AI Kerry and John Kerry don't agree on the VP choice. AI Kerry is only concerned with winning enough electoral votes. It doesn't have to deal with party bosses, public pressure, personal relations, etc.
So today John Kerry announced Edwards would be his VP choice. Good idea or bad idea?
Some of you may recall that back in very early May we predicted that Kerry would pick Richard Gephardt as his running mate. Why? Because in The Political Machine simulations, the AI version of John Kerry kept wanting a running mate to win Iowa or Missouri. AI controlled John Kerry realized that he only needed to win one of those two states in the election to essentially wrap up the white house.
At the beginning of June we noticed that that the governor of Iowa was a Democrat so we added Tom Vilsack into the game. Computer AI Kerry, btw, never picks John Edwards as VP. That's not saying that the real John Kerry won't pick John Edwards but the computerized version of John Kerry that only cares about winning the electoral college doesn't pick Kerry.
BTW, The Political Machine added Vilsack into the game before the media started talking about him. The proof? The game went into manufacturing in mid June and Vilsack was in there from early June. I don't know the exact date someone first mentioned Vilsack in the media but the date the first release candidate of The Political Machine went to Ubi Soft is a known date and I suspect it was earlier. Either way, we are on record of talking about both of these guys very early even as the press had focused on Edwards, Richardson, Clark, etc (who are all in the game too btw in case you want to play with them).
If you want want to learn more about The Political Machine, go here: https://www.politicalmachine.com/game.asp.
Screenshot (Bush and Kerry fight for Florida in 2004).
Some of you may recall that back in very early May we predicted that Kerry would pick Richard Gephardt as his running mate. Why? Because in The Political Machine simulations, the AI version of John Kerry kept wanting a running mate to win Iowa or Missouri. AI controlled John Kerry realized that he only needed to win one of those two states in the election to essentially wrap up the white house.
At the beginning of June we noticed that that the governor of Iowa was a Democrat so we added Tom Vilsack into the game. Computer AI Kerry, btw, never picks John Edwards as VP. That's not saying that the real John Kerry won't pick John Edwards but the computerized version of John Kerry that only cares about winning the electoral college doesn't pick Kerry.
BTW, The Political Machine added Vilsack into the game before the media started talking about him. The proof? The game went into manufacturing in mid June and Vilsack was in there from early June. I don't know the exact date someone first mentioned Vilsack in the media but the date the first release candidate of The Political Machine went to Ubi Soft is a known date and I suspect it was earlier. Either way, we are on record of talking about both of these guys very early even as the press had focused on Edwards, Richardson, Clark, etc (who are all in the game too btw in case you want to play with them).
If you want want to learn more about The Political Machine, go here: https://www.politicalmachine.com/game.asp.
Screenshot (Bush and Kerry fight for Florida in 2004).
Some of you may recall that back in very early May we predicted that Kerry would pick Richard Gepthardt as his running mate. Why? Because in The Political Machine simulations, the AI version of John Kerry kept wanting a running mate to win Iowa or Missouri. AI controlled John Kerry realized that he only needed to win one of those two states in the election to essentially wrap up the white house.
At the beginning of June we noticed that that the governor of Iowa was a Democrat so we added Tom Vilsack into the game. Computer AI Kerry, btw, never picks John Edwards as VP. That's not saying that the real John Kerry won't pick John Edwards but the computerized version of John Kerry that only cares about winning the electoral college doesn't pick Kerry.
BTW, The Political Machine added Vilsack into the game before the media started talking about him. The proof? The game went into manufacturing in mid June and Vilsack was in there from early June. I don't know the exact date someone first mentioned Vilsack in the media but the date the first release candidate of The Political Machine went to Ubi Soft is a known date and I suspect it was earlier. Either way, we are on record of talking about both of these guys very early even as the press had focused on Edwards, Richardson, Clark, etc (who are all in the game too btw in case you want to play with them).
If you want want to learn more about The Political Machine, go here: https://www.politicalmachine.com/game.asp.
Screenshot (Bush and Kerry fight for Florida in 2004).
Here are the first public ObjectDock plus screenshots.
One thing to note: It's all very skinnable (tabs and colors and such).
