That's why I specifically referred to the original signatories.
And it's far more complex than that. Germany faces severe demographic trends that have caused a labor shortage, and also has an economy that's highly dependent on manufacturing exports. Having an open door policy at that point makes an awful lot of sense.
The US is headed towards a similar situation, but will have a better labor pool in Mexico, and–Internet wisdom notwithstanding–the US is much better at integrating immigrant labor than Europe is.
Yay, more villifying "Wall Street" and fueling the "Wall Street vs. Main Street" fire, and suggesting that it's somehow noble or good to not want to be rich.
It's somehow noble or good to not want to be rich after you've become so, is the cliché.
I don't doubt that he's doing some real good; it's the self-aggrandizing style that opens him up to a whole host of issues.
It's a dilemma, for sure, but a guy who's so apt to talk specifics in terms of his income and bonuses doesn't present himself as operating from a place of humility. I know people who went through roughly the same evolution he claims to, but the ones who actually internalized the lesson aren't humble-bragging to the NYT under a byline, but are actually out trying to do good with as little self-aggrandizement as possible.
Like it or not, the way in which he chose to share his message completely undermines it, and it doesn't make his current situation seem too terribly different from his previous ones. Less destructive and more functional, sure, but the dynamic seems largely unchanged.
"Cynical: believing that people are motivated by self-interest." Call it a plague if you like, but I'm OK with it.
And I wasn't being sharply critical (snarky) for the sake of being sharply critical. Honest.
He's pretty actively promoting himself, his story, and his business (which is what it is) online, and he just successfully SEO-bombed his way to the top of the charts. You may think it's out of an abundance of goodness, but I think that's as naive a view as you think mine is cynically snarky. (Or snarkily cynical.)
Gaining wisdom by way of being paid massive amounts of money is an odd definition of "hard-won". Many people find out that their career is largely unsatisfying without stockpiling a safety net that could last a lifetime in the process.
It's one rung up the ladder from the guys who make their money in ethically grey ways, find religion, preach their conversion, but keep the money. (But it's still a rung up, mind you, and that's a good thing.)
Good for him that he earned so much, and that he seems to have found meaning in things besides money, but the story is pretty clichéd.
And I'm not sure "irresolvable emptiness" and an "unfillable hole" is quite so universal as you seem to indicate, nor do I think all attempts at filling voids are of equal value. (I'm not saying you do, either, just trying to be clear.)
1. Not defending the concept or execution of that wall, but the list of reasons behind its existence includes many more things than just nationalistic tendencies. If and when it's dismantled, it'll say far more about the relative functioning of the two nations' respective institutions and economies than it will about any decrease in nationalistic tendencies.
The original signatories to the Schengen Agreement were some of the most nationalistic countries on the planet, and still are, 29 years later.
2. It only feels like the Berlin Wall if you ignore the fact that the Berlin Wall was built to prevent emigration and defection.
3. You and I live on the same planet; mind if I enter and leave your home without restriction? Mind if everyone else is free to, also?
I agree with what you're saying in principal, but the application of ideals is where things become far more complex.
Also, it's worth reflecting on the fact that the federal republic of the United States has totally open borders between its 50 states, which is too often taken for granted, and basically provided the model the EU is struggling to imitate.
TL;DR: He used to use drugs and booze to deal with his insecurities. Then he used money. Now he (apparently) uses the attention that comes from telling everyone how wise and honorable he has become.
I'd love to have loners.org to use for a (free, non-commercial, and personally-funded) resource for introverts, and I promise not to give you a domain in return!
Why was the title changed from "Should" to "Could"?
While I don't agree with the author's argument, he's at least making a specific point.
"Could", on the other hand, reduces it to being meaningless. Your First Hire Could Be a Weirkeeper. Or a milliner. Or a janitor. Or, you know, anything.