Should American buy in American Dream?

[Alex_Sanders]

The kind of story that build an empire from nothing with bare hands?

But of course, it is very tempting isn't it? Like my fav. American Dream denialee, George Carlin, he got rich by telling jokes! And most (normal) people like him! Although he was not filthy rich.

Do most American still buy in that? Or do they laugh at it as if it's some kind of joke? Does it wield no power over current American, as it should be considered something belongs to the 50s?

 

[chiro]

History has shown that empires collapse. The reasons for that debated fiercely and you can add your own speculation to the mix, but just looking at the record if an empire does spontaneously be created, it ends up usually combusting later down the line.

 

[russ_watters]

Chiro, the word "empire" was poorly chosen by the OP - it was not meant in the way you used it.

Many still believe in the American dream. Perhaps as important as what Americans believe, the immigrants still streaming in believe in it too.

However, my perception/fear is that it is being perverted by removal of the "work hard" part, replacing it with a sense of entitlement.

 

[wuliheron]

Less then half of Americans now have a full time job, last year a million people lost their homes, and this year another million are expected to loose their homes. The American dream isn't dead, but there can be no doubt it is on the rocks. The idea that half the population is somehow lazy and incompetent is insulting to say the least and does not promote democracy.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As I understand it the "dream" is that anyone has the potential/opportunity to work their way to success. I don't see how that fits with reality.

 

[russ_watters]

As I understand it the "dream" is that anyone has the potential/opportunity to work their way to success. I don't see how that fits with reality.

How so?

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Chiro, the word "empire" was poorly chosen by the OP - it was not meant in the way you used it.

Many still believe in the American dream. Perhaps as important as what Americans believe, the immigrants still streaming in believe in it too.

However, my perception/fear is that it is being perverted by removal of the "work hard" part, replacing it with a sense of entitlement.

Poorly chosen? I thought that word would manifest "business" "enterprise" in a lavish, poetic, yet moderately exaggerated manner.

 

[Alex_Sanders]

As I understand it the "dream" is that anyone has the potential/opportunity to work their way to success. I don't see how that fits with reality.

Yes, everyone has the potential, but not necessarily at the right time and place.

 

[nitsuj]

However, my perception/fear is that it is being perverted by removal of the "work hard" part, replacing it with a sense of entitlement.

Of course without defining "working hard" my retort is meaningless, so working hard means blood sweat & tears.

Perhaps it is knowlodge that "working hard" most often amounts to nothing (working smart doesn't, but is a truism). How do you connect working hard, or lack there of with a sense of entitlement.

Compared to my ancestery, I have it easy breezy. I also have a far better standard of living.

I have to work far less hard, to achieve a greater standard of living than those in the history you imply.

This isn't a pervertion of work ethic, it is advancement in technologies. The old man tone is laughable.

Perhaps a sense of "When I was your age I had to work way harder to get all that great stuff you can afford today with so little 'hard work'". Add in complaints of inequity and bam, people today feel self entitled .

The "generations" are not comparable in this context.

I wonder if back in the day, people felt entitled to the gross income they earned. Man, people back then felt so entitled.

I wonder if the folks who were being canned left right & centre from manufacturing jobs felt like they were entitled to those jobs that went to other countries. Or entitled to the house they had half equity in but lost in entirety from foreclosure.

I guess in summary "hard work" & "entitlement" are not interchangeable as you presented it.

The game of capitalism can not be described as fair for everyone, it's not. There are winners & lossers, you're describing the lossers as having a sense of entitlement.

Perhaps in that sense it is the winners who assume entitlement to the "fruits of labour" the "lossers" generate. And is justified in that bs "well I worked harder for it so I earned it"

I agree with Ryan_m_b in post #5. hard work doesn't even remotely equate to financial success.

(in this context) Only one thing needs to be fair with capitalism, and that's equal opportunity to entry. And it pretty much is... GAME ON! but don't try and suggest it's made fair via hard work. Thats like saying a Harlem Globetrotters basketball game is fair, and the other team feels entitled to some points too, but that they just don't work hard enough for them.

 

[russ_watters]

Alex - ok, that was probably a little harsh. I understood what you meant, it's just that a non-native English speaker probably wouldn't (didn't) understand the word usage in that context.

Nitsuj - during the day, I write from a droid, so my posts are sometimes underdeveloped. Let me expand:

My formulation of the American Dream is:

Work hard and you can achieve financial security and all that accompanies it.

