Income Inequality

[JKgo]

First off just as the idea of a wage gap is nothing but a myth created by left-wing social justice warriors so is the idea of a income inequality.

Right now the Federal Reserve via its stupid monetary policy is creating one real type of inequality and thats by making the wealthy/well-connected richer while making the average american poorer. Shockly I find it strange that people like Elizabeth Warren who claim to despise the wealthy actually want enable them.

....

Uh, wut?

First paragraph and the second one doesn't seem to agree with each other here. Unless I suddenly forgot how to read, or something....

 

[A2K78]

....

Uh, wut?

First paragraph and the second one doesn't seem to agree with each other here. Unless I suddenly forgot how to read, or something....

Two articles that should be of consideration:

https://mises.org/library/income-inequality-hoax

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-18/ron-paul-fed-steals-poor-and-gives-rich

 

[TenEightyOne]

Two articles that should be of consideration:

https://mises.org/library/income-inequality-hoax

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-18/ron-paul-fed-steals-poor-and-gives-rich

You either failed to read them or failed to understand them. Income Inequality exists - it's the point of both articles. Blimey.

 

[zzz_pt]

Money is a finite resource so if the top 1% is getting richer, someone else is getting poorer. The idea that we should all live in a bubble and that our neighbours have nothing to do with us and us with them is kinda silly IMO.

So to defend capitalism we often hear people say that looking to our neighbour's new car is good so we can work harder to have one as well. But if we see our neighbour's new 500 mill. yacht, and we know he's probably not paying taxes, while we have no money to pay a treatment for one of our daughters despite working 70 hours a week, it's wrong and we should carry on and deal with it because a healthy society works like that. I don't agree.

It's impossible for everyone to be rich or live a good life if the money is not fairly distributed. Where would the poorest get money from to live a decent (not even a good) life? Not from trees for sure.

If we were talking about any other basic resource, as food or water for example, maybe it would be easier to see the problem (and yes I consider money a basic resource, if someone doesn't I'd suggest him to quit his job). I think income inequality is a problem and the idea that people who don't have money just have the money their deserve or that having nothing is the equivalent to their "value" sounds odd to me.

Especially when we know that the people who have more money are often "above" the law and can do pretty much everything to avoid taxation - taxes are for the poor and middle class.The Panama Papers is the most recent case of a widespread practice of the top 1% (at least) that in/directly impacts the lives of their "neighbours".

If someone works in a factory and his neighbour is a Doctor, of course there's a difference in their income. But if the doctor's neighbour gets 50, 100 or 1000 more than him something is wrong. What job is it worth that much more than a Doctor's job?

This not to mention people who just inherited billions/millions without doing anything to earn it. This is another reason why the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Because ones accumulate from genetations to generations and others don't.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Money is a finite resource so if the top 1% is getting richer, someone else is getting poorer. The idea that we should all live in a bubble and that our neighbours have nothing to do with us and us with them is kinda silly IMO.

So to defend capitalism we often hear people say that looking to our neighbour's new car is good so we can work harder to have one as well. But if we see our neighbour's new 500 mill. yacht, and we know he's probably not paying taxes, while we have no money to pay a treatment for one of our daughters despite working 70 hours a week, it's wrong and we should carry on and deal with it because a healthy society works like that. I don't agree.

It's impossible for everyone to be rich or live a good life if the money is not fairly distributed. Where would the poorest get money from to live a decent (not even a good) life? Not from trees for sure.

If we were talking about any other basic resource, as food or water for example, maybe it would be easier to see the problem (and yes I consider money a basic resource, if someone doesn't I'd suggest him to quit his job). I think income inequality is a problem and the idea that people who don't have money just have the money their deserve or that having nothing is the equivalent to their "value" sounds odd to me.

Especially when we know that the people who have more money are often "above" the law and can do pretty much everything to avoid taxation - taxes are for the poor and middle class.The Panama Papers is the most recent case of a widespread practice of the top 1% (at least) that in/directly impacts the lives of their "neighbours".

