Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (66499)	4/13/2018 7:11:07 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358594

As to your thoughts on security leading to pathology, I find those ideas weird. Quality of life should count for something. That only the very wealthy, especially those born into wealth, can lead a stress-free or at least low stress life is very elitist. Because if you live your whole life on your toes, constantly on edge and under the gun, only to die young from a variety of stress related diseases just doesn't seem like much of an existence. That's the second time you have characterized my comments as elitist. I find that curious. It suggests that I'm wishing that sorry lot in life on the working class or suggesting that they deserve it rather than merely observing conditions. I have experience in both the working and upper middle classes, even what many would consider rich. They are different in more than just bank balance. Influences on personal character are mixed. Different conditions foster different behaviors and character traits. Security can make people less ambitious and less resilient. Have you never heard the expression "indolent rich?" Or noticed kids from financially struggling families trying harder and having better work habits and being tougher, thus more successful than those who have had everything handed to them? Families can work their way up into the upper middle class only to find the next generation ending up wastrels or junkies. it was fairly stable as to most sociological measures until the deindustrialization of the 1960s. And what else happened in the sixties besides deindustrialization? Well, there was that hippie thing, the rebellion against the bourgeois, the liberties that exploded the heads of social conservatives. That might have had something to do with Fishtown. Or the civil and women's rights movements. Or the war. Lotsa other stuff correlates. Now it very well may have been that if the deindustrialization hadn't of happened that those things would have happened anyway. But there is no reason to think that. My claim was only that you had not supported your certainty that it was all about the economic problem.