Several points (most of this is opinion...):
1. Yes, "work hard" also needs to be developed more. It does, indeed, include "work smart", by which I mean make good decisions. You don't have to be intelligent to achieve the American dream, you just need the common sense and maturity to make good decisions. More on that later.

2. Many people are handed the American Dream on a silver platter - most by their parents, some by luck. And some are merely helped along by these things. This seems to trip people up on the meaning of/applicability of the concept, but it shouldn't. It doesn't have any effect at all on the trueness (or untrueness) of the concept. Ie, the fact that someone else had it handed to them doesn't mean you can't still achieve it the way the formula says you can. But this does mix with the issue of entitlement:

3. Yes, even as the bar for measuring success has risen over time, so too has the ease of surpassing it - as judged by the number who do rising. So this should be a good time to be a believer in the American dream. But I agree with the premise of the thread being that there is a danger. The danger I see is that as more people achieve it and it becomes easier to achive it, there is a reverse psychological effect: people start thinking it should be easier to achieve it. And that's part of what I meant by the sense of entitlement. The other part is in how it relates to those who inheret it or are helped toward it by their parents. There appears to me to be more and more people reacting to the anti-rich rhetoric in American politics with the feeling that if it is handed to the rich, it should be handed to me too. And I view much of the motivation for expansion of social programs to be based on that idea. For example, my perception of socialized medicine: 'The rich have better healthcare than I do and didn't have to work hard to get it, so let's make them pay for mine!'

So the risk I see for the American Dream is the same as the issue that took down the Soviet Union ("If they pretend to pay me, I'll pretend to work!"): Too much social safety net breeds mediocrity. I see people who don't work hard believing the American Dream should be handed to them and if we do hand it to them, then we prove to them that they don't have to work hard to get it or keep it. Then more people stop working hard. My perception of this psychology is my biggest fear for the long-term viability of the Western political/economic model (or, should I say - the encroachment of socialism/communism into the western political/economic model).

Now there is also a big misconception I see is the idea that only the rich can pass the American Dream on to their children. This could not be further from the truth and is a very large piece of the problem, at least in the US. Most of what parents pass on to their kids is in how the parents raise their kids and that extends into the kids adult lives. At the same time, most of the big "work smart" good decisions people have to make to achieve the American Dream should be made by age 25: they have to do with education. So parents have a substantial influence on that and set their kids up for relatively easy success. Some examples:

1. Should I quit high school?
2. Should I go to college or a trade school?
3. Should I major in English or business or engineering? (related to #2...).

Beyond that, parents can also pass on a work ethic. This is important as well, because I've seen/known kids who made bad decisions in their 20s and didn't work to fix them and it hurt them pretty badly. I've also seen kids who'se parents pushed them into good decisions, who then screwed up after they got out on their own. And I've also seen kids turn it around later, after screwing around for most of their 20s.

One of the keys to the American Dream that should be apparent in all of this is that if you haven't been given it, you need to believe in it to achieve it. In other words: if you believe it is not possible, then for you, it probably isn't.

 

[nitsuj]

Ah, i see Russ, I think that is solid point of view.

I came back to add to my post that I do agree with the original statement if reversed to "people who work hard feel entitled". As in making all the "right moves" entitles one to financial success.

Just because one went to university doesn't mean they'll earn that statistical figure of 120k a year, just like the university's pamphlet said. I can see your point of beliving in the Dream here. Many do just end up working a job well below their level of expertise, perhaps after giving up on the "dream".

That I agree is a case that many people experience, and is inescapable holistically.

Some slight hummor in this, the American Dream from the perspective of non-Americans, is probably, the stuff you earned from your own hard work is "protected" by the state. Often free enterprise is not the case, let alone citizen ownership. The dream is I can own stuff, and it's mine and nobody elses!

 

[Alex_Sanders]

The dream is I can own stuff, and it's mine and nobody elses!

Awwww... that's really sad... Isn't there nothing in the constitution?

 

[Drakkith]

Some slight hummor in this, the American Dream from the perspective of non-Americans, is probably, the stuff you earned from your own hard work is "protected" by the state. Often free enterprise is not the case, let alone citizen ownership. The dream is I can own stuff, and it's mine and nobody elses!

I'm not following you on this. Can you elaborate?

 

[Astronuc]

Aspiration is a good thing, but it must be tempered with a sense of reality/sobriety.

