Published weekday mornings as the coffee brews
Why is financial diversity enslaving? Wouldn't that be enriching too? Lack of financial diversity would be more risky and therefore more enslaving.
Financial diversity might mean needing multiple jobs requiring an enslaving number of hours of work.Multiple sources of income means you're less dependent on any one thing, but you have to put a lot more effort into maintaining it.
Financial diversity at this point in time could mean a crapload of nothing. Especially if you're near retirement...time to keep on working (slaving) away!
in this context, I think she means having diversities in the amount of financial resources between people in a society - having very rich and very poor lead to enslavment of the poor by the rich...
"Especially if you're near retirement...time to keep on working (slaving) away!"Or if you're a liberal arts major straight out of college . . . I love how my bachelor's degree that cost me thousands of dollars is currently worth earning $8/hr. in my field because nobody has money to pay for anything I can give.
The only intelligent thing I have heard from the mouth of Barbra Streisand:"It is not who you know...but WHOM."Although it has fallen out of popular usage, it is still correct. :-)I love your thoughts!
I like this interesting blog. I link it to mine.
My financials are diversifing towards zero.
So, if we are ALL slaves (because financial diversity is a worldwide phenomenon that cannot be escaped), then who are the masters?
"Although it has fallen out of popular usage, it is still correct."Actually, in that particular context, it isn't. You need a preposition to use "whom".(Just nick-picking)
Actually, Marc, if 'who' is the subjective and 'whom' is the objective, 'whom' could be used wherever the objective is appropriate (i.e. direct object, or indirect object, etc) not ONLY as the object of a preposition. Just nit-picking... Anon-D
As far as I'm concerned, 'whom' is a word that was invented to make everyone sound like a butler. Calvin Trillin, writer (1935- )
She meant, as far as I believe, that congressional leaders wanting poor people to own houses is a bad idea. Whatever happened to working for the American dream? It should not be given to you, it should be worked for.
Think about it in a group context. You have a bunch of socially diverse friends (or, say, board members). Enriching. You have a bunch of financially diverse friends (or board members). Enslaving. When money is considered as a qualification, it changes everything.
Post a Comment