Did you build your own house? Do you build your own roads? Or do you mean instead that you should do something to earn the money to then purchase everything you need from someone who is actually providing those goods and/or services?

And after the parents die? What then? Toss the handicapped in the street because there's no one to care for them?

I mean, hey, I'm all for rugged individualism, but at some point, I also have to realize that there are some things bigger than myself. And that sometimes, I have to bond together with my fellow humans and pitch in to help. And sometimes, it helps to have just a little bit of sympathy, and a little bit of empathy for the plight of others. Otherwise, what happens when I do find myself in over my head, possibly through no fault of my own. Like, say, in the case of a natural disaster? Or do you think we just all just take care of ourselves, when our home, our family, perhaps even our city, has been wiped off the face of the earth?

Paying someone to do something for you is not leeching and not underachieving. Making me pay for someone building your house is leeching and underachieving.

Yes. People should earn enough to supply what they need for themselves. That is a fair expectation no?

What was your measure again?

I measure achievement of success by family. Remember family values?

1)How many hours a day one spends with family. Raising their kids (not showing up at their sporting events to root them on either).

2)How tolerant one is of the opinions of their partner and children in a free give and take.

3)Whether or not a person can admit to not being right.

4)How comfortable a person is sitting quietly.

5)How much a person cares for the welfare of their fellow human being as well as other living creatures.

6)If a person can show respect for the work and opinions of others, even if they disagree with the substance of their creativity.

Those are a few of mine. Money is way down towards the bottom of the list. Perhaps that is why I have enough. I'm willing to contribute/share mine for the welfare of the majority.

Sometimes I think those without are the stingiest because they have been embarrassed at some point by others for being without.

How do you measure?

I explained how I measure in my first post this thread.

BTW, all those things you mentioned are nice, but none of them pay for health care.

This thread is about achievement- not health care. BTW how one measures is not important for the purpose of this thread--The question is philosophical.

Oh. Well, I'm happy with the definitions I posted.

That is the point. You have the right to yours and I have the right to mine. The question is; Is either one 'right'?

Yeah, mine are from the dictionary. Not sure where your definition is from. So mine is "right" and yours is.... yours? I wouldn't say yours is wrong.

I always find it interesting when a person claims 'rightness' based on cultural standards and idioms. It lacks adventure and individuality.

The English language is bad enough when it comes to words meaning lots of different things. I guess I just don't want to contribute to the problem further by making up definitions for terms I use as I go along. That's why I try to use dictionary definitions.

Again, I didn't say yours was "wrong" I just said its "yours." Mine was accurate if you don't like "right." The word "right" can mean more than one thing too.

For me, money is lower on the list of "acheivement" as well. Not that's it's bad, but just not how I define success. A person's happiness should be the measure of wealth IMO.

But possibly ... for others, we should judge achievement by their measure, not our own. Otherwise, it's quite possible no one would measure up to some arbitrary standard of our own making. Even if it means being unhappy.

For a nation, the well treatment of children should be the top priority ... any society that fails at this will fail IMO. Also, just my opinion, I think if we put money at a high priority, we'll possibly to waste more than those who do not. Greed somehow finds a way to shoot itself in the foot. For example we (the U.S.) have probably committed a half trillion dollars to the Iraq conflict... that's a lot of money. Could the oil have clouded the administration's vision?

Don't be hijacking RJ's thread. He gets pissed. Stop talking about oil and Iraq and get back to underachievers.

I think its one of those flexible words that gets used in different ways by different people at different times. Usually such words are best not used if communication is one's goal.

The word (and it's antonym, overachiever) seem to be related to expectations, and for most that means the expectation of others. For me, my own expectations of myself are infinitely more important than others' expectations of me.

It's not a word I would ever really use, but I guess to me, underachievement relates to whatever one considers to be achievements of value or importance, which varies a lot from one person to another (perhaps hence the flexibility of the word). For me that means personal contentment with life and one's circumstances in it, and satisfaction that one have done one's best to cope with the hand dealt. Money is not closely related to that at all in my view.

To others, who might see the world through 'green-coloured glasses', it is natural they might see achievement, and therefore underachievement, as measurable in terms of financial success.

I think that in general achievement is a personal thing. I do see underachievers around me though. They're the people who are dissatisfied with their own lives but lack the initiative to change it.

Someone who doesn't have much and doesn't do much, but is happy, isn't an underachiever, IMO.

Someone who has lots of money and prestige, but is unhappy, is just as disappointing as an underachiever, but I think a different word would apply.

An overachiever, to me, is someone who uses more work than necessary to effect a particular result. It doesn't really denote (at least to me) the people who work hard in order to accomplish something real, it denotes the people who work hard in meaningless ways.

I asked if he wanted me to go change the word. But while we're on it, you are exactly right - its based on expectations. The context was society and whether society should pay for an individuals health care or whether the indiviual is responsible. Here on this thread, I further defined it as meeting one's own needs. Someone who can't meet their own needs isn't achieving enough - you could also say things like they aren't productive enough, not resourceful enough, and on and on.

Anyway, I'd say that's what the discussion is about more than how each individual assesses their self-worth and happiness. For a capitalist, I'm not all that ambitious either. I'm happy with my current situation but that's not what this is about.

What does that mean though ... "meeting one's own needs?"

For example, I write software. Basically, I wiggle my fingers and people give me money. It's a weird job IMO, since I'm fundamentally dependent on other people to provide almost all my needs, like food, shelter, medical attention, computers, etc.

I agree though that some people do more than others, and in different ways (some of which there is no financial reward). Although I don't see a poorer people as the group of non-contributers. Some of which do contribute, and in fundamentally important ways.

AFAICT, there's no real correlation between societal contribution and socio-economic status ... like what the conservative faith would believe (any more than there is between income and IQ.) I remember seeing that about 5% of the people in any given company do absolutely nothing. Others are professional screamers, and yell at others to do work for them. I had a stint at one company where I did practically nothing for 12 months! I wasn't goofing off ... there was literally nothing to do. For myself, this line of work is horribly boring. In a large corporation, you might sift through several hundred thousand lines of code and change one single character or line ... as a days work?

I think for a lot of jobs, I have to question whether they do anything at all for society, including my own.

Punishing people who "don't meet their own needs" only targets a small slice of people who don't play the game of looking busy. OTHOH there's many fundamentally important jobs which have no financial reward. Although there's a large financial cost if the person does a bad job, and society has to deal with fixing the mess.

One could essentially make the case that the poor provides fodder for some to make a living with.

I don't really get pissed, I become a noid, and I hate when that happens.