 

[turbo]

Aspiration is a good thing, but it must be tempered with a sense of reality/sobriety.

Plus the realization that if you borrow (as opposed to saving and investing your own money), the fruits of your labors may be subject to liens and foreclosures. Easy credit should not be confused with prosperity because credit can be fragile.

 

[Containment]

I think the american dream still exists it's just changing but mostly only on a physical level. I honestly don't believe people care that much about owning a big home or even a fast gas guzzling car I know I don't but people still want the good life it's just now the good life seems simpler in ways. I think most of that change can be credited towards the interwebs (what can't be) and computers as it has made needing to go places for entertainment (Car) or having a big home for guests to come visit less important.

So in short the american dream still exists it's just much cheaper to achieve now if you cut out a few of the big ticket items.

Actually this makes me think about the difference between myself and one of my slightly older family members. They are the type that would need a big home to feel happy in while I'm the type of person that could live in a closet as long as it was web connected. I have a feeling the generation after me probably would be happy living inside a cellphone lol.

 

[chiro]

I have a feeling the generation after me probably would be happy living inside a cellphone lol.

Yep: they will be sucked into a computer and everyone will be racing cars and throwing discs to survive. :) In case you don't get what I'm saying:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1104001/

 

[mheslep]

Less then half of Americans now have a full time job,...

Half? Take away children, seniors (retired), and the disabled and easily over three quarters have a full time job. Employment is bad, but not that bad.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Did we really just get a "the american dream is possible as long as you don't own a car our a house" post? Is this really the new american dream?

 

[wuliheron]

Half? Take away children, seniors (retired), and the disabled and easily over three quarters have a full time job. Employment is bad, but not that bad.

"108.616 million people in America are either unemployed, underemployed or "Not in the labor force". This represents 45.5% of working age Americans.

If you count the "Part time employed for non-economic reasons", you get 126.8 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, working part time or "Not in the labor force". That represents 53% of working age Americans."

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-24/markets/29974517_1_part-time-unemployment-labor-force#ixzz1pRnGb1HZ

 

[Office_Shredder]

It used to be that women stayed home and raised the kids. So at the height of the american dream half of adults weren't working and it wasn't such a problem back then

 

[Drakkith]

"108.616 million people in America are either unemployed, underemployed or "Not in the labor force". This represents 45.5% of working age Americans.

If you count the "Part time employed for non-economic reasons", you get 126.8 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, working part time or "Not in the labor force". That represents 53% of working age Americans."

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-24/markets/29974517_1_part-time-unemployment-labor-force#ixzz1pRnGb1HZ

Interesting snippet from that article:

But the by far largest category "missing" from both the Employed and Unemployed statistics is the "Not In Labor Force": 85.2 Million people.

The BLS definition states: "Not in the labor force (NILF). A person who did not work last week, was not temporarily absent from a job, did not actively look for work in the previous 4 weeks, or looked but was unavailable for work during the reference week; in other words, a person who was neither employed nor unemployed." (Clearly, this does include lot of unemployed people).

I'd like a breakdown of this category to get a better idea of the status of those that are "Not In The Labor Force".

 

[turbo]

It used to be that women stayed home and raised the kids. So at the height of the american dream half of adults weren't working and it wasn't such a problem back then

It should be noted that during this time, most single wage-earners earned enough money to support their families comfortably and to buy homes, too. That is not the case, today.

 

[Drakkith]

My own research from data at http://data.bls.gov:

All data from February 2012
Total Not in the Labor Force: 88,322,000
Want a Job Now: 6,376,000
Want a Job, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks: 2,608,000
Discouraged Workers (Want a job but believe no job is available): 1,006,000
Did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as school or family responsibilities, ill health, and transportation problems: 1,603,000

So, my conclusions are that 76,729,000 don't even want to hold a job, which brings the number of people that want a full time job but don't have one to 50,071,000, or about 20% of the total working age population.

 

[turbo]

Please don't buy into that. Up around here, if people can't get full-time work, they will often take what they can get. Felling and limbing trees, processing turkeys, and a host of other part-time, labor-intensive jobs... Lots of these people get paid by the day or the week in cash. They are not unwilling to work - they are falling into the hole created by the assumption that everybody that is working is earning taxable wages. Not true. I have an acquaintance who is expert at evading taxation. He owns a truck, a skidder, and chain-saws, and he'll only work for cash. I avoid him as much as possible, because he's a creep, but he has kept this up for nearly 40 years now.

