Comments

AJ ... good points. You're so right about the arrogance and "convenient blinders" of the rich.

But why do even the less fortunate have a greater belief in their power to move up the economic ladder than the actual opportunity is?

Posted by Steve Yastrow at May 19, 2005 1:16 AM

Great post, Steve. I got into a pissing match years ago with a TP Newsletter subscriber on this. He said the key was "hard work,ethical behavior, blah, blah, blah ..." I said that my dye was cast in the birth canal. TP. Born 1942. Following advantages: (1) Born in the USA. (2) Smart parents. (3) College-educated parents (Big Deal in '42). (4) White. (5) Male. (6) Anglo-Saxon. (7) Protestant. I said, "That was the first 99%, and then I worked my ass off."

Posted by tom peters at May 19, 2005 1:47 AM

Tom,

Well said BUT i was wondering that jus by working ur ass off, u would'nt be in an enviable position (lets not dwell upon whos' envying) where u r rite now bcos i feel one has to get LUCKY once a while! U may coin it like "being in the rite place at the rite time", ofcourse, having said that it cant be recursive and one has to indeed contribute his share of blood & sweat. To put it simply, "When the goin gets tough, the toughest & luckiest gets goin"

Posted by Sriram Kannan at May 19, 2005 2:49 AM

I agree with Tom and A.J. I was born "middle class", had corporate jobs, fell off a mountain (or at least a decent-sized, comfortable hilltop) and lived in a ghetto, not because I wanted to help the people there or investigate their distress, but because I couldn't afford to live anywhere else.

It isn't easy to climb out of poverty. Maybe it was easier for me having known something better than it was for the people who were born into it. The ways out are hard work, self-confidence, self-discipline and a little luck. Having a good wife and family where you all pull together helps.

I don't believe the actual opportunity, particularly in America, is less. It's never been easy, but in my view it's easier than it ever was before for those willing to try and never give up, to work their way through the obstacles instead of complaining about them. I listened to what Les Brown said and not what the New York Times said.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 19, 2005 4:38 AM

if you examine the personality of “the rich” you will find hardly anybody looking away because of disgust or mere arrogance. people look away because of sheer fear. this could happen to me too. if i do not get the new job, if my wife leaves me, if i do not stop drinking … and when all three things happen… hallelujah!... down it goes.
but thoughts like this are not really good fun at a garden party. so you lock them out – and every reminder of them too.

a funny thing about the dynamics of an “individualized society” like ours is, that with the increase of personal choices and possibilities you also have an increase of felt personal risk.

individualized society – on the one hand-side - may feel like a big birthday-party, i can do what ever i want, i can be what ever i want to be. brand you, brand me.
but on the other hand, this flight to the stars does not come with a return ticket or a guiding home base – “…huston is not answering anymore!”

everybody is his own captain. and it is always dark. stay focussed!!!! stay focussed!!!!
the more that you are on your very own trip, the more you (everybody!)need blinders to stay on course.

so the gated communities will become even more gated, the vip parts of the world will become more vip. and the people on their way to the party will look less to the left and to the right.

…
clean charity – internet shopping with a giving-percentage will become a big thing.

Posted by jens at May 19, 2005 5:55 AM

a funny thing about the dynamics of an “individualized society” like ours is, that with the increase of personal choices and possibilities you also have an increase of felt personal risk.

- so, what happens?
you need your blinders to stay on course.
but – ironically - the more you use the blinders (focus, parties, personal goals, drug abuse) the higher the risk that your ship will wreck.

- so what do you do?
you use the blinders and integrate correction loops into your life. you introduce a rhythm of fasting, yoga retreats, shrink- and coach-sessions... you find the place and time to take off your blinders in a save environment.

…

Posted by jens at May 19, 2005 7:59 AM

Steve you make a great point - as do other posters here. Your history may be a little dodgy though!

Medieval and Tudor England was a lot more upwardly mobile than many people think. There are plenty of examples of people who made it from pretty humble origins (quite a lot who went the other way as well!) Admittedly piracy - sorry privateering! against the Spanish and protection rackets/extortion in France during the hundred years wars make the exploits of Enron executives look benign in comparison but us English were a bunch of Go Getters.

Sir Frances Drake is a prime example. Humble origins – went to sea as child and became one of the most successful men in the country. There was a real eye for high risk high gain commerce. In fact during the Spanish Armada invasion attempt this attitude got in the way as our privately owned “navy” at times was more interested in plunder than defeating the Spanish!

Going back to late Medieval times - if your Lord and master did not for fill his part of the contract or something went wrong you sued his butt off. Yep Good ol England in the 15th century was litigious in a way that America can only dream of today! What is fantastic is that the documentation still exists in some place (broken contracts, boundary disputes etc it’s all there! Damn I love the history of this country!)

England at the time was a small country with a big big heart!

Sorry for the history lesson - just happens to be a passion of mine!

Posted by PaulH at May 19, 2005 8:20 AM

thanks, paulh.
this had to be said.
have not read a more convincing statement on this wonderful island - that i love so much - in a long time.
thanks for the history lesson:)

Posted by jens at May 19, 2005 8:33 AM

Wow. You´ve written a great post Steve. It´s the big problem of (lack of) opportunities. Though everybody could develop his or her capacities the distribution of wealth or the reward of one´s talent depends a lot on power. I think there are three elements for what we call success: Chance, effort and power. As society works mainly as an institution you won´t be easily rewarded for your talent unless you get to make an institution out of your name. And you need power for that.

Nevertheless, the alternative is to enjoy your life, do what you like and don´t expect too much from what is not in your hands.

A great post, again, Steve.

Posted by felix gerena at May 19, 2005 8:34 AM

Thanks, Paul ... even though there were examples of people who could be upwardly mobile in medieval and renaissance times, did as many people believe they had upward mobility as do now?

And what about Shakespeare's third category, people who "have greatness thrust upon them?" That's been dreamt of in all ages - Moses, Joseph, Cinderella. Now we have American Idol!

Posted by Steve Yastrow at May 19, 2005 9:14 AM

I love it! This insane desire of some Americans to bash their own country. One of your most controversial Presidents, Nixon, had this to say about it:

"If American renewal is to become a reality, the media will have to resolve to help the process along rather than to analyze and critique it so relentlessly that it dies aborning. Journalists will have to learn to look in the mirror and not be afraid their National Press Club cards will be revoked if they say:

"I want America to be strong and free and fair and civil and to continue to grow and prosper.""

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 19, 2005 9:26 AM

spiderman on shakespeare:

"with great power comes great responsibility"

i think, paulh was actually refering to the third category.

and, steve, "american idol"... they are the gladiators of our time. show me the "greatness" in this bloody game...

