We would have been on Mars in the 1990's and probably introducing a hospitable atmosphere to the moon.
Now we create dead cat helicopters.
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Friday, June 08, 2012
Why Ruin a Good Time?
Thursday, June 07, 2012
The 2nd Most Arrogant Assumption You MUST Make
I have said it before, and I'll say it again, when you keep failing at a particular task the only person to blame is you. You tried, you failed, and therefore the blame is solely on you. You need to go back, train more, try harder and keep failing until you succeed.
This rule or "law" or whatever you want to call it, is simply commonsense. You are the independent variable. You are the one that needs to improve. You are the sole entity to blame if there is failure
...except in life there are two rare instances where you will NOT be to blame.
One of those instances is for the young and now full-grown adult men who in their youth failed time and time again when it came to interacting with the opposite sex on social, romantic or sexual grounds. You tried, you failed. It's your fault.
You tried, you failed again. It's your fault.
You trained, tried harder, failed harder. It's your fault.
You changed tactics, experimented, tried really hard, and failed really bad. It's your fault.
You went all out, trying crazy new tactics, rehashing old ones, put yourself in your best physical shape, invested thousands of man-hours, burned millions of calories and failed even more spectacularly than Lehman Brothers. It's your fault.
And after anywhere from 10-25 years of failure (depending on how independent minded you were), you inevitably started daring to ask a VERY arrogant question:
"What if there's nothing wrong with me, but something wrong with everybody else?"
Understand why this is a very arrogant question. For something to be wrong with EVERYBODY ELSE, and NOT wrong with the SOLE INDIVIDUAL implies:
1. You are somehow brilliant or very special.
2. You are also so brilliant you are smarter or better than everybody else
3. Something has universally infected other people, while sparing you, putting you into "black helicopte,r" conspiracy theory territory.
At first you fight this thought that let this possibility enter your mind. And you go back to banging your head against the drawing board to try another thousand slight permutations or variant of approaches to attract some lass. But in the end, by the sheer volume of approaches, experiences, experiments, self-inflection and years of human life spent trying to "succeed" at this challenge, your mind is tortured into forcibly accepting the only remaining explanation:
"No, there's nothing wrong with me. There IS INDEED something wrong with everybody else on a societal level. Don't know what it is, but by god, it's not me!"
Some people call it taking the red pill. (I, however, think to go through the torture yourself and have the courage to make this assumption WITHOUT the benefit of The Manosphere to lay it all out for you, deserves some other title - but that is an aside, NOR is it meant to belittle people who did take the red pill). Whatever we decide to call it, once we entertain this arrogant assumption, it is amazing how everything falls into place and makes sense. NOT because it conveniently benefits us or merely excuses and rationalizes our failures in the past. But because IT DOES EXPLAIN EVERYTHING.
It's akin to fighting on the ground, having no idea where whose lines are, getting shelled left and right, being driven insane by chaos, and then magically being transported to a command center where you have crystal clear satellite imagery with friendlies being tagged with beacons and enemies being tagged by heat signatures, AND proving your hunches were indeed correct all along.
It just took you the arrogance to make such an assumption to get this bird's eye view and save your sanity.
Now, focus all we want on The Manosphere, that is not the topic I'm talking about today. For there is going to come the time many of you, if not all of us, are going to have to man-up again and once again question,
"Is it me, or is there something wrong with everybody else?"
but in a different sphere.
And I'll give you a hint - this has nothing to do with the sexes. Women will have to ask this question too because we're all going to have the honor of being in the same machine-gun strafed boat here.
Anybody get it yet?
Bueller? Bueller?
Alright, I'll tell you.
We're ALL going to have to gin up the courage to ask this question when it comes to our relationship with employers:
"Is it me, or is there something wrong with the employers in the US?"
Again, the two issues parallel each other very closely.
If you have a hard time being reliably employed, you have failed. There MUST be something wrong with you.
You try working for multiple employers, try multiple tactics, you'll still fail. Therefore there MUST BE something wrong with YOU.
You try really hard, volunteer to work more, take on different projects, suggest new ideas and innovations. You still fail (hell, you'll get punished for thinking of new ideas). Therefore there MUST be something wrong with you.
And dare you start to suggest or theorize there's something structurally, fundamentally, or universally wrong with employers, corporate America and our current system of employment/labor market, then you are just (fill in the blank)
....not a team player
....a disgruntled employee
....a slow learner
....somebody who just doesn't "get it"
....a bad employee
....somebody who's just lazy
Never mind you are willing to work hard.
Never mind you did all the right things, got the right degree, got the right certification.
Never mind you came up with ideas that would have saved the company money, or crushed the competition, or heck, saved the entire US economy.
No, there's most DEFINITELY something wrong with YOU, and those crafty HR "generalists" with their scripted "pure-extract of inane" interview questions will be able to smoke you out without you knowing it (even though they themselves have gone through three divorces, 47 failed relationships, host 3 cats as pets, and are the world's worst judges of character).
And, much like you were veritably forced to have the arrogant epiphany about courting when you were 25, you will have to come to the same arrogant conclusion about the realities of the labor market and employer-employee relationships in America. And just like me and a handful of people that have gone before you, you will realize once you make this assumption, you'll see employment and employers for what they are and hereafter be able to make better decisions.
