The Abundance Mindset (Blog)

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I wonder if there is a way to align those more.

Great question…

I personally think that the two might be more aligned than people might think… unless the person doing the assessment belongs to a group that does not adhere to the majority’s points of view…

A hippie and a banker could not agree on monetary or philosophical values… but I believe that the mainstream crowd would be pretty close…

Social value: This term embraces a range of qualities for a place such as spiritual, traditional, economic, political, or national qualities which are valued by the majority or minority group of that place. Social values include contemporary cultural values.

Intrinsic value is generally defined as the inherent worth of something, independent of its value to anyone or anything else. One way to think about intrinsic value is to view it as similar to the inalienable right to exist.
.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Shamou

I personally think that the two might be more aligned than people might think

There are many jobs that provide a high intrinsic value when well performed but offer only low wages. Paramedic and teacher are two that come immediately to mind.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

There are many jobs that provide a high intrinsic value when well performed but offer only low wages. Paramedic and teacher are two that come immediately to mind.

I fully agree with you there... however, on that level, we are getting into social justice... and as long as the "supply and demand" is the prime regulator in economics... I am afraid that we are not about to see any change soon...

Maybe Steve could give us some leads on the situation... but, I must admit that it's way out of my league...
.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Shamou

as long as the "supply and demand" is the prime regulator in economics... I am afraid that we are not about to see any change soon....

Indeed. There are only 946 billionaires worldwide right now. If there were less than a thousand teachers in the world perhaps they'd be afforded higher value, which may actually be possible as education becomes more automated. There are universities in India and elsewhere already using MIT's online courses (though they're free at this point).

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Shamou

I fully agree with you there... however, on that level, we are getting into social justice... and as long as the "supply and demand" is the prime regulator in economics... I am afraid that we are not about to see any change soon...

Supply/demand is the prime regulator in economics for a good reason. In the case of jobs like teachers or paramedics, the salary is low because it's a job that a lot of people can be trained to perform. People get paid based on how how much value they can provide relative to other people, not based on an absolute scale. The latter makes no sense economically, and is why communism doesn't work. My father, who lived a lot of his life in the Soviet Union, told me that construction workers there were paid higher wages than engineers (he was an engineer). This artificial value assignment was an attempt to show that the working class was the most important part of the society.

The bottom line is that a lot of people can easily be trained to become teachers, police officers, construction workers, etc. so the supply is abundant and salaries reflect that. Becoming a brain surgeon however, is a lot more difficult and carries a lot more responsibility, hence there are far fewer of them and hence they get paid a lot more. This is how the most effective economies work, and trying to artificially change this like the Soviet Union did will only lead to disaster.

[InterfaceLeader]

Originally Posted by Baltar

The bottom line is that a lot of people can easily be trained to become teachers, police officers, construction workers, etc. so the supply is abundant and salaries reflect that. Becoming a brain surgeon however, is a lot more difficult and carries a lot more responsibility, hence there are far fewer of them and hence they get paid a lot more. This is how the most effective economies work, and trying to artificially change this like the Soviet Union did will only lead to disaster.

Unfortunately, as in Edwardian Britain, if you let salaries get driven down too far the workers can't afford to eat, let alone pay for brain surgery. Before Russia turned 'communist' or China turned Socialist, the people were quite literally starving in the streets.

Just because someone can be easily trained, doesn't mean something isn't hard work. I would not enjoy cleaning up sewerage, it would be 'easy', but hardly satisfying. If you clean up the middle classes sewerage and don't even get paid enough to feed your family, there's something out of whack. Without sewer workers, we'd be drowning in the proverbial, and just because sewerage workers are 'expendable' is no reason not to treat them like human beings.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by InterfaceLeader

Unfortunately, as in Edwardian Britain, if you let salaries get driven down too far the workers can't afford to eat, let alone pay for brain surgery. Before Russia turned 'communist' or China turned Socialist, the people were quite literally starving in the streets.