The tab I show at the top is the system tray. You can change your system tray icons.
What's not shown is the incredibly good usability features, fly out menus, and the cool way tabs work when docked as well as how easy it is to work with.
For those of you who haven't been keeping up with the MacOS X "Tiger" controversy (i.e. those of you who are normal with lives!) here's our story so far...
On July 28 Apple introduced the new version of MacOS X coming out next year code-named "Tiger" at the big Macintosh developers conference. Included there were these big banners:
Plus this cute graphic:
Here are the key features of Tiger in a nutshell:
On its own, these are reasonably good features for a dot upgrade. But what is stirring up the non-Mac zealots is how pretentious Apple chose to be in announcing this. For this Apple has the nerve to start a "Redmond (Microsoft) start your photocopiers"? Please.
Let's take a close look at this:
Spotlight searching is quite impressive. But given Microsoft's work on WinFS which has been in the public record for quite awhile now, this is pretty nervy to talk like this is some sort of major innovation. Come on. Wow. Search. Yes, it's better but not exactly a breakthru here.
iChat AV is not only nothing special but arguably quite derivative of the capabilities already found in most other instant messaging programs. What exactly does Apple imagine someone "copying" from this? Especially when, like the search features, Windows defenders could easily argue that these ideas were lifted off of Windows programs.
But it was Dashboard, above all others, that created the controversy.
Dashboard lets you put widgets on your desktop that show up when you hit a hot key (like a dashboard, get it?). What makes these special, however, is that these widgets (mini applications) are made with Javascript and can be made by non-developers. A set of mini-apps to enhance your desktop experience. And Apple calls this innovative? This is just such a blatant rip off of Konfabulator.
And let's not forget the first program on the PC that let users easily create their own mini-applets to have on their desktop: DesktopX.
DesktopX has been doing "widget" type stuff on the desktop for years.
There wouldn't be so much noise about Apple being inspired (again) by their ISVs or what's happening on Windows if Apple weren't trumpeting very very loudly how they are the innovators and everyone (particularly Microsoft) rips off from them.
But Mac zealots, being zealots, gloss over that. One example I have seen is that Apple invented widgets in the first place. Dincha know? Yea. You see, desktop accesories, made way back when,were the same sort of thing. Please.
That is such an incredibly weak argument. Let's make sure we're on the same page: What makes "widgets" special is that creating them doesn't require one to be a programmer.
Heck, as this screenshot shows, you don't even have to be an artist! (sorry Martin! I'm in the same boat!).
That's what got widgets popular is in the last few years. It opened the door to people who were non programmers but still technical enough to figure out how to do this kind of stuff (a much larger population).
And these programs are "sexy". They do neat things. And they get a lot of press precisely because they open up customizing ones computer to the masses in ways that weren't possible in the past. One can almost imagine some Apple marketing manager seeing an article on Konfabulator or DesktopX or whatever and saying "hey, we need a way to stick that in the next version of MacOS!".
And again, nobody (except the affected ISVs) would give a rip if Apple wasn't so pretentious about inventing everything. I mean, these guys sue smaller companies on a regular basis for borrowing ideas from them.
The fact is, inspiration is all around us. There's no shame in it unless you claim to be uniquely innovative beyond all others. When we come out with ObjectDock Plus next month, you know there's going to be Mac zealots claiming we ripped it off from the Mac or whatever because in the Mac universe, everything comes from them even though ObjectDock Plus is most closely related to Tab LaunchPad from 1994 (see screenshot) which is part of Object Desktop and is kind of the next logical outgrowth of it (and for you Object Desktop users reading this, yes, there will be an upgrade path from TLP to ObjectDock Plus).
Getting to the main point though: Apple wants to have it both ways. It wants to claim its new features as uniquely innovative to the point where they preemptively accuse Microsoft of stealing their ideas even as they themselves steal their ideas from others.
And if Mac advocates want to spin it that Konfabulator or DesktopX were inspired by some prior work then fine. But don't complain when Windows users are unimpressed with a built in search feature and a MS Instant Messenger clone. If you want to play the prior art game, it works both ways.