If someone works in a factory and his neighbour is a Doctor, of course there's a difference in their income. But if the doctor's neighbour gets 50, 100 or 1000 more than him something is wrong. What job is it worth that much more than a Doctor's job?

This not to mention people who just inherited billions/millions without doing anything to earn it. This is another reason why the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Because ones accumulate from genetations to generations and others don't.

The very first sentence of your response is completely wrong and it invalidates everything else in your post.

 

[zzz_pt]

The very first sentence of your response is completely wrong and it invalidates everything else in your post.

What part? Money is infinite, the rich are not getting richer, the poorer are not getting poorer or there's no connection between the two? Saying it's wrong doesn't say much.

 

[squadops]

If money is finite then how does the population grow with more and more people having more of it? It's a no brainer..

 

[DG_Silva]

Never heard of quantitative easing? The printing of money that does not exist creates money and proves that currency is not a finite resource.

 

[zzz_pt]

If money is finite then how does the population grow with more and more people having more of it? It's a no brainer..

Money represents something else. That's why it has value. There's more money and more people because we (mankind) keep producing and extracting more and more resources from our planet. Money is not only paper that can be printed and given out to people. Is directly linked to other resources, like gold/oil for example. There is more gold today than there was 500 years ago.

If we had the same resources as back then and the same amount of people we have now we would have one of 2 situations: 1 all of them had the same money as they have now but its value would be less than the paper it's printed in; 2 only some people would have "valuable" money.

That's why countries sell their gold to pay debts. Otherwise they would just make money out of thin air.

If money is something that can just be printed, why not do it? What would happen?

 

[squadops]

Not all resources are finite and either is money.

 

[GTsail]

If money is something that can just be printed, why not do it? What would happen?

Inflation

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

Money is a finite resource so if the top 1% is getting richer, someone else is getting poorer.

Please demonstrate this.

Physical currency may be finite (although at the rate it's printed, not meaningfully so) but wealth, or the concept of money, absolutely is not. There exist a myriad of examples of how this is true. I believe @Danoff has used some before in other threads as well.

If you can prove that wealth is finite, I would be very interested to see how. Otherwise, it really undermines the validity of your argument.

The idea that we should all live in a bubble and that our neighbours have nothing to do with us and us with them is kinda silly IMO.

When phrased like this, it's a borderline truism, but that's not really the argument. Of course actions your neighbors take can affect you. The question here is how does your neighbor having say, a Ferrari while you have to take the bus actively affect your life?
You might be jealous sure, but how does her having a Ferrari instead of a Honda change your situation?

...But if we see our neighbour's new 500 mill. yacht, and we know he's probably not paying taxes,

Citation Needed

It's impossible for everyone to be rich or live a good life if the money is not fairly distributed. Where would the poorest get money from to live a decent (not even a good) life? Not from trees for sure.

I don't really know where to start with this.

First, what is 'fairly distributed' in your estimation? How much should someone be allowed to make before the rest is taken away and 'fairly distributed' to others? How poor would you need to be to receive some of that stolen money? At what point do you stop receiving that money?

Second, how do you think someone becomes rich? Not from trees for sure.

Third, yes, maybe it is impossible for everyone to be rich. Why is the answer to that to punish those who are? What have they done wrong that justifies taking away their property and negatively impacting their quality of life? How is that acceptable?

I think income inequality is a problem and the idea that people who don't have money just have the money their deserve or that having nothing is the equivalent to their "value" sounds odd to me.

Do you understand the idea of utility? It is very much true that people in different professions have differing levels of utility, and our current structure grants more monetary value to higher utility individuals and professions. Why is that wrong?

You even hit it yourself later on:

If someone works in a factory and his neighbour is a Doctor, of course there's a difference in their income.

