Quite recently, Dark Knight released a video documenting two men getting arrested for the new laws in place in New York subways prohibiting men from taking up too much space in subway seats. In his video, Dark Knight raises a call to action in order to start fighting back against this insanity. With the country becomming more and more of a trash pile for our rights and liberties, he wanted to start fighting back. He wanted to start fighting back aganst laws such as California's "yes means yes" law and New York's "manspreading" law.
Further along in the video, he was comming up with ideas such as lawyers that specialized in men's issues and scientists that would work independently to create a male birth control pill or the artificial womb. The only problem that Dark Knight stated was that he didn't have any solutions or any plans on how to get there. How to start fighting against this insanity?
In response to his video, he received support and he also received criticism. The criticism included that men going their own way don't need to do anything and just let the entire system collapse on itself. I can understand both sides. There are men that want to change the world and there are men that want to leave it along. Both are fine.
I'm a fan of Dark Knight's content. Of all the content producers out there, he has to the most postive one out there. That positivity is really needed when I get back from 12 hours at the office and I feel like I've just been punched in the kidneys. Motivated by his video, I would like to submit one possible solution.
Whatever solution that works, I don't think it we can count on getting the federal government to do it for us. The solution will come from each individual man himself. Each man out there would have to get into a good financial position. Let's encourage men to accumulate crazy amounts of wealth. Like really big stacks ya know. Encourage men to go out an accumulate cash/net worth of $50,000 or $100,000.
The world we live in today, it is set up full of traps. Divorce laws, child support, alimony, and false rape/domestic violence claims hinder/destory men's lives. Legal obligations can effectively turn a man into a wage slave. Unfortunately, these are not the only traps that can turn a man into a wage slave.
Without much guidance about personal finances for a man's first 25 years of life, a man can make several terrible bad decisions that can cripple his freedom for several years. Be it taking a loan for a luxury car, going to college for a degree without good job prospects, always buying the latest and expensive electronic device, or deciding to take out a mortgage for a small mansion, several men will simply walk into the debt trap.
The problem with debt is obvious. You have to pay that money back or else your stuff will get repossessed. The not so obvious problem with debt is that it takes time to repay that money. Time that could be used either accumulating wealth for yourself or time that could be used to enjoy your life will be lost.
In accumulating large amounts of wealth, a man gains several options. The reason for this is that having more wealth makes it easier to gain more wealth. And having more wealth makes a man much better suited to face life's problems. After all, if a man lives paycheck to paycheck and the transmission of his car dies out, he will be crippled by a few thousand dollars. Most likely, he will have to pay for it on credit while having to pay about 15% interest on the outstanding balance.
Had the same man had just $10,000 in savings, he could just spend the cash to repair the car or see if there is a used car available for a few thousand dollars and then just get on with life. My point here is that getting into a good financial position is critical for dealing with life's problems. I encourage every man who reads this to start working towards that position of accumulating $50,000 or $100,000 net worth. If that amount is too high or out of reach, don't worry or let that discourage you. These are just arbitrary numbers. If you need a easier or more realstic goal, shoot for just $10,000 or $20,000 at first. Eventually, you want to get to a point in your life where money isn't a big problem anymore.
When you get there, whatever point that might be, you can make a choice. Do you want to sit back and smoke a cigar while our country keeps going down the drain? If so, then that is cool. You already have your safety egg that you worked hard for and you deserve to enjoy yourself. You have no responsibility or obligation to a society that views you as disposable. Let it all burn.
Do you want to get out there and start fighting back against insanity? That would take a lot of time, money, and effort. These are the things that average men do not really have much of to spare. But since you already got yourself into a good financial position, you do have these things to spare.
You want to try to protest different governments to pull back "Yes means Yes" in California? Go for it. You want to create different campaigns to try to encourage people to boycott states like California and New York for these kinds of laws? That's awesome. You want to encourage men to reject materialism and accumulate wealth? Do it. You have the time and resources to do these things if you don't have to worry about your personal finances.
