We help the most when we elect to do so ourselves, not when we leave the options to be considered by those with more resources to spare. If they entertained any inclination of helping those outside their own closed circuits they’d never have accumulated and stockpiled such resources to begin with. I explain this further over here: https://nilskidoo.blackblogs.org/lady-windermeres-fanzine/
But if you'd prefer to restrain all preaching to the choir, to persist with fantasy, then by all means rub your mighty ban-hammer.
And how does one accumulate a nest egg when every employer I have ever dealt with cannot afford (or outright refuses) to do better than paying late and/or less than agreed, if at all? Believe it or not, not everyone can live off their parents as adults.
As a former bell-ringer for the SalArmy across two time zones, the people who give the most are always the ones who look like they need it the most. No different from how the biggest tippers always themselves work in the service industry. The lower class isn't surviving because of WIC or unemployment insurance, or from the .ooooo9% billionaires part with in exchange for additional tax breaks, but from others out here in the streets.
I think it proves most Americans are either ignorant or villainous. Or both. Which sounds smarmy but then, what other explanation might there possibly be?
People of the US are scared to address how the vast majority of taxes paid are not going to the general population of the US, not infrastructure or anything else outside of the private coffers of the biggest con-artists alive today or the largest and most expensive enterprise in all of human history- the US military and its 900+ bases thrust around the globe to better serve those same con-artists.
For anyone without a private jet maybe. Does anyone seriously think the FAANG corporate boards will ever in their lives have to undergo this? If the feds wish to be paparazzi, then we should all give them something to really behold.
But the inability to infringe on the rights of others is not itself an infringement of any actual right. That is an impossible lesson to be learned by us here in the west.
And I realize anti-establishment innuendo is taboo here, but if yc is focused on bringing forth more products and services to the world, then doing so without understanding what things the world may honestly want or need, without some pretext of empathy for the source of those wants and needs, is as reprehensible as it is ineffective. When nobody today is satisfied, to the extent the richest man Bezos feels the need to upgrade his life partner, then we are not doing ourselves any justice in thinking technology can either save or replace dying virtue.
And we should all pretend that the internet resolves conflicts at any level? I think the widescale lack of communicating without empathizing pheromones is quite obviously making a shitstorm of the whole wide world. But keep culting with your bad self.
I'm sure a lot of folks have heard of the Amish practice of young adults living among the normals for weeks or months, sampling modern life before making the decision to settle down back on the farm. I wish that was a common thing among everyone, with teens out of high school given a year on their own before college, to exist as legal adults while supporting themselves with whatever entry-level, minimum wage job. I would imagine the numbers of freshmen dropouts would drop considerably, with more young adults in general being more willing to apply themselves toward realistically achieving goals, having tasted how hard things might be.
But if parenting has much in common with management styles, there would need to be a balance equally between super cool bro and anal-retentive wretch.
Lecturer and teacher Scott McCloud once said this to the effect of hiring practices, how there are three anchors from which an employer of any variety must seek out among potential employees.
To turn in work of professional and skilled caliber, to do so always ahead of deadlines, and to be easy to deal with generally.
A person only offering one is not providing enough to make their employ worthwhile or long-lasting, while the chances of someone realistically offering all three are extremely rare. So, the idea is to look for somebody what can comfortably guarantee any two of the three anchors. For example, a person may only submit average-quality work, but if they are reliable for at least that much and are easy to work with, then they are employable. Or, a person might be notorious for blowing schedules, but if they are always friendly about it, and their end product is always outstanding even though late, then they themselves are worthwhile.
But no psych test in the world can guarantee with 100% accuracy exactly how people might work together. Too many variables and too many subjective variables.
But if you'd prefer to restrain all preaching to the choir, to persist with fantasy, then by all means rub your mighty ban-hammer.