Posted by jens at May 19, 2005 9:33 AM

Steve, Tom, AJ, Noel - I reject and don't believe anything in the NYTimes, Washington Post, USA Today, and Newsweek to name a few. [Fool me once and it is your fault - fool me twice and it is my fault.]

NYTimes could be 100% incorrect in their "research". Anything to sell media: violence, perversion, scandal, celebrity, faking it - they all sell well in the USA - I'm totally out of touch because I'm not buying. Check the mega TV ratings of Crime Scene Investigation shows [CSI], crime/death rules le tube de la boob!

The NYTimes especially has an extreme liberal agenda - it loves class warfare between haves and have nots - sell that fishwrap baby - while its wealthy owners/"editors" [and Al Sharpton] drive their SUVs at high speed through Manhattan - heads up when you visit!

Family, peace, caring, love wins out though for rich and "poor" - I've given 98% of my possessions to a Catholic charity because they really aid the poor [keeping homes/Lexus/IT stuff/Nike Shox TL's] - luckily I'm blessed so I can have fun with it - plus it creates the designer new me.

A main part of USA poverty is part of the Vincente Fox perverse agenda of sending his criminal and poor class into the USA.

Another faction is what Bill Cosby ridicules in black USA society: "I don't want to be white/Asian highly-educated in school man - because my home boys don't think that is hip-hop cool". Here in Albuquerque the brown drop out rate is incredible - less than half even finish high-school - where are the family values when you need them? To quote TP: what has brown done for you lately? [Just kidding.]

Peace and love.

Posted by Sean at May 19, 2005 9:36 AM

PaulH - as an FYI, Lord is reserved for God while lord was reserved for your earthly master. Otherwise - great post.

To the question of one's station of birth:
I believe a couple of things on this matter. Having the right parents can make a difference. Frankly - they SHOULD. Proper parenting should result in more than teaching your children how to get richer. It should result in a child who:
*Is wise with their money
*Dreams and gets a vision for their life & career
*Learns how to strategize the execution of that dream
*Learns the value and impact of giving to charitable organizations
*Is interested in a purpose greater than simply growing their bank account
*Longs to have an impact in another's life so great that they look for opportunities to mentor someone less fortunate than themself so that they can grow into a similar position.

***These things should all be done regardless of whether the family has money or not.***

Ultimately, this all comes back to what our business is about - adding value to others. You CAN do this regardless of your station.

To the question "Is there a gap between perceived and real equal opportunity in our society?"

Unfortunately, in many respects I'd say there is. That is evident by much of the moral decline that is evident to anyone not residing under a large stone. This growing acceptance of wild, immature and illegal behavior that is considered cool is NOT the result of a revolution against the system. It IS a result of failure of parents to "train up a child in the way he should go and even when he is old he will not depart from it." Proverbs 21:6.

That verse says nothing about requiring that you be from a particular station to do that.

But regardless of the ever-present moral decline - the American / entrepreneurial spirit - that illustrious American Dream is very much alive and well. The dot come boom is proof of that...regardless of the bust in economy that followed. We are constantly looking for ideas to grow - and those ideas do not always come from those with the "right" family. I personally know two guys I'm friends with who can prove that position to be bunk. One in particular has...a messed up family tree - yet he owns his own business he built by yanking on those bootstraps and is very successful. He employs over 10 people in a very nice office facility in a high-rent area and lives in an $850,000 home in L.A. He has undoubtedly risen above his station to go on to bigger and greater things.

On the flip side, my step-brother..who comes from "good stock"...has fallen in with a lousy wife and group of 'friends' and is quickly on a path for the trailer park life. He was one of those yuppie-types. Now...not so much.

Is there a gap between perceived and real equal opportunity? Not if you are properly educated...or "trained in the way you should go". It's what you do with that information - choosing to believe there is opportunity and acting on it or accepting negative perceptions and living with it - that determines your path.

Proper parenting should cause any child to do like the little engine...I think I can...and then put out the effort to get it done...not making excuses for difficulties.

Posted by Tony May / Mayday Media at May 19, 2005 9:57 AM

nice suv-advert you sketched there, sean. i wonder why nobody ever used it...: wallpaper* inside - ciudad de dios outside. the ultimate in civilized protection.

Posted by jens at May 19, 2005 10:05 AM

A few thoughts come to my mind:

1) There will always be roadblocks to greatness. Greatness simply means overcoming the roadblocks. i.e., trust fund kids aren't great, even though they're educated, rich, and may have a good job.

2) Two of the greatest people I know of are also two that the NYT probably loooooves to hate: Condoleeza Rice and Janice Rogers Brown, two black women with terrible backgrounds who overcame their obstacles, achieved greatness, and are now nationally respected. Methinks they came to their belief system through their life experiences. Is that why the NYT slanders them?

3) Is this article trying to blame us for others' misfortune? Just vote for Hillary and the problem will go away? Hey, New York City doesn't even have a middle class anymore, seems like opportunity is less there than anywhere else. Far better to give our excess to allow others opportunity than to invoke jealousy and blame others for the misfortune of some.

4) I figure that opportunity won't come looking for me, I gotta make my own opportunity. To see this from a vocational standpoint, just read the works by an old sage named Tom Peters.

Gotta run, I have opportunities to make . . .

Posted by Ron at May 19, 2005 10:28 AM

Tomy May's observations are super and important and essentially true, but there's a structural limit to the effect.

Because poverty is not just a poverty of money/wealth, it's a poverty of time as well, time that could be used to teach children the set of values he & I seem to agree need teaching.

The last time the feds' numbers were collected on poverty in the workforce (not welfare recipients), it turned out that among families who lived below the poverty line, 68% had at least one parent and/or child working full-time (back then, 40 hours/wk). Pretty good work ethic overall. And 29% of families below the poverty had two members (parents and or children) holding at least two full time jobs. More time spent at work to meet basic needs = less time for family.

The challenge is that time for basic activities gets sucked from you in many small ways, (it's not just lesser health care, it's much much longer waits in line to get the lesser health care) and that ultimately affects the amount of time you have for attending to your children.

It's not an absolute binary black-and-white thing. People can rise above their designated station, but PROBABALISTICALLY the deck is stacked. It's like baseball pitchers under 6' tall...a study indicated they have to be 11% more effective to get promoted to the next level in the minors or up to the majors because the system prefers tall pitchers because there's a pre-conceived notion of great height = great accomplishment. It's not that a 5'10" pitcher can't get promoted; just has to be significantly better than any of the >6'-ers.

Capitalism is this super-awesome engine for creating innovation and wealth, but it only functions well in a state of meritocracy where "better" is defined around accomplishment and not cronyism or inherited capital. As soon as those factors are allowed to affect social or organisational promotion, the system starts to become degenerate and decay into something not capitalist, a plutocracy like Kuwait or a free market thuggery like today's Russia.