I'm reminded of some news clip I saw some time ago. It was Bill Clinton's daughter creating some sort of charity or non government organization. I can't quite remember what she was trying to change and I'm pretty sure it is nothing important but I do remember one thing she said. She said she never really cared all that much about money. This is understandable when you come from a rich family and have all the money that you would need for the rest of your life time. When you are in that position, you spend your time trying to change the world the way you see fit.
This solution I've thought of, to encourage men like us to get into a good financial position, is the only solution I can think of that is a no lose situation. Most likely, a lot of men that become wealthy won't try to change government, culture, or public opinions. They have a good life and most likely contributed to the overall economy in becoming wealth. Those men that do try to change government, culture, and public opinion will put up resistance from laws like "Yes means Yes" and "manspreading" and try to prevent those laws from spreading into more states.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Democrat vs Republican run states in terms of financial management
From multiple sources, I've heard that democrat run states have poorer fiscal positions compared to republican run states. Curious to see if this claim was true (despite personal bias), I thought of one way to test this claim. Compare state deficits to how they voted in the most recent presidential election.
Linked here is a map of which states went to which candidate in 2012. 24 states went to the republican party and 26 states went to the democrat party.
Linked here is a table of state budget shortfalls for the state fiscal year of 2013. This date is as of June 2012.
According to the data, 30 total states were facing a deficit for the state fiscal year of 2013. Of these 30, 21 states would vote democrat in the 2012 presidental election. These states are as follows.
California
Colorado
Conneticut
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Of these 30 states, 9 would vote republican in the 2012 presidential election.
Alabama
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
North Carolina
Texas
Based on these findings, 37.5% of the states that voted republican in 2012 faced a deficit in SFY 2013 (9 out of 24 states). 80.77% of the states that voted democrat in 2012 faced a deficit in SFY 2013 (21 out of 26 states).
Based on these findings, the claim that democrat run states are in poorer fiscal condition than republican run states holds some weight.
Linked here is a map of which states went to which candidate in 2012. 24 states went to the republican party and 26 states went to the democrat party.
Linked here is a table of state budget shortfalls for the state fiscal year of 2013. This date is as of June 2012.
According to the data, 30 total states were facing a deficit for the state fiscal year of 2013. Of these 30, 21 states would vote democrat in the 2012 presidental election. These states are as follows.
California
Colorado
Conneticut
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Of these 30 states, 9 would vote republican in the 2012 presidential election.
Alabama
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
North Carolina
Texas
Based on these findings, 37.5% of the states that voted republican in 2012 faced a deficit in SFY 2013 (9 out of 24 states). 80.77% of the states that voted democrat in 2012 faced a deficit in SFY 2013 (21 out of 26 states).
Based on these findings, the claim that democrat run states are in poorer fiscal condition than republican run states holds some weight.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
There is no rape culture in the west.
Stumbling around Sandman's content, I found this video about Lauren Southern. This woman went to a feminist rally in Vancouver and held up a big sign saying there is no rape culture in the west. While some women were giving some speeches, attendees of the rally started crowding around Lauren Southern just to get her out of there.
Wow. Just wow. This is the funniest video I've seen all day. It isn't shock value funny but it is that kind of humor that just kind of builds and builds until you just sit back and really think about what you are looking at and how crazy the situation is. I really wish I could have a beer with this woman.
I've archived this video in this post just for the pure reason so I don't forget about it so easily in the future. Check it out if you haven't seen it already.
Wow. Just wow. This is the funniest video I've seen all day. It isn't shock value funny but it is that kind of humor that just kind of builds and builds until you just sit back and really think about what you are looking at and how crazy the situation is. I really wish I could have a beer with this woman.
I've archived this video in this post just for the pure reason so I don't forget about it so easily in the future. Check it out if you haven't seen it already.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Do 50% of marriages really end in divorce?