I don't know much about China's history, but you're wrong about the Soviet Union. More people starved under the communist regime than under the czarist regime that preceded it. Read this: Overpopulation.Com » The Soviet Famines of 1921 and 1932-3

In the space of little more than a decade the Soviet Union managed to inflict two devastating famines on its people and provide a blueprint for how governments could and would transform limited natural disasters into full blown starvation. The famine of 1921 began with a drought that caused massive crop failures, including total crop failure on about 20 percent of Soviet farmland (1). Although certainly a disaster of large proportions, such periodic drastic crop failures were not unknown in Russia. A similar drought struck in 1892, for example, which led to the worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia.

The comparisons between the droughts ends, and the tragedy begins, when the Bolsheviks reacted markedly different to the natural disaster. Tsarist officials arranged for the delivery of food supplies to the affected regions which, in combination with private relief efforts, kept deaths down to 375,000 to 400,000. The Bolsheviks, by contrast, simply ignored the famine until it was largely too late. Unable or unwilling to admit natural disasters could strike in the worker’s paradise, Lenin took actions to protect himself politically but did nothing to prevent the starvation. In May and June 1921, Lenin ordered food purchases abroad, but earmarked them for the politically important cities rather than for starving peasants. Bolshevik leaders avoided visiting the areas suffering from famine.

Originally Posted by InterfaceLeader

Just because someone can be easily trained, doesn't mean something isn't hard work. I would not enjoy cleaning up sewerage, it would be 'easy', but hardly satisfying. If you clean up the middle classes sewerage and don't even get paid enough to feed your family, there's something out of whack. Without sewer workers, we'd be drowning in the proverbial, and just because sewerage workers are 'expendable' is no reason not to treat them like human beings.

The point is that supply/demand shows that it's a lot easier to find people to perform physical hard work than mental hard work. Just because some jobs are dirty and physically exhausting doesn't make them eligible for high wages (and in the future we'll probably have automated robots doing most menial work). Many countries have minimum wage laws to help out the poor, but these have to be kept in check or they can negatively affect the economy.

The world has never been a fair place, although things have improved significantly for a lot of the world's population in the last 100 years. However, economics is a subject that's fairness-blind, so there's no point in trying to reconcile the two. In the end the only way we're going to have humane economic fairness in the vein of what you desire is if a lot of things become commodities. In other words a Star Trek kind of world where energy is cheap, food is abundant, and most physical objects are abundant commodities. This can happen eventually (possibly even in our lifetime) because of advancements in nanotechnology. But that's the only way it will ever happen. The current economic system is based on scarcity, and can't be transformed into one of abundance without actual physical abundance being present.

In a presentation on "The Top Ten Impacts of Molecular Manufacturing," Phoenix predicted that products made using a mature molecular nanotechnology would cost $1 per pound to make. After nanotech factories hit their stride, molecular manufacturing will provide more manufacturing capacity than all the world's factories offer today. We will see the advent of cheap solar power and cheap energy storage, and inconceivably cheap high-powered computers the size of wristwatches. The components needed to put a kilogram of material into orbit would fit inside of a suitcase. Nanotechnology would make it possible for 100 billion people to live sustainably at a modern American standard of living, while indoor agriculture using high-efficiency inflatable ten-pound diamond greenhouses would help restore the world's ecology. The ultimate limit to economic growth seems to be heat pollution, the waste energy radiated away from nanotech devices.

[jdmrv2420]

This is a pretty interesting mindset. Wish Steve would get back to more of the Law of Attraction stuff.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by jdmrv2420

This is a pretty interesting mindset. Wish Steve would get back to more of the Law of Attraction stuff.

I believe that's what the abundance mindset is. With the mind focused on and accepting abundance, more wealth (of whatever variety) is drawn to it.

[Michael Chui]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a reference to this term previous to Stephen R. Covey's 7 Habits book?

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a reference to this term previous to Stephen R. Covey's 7 Habits book?

Michael, which term are you referring to?

Thanks.

[Michael Chui]

"The Abundance Mindset" or "mentality".

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a reference to this term previous to Stephen R. Covey's 7 Habits book?

