Time
by yummyfajitas on Monday June 16, 2014 @11:34PM
(#7902747)
Relative mobility has remained flat and absolute mobility has increased.
Not actually the point I was making but an interesting paper nonetheless.
When I said "relative" I meant "relative to the population as a whole", not "relative to the members of one's class from prior generations."
Re:No Money, No Time
by logicchains on Monday June 16, 2014 @10:22PM
(#7902552)
Financially successful doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being financially "successful relative to the rest of the population", for what it's worth.
Yes, people can win Olympic Gold (we're not competing against robots yet), but very few will and those who do will have to make extraordinary sacrifices. So yes, give them credit. But don't - whatever you do - look at people who haven't managed to keep their heads about water, and think "well, this one guy made it against all odds and you didn't, so you must be a lazy, stupid human."
That may be fair (if harsh) in a supportive world where it takes rare talent to fail. But it's a monstrous attitude in a world where the opposite is so clearly the case.