A general rule of marriges I've heard over time is that 50% of marraiges end in divorce. With the costs of divorce so high for men, this statistic alone should be a deterrence for men to engage in marriage or at the very least find a good woman to be in the 50% of lasting marriages.
In the last few weeks, I've been hearing people counter this rule of thumb and dismiss it as a myth. The same people will also state that just because 50% of marriages fail, this doesn't necessarrly mean that your marriage will be subject to the same probability.
I do agree that one marriage in of itself will not be subject to a 50% probility of failure. If a man chooses to marry an ex adult film star who is on her 3 third marriage, has 2 children, and has a drug problem, there is a good chance that marriage will have a higher probability of divorce.
My concern is those who dismiss that 50% of marriages end in divorce as a myth. Typically, when they dismiss the myth of "50%", they do not provide a more accurate figure of what percentage of marriages end in divorce. If 50% is the wrong figure, what is the correct figure? Is it 40%, 43%, 38%, or 34%? Even if it is as low as 25%, that means that 1 in every 4 marriages end in divorce.
The problem is that this study is very hard to do. In order to get an accurate number, you would have to track every marriage from beginning to end to find the total number of marriages, the marriages that end in divorce, and the marriages that end with one or both partners dying.
The next best thing I can think of doing would be to take a period of time and compare the number of marriages for the year to the number of divroces for the year. Since I can't track individual marriages over a time period, I'll have to look at aggregate data over a time period.
For the 50% statistic to be a myth, I'll consider it a myth if the divorce to marriage ratio falls lower than 45% or rises higher than 55% within a year. Luckily, there is a fast easy place to find some stastics. The CDC has a set of marriage and divorce tables from 2000 to 2012. We will start with the most recent available year, 2012. On a side note, I have no idea why the center for disease control tracks marriage statistics. Maybe it is used to support STI statistics?
For 2012, the table shows a total of 2,131,000 marriages and a total of 851,000 divorces. 851,000 divorces divided by 2.131 million marriages results in a divorce to marriage ratio of nearly 40%. On the face of things, it looks like the 50% statistic myth is busted for 2012. The only problem is that the data for both marriages and divorces is incomplete. In 2012, the divorces table excludes information for the states of California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, and Minnesota. Take a look at the total population for marriages. The figure reads 313,914,040. The table for divorces reads a total population of 248,041,986. In order to get a more accurate marriage to divorce ratio, I need to have complete information for the divorce table. I would need to look up the population and number of divorces for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisana, and Minnesota then I'd have to add them to the data.
Instead of doing that, I can adjust the divorce table population and divorces proportionally. 313,914,040 divided by 248,041,986 equals 1.27. Again, this is not a perfect method but this is to get a good idea of the actual figure without researching all 6 missing states from the divorce table. After adjusting 2012 divorces for the missing data, the total number of divorces for 2012 is closer to 1,080,770 (851,000 X 1.27). This brings the divorce to marriage ratio closer to 50.71% (1,080,700 / 2,131,000). This would prove the 50% divorce statistic for 2012.
Using the same method, I'll calculate the ratio for 2000 to 2011 as well.
Here are the results.
Total Table
Based on this data and calculations, I have to say that the general rule of thumb that 50% of marriages end in divorce holds up. The ratio never fell below 45%. During 2000 to 2012, the lowest the ratio ever got to was 47.66%. Those who dismiss that 50% failure ratio are simply splitting hairs according to this conclusion.
In the last few weeks, I've been hearing people counter this rule of thumb and dismiss it as a myth. The same people will also state that just because 50% of marriages fail, this doesn't necessarrly mean that your marriage will be subject to the same probability.
I do agree that one marriage in of itself will not be subject to a 50% probility of failure. If a man chooses to marry an ex adult film star who is on her 3 third marriage, has 2 children, and has a drug problem, there is a good chance that marriage will have a higher probability of divorce.
