Great cities and Great countries need GREAT PEOPLE to have BOLD VISION. (And to ENACT or EXECUTE that vision)

Does BOLDNESS & VISION even exist in Politics anymore?

We complain that only politicians RUN for office….not LEADERS….but which do we VOTE for when we get behind the curtain? They all kinda look & sound the same don’t they?

We need great ADMINISTRATORS to keep things in check…..taxpayers need to SEE & FEEL VALUE for the money they ENTRUST to governments at ALL levels. But do they get it?

Do we pander to the people at one end of the political or economic spectrum or the other? It would seem the bulk of the people…those in the middle…would not gain from either policy. Or do they? Does one exist to exist and the other exist to create wealth? Does one only aspire to “scrape by” while the other is willing to step on others to get ahead? Is one “greedy” and the other “lazy”? Are those labels irrelevant? Trickle-down economics…real or imagined? Who knows anymore with everyone sounding like an expert from their anecdotal personal “evidence”.

Do we build more “institutional” agencies and services that are ultimately economically unsustainable long term? Or is that the BOLD VISION that we need? Do we specialize? Do some get left behind? Do we elevate others (intentional or not)? Are taxpayers (current and future) on the hook for it all?

Is the “middle ground” or “happy medium” just another way of saying “lack of vision”?

I don’t know….but I’ve never seen people more separated on the ideologies of worth, value, justice, entitlement, success and issues of “have” and “have not”.

Labeling of “left – center and right” or “socialist - liberal and conservative” seem more separate then ever. Libertarianism seems just as far off a solution as Totalitarianism.

I find it fascinating how wealth and success have been demonized. Hard work, extra effort, sacrifice and strategic career planning is seen as “the problem” when in fact it’s mediocrity, entitlement and lack of goals tied to milestones. Is the problem of ACHIEVING success more of a problem with EARNING it?

“We are the 99%” movement protestors stream inequality from their iphones and their ipads. Is the new face of protest those who simply don’t know how good they actually have it if they just “work it”? It’s very easy to condemn the obviously well-off, imagining all the evil things they must have done to get to their positions. Hard work alone hasn’t paid off for the protestors, so the amount of hard work put into a cause or goal by the upper class must be irrelevant. Perhaps that’s why there is still no actual action plan or goal to achieve from the protestors? It’s hard work. Takes time. Opportunity must be recognized as such and pursued. Sacrifices and compromises must be made. And let’s not forget that the majority of the 99% movement based in the Western World is in fact – the top 10% of income earners when the entire world is considered. The countries with the most rights, the most open minded equality, the best access to education and health care. If you can’t succeed there….then where?

A good friend remarked to me the other day that “change is hard”. He’s right. Absolutely right. So where do we start?

It starts with recognizing that we can’t continue like this. Something has to change. If I may offer a BOLD but very simple solution for consideration. Not a solution really, an observation. Not an observation really, more something to observe.

Appreciation. Gratefulness. Thankfulness.

We tend to forget that happiness doesn’t come as a result of getting something we don’t have, but rather recognizing and appreciating what we do have.

Gratitude opens the door to…the power, the wisdom, the creativity of the Universe. You open the door through gratitude.

It is not happy people who are thankful. It is thankful people who are happy.

Everyone wants to change the system. Entitle this group. Demonize another. Give a hand up. Or get a hand-out. I am guilty of thinking all of these thoughts in spades. My views are from my own anecdotal life experiences just like everyone else. This is plainly evidenced in my own writing above as I try to come to grips with the root of our problem(s). But as I age and mature <snicker> I am slowly realizing that the system is not the problem. We are.

