ù Quoting Ron Taylor from a message to Ryan Bagueros  ù 
RT> those that choose to work less.   In a nutshell, how do you feel 
RT> about the proposition that given equal opportunity, two people with 
RT> different ambitions can indeed have more or less "riches" than the 
RT> other?  This is a hypothetical question based on the supposition that 
Yes - I can see that. I like that idea - say, two people with similar 
backgrounds are each given a computer, and they must figure out how to code a 
particular program, and they go to town. Whoever is the most determined, most 
innovative, is the "winner." On the other hand, there is something to say 
about
two determined people working together to produce something of higher 
quality..
But that *rarely* is the case in real life. Too often, there are people who 
get
much farther ahead doing little to no work - and I'm not talking about 
welfare 
recipients. What about a person who works their butt off to pay rent, pay for 
food, and put themselves through a 2-year technical program, and end up being 
a
network administrator? And then what about the person whose father puts them 
through college, they breeze through with a C average and a bunch of beer 
every
night, rent and food paid, and they end up landing a much better job? This 
happens far more often than some "freeloader" getting welfare benefits. But 
you
never hear anyone say anything about that, in fact, put the two people 
together
and more often than not the typical middle-class person would think the rich 
kid was a better example of the perfect american.
I think that when money is the motivator (or, as someone else on this echo 
would say, greed) you end up with what you went after - someone either good 
at 
marketing (i.e. lying) or someone who had money to begin with (most likely, 
from their parents). What if heart was more important than how you dress at 
the
interview? What if a _true desire_ to get a job done was more important than 
where you went to school? 
--- FMail 1.22
---------------