But then fail to follow through:

But if the doctor's neighbour gets 50, 100 or 1000 more than him something is wrong. What job is it worth that much more than a Doctor's job?

The way we have structured our society, doctors do not make the most money. In a sense of utility as human welfare, possibly medicine is the highest utility profession, but that isn't the incentive structure we have decided as a society to set up. Our value for human welfare is below our value for other things, so therefore the reimbursement for medical professionals is not the highest of any job.

Now, it may be fair to say that we should restructure to place a higher value on human welfare, but that's a different argument, and one that in no way involves income or inequality. That's an argument about the basic structures of the global society we have collectively formed. Using income inequality as a proxy argument for that agenda is counterproductive and a waste of everyone's time.

I suspect though that the big problem you see with things is not that doctors are not the highest paid working professionals. You've said as much yourself, and this was merely a convenient example for you to illustrate your bigger problem of 'income inequality' as a whole.

Especially when we know that the people who have more money are often "above" the law and can do pretty much everything to avoid taxation - taxes are for the poor and middle class.

Citation Needed

The Panama Papers is the most recent case of a widespread practice of the top 1% (at least) that in/directly impacts the lives of their "neighbours".

There's a little bit of a causality loop here that I don't really want to get in to, but I want to make sure it's something you have considered.
Yes, avoiding taxation is illegal. Possibly avoiding taxation results in fewer social programs being fully funded. Possibly fewer social programs being fully funded will meaningfully affect a non-zero number of people.
But:
If that individual had paid all tax, but therefore had employed fewer people because of having lower profit margins that reduce capital and anger investors, it would also meaningfully affect a non-zero number of people.

Solve for x where x is minimum number of people who's lives are meaningfully affected by this situation. Show your work.

This not to mention people who just inherited billions/millions without doing anything to earn it.

And?

How much of my property should I be allowed to give to a person or persons of my choice? Who has any right to step in and say that I can't give my own things to whomever I please? What makes that more correct?

This is another reason why the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Because ones accumulate from genetations to generations and others don't.

How does the increase in total wealth of family A by savvy investing and multi-generational fund management actively impoverish family B?

Also, what is preventing family B from doing similarly? Even a tiny amount of seed money managed correctly can, over several generations, grow to a sizable amount, which could then be used to seed bigger and more profitable investments. Rinse, repeat. Sure, family A might get there quicker or end up higher, but again: How does this actively affect family B?

 

[Johnnypenso]

What part? Money is infinite, the rich are not getting richer, the poorer are not getting poorer or there's no connection between the two? Saying it's wrong doesn't say much.

Resources, which have nothing to do with money, are not limited, otherwise the population of North America would be in the hundreds of thousands and we'd all be living in tents and caves. From a personal standpoint I have my mind and my body as resources and there is nothing that limits my ability to improve or exploit either one to my benefit.

 

[Exorcet]

I think income inequality is a problem and the idea that people who don't have money just have the money their deserve or that having nothing is the equivalent to their "value" sounds odd to me.

A free economy doesn't stop you from redistributing wealth. You can donate your own money.

If someone works in a factory and his neighbour is a Doctor, of course there's a difference in their income. But if the doctor's neighbour gets 50, 100 or 1000 more than him something is wrong. What job is it worth that much more than a Doctor's job?

You get payed by people willingly giving you money, what could be more fair?

This not to mention people who just inherited billions/millions without doing anything to earn it. This is another reason why the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Because ones accumulate from genetations to generations and others don't.

And this should be done away with? Once someone figures out how to get their family out of poverty for generations, they become the bad guys?

 

[squadops]

And this should be done away with? Once someone figures out how to get their family out of poverty for generations, they become the bad guys?

Of course, just ask Obama lol.

The idea of a pie that never grows could only be realized looking at that pie the moment the sun novas.

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

The way we have structured our society, doctors do not make the most money. In a sense of utility as human welfare, possibly medicine is the highest utility profession, but that isn't the incentive structure we have decided as a society to set up. Our value for human welfare is below our value for other things, so therefore the reimbursement for medical professionals is not the highest of any job.