Now for the record, I am a Mac user too. And I think MacOS X 10.3 is a terrific operating system. What I wish, however, is that Apple and its advocates would really recognize what makes Apple special: Apple is a full baker. That is, Apple is really good at seeing a half-baked idea and figuring out how to make it fully baked.
Apple sees things others have done and recognize where the other guys went wrong and do it much better. iTunes wasn't original, but it was the first music store done right IMO. The Mac GUI wasn't original, but it was the first GUI really done right. And Dashboard is a blatant rip off of Konfabulator, but it sounds like it's going to be implemented in a much better way (the widgets hide when you press a button much like the Overlays feature coming in DesktopX 2.2). And for the record: Stardock has been planning to make an ActiveX control that can run DesktopX widgets on a web page for over a year so if and when that comes out, we did NOT get that idea from Apple.
No one likes a hypocrite. Apple is a very innovative company. But so is Microsoft. And so are lots of others. And they do themselves no favors by accusing their competitor of "photocopying" their ideas for them even as they run their own photocopier on their own ISVs.
For those of you who haven't been keeping up with the MacOS X "Tiger" controversy (i.e. those of you who are normal with lives!) here's our story so far...
On July 28 Apple introduced the new version of MacOS X coming out next year code-named "Tiger" at the big Macintosh developers conference. Included there were these big banners:
Plus this cute graphic:
Here are the key features of Tiger in a nutshell:
On its own, these are reasonably good features for a dot upgrade. But what is stirring up the non-Mac zealots is how pretentious Apple chose to be in announcing this. For this Apple has the nerve to start a "Redmond (Microsoft) start your photocopiers"? Please.
Let's take a close look at this:
Spotlight searching is quite impressive. But given Microsoft's work on WinFS which has been in the public record for quite awhile now, this is pretty nervy to talk like this is some sort of major innovation. Come on. Wow. Search. Yes, it's better but not exactly a breakthru here.
iChat AV is not only nothing special but arguably quite derivative of the capabilities already found in most other instant messaging programs. What exactly does Apple imagine someone "copying" from this? Especially when, like the search features, Windows defenders could easily argue that these ideas were lifted off of Windows programs.
But it was Dashboard, above all others, that created the controversy.
Dashboard lets you put widgets on your desktop that show up when you hit a hot key (like a dashboard, get it?). What makes these special, however, is that these widgets (mini applications) are made with Javascript and can be made by non-developers. A set of mini-apps to enhance your desktop experience. And Apple calls this innovative? This is just such a blatant rip off of Konfabulator.
And let's not forget the first program on the PC that let users easily create their own mini-applets to have on their desktop: DesktopX.
DesktopX has been doing "widget" type stuff on the desktop for years.
There wouldn't be so much noise about Apple being inspired (again) by their ISVs or what's happening on Windows if Apple weren't trumpeting very very loudly how they are the innovators and everyone (particularly Microsoft) rips off from them.
But Mac zealots, being zealots, gloss over that. One example I have seen is that Apple invented widgets in the first place. Dincha know? Yea. You see, desktop accesories, made way back when,were the same sort of thing. Please.
That is such an incredibly weak argument. Let's make sure we're on the same page: What makes "widgets" special is that creating them doesn't require one to be a programmer.
Heck, as this screenshot shows, you don't even have to be an artist! (sorry Martin! I'm in the same boat!).
That's what got widgets popular is in the last few years. It opened the door to people who were non programmers but still technical enough to figure out how to do this kind of stuff (a much larger population).
And these programs are "sexy". They do neat things. And they get a lot of press precisely because they open up customizing ones computer to the masses in ways that weren't possible in the past. One can almost imagine some Apple marketing manager seeing an article on Konfabulator or DesktopX or whatever and saying "hey, we need a way to stick that in the next version of MacOS!".
And again, nobody (except the affected ISVs) would give a rip if Apple wasn't so pretentious about inventing everything. I mean, these guys sue smaller companies on a regular basis for borrowing ideas from them.