We look to the world around us for inspiration to achieve as much as to place blame for not achieving rather than self actualize who we are, discover what strengths we possess and define what we are going to do with our lives. We’re quick to accept the outsourcing of our innate ability to achieve success and happiness on our own terms rather than take risk and forge our own path. We’re too quick to look at what what others have achieved and want it without thinking of all of the work and preparation that went into getting there. We joke about 30 seconds of fame some receive but it is our collective 30 seconds of focus that is perhaps more the issue in our world of sound bites and 140 characters of so-called genius. I’m not one to quote from the bible but the root of today’s issue of ideological conflict is summed up nicely with our modern world’s failure to heed the following: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17

Perhaps the bold new vision our world needs, is not new at all, but one at it’s most basic level is to appreciate what one has and strive to achieve what you want out of life for your own sake and not by looking to others to define it for you.

Daryl Daley – The Philosopher Recruiter
Sr Recruiter – IT Staffing
Intelligent Minds
www.intelminds.com
ddaley@intelminds.com

#justsayin

Views: 112

Tags: Agency Recruiting

Comment by Keith D. Halperin on January 27, 2014 at 5:14pm

Thanks. Daryl. When relative inequality increases(*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States) and social mobility decreases (http://www.ibtimes.com/us-social-mobility-casualty-income-inequalit...) people tend to me more upset, and IMHO, we have a damn right to be!. .

-kh

*Most of the growth has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity becoming more extreme the further one goes up in the income distribution.[13] A 2011 study by the CBO[14] found that the top earning 1 percent of households increased their income by about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[14] Other sources find that the trend has continued since then.[15] In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[16] In 2012, the gap between the richest 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent was the widest it's been since the 1920s.[17] Incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, whereas the income of the remaining 99 percent rose 1 percent in comparison.[17]

**"Empircal analyses estimate the United States is a comparitvely immobile society, that is, where on starts in the income distribution influences where one ends up to a greater degree than in several advanced economies," the report states, suggesting the U.S. is no longer, if it ever was, a nation where the poorest can feasibly lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

If income were equally distributed, each quintile (or fifth) of households would account for 20 percent of total income. The poorest quintile has long since accounted for far less than its proportionate share, barely budging from about 4 percent in recent decades, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Meanwhile, since 1968 the middle class (defined as the three middle quintiles, or 60 percent of households) has seen its total income share decrease steadily, while those among the top-fifth of earners – particularly the top 5 percent – have seen their incomes skyrocket. For instance, the top 5 percent held 22.3 percent of the nation’s wealth in 2011, up from 16.3 percent four decades earlier

Comment by Daryl Daley @IntelMinds on January 27, 2014 at 5:48pm

Thanks for the comment Keith - do the numbers mean we shouldn't be grateful for the opportunities we have even if we don't sacrifice and risk things to obtain them?  Are the top earners just outsmarting and outworking the rest? 

Have the under performers just given up? 

Do the numbers mean the "American Dream" is working....or failing?  Is it still achievable?

Agree 100% that it is a MASSIVE issue....but where is the responsibility for it to fall?

Your second source quotes the following:"Half the economic advantage the children of well-off families enjoy comes from having been born into wealthy families in the first place." - hasn't that always been the case and why wouldn't it be?  Why do we think in our progressive and modern world that your family upbringing - which includes income - wouldn't have a massive effect on later income earning potential?

Comment by Keith D. Halperin on January 27, 2014 at 7:55pm

You're very welcome, TA hungry man can be grateful that  he' isn't starving, and a sick woman can be grateful that she isn't dying, but they can both rail against there situations.  As far as top earners- some are providing genuine value (inventors and entrepreneurs), and some are just rigging the game (financial "banksters" and major company CEOs making hundreds of time the typical earnings of a typical employee).

Have the underperformers "given up"?

Some of them have, that's who drops out of the job market. Things are better now, but there are still three people for each job opening, and  as discussed elsewhere IMSM, a good percentage of new jobs  pay less well and have fewer benefits than the old ones did.

Do the numbers mean the "American Dream" is working....or failing?  Is it still achievable?

Yes indeed it's working, if you're at the very top, not working if you're not. Is it achievable: yes, but harder and harder to do- that's where the decreasing social mobility comes in.

"Why do we think in our progressive and modern world that your family upbringing - which includes income - wouldn't have a massive effect on later income earning potential?