Without true competition, capitalism loses its power. And with asymmetrical birth opportunities subsequently magnified through features the Times article discussed, true competition trends downwards.

Posted by jeff angus at May 19, 2005 10:37 AM

This is related to TP's earlier article on self esteem. We discussed the importance of one's sense of identity. That identity can be greatly influenced (warranted or not) by one's family. "My father is an entrepreneur, so that's what I'll be." or "My father is a meat packer, so that's what I'll be."

Nothing wrong with being a meat packer. Which brings up another point, how do people define upward mobility? Maybe our ideals of success are different than others' ideals. I, for one, will not cede my success to society's definition.

As Martin Luther King said, "If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven played music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well."

Posted by Dustin at May 19, 2005 11:00 AM

Someone purporting to be a member of this forum telephoned me a few minutes ago and threatened my children.

Just want to let whoever it is know that my brother-in-law is a detective in the CID (the UK equivalent of the FBI) and will be having my telephone activity monitored so it might be a good idea for your own peace of mind not to try anything that will land you in prison.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 19, 2005 11:25 AM

The very notion of class is an abstract that elitists love to use as an explanation for why poverty persists. Even Ferazzi's new book, Never Eat Alone, tauts the idea that it is who you know that matters along the path to success. It is a great book about the importance of relationships, but the assumption that success come from having high class, wealthy relations needs scrutiny. It assumes that the path to success is through rising in class. These ancient European notions of class are increasingly irrelevant. This idea becomes less and less valid every year. More than anything it is a challenge to old corporate cultures that promoted this view. The 1960s counterculture persists as an anti-class non-hierarchy culture that demostrates that you can become rich and successful without having to take on the trappings of class. Our society is changing, and those of us who are white, male, wealthy and well-born want to hold on to the notion that we are the ones that people want to be like. It is part of our blind hubris that is a persistant notion underlying this class myth. Even with the disparity of wealth, we are less a class society today than ever in our history as a nation. Sure you can see differences in the way people live. Do I want my children to grow up in poverty. No. But I also don't want them growing up in the social isolation of gated communities. None of this means that the issues of poverty go away. It does mean that we have to look at poverty with a different view. What rising in class gives people are opportunities. Some of those come from having skills, knowing how to think and communicate effectively, having resources to fund opportunities, knowing people with whom to learn and collaborate, having a clear sense of direction, having a relational support system as a buffer...these are the benefits that the wealthy and well-born have had. This is what the various social, education and organizational systems that exist in our society need to focus on providing people who desire a better life.

Posted by Ed Brenegar at May 19, 2005 11:45 AM

Noel - wackos abound apparently related to / and as part of USA media. "Journalism" here is generally low paying - rarely it pays to make it a career. And liberal wackos abound in USA media - 85% by most measures consider themselves liberal - so media does not reflect the populace which trends toward moderation.

The fact that Newsweek would incite hatred by releasing "newsworthy information" shows the lack of morality and ethics at Newsweek and major USA media. Even other electronic media types think the real story is that Newsweek/others even published the "Koran story". 15 dead on their hands.

Jens - thanks, though I couldn't quite follow your shorthand - please amplify?

Posted by Sean at May 19, 2005 11:58 AM

as we are speaking about class here, and as i am wasting my time on the computer today anyway ...pst - don't tell anyone!!!... i might just aswell copy this story here that i did send to a friend the other day. it is a little off track, yet nice, i think:

...

as you know, germany (italy too, and all the eastern states) had been completely turned up-side-down after the war. not only this. it had been turned up-side-down, shaken and mixed and mixed and shaken again and then up-side-down and up again.

well, as it happened, all over europe you could find sons and daughters of former kings and other high aristocracy washing dishes, cleaning toilets or running a dry-cleaners in zurich. no kiddin.
one of these people, a princess of sachsen-anhalt (a real BIG name), was living in her small one-bed-room-flat in the german industrial city of essen. she was old, poor and had no one to talk to. except her bank clerk - to whom she had to talk frequently because of the rent and things like this...
this bank clerk was a rather simple man of high ambitions. he saw his chance.
as much as his time and his restricted financial means allowed it, he took care of the old lady. he became her family and she adopted him.
and in the early 80s he thought it was time to leave the bank. he packed his crown, his royal dresses, all the worthless medals and made off to the us where he soon after married the movie-icon sza sza cabor.

being asked in a german talk show, how this all had happened to work out for him so perfectly in the states, he said:
"america loves me. and why? because i am the only "real" european aristocracy over there. the others - those who look down on me - they drive in their toyotas to the parties. i have my rolls royce with the family code of arms. i dress in the royal uniform. now this is what royalty looks like. ... what can i say: america loves me ..."

ok. a story from the old days. and today we are all a little bit more america than a couple of years ago.
:)

Posted by jens at May 19, 2005 12:13 PM

sean,
wallpaper* inside - http://www.wallpaper.com ciudad de dios outside -http://www.miramax.com/cityofgod/pict2.html

... was a little cryptic. and cynical, i have to admit...

Posted by jens at May 19, 2005 12:32 PM

Jens - thanks - hope you enjoy the artistic lifestyle and the Mixamax scene - I love it.

Fun "royalty" story also - maybe create a pedigree, get a Rolls, gated estate and become radically upwardly mobile - very artistic.

Posted by Sean at May 19, 2005 12:45 PM

I read a discussion recently about the idea of "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer." The response was that in a capitalist economy, the rich do indeed get richer, but the poor also get richer!

The discusion included a bunch of statistics and bell-curves and such, but I think that TP gives us the raw material to prove the point: he says that in '42 it was a big deal to have two college educated parents, and he implies that having college educated parents is much more common now. My experience matches his implication, and seems typical of America - my grandfather was the first in his family to finish high-school, my father attended some college, and I managed to complete a BA.

You could argue that despite the apparant growth in education, my family has not changed social class, because education is much more common. Or you could argue that we are all much richer, because we all (on average) have better education, better healthcare, better sanitation, better homes, etc. There will always be an unequal distribution of wealth, power, and other resources. A normal bell-curve distribution suggests that the percentage of people at each end of curve will remain about the same. There will always be people who are rich compared to the rest, and people who are poor comparted to the rest.

Instead of comparing the poor person's health-care experience with the wealthy person's, should we compare the poor person's health care experience today with his equivalent experience 50 years ago? Anyone think it is worse now?

I am sure that there are advantages and disadvantages that we are born into, over which we have little or no control. But for most of us, the opportunity available to us far exceeds our williness to puruse it. I am sure that there are some doors that are closed to me because who my parents are (where I went to school, what I studied, who their friends were, etc.) But I know for fact that there are many, many things that I have not accomplished because I have not had the courage or vision to attempt them.