My concern is those who dismiss that 50% of marriages end in divorce as a myth. Typically, when they dismiss the myth of "50%", they do not provide a more accurate figure of what percentage of marriages end in divorce. If 50% is the wrong figure, what is the correct figure? Is it 40%, 43%, 38%, or 34%? Even if it is as low as 25%, that means that 1 in every 4 marriages end in divorce.
The problem is that this study is very hard to do. In order to get an accurate number, you would have to track every marriage from beginning to end to find the total number of marriages, the marriages that end in divorce, and the marriages that end with one or both partners dying.
The next best thing I can think of doing would be to take a period of time and compare the number of marriages for the year to the number of divroces for the year. Since I can't track individual marriages over a time period, I'll have to look at aggregate data over a time period.
For the 50% statistic to be a myth, I'll consider it a myth if the divorce to marriage ratio falls lower than 45% or rises higher than 55% within a year. Luckily, there is a fast easy place to find some stastics. The CDC has a set of marriage and divorce tables from 2000 to 2012. We will start with the most recent available year, 2012. On a side note, I have no idea why the center for disease control tracks marriage statistics. Maybe it is used to support STI statistics?
For 2012, the table shows a total of 2,131,000 marriages and a total of 851,000 divorces. 851,000 divorces divided by 2.131 million marriages results in a divorce to marriage ratio of nearly 40%. On the face of things, it looks like the 50% statistic myth is busted for 2012. The only problem is that the data for both marriages and divorces is incomplete. In 2012, the divorces table excludes information for the states of California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, and Minnesota. Take a look at the total population for marriages. The figure reads 313,914,040. The table for divorces reads a total population of 248,041,986. In order to get a more accurate marriage to divorce ratio, I need to have complete information for the divorce table. I would need to look up the population and number of divorces for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisana, and Minnesota then I'd have to add them to the data.
Instead of doing that, I can adjust the divorce table population and divorces proportionally. 313,914,040 divided by 248,041,986 equals 1.27. Again, this is not a perfect method but this is to get a good idea of the actual figure without researching all 6 missing states from the divorce table. After adjusting 2012 divorces for the missing data, the total number of divorces for 2012 is closer to 1,080,770 (851,000 X 1.27). This brings the divorce to marriage ratio closer to 50.71% (1,080,700 / 2,131,000). This would prove the 50% divorce statistic for 2012.
Using the same method, I'll calculate the ratio for 2000 to 2011 as well.
Here are the results.
| Year | Divorce to Marriage Ratio |
| 2012 | 50,54% |
| 2011 | 52,39% |
| 2010 | 52,62% |
| 2009 | 51,06% |
| 2008 | 49,47% |
| 2007 | 49,24% |
| 2006 | 49,53% |
| 2005 | 47,66% |
| 2004 | 47,77% |
| 2003 | 49,11% |
| 2002 | 49,34% |
| 2001 | 48,71% |
| 2000 | 49,14% |
Total Table
| Year | Total Population | Incomplete Population | Adjustment Ratio | Divorces & Annulments (incomplete) | Adjusted Divorces & Annulments | Total Marriages | Divorce to Marriage Ratio |
| 2012 | 313.914.040,00 | 248.041.986,00 | 1,27 | 851.000,00 | 1.076.998,50 | 2.131.000,00 | 50,54% |
| 2011 | 311.591.917,00 | 246.273.366,00 | 1,27 | 877.000,00 | 1.109.604,81 | 2.118.000,00 | 52,39% |
| 2010 | 308.745.538,00 | 244.122.529,00 | 1,26 | 872.000,00 | 1.102.831,89 | 2.096.000,00 | 52,62% |
| 2009 | 306.771.529,00 | 242.610.561,00 | 1,26 | 840.000,00 | 1.062.147,02 | 2.080.000,00 | 51,06% |
| 2008 | 304.093.966,00 | 240.545.163,00 | 1,26 | 844.000,00 | 1.066.973,47 | 2.157.000,00 | 49,47% |
| 2007 | 301.231.207,00 | 238.352.850,00 | 1,26 | 856.000,00 | 1.081.815,94 | 2.197.000,00 | 49,24% |