The fact is, inspiration is all around us. There's no shame in it unless you claim to be uniquely innovative beyond all others. When we come out with ObjectDock Plus next month, you know there's going to be Mac zealots claiming we ripped it off from the Mac or whatever because in the Mac universe, everything comes from them even though ObjectDock Plus is most closely related to Tab LaunchPad from 1994 (see screenshot) which is part of Object Desktop and is kind of the next logical outgrowth of it (and for you Object Desktop users reading this, yes, there will be an upgrade path from TLP to ObjectDock Plus).
Getting to the main point though: Apple wants to have it both ways. It wants to claim its new features as uniquely innovative to the point where they preemptively accuse Microsoft of stealing their ideas even as they themselves steal their ideas from others.
And if Mac advocates want to spin it that Konfabulator or DesktopX were inspired by some prior work then fine. But don't complain when Windows users are unimpressed with a built in search feature and a MS Instant Messenger clone. If you want to play the prior art game, it works both ways.
Now for the record, I am a Mac user too. And I think MacOS X 10.3 is a terrific operating system. What I wish, however, is that Apple and its advocates would really recognize what makes Apple special: Apple is a full baker. That is, Apple is really good at seeing a half-baked idea and figuring out how to make it fully baked.
Apple sees things others have done and recognize where the other guys went wrong and do it much better. iTunes wasn't original, but it was the first music store done right IMO. The Mac GUI wasn't original, but it was the first GUI really done right. And Dashboard is a blatant rip off of Konfabulator, but it sounds like it's going to be implemented in a much better way (the widgets hide when you press a button much like the Overlays feature coming in DesktopX 2.2). And for the record: Stardock has been planning to make an ActiveX control that can run DesktopX widgets on a web page for over a year so if and when that comes out, we did NOT get that idea from Apple.
No one likes a hypocrite. Apple is a very innovative company. But so is Microsoft. And so are lots of others. And they do themselves no favors by accusing their competitor of "photocopying" their ideas for them even as they run their own photocopier on their own ISVs.
update: I think a few (luckily only a few) people think that Apple putting in Dashboard bothers us. It doesn't in the least. What happens on MacOS doesn't affect WINcustomize at all.
So why the hub-bub? Because I've seen first hand how Apple makes a lot of noise when anyone else has a feature similar to something that was in MacOS at any time and here we have a pretty blatant example of Apple doing the same to one of its own ISVs (Konfabulator) *at the same time Apple is preemptively accusing microsoft of copying features*.
And mark my words, as soon as MacOS X is out, you'll have the usual group of Mac zealots running around retroactively claiming that Samurize, DesktopX, SysMetrix, etc. are all copies of Dashboard.
Given the amount of complaining Mac users have made about "Windoze" and how Microsoft copies and how Apple is the creative one, I think it's high time that people start pointing out that Apple isn't really any different from Microsoft at this point. They take concepts and ideas already floating around and put their own spin on it. Which is fine with me as long as they aren't so disengenous about it.
Most people pay hardly any taxes to the federal government. In fact, half the adult population (50%) only pays around 4% of the total federal tax burden. The other half pays the other 96%. Sadly, most of those taxes are poorly used. The works of government that affect you on a day to day basis are handled by the state. My state income taxes (here in Michigan) is a flat 4% of income (not counting sales tax and property taxes).
Here's a chart of what you pay on a state by state basis: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html
It is important to differentiate the state from the federal government. Most politicians running for the senate or house of representatives (or President) count on Americans being ignorant of who pays for what. So here's the truth: The basic services that most Americans consider the job of the government: police, roads, schools, fire departments, etc. are handled by state or local governments -- not the federal government. Remember that next time some politician tries to talk about how we need higher federal taxes in order to pay for "better" education.
For married people (which I am) the federal tax rate looks like this:
|
So let's say you're a married couple, household income of $50,000. You're going to be paying up to $6,900 in taxes. Of course, that assumes you have no deductions. Throw in some kids and other deductions and that $6,900 largely disappears.
Let's say, however, you make $350,000. That's 7 times as much in income. I think most people would consider it fair that they pay 7 times as much in taxes right? Of course, how many people think that they should pay 7 times as much for their phone? Or their cable bill? Or electricity? Probably not as many. Yet, does this family get any additional federal services? No. But guess what? They don't pay 7 times as much in taxes for making 7 times as much in income. No, they pay 14 times as much in taxes! That's right, on $350,000 of income they'd pay $96,000 in federal taxes.