 

[mheslep]

"108.616 million people in America are either unemployed, underemployed or "Not in the labor force". This represents 45.5% of working age Americans.

If you count the "Part time employed for non-economic reasons", you get 126.8 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, working part time or "Not in the labor force". That represents 53% of working age Americans."

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-24/markets/29974517_1_part-time-unemployment-labor-force#ixzz1pRnGb1HZ

I'm curious about their definition of working age.

The http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf Population under 18 was 74.2m, 65 and over was 40.3m, leaving 194.2 million 18+ to 65, including the disabled, in jail, etc. As of last month the total number of employed was 142 million (including part time, all ages), or 73% of the 2010, 18-65 population. The difference is 52m not working, which is still terrible, but the figure used in your source, 108.6m people ... "Not in the labor force", must be including seniors or under 18.

 

[russ_watters]

Either way, there is little value to looking at those "not in the labor force" unless it is meant to intentionally mislead about how bad the employment situation is. Same goes for many part time workers.

 

[Drakkith]

Either way, there is little value to looking at those "not in the labor force" unless it is meant to intentionally mislead about how bad the employment situation is. Same goes for many part time workers.

Why is there little value into looking into it?

 

[Drakkith]

I'm curious about their definition of working age.

The working age includes those that are age 16-17.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It should be noted that during this time, most single wage-earners earned enough money to support their families comfortably and to buy homes, too. That is not the case, today.

But that would suggest the loss of the american dream, our the inability to obtain it, is not because of a sense of entitlement on behalf of the average person that things should be easier, but because doing the same amount of work as thirty years ago no longer gets you what it once did.

 

[Drakkith]

But that would suggest the loss of the american dream, our the inability to obtain it, is not because of a sense of entitlement on behalf of the average person that things should be easier, but because doing the same amount of work as thirty years ago no longer gets you what it once did.

I'm hesitant to believe Turbo's statement without seeing some data to back it up.

 

[mheslep]

The working age includes those that are age 16-17.

Of which would expect few to have a full time job in an up or down economy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The kind of story that build an empire from nothing with bare hands?

But of course, it is very tempting isn't it? Like my fav. American Dream denialee, George Carlin, he got rich by telling jokes! And most (normal) people like him! Although he was not filthy rich.

Do most American still buy in that? Or do they laugh at it as if it's some kind of joke? Does it wield no power over current American, as it should be considered something belongs to the 50s?

Empires are built in the US through hard work, every day. You can't even begin to imagine how out of place your question seems to me. As an entrepreneur I see it all the time - some of those people hire me! Times have been tough since the crash of 2008 but slowly we are recovering. In fact the Dow is now approaching an all-time high for the first time since 2007. That represents a tremendous amount of wealth that has been created since Obama took office. Watch the first link in my sig to recall just how far we've come.

I make a good living doing what I love from the place I love; mostly working from home in the lush, green hills and valleys of the pacfic NW. I call that the American dream and I have it. It was certainly my dream.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another consideration is that for every empire, there are multitudes of failures. And that has always been true. Empire-building means taking risks. As a rule, the greater the risks, the greater the rewards. But risks are real. That dreams can come true doesn't mean they will, and never has. You might work hard and smart your entire life and never truly succeed. But that depends a lot on how you define success, and whether you are willing to put everything you have at risk for the chance of huge rewards.

 

[nitsuj]

I'm not following you on this. Can you elaborate?

In many countries, the state isn't able to or willing to protect the equity of it's citizens.

In the states, if someone steals from my store, (or police harassing a fruit stand owner without just cause ) I have the ethic of the entire country behind me in seeking restitution.

Here is an excerpt from Canadian, which would be simular to the US.
"Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of property, individually or in association with others, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with law and for reasonable compensation."

If the state decides to take my property for whatever purpose (and I'm sure it must be "for the greater good") I get reasonable (market) compensation. Which probably includes any costs related to the move.

I think that clarifies what I mean. especially the stark comparison between the fruit stand merchant in ummm, i forget where and say a fruit stand merchant in the US. The "dream" is your efforts are protected, and the "fruits of labour" are yours. Just a different take on the American dream.

 

[Drakkith]

Ah ok, I see what you mean now Nitsuj.

 

[nitsuj]

"108.616 million people in America are either unemployed, underemployed or "Not in the labor force". This represents 45.5% of working age Americans.

If you count the "Part time employed for non-economic reasons", you get 126.8 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, working part time or "Not in the labor force". That represents 53% of working age Americans."