Although not a written text, I remember a friend in the mid-70's attending a seminar entitled "Abundant Living". I believe that the message had roots in Norman Vincent Peale's "The Power of Positive Thinking". The jist of the seminar was get right with your cosmic creator, eliminate all negative thinking and you will be rewarded with material wealth. Apparently the "harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" stuff was of little concern to them since it obviously was referring to someone else.

An earlier text that relates to "the law of attraction" was written by the Sufi master, Hazrat Inayat Khan (July 5, 1882 – February 5, 1927) and is called "Mastery Through Accomplishment". Be advised (or for some of you "forewarned") that the end game for Khan was spiritual development as opposed to portfolio development.

I think for every "abundance" billionaire out there, you can probably find a "scarcity" billionaire. In my line of work, I deal with a lot of "moneyed" people and when they are reviewing invoices many are squeezing for every last penny, more of a "scarcity" mindset. They probably do switch to an "abundance" mindset when wanting to justify certain expenditures to themselves.

I'm not certain that the scarcity mindset is "false", but if the abundance thing works, I think it's because the thought of "possibility" opens the mind's reticular activating system and the brain then allows helpful information through the filter. No matter what the mindset, not much is going to happen without taking action when, for whatever reason, opportunities are recognized.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

Historic stuff

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jaybird

I'm not certain that the scarcity mindset is "false", but if the abundance thing works, I think it's because the thought of "possibility" opens the mind's reticular activating system and the brain then allows helpful information through the filter. No matter what the mindset, not much is going to happen without taking action when, for whatever reason, opportunities are recognized.

It's more like karma.

I do, and always will, have enough so I can afford to give you the same as what I have. As a result, you're willing to do the same for me.

The habit in which Covey talks about Abundance Mentality is called "Think Win/Win".

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Thanks.



It's more like karma.

I do, and always will, have enough so I can afford to give you the same as what I have. As a result, you're willing to do the same for me.

The habit in which Covey talks about Abundance Mentality is called "Think Win/Win".

Your karma just ran over my dogma.....sorry, old joke! Abundance Mentality would say there is plenty of karma and dogma for everyone.

I love the idea of win/win. I'm just not sure how it benefits a person to think that there is plenty for everyone in situations when there isn't. Am I thinking too literally?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

I love the idea of win/win. I'm just not sure how it benefits a person to think that there is plenty for everyone in situations when there isn't. Am I thinking too literally?

No.

Can you give me an example of a situation where there isn't plenty for everyone?

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

"The Abundance Mindset" or "mentality".

I am pretty sure Bob Proctor used in in some of his material.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

I love the idea of win/win. I'm just not sure how it benefits a person to think that there is plenty for everyone in situations when there isn't. Am I thinking too literally?

The win/win concept as used by Stephen R Covey in the book, "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" has nothing to do with winning or acquiring anything...

It is a concept where you try to resolve differences where both parties win... as opposed to "If I win, you lose..." or "If you win, I must lose..."

There idea is to find a way where everyone comes out winning...
.

[Michael Chui]

To Shamou's bit, I should add that Covey also stated that it's either Win/Win or No Deal. That you have to walk away from situations where the other person loses to you. If there isn't enough to go around, then no one takes anything. Covey calls that courage.

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

No.

Can you give me an example of a situation where there isn't plenty for everyone?

Like Mike mentioned early in the thread, there are certain limitations on resources. Creativity may be unlimited, but there is a fixed amount of most elements on earth, at least until the next asteroid hits. (But don’t count on that providing much help in the short run!) And a trapped miner will most likely benefit from adopting a scarcity mindset with respect to air and forego the morning jumping jacks. On the other hand, once rescued he or she may get a lot of enjoyment from going "Abundance Mindset" and blowing the Xmas fund on a little R&R in Cabo.

I'm not trying to argue that a scarcity mindset is more conducive to making money or a better frame of reference on which to base decision making. Just that in certain situations, it is beneficial for us to figure out a way to make do with what we have.