I think that (almost) everyone has grown socially and economically over the last few generations; it only looks like we are standing still because everyone moved together. I am much better off now than I was 20 years ago, and I think I am better off than my father was at the same age. That counts as dramatic growth to me, even if the economists think I haven't moved an inch!

Posted by Peter Laudenslager at May 19, 2005 4:38 PM

This is just to let everyone know that I don't think anyone from the Tom Peters forum telephoned me earlier. As I said in another post, if you threaten someone's children, you don't state your name for the record first.

Thank you to everyone who was concerned. I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 19, 2005 5:37 PM

Peter - could you send your post to the New York Times? They'll probably trash it, or assume it's unique in the UASS (Union of American Socialist States), but they won't be able to plead ignorance.

"A rising tide lifts all ships." - Jack Kemp

Posted by Ron at May 19, 2005 6:42 PM

Born of a working class background, with a single mom who is college educated, but teaches public school (and at one time worked in non-profit, which pays even less!), I grew up in a working class neighborhood, surrounded by hard-working, variously educated people. As an adult, I moved into one of the most affluent cities in Southern California, as a renter, single-mom, self-employed person with one son, who now has the advantage of growing up surrounded by a college educated, entrepreneurial community.

In my experience, most people have hope and belief in achieving a higher economic class. But many of those same people also believe they can't afford to take the risk or don't have the ability to make a change.

Like the difference between believing that one day you may win the lottery and knowing that one day your vision of a successful business will be reality.

Another example, at a lecture for 8th graders at my mom's school - I spoke to the kids about starting their own graphic design or web business at some point. Most of them had no concept of how they might do that, the most asked question? How much does learning cost? Don't you need alot of money to do that?
In contrast, most of the kids in my son's 8th grade class have either already started one or two small businesses or know exactly how they will go about doing it.
A matter of money? Not necessarily. But definitely a matter of perception based on environment.

Posted by Monica at May 20, 2005 12:10 AM

Upper-lower class:

As a kid, I used to jump the fence to play ball in the projects. We were on the fuzzy tip of the tail end of the social phenomenon known as white flight. Most of the time my mom made just enough not to qualify for government assistance programs. The rest of the time, she just pretended.

I remember walking home from a friend's house--I was about 13--and some guys at the corner started in on me. It seemed like just talk, so I walked on by. Halfway down the street I took a skateboard across the back of the knees. Another blow across the back knocked me to the pavement.

There were just three of them. As I slowly stood, I tried to measure the situation. Could I fight? Run? Talk my way out? The answer was an unopened can of Budweiser hurled into the side of my face. I have a vague memory of a lit cigarette being flicked and then followed by a punch. The glowing ashes just missed my eye. The punch didn't.

Funny how my friends and I can remember still thinking we were middle class until the last year or so of high school.

Here's the thing:

I know I am an exceptional case. I scored 99%-tile on every standardized test I ever took in school. I independently studied pre-algebra and first year German in the fourth grade. The first time I took the SATs I scored a 1060-->12.5 years old. The second time I was up all night before with a stomach flu and eeked out a 1420 without throwing up once.

In 2004 I graduated with a BS in business from a tiny no-name Christian liberal arts school in Po-dunk-ville, Texas. I finished on the 7-year-I-worked-full time/went-to-school-full-time degree plan. About 70% of my class were WASPish middle-class kids. On the Business Major Field Test - given at 200 plus campuses nationwide - my senior policy class as a whole ranked in at about 20-30%tile range. I came in at 97%tile.

From that same group about a quarter were almost expelled for cheating on a finance final. The Dean later caved to various pressures and all of them were graduated--none of their precious honors were sullied--including our class Valedictorian.

My post-grad plans to teach Business and English while learning the language in China were scratched by a shift in local govt politics. A late decision to move back to CA left me with a low wage job for the summer. I quickly found a decent little resort job that was moderate to low wage plus commissions--decent but with a wife and three toddlers, it still qualified me for government assistance. Unlike my dear old mother, I felt a cold apathy for the working class pride that saw this as anything other than a subsidy for my future.

Breaking out:

I am taking full advantage of this year's candidate-friendly job market. Over the course of the next few weeks I've got a string of interviews for some posh corporate proto-white-collar numbers that will likely land me a salary in keeping with the roughly 45k-ish median starting pay that this year's graduates are looking at. I'll be middle-class!! Sort of.

Just as some of my middle-class classmates are first talking about increasing their salaries, I'm going to be negotiating my first one. Nevermind that I can scan a set of financials - just as quickly as the recruiter across the table scans my resume - and tell you in a few short seconds exactly where to start looking for a problem. Nevermind that the rest of that class couldn't have done the same in two weeks (based on the numerous case studies we looked at).

Seriously, NEVERMIND. And here's why:

I don't care. I am not a victim. I don't feel underpriveleged. I may be short on softer assets like well-networked friends. But I have it over on those guys.

I know a toughness that they'll never have. I've seen the dark side of the force. I've had my head kicked on. I've lived on rice and pinto beans. I've stood in a welfare line. I've pulled 70 hour work weeks during finals--I've changed thousands of diapers while doing it. I've seen my hair start to grey at age 25.

During my internship with Office Depot, I got to sit in at a breakfast with then CEO, Bruce Nelson and forty or so other interns. At one point Bruce commented, "Some of you are smarter than me. Some of you have skills I'll never have. But I can say with full confidence that I can outwork and outlast any of you."

I smiled. "Achhooommmmbullshit"

But I am an exception.

There is a gap. It specifically results in a serious and growing economic problem of underemployment both of good old honest everyday people as well as crazy unbelievably exceptional people.

Call it class, call it guanxi, whatever you want. But since you ask:
Is it real? -Hell yeah.
Is it a problem? -Do you care about the US' ability to compete globally?
Can it be overcome? -Yes, if you're exceptional.
Is there a solution? -Yep. Cowboy up. Suck the fuck up. Beat 'em at their own game. Be tougher. Be harder. Be smoother. Be smarter. Be whatever it takes.

Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471714399/qid=1116584020/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-2918755-1347169?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Oh yeah, and don't broach the issue with higher class members. They don't care. They don't want to hear about it. It makes them feel uncomfortable and yucky. Just don't even bother them with it. Let 'em think whatever makes them happy. Hide your roots at first until you don't have to. Don't be afraid to kiss a little backside or play some nasty politics. Just keep who you are for yourself. Keep it down inside like a soft song for a rainy day. Draw strength from it silently. Best of luck.