Now, it may be fair to say that we should restructure to place a higher value on human welfare, but that's a different argument, and one that in no way involves income or inequality. That's an argument about the basic structures of the global society we have collectively formed. Using income inequality as a proxy argument for that agenda is counterproductive and a waste of everyone's time.

I actually want to expand on this, because once I thought about it for more than 30 seconds it becomes even more muddied and I want to express that. Obviously this story uses totally unrealistic timetables and numbers, done for easy maths and to keep it (relatively) short. It also totally ignore regulatory restrictions and whatnot. Anyways:

Say that a doctor begins treating patients exhibiting symptoms he hasn't encountered before. This new condition, if untreated, will always result in death. He networks with colleagues and no one has treated this condition before. Let's call this Condition P.

This doctor treats patients with Condition P as best he can with the tools and knowledge he has available. With his constant supervision and work, he is able to save 25% of his patients, who all recover fully to lead normal lives. Because of the intense work needed for this, he is only able to treat 10 patients a week.

Now, a scientist hears about Condition P through the internet. He happens to work at a company that does experimental drug research. This scientist goes to his superior with the story of Condition P, and eventually it gets forwarded up enough for the company to approve research into a cure.

The scientist works his normal 40 hour week with his team and is able to develop an experimental drug to treat Condition P in less than a year. The company begins manufacturing small amounts (because they are a researcher) to test in the field, and sends them out to the doctor.

With this new drug, the doctor sees great results. 50% of people treated with the drug are instantly cured, and 50% of those who are not still make a full recovery unsupervised within a week. Now, for every 100 patients the doctor sees, he only has to actually treat 25 of them. He is able to go from treating 10 patients a week to treating 40 a week. 20 of those are instantly cured, and 10 are cured with no observation, leaving him the same 10 a week to work on himself, of whom 25% still recover.

Unfortunately, in the year that the company was researching the cure, Condition P has become much more widespread. The research company that developed the drug is unable to produce enough to meet demands. That company begins shopping their drug to larger pharmaceutical companies for production.

Eventually, the CEO of Pharma A meets with the research company and agrees to purchase their drug. Pharma A begins mass-producing the drug and is able to produce enough to meet demand.

Meanwhile, the research company uses the money from selling the drug to fund more research into Condition P. In another 2 years, they are able to develop a drug that has a 95% rate of instantly curing Condition P, and of the remaining 5% of patients, 50% of them make full recoveries within a week.

This new drug is then sold to Pharma B for mass production. It reaches patients, and now the doctor can go from treating 40 patients a week to treating 400 patients a week.



So, who has provided the most human welfare here?
The doctor? The scientist? The head of the research company? The CEO of Pharma A? The CEO of Pharma B? What about all the people who are employed by the Pharma's to produce the drugs? What about the reporter who wrote the story about Condition P that the scientist read? What about the guy who employs that reporter? What about the network engineer who keeps that website running? What about his boss?

Who has done the most to provide for human welfare in this situation?

@zzz_pt Who deserves to be paid the most? The least?

 

[GBO Possum]

But I'll ask again, what bearing does a CEO's salary have on your life? It doesn't come at your expense, not in any way.

Tell that to the employees laid off in order for the CEO to meet the target so he gets a large bonus.

Tell that to the employees who work in a company that is driven into the ground by a CEO who is bonused to achieve just that.

There are a bunch of technology companies which are good examples.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Tell that to the employees laid off in order for the CEO to meet the target so he gets a large bonus.

Tell that to the employees who work in a company that is driven into the ground by a CEO who is bonused to achieve just that.

There are a bunch of technology companies which are good examples.

If a CEO was paid less or more this behaviour wouldn't change so your point is moot.

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

Tell that to the employees laid off in order for the CEO to meet the target so he gets a large bonus.