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-24/markets/29974517_1_part-time-unemployment-labor-force#ixzz1pRnGb1HZ

These numbers get real interesting in the context of global wealth, as opposed to the N.American individual context.

Very general abstract of Wiki page here

N.America 5% global population 27.1% global wealth
Europe 10% global population 30% global wealth
Asia 52% global population 30% global wealth
Africa 10% global population 1.50% global wealth

So even with "126.8 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, working part time or "Not in the labor force"" N.America has a 5.21 greater than equal share of the global wealth? cool! With second place a good effort of 2.74, maybe only one car / tv per household with a 15-25% obesity rate in that region.

Poor Africa is in at 0.14. That's 7 times less a fair share, they must complain allot about "bad jobs" & unemployment

 

[wuliheron]

These numbers get real interesting in the context of global wealth, as opposed to the N.American individual context.

The thread is about the American dream and not life, the universe, and everything. However, if you like interesting numbers try 42.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Chiro, the word "empire" was poorly chosen by the OP - it was not meant in the way you used it.

Many still believe in the American dream. Perhaps as important as what Americans believe, the immigrants still streaming in believe in it too.

However, my perception/fear is that it is being perverted by removal of the "work hard" part, replacing it with a sense of entitlement.

Hard work takes a back seat to placement.

 

[Evo]

I made my way up from nothing. My dad was the first in his family to get a college degree and he got it even though he was legally blinded by a shrapnel hit to the face during WWII.

I finshed high school when I was 14 due to being an over acheiver, went to Europe to visit family, then returned and started college at 16 in a business degree, which I didn't want. (my apologies to the members that have heard this a thousand times). My dad was an EE and we weren't rich. I started as a long distance cord board operator for Bell Telephone while I was in school.

Long story short, through hard work and intelligence, within a few years I was promoted to a managerial position at AT&T making well over 6 digits a year.

It can still be done, but due to overpopulation, there is much more competiton. You really have to stay on your toes if you come from a poor family and have no connections, but it can be done.

 

[russ_watters]

Hard work takes a back seat to placement.

Wrong. Hard work and placement are independent of each other. Neither affects the other, so neither can take a back seat to the other. In other words, someone else's placement cannot cause your hard work to be futile.

 

[nitsuj]

The thread is about the American dream and not life, the universe, and everything. However, if you like interesting numbers try 42.

Did you honestly miss my point that is in regards to the American Dream? The American Dream is about life-style.

The "dreamy" landscape of the American economy still exists, and it's defined only by comparison. Not sure whos post I orignally quoted, but it looked like a complaint of the state of unemployement in the US, which is a laughable perspective, in a thread discussing the American Dream.

I preffer the number 72, 42 sucks. I also preffer posts with info in them.

 

[turbo]

I was the first person on either side of my extended family to attend college. Had to leave college to earn more money, and never looked back. Made more money than any of my relatives (through hard work and perseverance) ever did. I'm not intimating that my relatives were lazy - many were hard-working and dedicated, including my father, but they would would be shocked to know how much money I've racked up over the years.

My uncle has an HVAC business, and he says that his wife has figured out that he can afford to retire when he's 91. Yesterday, he suggested that I might be able to make a few bucks helping an older guy invest in some antique firearms. I told him that I'd be happy to do so, but that my sue-happy former employer would tie me up in court for the next couple of years. I had to sue that jerk to try to get the bonus pay that he owed me, then he counter sued for $650K, claiming that I was trying to damage his business. That counter-claim was thrown out in federal court, but it was a PITA.

Anyway, once you have made somebody a millionaire several times over, don't expect them to be nice to you. That ain't happening.

 

[wuliheron]

Did you honestly miss my point that is in regards to the American Dream? The American Dream is about life-style.

The "dreamy" landscape of the American economy still exists, and it's defined only by comparison. Not sure whos post I orignally quoted, but it looked like a complaint of the state of unemployement in the US, which is a laughable perspective, in a thread discussing the American Dream.

I preffer the number 72, 42 sucks. I also preffer posts with info in them.

The American dream isn't about lifestyle, its about being able to go from rags to riches or, at least, a middle class lifestyle. There are even some American millionaires like Warren Buffet famous for living in modest homes or out of hotel rooms because they really don't have any interest in acquiring things. Others that have won the lottery, and continue to work ordinary jobs. At least one millionaire has even given away his fortune after discovering it did not make him happy, but he's still an American success story.