Posted by Jason Kerr at May 20, 2005 6:46 AM

A bit tangential, but still related:
I saw a finance advisor to the Prime Minister of our country (Pakistan) saying this on TV: "Yes I admit the salaries haven't risen in proportion to prices, but what we need to see is that if we increase salaries, it will increase inflation."

I was dying to call in to the program and ask him: "Sir, will YOU refuse a promotion or a raise in your salary to prevent marginal inflation?"

And if you won't (our parliament and senate is always getting increments) why should John Doe?

Posted by Ramla A. at May 20, 2005 8:06 AM

A fascinating discussion - great post Steve

Sorry to have missed this one to date.

On equality in healthcare - although we have a national health service in the UK there is plenty of evidence to indicate the more affluent receive better healthcare - it is not to do with wealth but quite often to do with having the ability to articulate your needs; where you live; your level of income; the efficiency and effectiveness of your local part of the national health service

On dragging yourself up the social ladder – WOW! – What a great topic

I was born in a proud working class family in England – dad was a car factory worker/got reasonable slightly above average education/ career in healthcare/ studied and worked my ass off too/ got some qualifications in management/ wrote a book.

Most of this was down to (some who know me might say) ‘single mindedness’ and ‘focus’ (other might say ‘boring bloke!’).

Don’t know what working class is anymore in the UK but I guess I would now be out of that stratum and into middle class.

My view is anyone can rise above their current level – if they want to and if they work.

I am not talking here about people from really deprived situations who may not have the opportunity I did but most of use can do it – I think it will not happen without two things - hard work and a good dose of luck here and there.

Greetings to all on a lovely sunny Friday in Birmingham, England

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 20, 2005 9:48 AM

Jason - cool and powerful post. It is not about blue/white/bright collar though or white/yellow/red/brown/black people as my black in-law at HBO near Central Park says - it is about green baby - produce a profit - keep the seratonin and endorphins flowing positive - make enough to be free of the man.

Posted by Sean at May 20, 2005 12:00 PM

This thread sure packs raw punch! Some great posts!

Posted by PaulH at May 20, 2005 12:14 PM

I agree that upward mobility is still possible for anyone with motivation, drive, persistence, a bit of luck, the ability to recognize luck when it appears, and the gumption to take advantage of it. On the other hand, I don't think that the opposite is true: if G. W. Bush had been born into a poor family on the wrong side of town, today he'd probably be managing a convenience store.

Posted by Paula at May 20, 2005 3:46 PM

Paula, that's probably true, though several American Presidents have come from nowhere and I like to think it's still possible, maybe not likely, but possible for another to come along.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 20, 2005 4:27 PM

Paula and Noel, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you on these comments.

Disagreement - given the right combination of talent, drive, hard work, and coincidences, an American-born person of low standing could become President. For example, a guy from the "nowhere" of Hope, AR (or maybe he was the President's spouse . . . ).

Agreement - politics has turned into the playground of the rich, where lawyers and trust fund babies market themselves into office and try to stay there so they can feel good about themselves and useful to society (I don't put a guy from Crawford, TX in this category, but he's closer than most of us). Then the Mr. Smiths who care about this country, whether Democrat or Republican, "come from nowhere" and get elected, only to find the rigormortis of incumbency and old-cronyism, and leave office in disgust.

Makes you wonder if succeeding in the public sector is considered upward mobility.

Posted by Ron at May 20, 2005 6:50 PM

watch out. this is high speed mobility!!!!
upward mobility and re-invention in no time.

two chinese friends of mine, girls, born and raised in shanghai - funny enough they do not even know each other - one studied in wharton, the other one had a chinese education, both made a super fast carreer in international companies (GE and KPMG).

so, and just recently both ... quit. (????)
to open their own small business - one in barcelona, one in shanghai. (!!!!)

their reasons for this move into insecurity and entrepreneurship are quite similar. they could hardly relate to the typical corporate environment in the long run.
so they are creating their own environment now.

- and hey, do not get me wrong, we are not talking spoiled and priviledged chicks here.. no, sir!

quite on the contrary:
we are talking peoples republic of china and they both come from families that 15 years ago could not even buy a refrigerator!!!!

...
and now the daughter quits a director position at GE to try her own thing....!!!

...
;) watch out!

Posted by jens at May 20, 2005 7:30 PM

watch out. this is high speed mobility!!!!
upward mobility and re-invention in no time.

two chinese friends of mine, girls, born and raised in shanghai - funny enough they do not even know each other - one studied in wharton, the other one had a chinese education, both made a super fast carreer in international companies (GE and KPMG).

so, and just recently both ... quit. (????)
to open their own small business - one in barcelona, one in shanghai. (!!!!)

their reasons for this move into insecurity and entrepreneurship are quite similar. they could hardly relate to the typical corporate environment in the long run.
so they are creating their own environment now.

- and hey, do not get me wrong, we are not talking spoiled and priviledged chicks here.. no, sir!

quite on the contrary:
we are talking peoples republic of china and they both come from families that 15 years ago could not even buy a refrigerator!!!!

...
and now the daughter quits a director position at GE to try her own thing....!!!

...
;) watch out!

Posted by jens at May 20, 2005 7:32 PM

This is sure a BRIGHT, intelligent cadre of bloggers.

Ron's key points are well taken - EDUCATION, confidence, optimism rule the present/future.

Jens and Chinese friends make a solid free enterprise discovery - it is best to work for youself - then you are always sleeping with the boss - and soon to be making the big bucks.

Trevor and Noel know that the tax load is much less in the USA - I personally pay almost nothing in tax because I have a modest multi-town/home based business - and the USA tax code supports this type of capitalism.

Posted by Sean at May 21, 2005 5:34 AM

Stand by for suburban assault from housewives and SUVs
by tyler brule on this weekend's ft http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8617f726-c90e-11d9-b9f4-00000e2511c8.html

"... A Spot for the Chevrolet Suburban vehicle targets mums and shows a convoy of menacing-looking trucks rumbling through a leafy Connecticut-esque neighbourhood heading off to soccer practice. The tag-line suggests that these absurdly large, blacked-out vehicles are made for those other VIPs in life - children.

And GM's wondering why it's having trouble seducing customers?"

...
enjoy the weekend.

Posted by jens at May 21, 2005 7:51 AM

Brad, I agree with you on the basis of a policy approach--i.e. I don't want to see legislation or company policies that try to "fix" the problem.

But man! If you think class doesn't exist at all you're flat out blind. Is it the some kind of drastic emergency--no way. Should it be regulated? No way!

Is there a real need for an ethical shift in our society on this matter? Hell yes! Class problems are ethical problems. Robert Greenleaf pointed out that regulating an ethical issue nullifies the ethical force of the issue.