| 2006 | 294.077.247,00 | 236.094.277,00 | 1,25 | 872.000,00 | 1.086.156,61 | 2.193.000,00 | 49,53% |
| 2005 | 295.516.599,00 | 233.495.163,00 | 1,27 | 847.000,00 | 1.071.981,78 | 2.249.000,00 | 47,66% |
| 2004 | 292.805.298,00 | 236.402.656,00 | 1,24 | 879.000,00 | 1.088.718,13 | 2.279.000,00 | 47,77% |
| 2003 | 290.107.933,00 | 243.902.090,00 | 1,19 | 927.000,00 | 1.102.614,80 | 2.245.000,00 | 49,11% |
| 2002 | 287.625.193,00 | 243.108.303,00 | 1,18 | 955.000,00 | 1.129.875,27 | 2.290.000,00 | 49,34% |
| 2001 | 284.968.955,00 | 236.416.762,00 | 1,21 | 940.000,00 | 1.133.044,95 | 2.326.000,00 | 48,71% |
| 2000 | 281.421.906,00 | 233.550.143,00 | 1,20 | 944.000,00 | 1.137.495,68 | 2.315.000,00 | 49,14% |
Based on this data and calculations, I have to say that the general rule of thumb that 50% of marriages end in divorce holds up. The ratio never fell below 45%. During 2000 to 2012, the lowest the ratio ever got to was 47.66%. Those who dismiss that 50% failure ratio are simply splitting hairs according to this conclusion.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Off the grid living
I came across this video posted by Mayor of Mgtown sometime ago. In it, this man constructs a livable house in the middle of a desert. The home is as stripped down as you can get. As I really love looking at these kinds of projects, this gave me the inspiration for the construction a steel container house as I thought it would be simpler to build. Even simpler than these two options would be living out of a used RV. I might consider buying one someday just to have the convienece of traveling around America.
Having a crazy idea in your head is one thing. Actually trying to build a house on your own is a completely different thing. This is the reason I'm glad that these videos of manmade structures exist on youtube. While it doesn't show the process of construction, it does show the end result of having your own small house. The man in this video is one of the freest men I can think of without being rich/wealthy. We might see more men like him in the future.
Having a crazy idea in your head is one thing. Actually trying to build a house on your own is a completely different thing. This is the reason I'm glad that these videos of manmade structures exist on youtube. While it doesn't show the process of construction, it does show the end result of having your own small house. The man in this video is one of the freest men I can think of without being rich/wealthy. We might see more men like him in the future.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Burying bodies vs burning bodies
While I spend a lot of time planning my finances for the future, I realize that there are a couple of lifetime events that happen only a handfull of times. Despite the low frequency, these events can be quite costly. For example, these events may include purchasing homes, cars, getting married, getting a serious injury/illness, and dying.
In economics, there is the phrase tinstaafl. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The term cost of living implies that there are several things required just to survive in today's world. But wouldn't you know it, it costs money to die as well. Not even death is free (usually).
This is something that everyone will eventually experience however most people don't think about it until it happens or just before it happens. You have a loved one, and your loved one passes away peacefully into the night. The body is still there. You can't just leave it there, it has to be taken care of properly. There are several ways to dispose of a dead body but most of them are illegal and just a really bad idea. For a sane and reasonable person, there are only 2 ways to take care of a dead body. Either bury it or creamate it.
The average funeral costs about $6,000 to $10,000. On the other hand, the average cost of a cremation of a body is $1,100. These are just average costs but it is possible to complete a burial or a cremation at a much cheaper price.
