Chet Ruminski Wrote:
"The more skin in the game, the more likely the choice will be made carefully and treated as a life long commitment to one's chosen profession."
That is more an answer logically reflecting on hindsight. You may think you exercise choice in decisions but I think people are guided by their individual character. Your character defines you not you defining your chatacter. Using extreme examples a pro quarterback did not learn how to throw a ball, he was born with that talent. If you are prominent in your field then nothing interfered with your self to detract from that. Consider the implication of sharing or imparting your wisdom. That implies that a character can be learned or that people can learn traits. If that were true and people weren't born with fixed personalities then there would be total chaos. People would constantly be learning and changing unless learning how to determine what was bad and good, learn how to tune out the bad , retain the good and apply it. People don't have the humility to acknowledge a gift.
You missed the point that I was making. Certainly one is born with certain characteristics that help them succeed in life whether it be an Olympic athlete, a baseball pitcher, a master violinist, an accountant, a teacher, a policeman, or whatever. But none of them got where they are today without personal commitment and sacrifice...hours and hours of practice for an athlete or musician...hours of studying for an accountant or any other profession. For many of these people they fit the cliché of being the "best that they can be". They or their parents all made sacrifices along the way, whether it is the cost of education or the hours spent practicing. These are the people who have high self worth...a feeling of accomplishment and reward that comes with having made the sacrifices...and taken the risks. They have skin in the game.
It's also true that for many of these people, their goals were not attainable, and they found a secondary reward. Some rather mediocre quarterbacks become wonderful coaches or teachers or personal trainers. They have certain character traits that drive them to succeed whatever setbacks they are given in life. They get back on their feet. They have a positive outlook on life. They are fun to be around.
On the flip side, there are potential athletes that never could succeed because they just were not as motivated. Ditto for other professions. While we are discussing character traits then, I read where laziness, for example, might be an inherited character trait.
Live Science: Lazy? Your Genes May Be to Blame
So the question I will pose by way of example, if laziness is an inherited trait, should those people with the other attributes that help them succeed, owe to the naturally lazy people to help them cope in society. Should natural laziness be treated as a cognitive affliction the same as mental illnesses?
Finally, I just read this article in the news today:
MSN, Apathetic workers in state and local government cost taxpayers billions
"...many government jurisdictions are saddled with a preponderance of unhappy, indifferent and generally unproductive workers who are costing taxpayers billions of dollars in lost productivity.
"Based on a nationwide survey of state and local government employees in 43 of 50 states, Gallup found that 71 percent of the work force was “disengaged” or unenthusiastic about their jobs – and unwilling or incapable of improving their output. By contrast, only 29 percent said they felt fully engaged in their work and eager to improve on the services they provide."
"According to the report, engaged employees “drive innovation and move their workforce forward,” while actively disengaged workers do just the opposite, costing their states millions of dollars annually while “interfering with government goals.”"
Why is that? I do not have the answer, but I do know that every society and country on this planet has many of the same problems...people who make a real difference and people who are just along for the ride...unhappy people that like to cast blame. You cannot blame the US government for all of society's ills.