It sounds like you mean that you're seeing this shift already begin to take place. That makes sense, the free market favors a classless approach. I think class lines have begun to erode in the workplace. Has a complete shift taken place? No way!

Just because you've never sat in with a group where one of the first questions is: "Who is your father/grandfather? What do/did they do for a living?" Doesn't mean it isn't real.

Anyone who's ever struggled to exist just flipped you the finger by the way. I flipped you the finger, too, but with friendlier undertones.

But yeah, it's improving. The solution for someone struggling and straddling the line is to take all the more advantage of these new opportunities. The solution for someone with an elevated heritage is to take advantage of the untapped profit potential in the market.

Posted by Jason Kerr at May 21, 2005 3:44 PM

Jason - you miss the point, I think. "Class" is in your own head. Fake it 'til you make it. I too worked fulltime while earning business and MBA degree[s] - graduated #1.

Still - I fixed my teeth, learned A+ dress/grooming - made sure I was kind, caring, upbeat, innovative - TP virtues, and "lucked" into a 7 figure net worth at 28 via real estate. Now its fun to give it away for the sport of it. Play the game - this mortal thing is fleeting - 50k killed each year on USA highways alone - might as well be high class - that was the image we were created in. It is a people /network world - give and give some more - it comes back in spades.

Plus - for all the indecent things that happen to us - if we stay the course we get benefits back at least 2 fold.

Dad and grand dad are "independent" business men - aka - none of your business. Yes your history matters, especially your FICO score - make it almost 800 like my lucky deal - your credit history makes your finance class.

Finance class always matters - Starbucks and McDonalds won't touch you for a franchise unless you can show a history of multi $200k years of income - that is the class that matters.

The main thing is to keep a cool, peaceful, calm attitude - you can get fired for flipping a 1-finger peace sign - why behave like an idiot when there is so much fun to be had/good to be spread for those who are smart and healthful.

Posted by Sean at May 21, 2005 6:27 PM

Finance Class - best way around that...pay cash.

Sounds easier said than done. It's not. Don't play the credit game. Sometimes you need to getting started, but after that...nope.

Starting my career I had an older vehicle, a/c went out, ceiling material started sagging and I typically parked around back when visiting prospective clients. Ultimately, I saved and paid cash for my first BMW...a used one. The client you go to visit has no idea if you bought it new/used. You look the part, you close the deal. You look like you belong in the "finance class club" and you end up getting treated as such. Things have changed - for the better for me. Today, I'm in an '05 H2 (sorry to all you ozone lovers). Image isn't everything, but it frequently gets you through the door. Then, you've got to have what it takes.

Franchise issue - you don't have to open a McD's or Starbuck's to get to the next level. One of my clients has a great coffee house here in Atlanta (www.highergroundscoffee.com) and another is a high-end auto detail company (www.concours-exteriors.com). They're franchising now and while you need some credit to get started (unless you have that much capital) you don't have to have a multi-year income of $200K+. viagra for sale without prescription and next day delivery

PLUS - there are plenty of other inexpensive options for starting business that can reasonably yeild $75K+ for an investment of $5000 - $10000. You have to look for one that fits you (Franchise Handbook available at your local Barnes & Noble) and then you go for it. Most anyone who is truly DRIVEN (key word) can find a way to come up with a $5K loan. If someone reading this is young in their career and you're truly interested - go to my website, shoot me an email and I'll give you a couple ideas on what to do with a super limited budget. I'm not selling anything here - I'm just happy to make some suggestions.

How do you start that inexpensive franchise? That car you just paid off...keep socking away the car payment. Before you know it, you'll have the down payment for the $5-10K loan and the bank will likely support your goal because it is a franchise you're buying - not just a start up.

Again, you have to want to move up. There are ways to do it. I've heard too many "I was raised in the wrong side of town, had no money, but worked hard and now look at me" stories to think it's not possible.

There are contributing factors each person faces and every one is different - but we (Americans) all have the same opportunities. Some of us simply get head starts. Others of us have to work a little harder to catch up. My story is too long to bother posting - but I had a MINOR head start - but most of it came down to busting my tail over and over and over and over and...

In the words of Tim McGraw (off his new record Live Like You Were Dying - first track):

buy cheap viagra on line "How Bad Do You Want It?"

Posted by Tony May / Mayday Media at May 21, 2005 10:07 PM

Brad, you're SO right! OMGsh I totally missed the point (cue R&B riff):

If I can see it,
Then i can be it,
If I just believe,
there's nothing to it!
I believe I can fly...

...Sorry, Brad, but I really did mean the "friendly" part. I was just trying to have a little fun with you there. Flipping the bird was so LOW CLASS of me (But I guess that was just in your head).

I really really do try to forget everything I was and everything I've come from just like you said. It just slips out sometimes. I'll try to be more fake from now on :)

And kudos for exemplifying one of my earlier points.

Brad HAS clearly deomonstrated what said before that it never pays to mention "class" to anyone really. One of two things is bound to happen:
1. Someone gets uncomfortable and completely clams up. or
2. Someone starts some ridiculous argument denying the whole issue, someone else feels a little insulted. Somebody does something really stupid like flipping the bird, and someone else blurts out with mindless name-calling like "you total space-out" and "idiot" (we should both be ashamed)

I still think that Brad is completely right. It's mostly true that just about anyone with hard work, a little luck, and whatever kind of exceptional talent can become wildly rich and happy (and even fake if they want to).

But even with that said, the law of averages only applies to large numbers. Some people will just get crapped on their whole lives. (A faint whisper from Wood Allen, "You know, it's like anything else" and again "Whaddaya gonna do?")

BUT there's got to be some intermediate territory that's worth talking about. Being successful in business and being successful in life isn't all about white teeth, white bread, and British peas (unless, of course, you deal in household consumables)or even big paycheck. What about being yourself and passionately pursuing excellence--which, admittedly, is not well represented by middle fingers--again I'm sorry.

But you know sometimes some things are worth getting a little fired up--even worth getting fired--over (BTW every manager/supervisor/boss I've ever flipped off thought it well timed and wildly funny and respected my ballsy attitude and decided not to fire me). Honestly Brad, I found some of your comments unjust and inhuman.

YOU SEE "BRAD", I actually never missed your mushy little point--I just fundamentally disagree.

I fundamentally disagree that it's even desirable to spend your life faking it so that you can make it. I'd venture to guess from what I've read here that these TP community virtues include AUTHENTICITY. In fact I have a wildly positive attitude toward authenticity.

I fundamentally disagree with telling people who've struggled against hardships that it's all in their head.

I fundamentally disagree with your "give it away for the sport of it" comment. That actually turned my stomach. Marie Antoinette lost her head over that kind of an attitude. I think she'd look back now and say that maybe class was an issue after all.