By looking at these two figures, it is clear to see that cremation is the much cheaper option. There are several reasons for this. When a body is buried, you need to have a plot of land to keep the body. Once that plot is filled, nothing else can be done with it. In theory, as more and more bodies get burried in finite land, the cost of buying a plot of land for burial will increase in the future. That is just the plot of land. A burial usually needs a coffin and a coffin can cost an averge of $2000. Another cost specific to the burial will be the tombstone which can cost a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.
In a cremation, no casket, stone, or land is needed. You just need a jar to keep the ashes if you wish.
Regardless of having a body burried or burned, a lot of costs will be incurred when having the funeral ceremony. The ceremony can cost around $1000.
Taking all of this into consideration, it seems like cremation is the most logical solution. There are only two reasons I can think of where a person would want to be burried. The first reason is if he or she beleived in ressurection of the body. The second reason is if he or she beleived that a lot of money has to be spent on honoring a person's memory. The second reason sounds more like ego.
For me, it doesn't make very much sense to spend money on an expensive ceremony to honor the dead. The deceased won't be able to enjoy it. And it is completely possible to honor the dead without a traditional viewing of the body and burial.
The friends and family of the dead could all gather together in one household to pay their respects. They could share their memories together and say a short prayer for the one who passed away.
The last thing to consider when deciding between a burial and a cremation is who will bear the costs. If it is your own body you are concerend about, make sure you let your family know what you want and also it would be a good gesture to leave them some money in order to cover the costs.
Personally, I don't care what happens to my body when I'm dead, but if I did have children, I would feel terrible to leave them a $10,000 bill upon my death.
In economics, there is the phrase tinstaafl. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The term cost of living implies that there are several things required just to survive in today's world. But wouldn't you know it, it costs money to die as well. Not even death is free (usually).
This is something that everyone will eventually experience however most people don't think about it until it happens or just before it happens. You have a loved one, and your loved one passes away peacefully into the night. The body is still there. You can't just leave it there, it has to be taken care of properly. There are several ways to dispose of a dead body but most of them are illegal and just a really bad idea. For a sane and reasonable person, there are only 2 ways to take care of a dead body. Either bury it or creamate it.
The average funeral costs about $6,000 to $10,000. On the other hand, the average cost of a cremation of a body is $1,100. These are just average costs but it is possible to complete a burial or a cremation at a much cheaper price.
By looking at these two figures, it is clear to see that cremation is the much cheaper option. There are several reasons for this. When a body is buried, you need to have a plot of land to keep the body. Once that plot is filled, nothing else can be done with it. In theory, as more and more bodies get burried in finite land, the cost of buying a plot of land for burial will increase in the future. That is just the plot of land. A burial usually needs a coffin and a coffin can cost an averge of $2000. Another cost specific to the burial will be the tombstone which can cost a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.
In a cremation, no casket, stone, or land is needed. You just need a jar to keep the ashes if you wish.
Regardless of having a body burried or burned, a lot of costs will be incurred when having the funeral ceremony. The ceremony can cost around $1000.
Taking all of this into consideration, it seems like cremation is the most logical solution. There are only two reasons I can think of where a person would want to be burried. The first reason is if he or she beleived in ressurection of the body. The second reason is if he or she beleived that a lot of money has to be spent on honoring a person's memory. The second reason sounds more like ego.
For me, it doesn't make very much sense to spend money on an expensive ceremony to honor the dead. The deceased won't be able to enjoy it. And it is completely possible to honor the dead without a traditional viewing of the body and burial.
The friends and family of the dead could all gather together in one household to pay their respects. They could share their memories together and say a short prayer for the one who passed away.
The last thing to consider when deciding between a burial and a cremation is who will bear the costs. If it is your own body you are concerend about, make sure you let your family know what you want and also it would be a good gesture to leave them some money in order to cover the costs.
Personally, I don't care what happens to my body when I'm dead, but if I did have children, I would feel terrible to leave them a $10,000 bill upon my death.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
Average American Adult Net Worth
I've wondered what the average American net worth was. By Net Worth, I mean a man's total assets minus his total liabilities. A quick Google search pulled up this article from CNN from June 2014. It looks like the average Net Worth for an American adult is $301,000.