 

[nitsuj]

The American dream isn't about lifestyle, its about being able to go from rags to riches or, at least, a middle class lifestyle. There are even some American millionaires like Warren Buffet famous for living in modest homes or out of hotel rooms because they really don't have any interest in acquiring things. Others that have won the lottery, and continue to work ordinary jobs. At least one millionaire has even given away his fortune after discovering it did not make him happy, but he's still an American success story.

Lots of "stuff" i could point out in your post but ill leave it at this,

Warren Buffet giving away billions of dollars and committing large portions to African causes, is completely against the grain of capitalism and in turn the American Dream. I like to think this gesture speaks of his true character. It's fantastic!

That being said I feel a more sane approach is to spend it within the relatively tight checks & balances of lawfully developed states and put into health care / education infrastructure for example.

 

[wuliheron]

Lots of "stuff" i could point out in your post but ill leave it at this,

Warren Buffet giving away billions of dollars and committing large portions to African causes, is completely against the grain of capitalism and in turn the American Dream. I like to think this gesture speaks of his true character. It's fantastic!

That being said I feel a more sane approach is to spend it within the relatively tight checks & balances of lawfully developed states and put into health care / education infrastructure for example.

Promoting the idea that giving money is somehow unamerican is disgusting and vulgar.

 

[chiro]

Promoting the idea that giving money is somehow unamerican is disgusting and vulgar.

While I don't agree with his exact word usage, I do agree that having a system where unfair subsidies of any sort are a natural part of the system is not a good idea.

This is what some people refer as the 'Too Big To Fail' movement. The idea is that in a fair capitalistic society people rise and fall on their own merits and on their own success.

The idea that there should be so called 'state-controlled capitalism' is something I personally am against since for some corporations, it transfers the risk from the corporation to the government and eventually to the taxpayer.

Capitalism in my mind when it is 'fair' (I don't have a complete definition but for now I'll say that a system is fair when there is no system-level arbitrage: i.e. everyone is capable of starting a business and operating in an environment where other companies can not unfairly do things to otherwise cause an unfair advantage: I know it's not well defined but bear with me here) is the best model to have and although I haven't given a good definition of fair, I am very confident in saying that any kind of taxpayer subsidised system is anything but.

So on this interpretation of handouts with respect to a capitalistic perspective, it does make sense that in this viewpoint the author has a valid point.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Wrong. Hard work and placement are independent of each other. Neither affects the other, so neither can take a back seat to the other. In other words, someone else's placement cannot cause your hard work to be futile.

Hard work takes a back seat when it comes to placement and the primary cause of this is a person having the necessary connections in place to become successful without working hard. Chances of success are high whereas chances of success through diligence and hard-work are slim. And in today's climate, hard-work is pretty much useless, it takes smarter work and better connections to become successful.

Of course you can work hard, but the cases for those who have worked hard primarily became successful through their connections they've had. So it is a matter of placement when we are scrutinizing the value of hard-work vs. network in helping one become successful. If you are just working hard at your job and wanting to be successful, chances of you reaching the top are slim. A person with better connections whom works less will, more times than not, beat out one whom works hard but doesn't have as good connections.

And, you really don't have to work hard. I never work hard in school simply because I just work in accordance to what is optimal for me. In other words, I work smarter without unnecessarily overexerting myself through hard work.

 

[ThomasT]

The kind of story that build an empire from nothing with bare hands?

But of course, it is very tempting isn't it? Like my fav. American Dream denialee, George Carlin, he got rich by telling jokes! And most (normal) people like him! Although he was not filthy rich.

Do most American still buy in that? Or do they laugh at it as if it's some kind of joke? Does it wield no power over current American, as it should be considered something belongs to the 50s?

As Carlin said, they call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. But Carlin was a cynical cokehead, albeit a funny, and sometimes insightful, guy.

What you're asking is can, in America, hard work and perserverence produce a significantly better life for yourself and your family? Of course it can. It might not. But, in America, the chances are that it will -- and, anyway, there's only one way to find out.

Make a commitment. Work hard. Perservere. My guess is that you'll be positively rewarded -- in America.

 

[nitsuj]

Promoting the idea that giving money is somehow unamerican is disgusting and vulgar.

To suggest altruistic gestures are somehow "American" is disgusting & vulgar.

To suggest capitalism & the American dream are "American" is disgusting & vulgar.