Of course it does, and that's why measures designed to increase opportunity (Head Start, School nutrition, etc.)for those who aren't wealthy are in place, and why these are the targets of many of the elected officials who either are millionaires (about half of Congress, if I recall) or those who work for them.

If you're in favor of a free and healthy society, then it makes sense to make sure you have a vibrant growing middle class,,measures to help those who aren't there to get here with hard work, and insist on laws which makes sure that no companies and their executives are "too big to fail, to big to jail". If you leave them to their own devices, the richest will work to maintain their position as a self-perpetuating oligarchy based on wealth, and again IMHO that's increasingly what our country is becoming. We really DON'T want to have a very large number of angry young (largely) men with no money, no real prospects for it, and too much time on their hands, and I think we're heading in that direction, too...

-kh

*It has been this way for a VERY LONG TIME, too.

"

Comment by Amy Ala on January 27, 2014 at 8:06pm

this reminds me of an interesting conversation I had with an old high school friend recently. We both grew up in a small Kansas town tied to a military base. Our economy pretty much depended on it. Well, to put it mildly I grew up on the "wrong side of town" if you know what I mean... and many of my friends families weren't much better off. We both have moved on (and away from our hometown) and have done ok for ourselves. In catching up with others from our hometown, and discussing who was where now 25 years later, we realized that we had a choice - we could rise above our situations or we could let them define us. Luckily for us we worked our asses off to rise above. Not many of our friends did, sadly. So yeah, I'm grateful. :)

Comment by Daryl Daley @IntelMinds on January 28, 2014 at 10:35am

Keith - if the situation changes, you must adapt.  Why must those who are adapting to the situation well be punished?

Re:  large numbers of angry unemployed men with no money and no prospects.....agreed...we don't want that....but "we" includes all of us...not just those who have adapted the best.  Europe has massive issues of unemployment with twentysomethings.....technology and automation are radically changing the employment situation....we shouldn't blame the results on those who have adapted to it the best....

Comment by Keith D. Halperin on January 28, 2014 at 2:15pm

Thanks, Amy. Glad you made it out.

@ Daryl: If by "adapted to it best": I agree if you mean, "bought the lawmakers to influence policies in their self-interest".

Why we should blame those who've "adapted to it best?" Because they've harmed the interests of the rest of us, continue to do so, and would do even more if they could… 

I am a strong believer in people helping themselves and each other, like the Family Independence Initiative: (*http://www.fii.org/approach/ ). I think we should encourage more mutual-help organizations like this

Countries like Germany have lower unemployment, (http://www.oecd.org/employment/unemployment-set-to-remain-high-in-o...), Germany's workers have higher productivity, shorter hours, and greater quality of life. (http://www.salon.com/2010/08/25/german_usa_working_life_ext2010/), and universal health coverage, like EVERY OTHER ADVANCED NATION EXCEPT US (**http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2...) They also have a conservative government in power.


How did we get it so wrong ?

 

-kh

 ..............................................................................................................

*Approach

Since 2001, Family Independence Initiative (FII) has innovated and tested new approaches to economic and social mobility that demonstrate that low-income families have the initiative and capacity to move themselves and their communities out of poverty. This happens when families have access to connections, choice, and capital.

Connections start with self-organizing through social networks. Family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues can learn from one another and serve as support systems for each other creating both a safety net and a springboard forward. From our peers, we find role models who shape our expectations of what is possible—and what is not. Peer-to-peer supportive relationships can provide relevant information, advice, and inspiration to move people forward in a way that social sector professionals cannot.

•Find out how our families are using UpTogether, a community-building social networking platform, to cultivate valuable connections between and within their communities.


Choice is about having a range of options and the ability to exercise those options, whether they are related to finances, housing, health, education, or other opportunities for well being. Rather than being directed or controlled, families must have control over their own choices to succeed.

•With greater choice, families have sought out better educational opportunities for their children, bought their own homes, and have launched an array of small businesses.