Upon seeing this number, the first gut reaction is either going to be one of two things.
1. This number is clearly wrong.
2. What does this number actually mean?
By mean, I do mean mean. $301 is the mean income of American adults. This takes into consideration the fact that America has the most billionaires of any countries and their wealth and success skews the average way up compared to the average Joe. In this situation, it is more useful to look at the median Net Worth. This way, you ignore all the million/billionaires and the government welfare recipiants in order to zone in on the typical American. Thankfully, this articles provides that figure as well.
The median Net Worth for American adults is $45,000. This figure looks like a much closer represenation of reality. America has more than 5 million millionaires living here but we have 45 million Americans living in poverty. I think that the Net Worth for the average American adult should be a little closer to $60,000 because the number of welfare recipiants skew the figure downward.
Upon seeing this number, the first gut reaction is either going to be one of two things.
1. This number is clearly wrong.
2. What does this number actually mean?
By mean, I do mean mean. $301 is the mean income of American adults. This takes into consideration the fact that America has the most billionaires of any countries and their wealth and success skews the average way up compared to the average Joe. In this situation, it is more useful to look at the median Net Worth. This way, you ignore all the million/billionaires and the government welfare recipiants in order to zone in on the typical American. Thankfully, this articles provides that figure as well.
The median Net Worth for American adults is $45,000. This figure looks like a much closer represenation of reality. America has more than 5 million millionaires living here but we have 45 million Americans living in poverty. I think that the Net Worth for the average American adult should be a little closer to $60,000 because the number of welfare recipiants skew the figure downward.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
The hero is never as polished as the legend that surrounds him.
"Snake, you are a legend on the battlefield."
"I'm no hero. Just an old killer."
In one of the Metal Gear Solid games, Snake has a line where he says that heros are never as polished as the legends that surround them. In context of the games, you can't really relate to this. You play as Snake so you know what happens the whole time to Snake.
However, after watching "The Truth About..." series from Stefan Molyneux, it is really easy to relate to the line spoken by Snake. Stefan has a series of videos that goes into the detail about the lives of several historical figures. Instead of repeating the sugarcoated narrative we learned from school, Stefan reveals the dark and dirty parts that history swept under the rug.
Martin Luther King Jr was a civil rights leader that won equal rights for black people in America. There is also a lot of evidence that he plagarised a lot of his academic work and was unfaithful to his wife.
Abraham Lincon was credited for freeing the slaves and fighting the Civil War for moral reasons. Abraham Lincon didn't care about the slaves either way and used his power in order to claim a lot of land to make tons of money from railroads.
Ghandi was known as a man of virtue and nonviolent protest.
Ghandi was recorded to be a terrible racist and viewed minorities as dogs.
Nelson Mandela was known for pushing against apartheid.
He was also a terrorist that had no regrets about killing women and children for his own means.
George Washingtion was know as the incorruptable and perfect leader.
He had a horrible military career where he recklessly lost his own men and poorly attacked and killed French soldiers under poor leadership.
Stefan Molyneux isn't free of criticism either despite putting all the presentations together. Diana Davison put two videos together presenting Stefan as a fraud. Diana isn't the only one criticising Stefan Molyneux.
It is pretty amazing how a populations need for a hero will create myths and legends about people. It is for this reason I try not to idolize people or put them on a pedestal. When you make someone a hero, you will probabbly learn your hero likes to punch kittens and dress up in laytex while watching My Little Pony.
These myths made gods out of ordinary people and the history only goes back a few decades to a few hundred years. It makes me wonder what the real Jesus was like. The Christian religion recognizes Jesus as God. It makes me wonder and speculate about the human side of Jesus. I wonder what terrible things Jesus the man did. Part of me could see Jesus the man and his disciples as just a good bunch of drinking buddies that wandered from town to town and were too lazy to get real jobs. That would probably make a pretty good novel.