Now, some people will say "Yea, but those rich people have all kinds of deductions." No, they don't. And as we shall see later, for all the claims of "the rich" finding "loopholes", they sure aren't doing a good job because people who make $350,000 or more are paying nearly all the federal taxes.
But you might say, "Well, the federal government doe a lot of things that helps everyone and the wealthy should pay more, after all, they can afford it." In fact, let's say you take the view Calor does. That the wealthy benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure of the United States and therefore should pay disproportionately. The argument goes: If Bill Gates was born in Somalia he'd be just another starveling. What makes Bill Gates Bill Gates is that he happened to be born in the United States where an educated work force, a strong and uncorrupted judicial and legal system protects businesses, and a good transportation and logistical system helps make it possible to bring products to market in over an entire continent.
Okay, let's say we accept that premise. That roads, education, a society that is based on rule of law, okay, let's go with that. Unfortunately, that's not where your federal tax dollars go. They don't go to helping create a good criminal justice system or better roads or researching new technologies. No, they mostly go from you to some other individual. Here's a pie chart of where your tax dollars go.
Look closely at this. Specifically: Social Security + Medicaid + Welfare + Medicare = > 50% of the federal spending. Half of that federal taxes go from you to go to someone else. All arguments over social justice and compassion aside, how exactly do these programs create opportunity? What exactly is the justification for spending money on these things from a governmental point of view? People like Michael Moore and Al Franken argue that those people buy things which in turn helps the economy and that "rich" people just waste it on fancy food and foreign cars. There's a technical term for people like Michael Moore and Al Franken, we call them "Dumb people". In the real world, most people who generate wealth do so because they are effective at utilizing capital. Blowing a significant portion of your capital on luxury items is not very effective. What these people do is take that capital and invest into things that will generate even more wealth which helps everyone. I am not suggesting that taxes are universally bad. I am saying that income redistribution is bad because it is a less efficient use of capital. I certainly favor state programs that ensure that our citizens aren't starving or freezing out in the streets. But that's not where this money is going. In fact, programs that help ensure poor Americans don't go hungry are handled by (wait for it) THE STATES.
The original point of having the federal government was to "provide for a common defense, promote (not provide) the general welfare". Those things only use up a small percentage of the budget. 15% on defense, 2% on veterans benefits, 3% on natural resources, 3% on education and 8% on Misc. Now, that 8% isn't all good stuff. That's where pork barrel programs fall into. You always hear about "corporate welfare". Well, that would fall into there somewhere. But now you can see what a dishonest charge that is. It's hard to take people who cry "corporate welfare" seriously when that entire part of the budget falls under "Misc." and is only 8% while over half the budget is spent on real live welfare.
Even if you're one of the people who believe Social Security and Medicare are things "we pay into and thus should get something out", that still leaves 15% (Welfare and Medicaid) that are just pure give-aways. Or put another way, it's charity. Which is ironic because the people who are most militant about increasing welfare are the same people who seem to detest the primary providers of charity historically - religious organizations. Rather than allow concerned volunteers to help their fellow man, we instead pay far away bureaucrats to administer money confiscated from the citizenry. But I digress.
The problem with income redistribution is that it opens a Pandora's box that can never be closed. Once you have convinced society of the need to take money from "the rich" to give to others you slide down a slippery slope. Over time, power of "democracy" comes in and the majority vote in leaders who increasingly take from the economic producers of society to hand over to everyone else. We already see that today:
This data is from: http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Take a close look at the bottom row.
The top 1% of income earners in the United States already pay 34% of the federal taxes. The top 5% pay over half the taxes. Think about what that means once you have convinced society that it is ethical to confiscate money from one person to give to another. We're not talking about taxes used to provide education to Americans. Or taxes being used to have a better police force. Or taxes to protect us from foreign enemies. We are talking about taxes taken from one family to be given to another. We are also not talking about taxes being used to feed starving people either. Instead, most of this money is now being used to either provide a life style that resembles "middle class" (without having earned it) or is used to provide health services. Because now, health care is considered a "right". In 1933, living to 65 was very unusual. Now, apparently, living to 80 is considered a right that should be guaranteed by the government or more to the point, guaranteed by the top 5% of income earners.