Capital is biggest difference between low-income families and upper income families—not smarts or resourcefulness. Access to financial capital allows families to leverage their initiative and accelerate their mobility. Financial capital is what the well-off use to assure they have
 the choices they need.

•To create capital access, FII fosters ongoing data collection that families can use to build credit, qualify for resources, and track indicators of well- being. We then analyze that data to identify trends and develop flexible resources—like loans and scholarships—in response to those trends.


We believe information is essential for growing connections, capital, and choice. By documenting and investing in the initiative shown by low-income families, we ensure that everyone has access to the American dream.

 

 

**By T.R. Reid -- Five Myths About Health Care in the Rest of the World

                                                   

By T.R. Reid

Sunday, August 23, 2009

As Americans search for the cure to what ails our health-care system, we've overlooked an invaluable source of ideas and solutions: the rest of the world. All the other industrialized democracies have faced problems like ours, yet they've found ways to cover everybody -- and still spend far less than we do.

I've traveled the world from Oslo to Osaka to see how other developed democracies provide health care. Instead of dismissing these models as "socialist," we could adapt their solutions to fix our problems.

 

 

 

Comment by Daryl Daley @IntelMinds on January 28, 2014 at 2:34pm

Keith - Canadian here - freedom fries...democracy...you know...the right to vote, equality, body sovereignty  etc etc...and Universal health Care.

Buying lawmakers is another matter entirely....as is "influencing" lawmakers.  There is a difference between the two.

"Those who have adapted have harmed the interest of the rest of "us" " - really...as they continually hold the door wide open to whomever wants to adapt to the conditions of hard work, work smart, opportunity chasing success?  Me thinks you've been drinking the office cool-aid too much Keith to be placing blame so squarely on some people's shoulders.

The war on poverty and social mobility will not be won by declaring war on those who have adapted, prospered and achieved success.  A new way must be found......responsibility for our personal situation must START with an honest look in the mirror.  And appreciation for all we have...including the wide open door in the distance....

Comment by Keith D. Halperin on January 28, 2014 at 6:53pm

 Thanks, Daryl. Didn't know you're Canadian. Last I heard, your Parliament and Legislative Assemblies haven't become as corrupted by money as our Congress and State Legislatures. In my book, the only difference between "influencing" lawmakers with massive campaign contributions and campaign junkets, and "buying" them" is...? I'm not sure.

 

"...they continually hold the door wide open to whomever wants to adapt to the conditions of hard work, work smart, opportunity chasing success? "  Maybe they still largely do that north of the border, but down here it's "Open competition until I win, then slam the door shut with a kick to the **** for fun. We Americans say we like to compete, but we really like to WIN, and it's not just that I must WIN, but you must LOSE and not challenge me again, because I'M BETTER THAN YOU."

 

As far as Canadian politics are concerned: I saw a bit of a rally for the New Democratic Party headed by the late Jack Layton, with some MPs. Those folks didn't look like millionaires- they looked like regular folks! I remember him advocating things that wouldn't even be discussed here in the USA, and thinking "Why couldn't WE have some politicians here committed to a country where 'Nobody gets left behind, and families first!’”

 

I've said it earlier- I have no quarrel with the entrepreneurs who've created value for us all, but a lot of the people you seem to be praising are the financial "banksters" who've cost millions of Americans their jobs ,and homes, and not only have none gone to federal prison for 10-25, but many have come out with healthy bonuses. If "adapting" means peaceably putting up and encouraging that kind of criminal injustice, then call me "unadaptive". Frankly, the "I've got mine, now you get yours" (unless I want yours, too)" approach, hasn't worked well for most people. I'm grateful for what I have (I have more than most here), and can still want and work toward making sure that EVERYBODY has enough.

Cheers,

Keith

Comment

You need to be a member of RecruitingBlogs to add comments!

Join RecruitingBlogs

Subscribe

Free Webinar!

Marketing Partners

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

Recruiting Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2014   Created by RecruitingBlogs.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

scroll to the top