"I'm no hero. Just an old killer."
In one of the Metal Gear Solid games, Snake has a line where he says that heros are never as polished as the legends that surround them. In context of the games, you can't really relate to this. You play as Snake so you know what happens the whole time to Snake.
However, after watching "The Truth About..." series from Stefan Molyneux, it is really easy to relate to the line spoken by Snake. Stefan has a series of videos that goes into the detail about the lives of several historical figures. Instead of repeating the sugarcoated narrative we learned from school, Stefan reveals the dark and dirty parts that history swept under the rug.
Martin Luther King Jr was a civil rights leader that won equal rights for black people in America. There is also a lot of evidence that he plagarised a lot of his academic work and was unfaithful to his wife.
Abraham Lincon was credited for freeing the slaves and fighting the Civil War for moral reasons. Abraham Lincon didn't care about the slaves either way and used his power in order to claim a lot of land to make tons of money from railroads.
Ghandi was known as a man of virtue and nonviolent protest.
Ghandi was recorded to be a terrible racist and viewed minorities as dogs.
Nelson Mandela was known for pushing against apartheid.
He was also a terrorist that had no regrets about killing women and children for his own means.
George Washingtion was know as the incorruptable and perfect leader.
He had a horrible military career where he recklessly lost his own men and poorly attacked and killed French soldiers under poor leadership.
Stefan Molyneux isn't free of criticism either despite putting all the presentations together. Diana Davison put two videos together presenting Stefan as a fraud. Diana isn't the only one criticising Stefan Molyneux.
It is pretty amazing how a populations need for a hero will create myths and legends about people. It is for this reason I try not to idolize people or put them on a pedestal. When you make someone a hero, you will probabbly learn your hero likes to punch kittens and dress up in laytex while watching My Little Pony.
These myths made gods out of ordinary people and the history only goes back a few decades to a few hundred years. It makes me wonder what the real Jesus was like. The Christian religion recognizes Jesus as God. It makes me wonder and speculate about the human side of Jesus. I wonder what terrible things Jesus the man did. Part of me could see Jesus the man and his disciples as just a good bunch of drinking buddies that wandered from town to town and were too lazy to get real jobs. That would probably make a pretty good novel.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
1 Billion Babies Aborted
The other day, I was listening to Ayam Sirias interviewing SexyMGTOW. Midway through the interview, SexyMGTOW mentioned that 1 billion babies were aborted since 1980. I had the following reaction.
"1 Billion Babies? Nah. That... that can't be correct. That's not right."
But just to make sure, I decided to do a quick google search and I found an abortion clock.
SexyMGTOW wasn't kidding. 1.3 billion babies have been aborted world wide since 1980. That is greater than the entire population of China. Looking at just America, 58 million babies have been aborted since 1973. As a percentage of America's current population today, that amount would total to 18%. At this rate, one million babies are aborted in America in a year.
Regardless of a person's opinion on abortion, these are very shocking statistics. I had no idea the figures were this high. This was one statistic that never crossed my mind while I was working.
Now, most of the abortions happen outside of America because most of the world population is outside of America. I have not done much research about this topic but I would imagine that the rate of abortion would be much higher in economically distressed countries.
"1 Billion Babies? Nah. That... that can't be correct. That's not right."
But just to make sure, I decided to do a quick google search and I found an abortion clock.
SexyMGTOW wasn't kidding. 1.3 billion babies have been aborted world wide since 1980. That is greater than the entire population of China. Looking at just America, 58 million babies have been aborted since 1973. As a percentage of America's current population today, that amount would total to 18%. At this rate, one million babies are aborted in America in a year.
Regardless of a person's opinion on abortion, these are very shocking statistics. I had no idea the figures were this high. This was one statistic that never crossed my mind while I was working.
Now, most of the abortions happen outside of America because most of the world population is outside of America. I have not done much research about this topic but I would imagine that the rate of abortion would be much higher in economically distressed countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)