I also fundamentally disagree with your "created in a high class image" comment. I prefer to think I was created in an image of one who did not consider [high-classliness] something to be grasped but instead made himself to be [low class] even as low as you and me--but that's for another forum, maybe.

No apologies for not conforming to your cool, calm, peaceful ideal when I found your attitude repugnant.

But you're right, I behaved like an idiot. I'm truly sorry.

Posted by Jason Kerr at May 21, 2005 11:12 PM

Many of us have made unusual comments here, used terminology we might have regretted. 'Mental masturbation' springs to mind. Yes, I actually wrote that down and posted it. And I'm doing it again!

I don't think anyone should worry too much about the occasional slip of the fingers. What matters more is the quality of the argument and this one is shaping up to be a fine debate.

On the whole I completely agree with being yourself. When you feel you have to hide who you are or where you've come from, it's like everyday of your life you're telling little lies, and over time you run the risk of compromising yourself. Better to be yourself and proud of it than feel you have to conform to someone else's idea of what's acceptable for you.

That said, I also see the sense in polishing your shoes and keeping your fingernails clean. Even if you own or represent a very small business, you still want to give a good impression to your customers. But that's not a class thing. That's just common sense.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 22, 2005 4:22 AM

wow.

best buy on viagra looks like a timeless classic,
this class-discussion...

Posted by jens at May 22, 2005 6:06 AM

Jason - sincerely want people to "transcend" class and be outstanding. If you're gifted with IQ then that is part of it. IQ is emotional, social, spiritual, physical, mental.

Fake it means programming yourself for outstanding - the finance part is major because if you're financially independent then you call your own shots - too few get there though.

Business life is a challenge - if banter seems inhuman - then heads up out there - at mid twenties you have a bit more to learn - I have an incredible amount to learn .....

Posted by Sean at May 22, 2005 6:07 AM

Brad,

Squarely put.

And a fine contest. I even fully endorse your advice (I just got a little snippy about the tone).

cheapest viagra price

I might add that polishing the surface doesn't mean forgetting the substance--and I didn't think you intended it to, either.

One of Steve Yastrow's favorite quotes follows something like:

"There are three poems to every poem: The poem the poet intends, the poem the poet writes, and the poem the reader reads."

I uh, took some artistic license with your words and vice versa. Some of those points just hit harder as a rant and I ran with it. (Editor's note: Yeah, I really didn't like inhuman either. I was looking for a better word to go with unjust but... similar idea maybe, but nowhere near that harsh.)

I won't feel picked on if you won't.

I wonder if WE had anything to do with why Steve never posted his "next installment" (?).

Did anyone else notice that Mr. Brand Harmony didn't deliver on his promise--just teasing you, Steve.

Posted by Jason Kerr at May 22, 2005 6:55 PM

watched "easy rider" by chance again yesterday. probably one of the most wonderfully funny, deeeply sad and most modern movies of all time.

it is about an irritated establishment fiercly protecting the status quo, about two guys living the essence of a society built on the promise of individual freedom and about someone who is on both sides and dies first.

and there is this wonderful scene where hopper and fonda are about to leave the hippie community. all hippies are randomly walking over a mini-patch of uncultivated land, which they obviously consider their field, and are sawing seeds for a harvest that will never come. - what a crystal clear and almost cynical statement on counterculture in general.

what did hopper and fonda (the writers of the movie script) know about our culture, that their movie-characters could not see? what is it that they have so perfectly understood and that made them succeed in real life?

Posted by jens at May 23, 2005 5:11 AM

I´d like to say something about the last sentence, "And some have greatness thrust upon them". Steve, you talk about the american idol, but in my opinion one thing is to be naturally born for something, to be very talented at something, and the other is to be an idol. Being an idol means a recognition by others. In the case your talent depends on a physical quality, as sportman or as singer, you can be succesful just by the fact of being fast or singing in an outstanding way.

But there are other kind of works that require time to develop your talent. I´ve always had three idols, Tom Peters in management, Martin Heidegger in philosophy and Carl Jung in psychology. Tom wrote "In search of excellence" when he was 38, Heidegger wrote "Being and Time" when he was 38 and Jung wrote "Symbols and transformations of the libido" when he was 37. So they needed time and experience to develop their talent. And they built perennial brands. Brands you will remember 50 years later.

Posted by felix gerena at May 23, 2005 5:42 AM

felix, "american idol" is something like the american version of "operation triunfo".
but still a nice comment...

Posted by jens at May 23, 2005 6:05 AM

Thanks for the remark, Jens.

Posted by felix gerena at May 23, 2005 6:39 AM

anyone in this philosophical circle wants to comment on my "easy rider"-post?
anyone...

Posted by jens at May 23, 2005 8:34 AM

Intriguing how several of the recent posts seem to have common intersections (Steve Yastrow's "Stalled Mobility" / Cathy Mosca's "Fit In or Get Fired" / TP's "Misguided to the Point of Deadly").

At the core, it seems to be an issue of self-esteem and social influences/pressures. Modern society pushes for categorizing us and labeling us beginning at birth (racial/social/religious/geographical stereotypes) and continually through life. Do we acknowledge the influence of those labels upon the general populace? Do we allow those labels to stick to us as individuals? How much of that is truly who we are, and how can we embrace that while discarding what doesn't belong?

One of the side effects of this core issue is our "failure to communicate" as stated in comments on Cathy's post. We need to learn how to be effective with what impresses us->we think->we say->they hear->impresses them->they think->they say back to us. It's a complicated cycle and each of these critical junctions is a potential miscommunication. Also, as far as what is/is not appropriate... conversations are simply moments where we allow someone else to lead our thoughts. We trust someone to lead us. Leading it inappropriately (inappropriate language, content, gestures, abusive language, etc.) breaks that trust. We have to be careful when we believe self-expression is more important than the trust bestowed to us.

Posted by Dustin at May 23, 2005 10:50 AM

Jens, specifically on that question, I don't know. Maybe others who know more about them than I do could shed some light on it. Enjoyed the movie though.

Dustin, totally agree with you once it doesn't discourage people from speaking their minds which to me, warts and all, is worth the risk that someone might offend me. My mother-in-law, a Sicilian, used to tell me that an insult isn't an insult unless it's true and then it isn't an insult, it's the truth. I guess she was trying to tell me not to take things personally which at the time I didn't appreciate but looking back I can see the sense in it. The "failure to communicate" comes from Cool Hand Luke, right? Another good movie.

One of my favorites is "Life isn't fair. Anyone who says different is selling something." Anyone know what movie that came from?

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 23, 2005 12:21 PM

Powerful and perceptive Dustin.

You are right - there are common links to the three postings.

When one's self-esteem is low one needs constant re-assurance that we are 'ok' people.