That is why so many conservatives abhor income redistribution. It has no end in sight. When 25% of the population pays 83% of the taxes, it becomes incredibly tempting for the other 75% of the population to just continually vote in new entitlements. Today we debate whether prescription drugs should be provided for by the "government". I imagine a hundred years ago the idea of taxing people to give other people free medicine would have seemed absurd. At the rate we're going it won't be long until the "government" is required to provide every adult with either a free automobile or annual vacation allowance. Or more to the point, that the 75% of the population that pays only a tiny share of the taxes votes in politicians who promise that the "wealthy will pay their fair share and provide them with free cars and free vacations!".
The usual counter argument is that the rich are "greedy". But who's really being greedy? Every demographic study of "the rich" show that they, on average, work longer hours and take greater risks than the rest of us. Moreover, statistically, those who oppose the welfare state are not much more likely to be rich than those who favor it. It is an issue of principle, not greed. It is not the federal government's job to decide for us what an acceptable economic living standard is. Besides that, it seems to me that those who demand free money are the ones who are being greedy --not the ones who are having to pay it. You can almost imagine the politician saying "These greedy rich folks in their fancy houses and fancy cars think that the rest of us aren't entitled to have a nice car or nice home or a nice vacation! Well they are wrong. It's time for these greedy people to start pulling their own weight and ensuring that the rest of us are entitled to a decent Disney vacation too!"
Honest discussions about taxes rarely happen because the politicians are always so clever about hiding the truth from the average person. You hear things like "A big tax cut for the wealthy!" or "Bush's rich friends got most of the tax cut." Of course they did because any serious tax cut is going to go to people who...pay taxes. Saying things like "The top 1% are getting 33% of the tax cut!" is like saying "20% of sick days are on a Friday". It's just dishonest politics.
Moreover, what about the people who call for federal tax increases for things like "more money for education". Huh? The states provide nearly all of the education dollars. The federal government only pays something like 10% of the bill for public schools. And talk about inefficient use of capital - send money to Washington to send it back to go across the street? Duh? When people talk about raising taxes, what they really mean is bringing in more money to pay to other people in the hopes of making them dependents so that they'll keep voting for them.
So next time you hear politicians debate about taxes, tax cuts, the debt, and "entitlements", remember these things: (1) Most federal taxes are simply pay offs to other families. (2) One percent of the population pays a third of those taxes already. (3) Beware of entitlements, in a democracy, the majority of people can vote in any entitlement. And when that majority only pays 4% of the total tax burden, such entitlements are not a matter of IF but rather of WHEN.
No matter where you are, WinCustomize hopes you have a happy 4th of July. Have a great day! Sometimes in my writings I probably come across as unsympathetic to the "less fortunate". That is probably true to a certain extent. Mainly, I'm a crummy writer so I tend to write my opinions in ways that grate. But also it's because I grew up poor -- for an American. I lived amongst other poor people and know from first hand experience what kinds of things makes a person poor and what kinds of things can make someone wealthy.
Of course, bear in mind, in the United States, most people who say they are poor are probably not really very poor, even by American standards. Of course, even the poorest Americans are still well off by the standards of most of the world.
Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I just turned 33. Still reasonably young. Generation X. I've got 2 little ones now. So the story I'm about to tell shouldn't come across as one of those old timers who tells about how things were in the old days. I graduated from college in 1994. Only 10 years ago.
When I was 4 my parents got divorced and my mom and I moved to Michigan. I was a child who grew up in a single parent household whose mom worked for minimum wage while we lived in a small apartment trying to make ends meet. We lived amongst other poor people. Most of the people who I met who were poor were just losers. I realize that won't win me any compassion awards with the politically correct crowd, but the older I get, the more obvious it becomes that some people are losers. These are people who were too foolish or stupid to live responsibly. The woman who lived next door paid me 10 cents per bag (when I was 6 years old) to take her garbage out to the dumpster. Her money came from welfare. In the entire time we lived there, she never got a job. She had 3 kids, each from a different man. She had money for cigarettes though. Money for booze. But couldn't get a job. I'm sure she would be the first to complain that "the rich" don't pay enough in taxes. Across the hall was a druggie. Usually jobless too.