Tell that to the employees who work in a company that is driven into the ground by a CEO who is bonused to achieve just that.

There are a bunch of technology companies which are good examples.

If a CEO was paid less or more this behaviour wouldn't change so your point is moot.

Well, that isn't really true. If a CEO's base salary was changed one way or the other, then yes this behavior would not change. What @GBO Possum is referencing here though is the bonus structure that is tied to many positions like that, which is separate from salary.

In answer to that, first of all it's not really about income inequality at that point. The problem isn't that the CEO is making more, it's how the CEO is making more in this example. If a company sets up a bonus structure that is toxic to its long term longevity, that's not really a problem with wage gaps, it's a problem with corporate culture. As I said before, using income inequality as a proxy argument for railing against the way we've set things up on a much broader scale is a bit of a waste of time.

The issue with setting up incentives for the long term is that often a company which does not do that will outcompete you in the present and you will go bankrupt before you ever achieve those long-term goals. It's well and good to say that making decisions for short-term gain with no eye for the future is bad, but it's also a bit of a farce to say that's what's being done in these companies. You'd be hard-pressed to find a company that says it has no long term plan.

If you want to change things to a longer view, you have to start looking well beyond CEO bonus structure. Look at the investors who have target returns; look at the hedge funds those investors manage, the money drawn from a huge group of people who all have expected growth on that fund; look at the companies that employ the people who's money goes into the hedge fund, who selected that one over others because of the expected returns; look at the consumer, who buys the best product available right now because he either doesn't know or doesn't care that the company making it has a toxic culture that will lead slowly to bankruptcy; look at the employee in that company that chooses to stay in her current job because she either doesn't know or doesn't care that the company making it has a toxic culture that will lead slowly to bankruptcy.

Is the problem really just that the CEO is getting a bigger bonus for that shortsighted decision?

 

[squadops]

If we chucked the lobby in the river and allowed free market, the point would be moot. I do believe however that some of the liberal type on here are either in favor of super regulation(which is self defeating) or much more to the point, government run production.

The last government intetity turning a profit(in the u.s.) was the USPS and iirc they no longer do.

It's coming down to one or the other imo, I'm sick and tired of large government. It fails on so many levels.

 

[JKgo]

....While I agree on this:

It's coming down to one or the other imo, I'm sick and tired of large government. It fails on so many levels.

....You can't help but feel that a government entity is a tiny bit more accountable than a private corporation which answers to no one but to its shareholders (read profit/bottomline).

I'd rather have some government oversight on industries vital to national interests rather than having an absolutely free-for-all.

 

[Com Fox]

Does anyone think that maybe we just need some new Government system?

I often hear talks about how Communism is a joke and how some laugh or feel sad for the people whenever something to do with Communism is mentioned.

However, looking at the Capitalist Countries, I really don't get how it's system could be better, while Communism unfairly screws people over, Capitalism doesn't give people a chance to be up there due to the greedy higher ups, though that also can be applied to Communism. Lets face it, no matter which of these "-isms" you fall into. People in the higher ups and their big dollar spending will always get greedy and attempt to keep themselves on the pedestal by making the Brass Ring way to difficult to grab (mind the WWE term) they are the ones with the most power and the most influence and exposure so it is hard to even try to reach out.

This will sound crazy but maybe both Capitalism and Communism can't be fixed at all. We probably need to start from scratch on a new Government system though there is a chance that will just be ruined by the people ahead as like I said before, the people at the top will always get greedy and try to keep the bubble in tact without any change.

 

[squadops]

@JKgo and @RESHIRAM5 The U.S. has a system of laws that would work if only followed. Pure capitalism doesn't work any better than pure socialism imo good thing these old chaps were pretty smart. I've said a bunch about it in the POTUS thread so basically get rid of the cronies and the hippies and follow the law we have.