This is something I have struggled with for years despite being relatively extrovert.

As such I guess we can be 'easily led' but through my experience one of the things I have developed over the years is a 'good nose' for a con man/woman in leadership.

Without being arrogant I think I can now tell a good leader from a con man/woman - the con person will easily be found out.

The good leader will last - it is really about depth versus shallowness in my book.

Thank you Dustin for taking us down another fascianting road - I hope the conversation flourishes!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 23, 2005 12:24 PM

Trevor, I've read your posts and I've met and spoken with people who are easily led, and I've got to tell you, you're not one of them.

You my friend like to win and will do whatever it takes to win. There's no offense to be taken here. Just an observation.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 23, 2005 2:14 PM

Thank you Noel - appreciate your feedback :-)

You are right - I do like to win - doesn't everyone? - but I like to win fairly - always.

You are probably right I am not easily led but low self esteem has always been an issue for me.

Great banter my friend - the only thing depressing me last weekend was my beloved Manchester United losing against Arsenal!!!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 23, 2005 2:33 PM

Well, perhaps "do whatever it takes" was a bit strong. As for the gunners, they didn't deserve to win. Not when Man U worked so hard and played so well, making so many chances for themselves when Arsenal did nothing really but keep possession. It shouldn't come down to penalties - not a final. I think they should let them keep going into overtime - fifteen minutes each side - until there's a clear winner.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 23, 2005 3:00 PM

We actually stuffed Arsenal and lost - we were much the better team but thats football Noel - the best team doesn't always win

Regards

Trevor :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 23, 2005 4:43 PM

Ah, now self-esteem comes up.

It appears to me that we determine our own self-esteem. Those who don't are easily (mis)led by the New York Times.

Although I'm the political opposite of Eleanor Roosevelt, I gotta admit she's right on with her comment "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Believing that you can't accomplish something may be a lack of self-esteem - or it may be reality, like Billy Barty knowing he can't play regulation basketball.

For me, I gotta know my strengths and weaknesses, set my dreams and goals according to them, and not let non-issues like my current social class ruin my self-esteem.

Even then, social class is relative. Salaries and housing prices around San Francisco put us near the top of the world, so even though I own one of the lesser houses, my East Texas native hunny must have thought she was marrying a rich man . . .

And Noel, you're onto something with your 12:21pm post. I'd rather someone offend me with the truth I need to hear than BS me just to remain on my good side.

Posted by Ron at May 23, 2005 5:53 PM

I agree that Man U was much better than Arsenal. No question. I was really disappointed too. Normally they would have won, and usually, the best team does win, but hard luck can strike anyone at anytime, even the best.

What I found particularly amusing was that most of the players I saw interviewed after the game were either French or Scandinavian, including Arsenal's manager. I'm not sure why it amused me, but it did!

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 23, 2005 5:58 PM

Ron, I couldn't agree with you more. I think people are far too easily offended and most of the offense they take is fake. It's a manipulation used to gain advantage in an argument, sort of like walking for miles until you spot a crack on a sidewalk outside someone's store, or better yet, a government building, trip majestically, then show up in court with a neck brace and damaged self-esteem!

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 23, 2005 6:05 PM

...what is this???? we are talking soccer now???

Posted by jens at May 24, 2005 5:04 AM

and... GOAL! GOOOOAAAAAL GOOOOAAAAAL

germany scores 69 in a breathtaking match and takes the trophy back home to good old europe..

make sur to join us next time again, when you here steve yastrow say:

Posted by victoria germania at May 24, 2005 5:09 AM

You have to understand Jens - soccer in the UK is a Religion :-) ...just joking!

There was a famous soccer manager called Bill Shankly - sadly no longer with us - who made this immortal statement

'Football (soccer) is not a matter of life and death ... it is far more important than that!'

Please forgive us Brits diverting the discussion down the soccer route

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 24, 2005 5:26 AM

Same for us Micks!

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 24, 2005 5:51 AM

and i thought, fox hunting was the british religion... +-:)

http://www.saint-hubert.org/

...
probably you are pretty religious about all things sport.

cheers trevor.
i love england.

Posted by jens at May 24, 2005 6:11 AM

Too right Jens! - sport underpins my philisophy towards most things!

Business could learn much from sport methinks - maybe we would see people in business smiling a bit more! :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 24, 2005 6:53 AM

Yes, I´d sign earning 6 million dollars / year while not winning one single trophy in two seasons. That must be something close to paradise.

Posted by felix gerena at May 24, 2005 8:46 AM

Trevor, I absolutely agree with you. I think most people want to see good sportsmanship, humor and fair play rather than fouls, hooliganism and dirty tricks.

Of course, a thing can be carried too far - like football in the States where the players come out wearing shock absorbing helmets and padded from head to toe, and get to take a breather every fifteen minutes (for commercial breaks).

My favorite is Irish hurley, but you tend to come home without your teeth ; )

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 24, 2005 8:53 AM

wonderful.
looks like we all managed to catch the turn here.

sports. what a classless topic.
it is not about winning, it is about participating ....(

and cashing out big time, as felix pointed out:)).

btw: which city is winning the bit for 2012 olympics?

Posted by jens at May 24, 2005 9:23 AM

Do we need a "No Colors Allowed" sign on this blog?

Then again, it's only fair. We "geeked out" on baseball pitching stats earlier.

Posted by Dustin at May 24, 2005 10:03 AM

GO BEARS!!!! (as in Cal-Berkeley Golden Bears)

Posted by Ron at May 24, 2005 10:04 AM

The Olympics may be in London in 2012 ...says me hopefully

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 24, 2005 10:14 AM

GO THREAD, GO!!!

anybody knows a good joke?
...

btw. - sorry trevor, olympics will go to madrid:)

Posted by jens at May 24, 2005 11:05 AM

Hi Jens

London still hasd a chance methinks :-)

Did you hear about the insomniac, dyslexic athiest?

He stayed awake all night wondering if there really is a dog

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 25, 2005 3:46 AM

Trevor - does he belong to a non-prophet organization?

Posted by Ron at May 25, 2005 10:10 AM

Wonderful Ron :-) - I guess he might!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 25, 2005 11:13 AM

"And sometimes greatness comes from having nothing better to do." -- W.S., posthumously in reponse to the direction of this thread.

Well then, if Shakespeare were alive today, he'd obviously be a soccer fan. Who's his team?

Posted by Jason Kerr at May 25, 2005 12:53 PM

jason, how come you ask me that....

i am not much into soccer :)

Posted by jens at May 25, 2005 4:17 PM

Hi Jason

William Shakespeare would clearly be a Manchester United fan like me.

'Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?'

Trevor :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 25, 2005 6:22 PM