The apartment complex was full of two types of people -- people on their way up and people who just couldn't get their act together. For the most part, the latter group were people who just didn't want to work, or decided that life was unfair and wouldn't do anything about it, or were just unbelievably irresponsible and short-sighted in their decision making. That isn't to say that all Americans who are poor are lazy or stupid or irresponsible. I also have met people who suffered from physical or mental problems that limited what they could do. But for the most part, the people who were "poor" would be poor no matter what you did for them (and by poor, I'm talking about people who are in their late 20s or older making less than $15,000 per year in 2003 dollars).
Some people aren't willing to work their way up. Those people want propserity handed to them. They say how it's not fair that other people have it so much easier. Well you know what? Life ain't fair. My mother taught me that. When life hands you lemons, you make lemonade. I was willing to take this woman's trash to the dumpster (about 100 meters away from the apartment) filled with the most disgusting stuff, in the dead of winter, so that I could make money to save for college, buy Star Wars figures, and baseball cards. At 10 cents per bag. I took the garbage out for our neighbors too so I could earn a couple dollars a week doing this. Big money to a 6 year old in 1977.
When I was 14, I got my first hourly job. My summer job was to paint, by myself, a giant chain link fence that surrounded a 5 acre property. In the dead of summer with temperatures in the high 90s, low 100s. But I did it and I got paid minimum wage. I could describe in detail how unpleasant this job was. The fence itself was overgrown with thorny vines which I had to first remove before I could paint. And did I mention how hot it was?
When I was 15, I worked in a garage cleaning the crap out (sometimes literally) and helping the guys fix the "shovels" and other things that came in (it was a garage for escavation equipment). I worked these crappy jobs because I didn't have a car. So I could only work at places I could either walk to or get a ride to. These jobs weren't pleasant but you have to do what you have to do. Life ain't fair.
I took some of the money I saved in those 2 years and bought a Chevette for $1,500. Crappy car. Rich kids at school whose parents bought them cars made fun of it. But with that car I was able to get a nicer job at the mall. Still working minimum wage, it was at least air conditioned and eventually I got raises to making a little bit more. And I learned new skills. The mall job required I wear a shirt and tie. I had to interact with customers, improve my communication skills, and learn to present myself better.
When I was 18, I was able to use my 2 summers working at the mall book store (as "experience" that showed I was responsible enough to be reliable) to get a job at the bank. My first job there was driving a van from bank to bank to pick up the deposited checks to take it to the district bank which gave the checks to the proof machine operators. It was a highly unpleasant job and mindnumbingly boring. But it paid much better ($6 per hour in 1988 was not too bad). And it helped ensure I could afford college. I went to Western Michigan University. I was accepted at the University of Michigan but I couldn't afford to go there. So I went to WMU.
When I was 19 and 20 I got "promoted" to being a proof machine operator. When you get a canceled check back in the mail, you'll notice at the bottom of it is a computerized number that takes your chicken scrawl amount you wrote and makes it into something that the computer scanner can read. Back in 1990, that meant some poor schmoe (like me) had to actually look at your check, make out what you wrote, and type the number and account information onto a keypad and run your check through the proof machine. I did that for 40 hours per week. I still have occasional flashbacks to that as it was incredibly repetitive.
But partially because of that job, I also became incredibly fast at typing. My typing speed got up to 100 words per minute by that point (still not at the 120wpm it is today). This acquired skill would do me well in the future.
But despite working at the bank, and working all those jobs and having saved money all my life, I couldn't get much aid for college. Why? Because my mom had lived responsiblily and hadn't piled on huge debts. I had a scholarship thanks to my high ACT scores but it wasn't nearly enough. So I started a company selling computers to the faculty. I knew how to get computer parts wholesale and could then undercut the local computer store. I called the company "Stardock Systems".