There is nothing wrong with some regulation to me, it's in our law such as Article I. Section 8. of our Constitution;

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You can pick out the pertinent parts I'm sure. Look, anything can become corrupted it's up to the people to take some responsibilities and make sure it doesn't. I'm conservative so I look for a slow steady growth and prosperity for all if you can catch that.

No system or people are perfect, banking on big business or big government is simply a sign of boring irresponsible people who deserve nothing.

 

[Famine]

This will sound crazy but maybe both Capitalism and Communism can't be fixed at all.

Capitalism isn't broken - and indeed it's largely untested because the majority of people aren't comfortable without a government that acts as a parent (and in a democracy, the majority [or plurality] is the only voice heard). Your post identifies oligarchy/plutocracy as the problem - and it's not a problem of capitalism.

Communism isn't particularly broken either - it's just a system that only works well on small scales for a short period of time and with everyone's consent (like a commune - funnily enough). That's why larger scale and longer period experiments with communism have only functioned in conjunction with overblown fascist rule, to force consent through fear. They eventually fail, commonly after turning into an oligarchy/plutocracy.


I doubt that there is any system where everyone's innate abilities are recognised and rewarded accordingly, but free market capitalism is the nearest you'll get to a meritocracy.

 

[squadops]

I used to tell my friends that communism only works in groups of 12 or less and that is dependant upon one of the twelve not being the friend I told the joke to

I'm not convinced of pure capitalism, must be why I am conservative and not libertarian

 

[Danoff]

Tell that to the employees laid off in order for the CEO to meet the target so he gets a large bonus.

That's actually the opposite of what I said.

Tell that to the employees who work in a company that is driven into the ground by a CEO who is bonused to achieve just that.

Strange board of directors that give a CEO bonuses for losing them money.

There are a bunch of technology companies which are good examples.

I'm sure they're all examples where no mistakes were made.

 

[A2K78]

Capitalism doesn't give people a chance to be up there due to the greedy higher ups

What you're talking about is the crony form of capitalism e.g. the one where government meddles with the dealing of private individuals.

btw this is one of the defense of free market capitalism(not it crony cousin):

 

[Com Fox]

I actually don't agree with the whole "different types of Capitalism".

Any sort of Capitalism will always be Capitalism, you can't just give it unique titles when people exploit the system and "hack" it for personal gain.

 

[Famine]

I actually don't agree with the whole "different types of Capitalism".

Then you'll be happy to know that actual capitalism hasn't ever actually been tried and what you're objecting to is merely something else masquerading as capitalism - rather than 'different types of capitalism'.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Does anyone think that maybe we just need some new Government system?

I often hear talks about how Communism is a joke and how some laugh or feel sad for the people whenever something to do with Communism is mentioned.

However, looking at the Capitalist Countries, I really don't get how it's system could be better, while Communism unfairly screws people over, Capitalism doesn't give people a chance to be up there due to the greedy higher ups, though that also can be applied to Communism. Lets face it, no matter which of these "-isms" you fall into. People in the higher ups and their big dollar spending will always get greedy and attempt to keep themselves on the pedestal by making the Brass Ring way to difficult to grab (mind the WWE term) they are the ones with the most power and the most influence and exposure so it is hard to even try to reach out.

This will sound crazy but maybe both Capitalism and Communism can't be fixed at all. We probably need to start from scratch on a new Government system though there is a chance that will just be ruined by the people ahead as like I said before, the people at the top will always get greedy and try to keep the bubble in tact without any change.

There are literally tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions of examples in the U.S., Canada and Europe of upward mobility within our pseudo capitalist society. The system isn't perfect, the people at the top do have advantages most of us will never see, but there are still many, many opportunities for all kinds of people to earn a decent living, own homes, raise families etc. In my own life I can think of dozens and dozens of people who are far better off than their parents were and who have done so through their own hardwork and determination. Opportunities are literally endless for success IMO, it only takes some effort mixed with some ability and savvy career choices.