In 1992, OS/2 came out and I felt I could get a competitive advantage by pre-loading OS/2 onto the computers I sold. I became quite familiar with OS/2. In early 1993, I thought there would be demand for an OS/2 video game. The only problem was that I didn't know how to program. So I bought a book called "Teach yourself C in 21 days" and a book called "OS/2 Presentation Manager Programming". With those two books I learned how to program and wrote Galactic Civilizations. Anyone who ever played the game and also knows programming can verify that only the techniques in OS/2 PM programming are in that game. What that meant is that all the "graphics" were merely iconic windows, not real images because OS/2 PM programming didn't include chapters on how to do graphics programming and I couldn't afford any more books.
Even still, my plan, once I graduated, was to go work at some cool company. I sent my resume to Texas Instruments and tons of other big companies. No response. I later learned from a friend who worked at Ratheon at the time that these big companies won't look at resumes from minor colleges like WMU. He got in because he went to (wait for it) the University of Michigan, the school I was accepted at but couldn't afford (my friend's parents paid his way through and drove a firebird).
So while failing to get a job, the little game I made did really well. Except that I didn't get paid any royalties. Our publisher ripped us off and because I was poor and couldn't afford a lawyer, I was screwed. If you bought a copy of Galactic Civilizations for OS/2, that's cool but I never got a penny of it. But the game was such a success that I was able to use the good publicity to build Stardock up with other products while I waited to see if I could get a job anywhere.
Because I worked 3 jobs during college my gradepoint was only 2.6 so I was at a competitive disadavantage. But that time allowed me to keep working on Stardock stuff which led to Star Emperor (a GalCiv derivative I wrote for IBM) and Object Desktop for OS/2 which I teamed up with a fellow OS/2 fanatic Kurt Westerfeld to bring to market.
And the rest is history. By 24 I was a millionaire. And during the stock bubble, my company's valuation was ridiculously high (wish I could just stick with that number ) which fortunately coincided with my 10 year class reunion!
So what's the excuse of able bodied people who are poor? I'm not particularly intelligent. I don't enjoy working any more than anyone else (just ask my mom). But I did what I had to do. And now I pay 6 figures in income taxes of which a large percentage of it goes to other people. If I can make it, why can't others? If you are able bodied, what's stopping you?
I think Americans are very generous people. As a nation, we spend more on programs to help the poor and downtrodden than any other nation. We provide more aid to the poor of the world than any other country.
If you find yourself thinking that other people are "just lucky" or that you are constantly being singled out by the boss or some other authority figure or that life isn't fair, then you need toughen up and quit looking for scapegoats. Look inside. In the United States, hard work, more than intelligence, more than inherited wealth, will win the day in the long run. You may not become a millionaire. But you won't be poor. And by poor, I mean real poor, not "I can barely afford a new DVD player" poor (hint: if you have a DVD player, you're not poor but if you think you are, consider the choices you made to buy a DVD player in the first place rather than how you might have used it otherwise -- my mom and I didn't even have cable TV until I was in highschool and no VCR until college and this is the 90s we're talking!).
Our country is rich in opportunity for those willing to work for it. Often that work is mindnumbingly crappy but opportunity lurks for those who are persistent. Don't let pride be your downfall. I got my start taking out garbage for welfare mothers and worked my way up to painting fences in the blistering heat and so on today. If I can make it, anyone can.
Epilogue: I've gotten a lot of comments pointing out that I did have the advantage of having a mother who instilled her values into me. That is true. I had my share of advantages. My dad helped steer me into computers, for instance, by giving me a Commodore 64 for Christmas. And my mom was adament about the value of learning skills and planning for the future. But that's really the point isn't it? That people can succeed by having these kinds of values. A parent giving me a computer instead of a game machine or a parent that taught me that there is no such thing as a job that is "beneath" you are the kinds of things parents can do for their own children that can make a big difference. Too many people who fail in life are people who think they have no control over their own destiny. How often have you heard some welfare recipient say they won't "flip burgers" because they feel those jobs are demeaning? Or the person who spends their money on frivelous things instead of things that can lead to a better future? Becoming "successful" doesn't happen overnight. It's the result of a series of decisions and actions that lead to a better life. Too many people want success handed to them or look to blame others for their misfortuntes. As soon as you give over your destiny to someone else in the form of blame, you're doomed.