Of course, humility and modesty may intimidate you from making such an arrogant assumption. However, permit me to make several observations about corporate America that may convince you that there is indeed something fundamentally dysfunctional about modern day employers and that, no, you're not a bad employee, and no, you're not insane.
First, let's look at HR. I could write a book about HR, but we'll instead focus on the fact that HR is dominated by women which cannot be overlooked and draws many parallels between The Manosphere "world" and the "working world." Much like dating, women are predisposed to believe that they are the prize and you are lucky if you get the honor to date her. You have to do all the leg work, you have to beg and plead, and if you prove yourself worthy, you will be rewarded with a date. Applying for a job is the exact same.
HR operates from this exact same premise - that the job is the prize to be won and that you should be honored to even be considered for the position. Matter of fact you should thank her for pelting you with inane questions that have nothing to do with the job or the industry. What they fail to realize, in both instances, is it is a two way street. Not only do applicants need jobs, but companies need labor. Yes, they can take some arrogant liberties with an Obama-induced 8+% unemployment rate, but now that I've taken the "employment red pill" I sit in awe when an HR interviewer asks me with naked arrogance
"So why do you want to work here?"
as if it's a given I want to work there.
When I reply in a deadly serious tone
"Money."
the look on their face or the silence at the other end of the phone is hilarious. But it still proves my point. They PRESUME you are the one at a disadvantage and are the one bargaining from a position of weakness. When in reality, you are merely the other and equally important side of the coin.
Regardless, the point is not whether unemployment breeds arrogance on the part of employers, it's the fact we have to endure something as stupid as the "HR screening interview" in the first place. None of the questions have any predictive value as to the future performance of an employee. The "best" answers are lies and the furthest thing from the truth. The person conducting the interview is typically clueless about your profession and anything involving math. It does nothing to find and detect the best candidate. And, no, you're not insane for thinking the same. So don't fret it when "HR" doesn't call back. They were never going to in the first place.
Another aspect of HR is that it's "wishlist" for qualities and traits in a candidate for a job is equally impossible as the typical Ameircan woman's "wishlist" for qualities in a man for courtship. I've spoken of it before, but when they're asking for 5 years experience in a software that has only been on the market for 3, you might as well be asking for a bad boy alpha motorcycle riding preacher, who's an animal in the sack, but only after you're married, who's also rich, but never married, and no children, but wants to take care of your 3 children from 4 other guys.
Again, you're not insane when you look at the list of requirements, do some quick math, and realize in the 6 billion people in the world, 1/8th of a person would qualify.
Second, abandon HR and look at the management in general of companies today. Corporate America is no longer headed up by hardened, WWII vets who are ready to propel corporate America to new levels of greatness. It's headed up by hippie Baby Boomers, followed by the ranks of Gen X middle management. The psychology that comes with this is nothing as simple or logical as achieving greatness, or revolutionizing industries, or simply going out, kicking ass and taking names. It's been replaced by people who are more concerned about maintaining the status quo so they can keep their jobs. To run the firm or their division as their own personal fiefdom. And so when a logical, young whipper snapper like you comes in with new ideas, innovations and creations, understand the reason you're getting fired is NOT because your ideas are "wrong" or "stupid," but because they've exposed just how inefficiently the company or division has been managed and your ideas are likely to result in the layoff of the unnecessary fat - ie - your boss and 40% of upper management.
Third, never discount that fact that unlike you and me, the majority of Americans are HORRENDOUS managers of their own personal finances. They racked up debts going to college. They racked up credit card debts in their 20's. They had kids they can't afford. Ergo, they literally cannot afford the luxury you have to speak out and say,
"Hey, that's a horrible idea! If we introduce that product, then our product will kill 30,000 infants and shave 100,000 kittens!"
No, they have to shut up, not rock the boat, because they need food on the table and little Jimmy needs braces.
Because of the financial mismanagement of the majority of Americans, understand corporate America has the luxury of employing millions of yes-men and yes-women.
Oh, you may be right.
And yes, you may save the company in the end.
But you are rocking the boat with your bachelor and bachlorette ways. And if an employer has the choice between hiring somebody who asks difficult and reality based questions, or somebody who is a slave to their debt, and therefore will never question management, they're going to go with the psychologically defeated automoton every time.
And finally, let's not forget that American employers are spineless. They stand for nothing. They fear everything. And instead of adhering to some code of morals or ethics, they instead cower and fear the slightest bit of criticism in fear they may lose .0003% market share. This allows people like lawyers, sue-happy employees, sexual harassment filers, protestors, nepotists, crusaders and the like to essentially make it impossible for a corporation to hire anybody with a brain or slightly opinionated personality. They hire robots, automotons, preferably the heavily indebted type, as they are the ones with the least risk.
Of course, they're the ones with the least amount of creativity and leadership and innovation, but hey, at least we're not getting sued.
In short, the strategy of American employers is no longer that of achieving excellence or dominance in their field. It's no longer going out, doing your best, kicking ass, taking names and crushing the competition. It's one of self preservation and retaining what little fiefdom they have. If you ask any major (or minor) US company what their "growth strategy" is, it's not to create new and amazing products that will obsolete the competition. It's an amazingly lame, "grow the company outside the US while we bribe congress with our lobbyists to introduce legislation that will give us an edge against our competitors."
Now, you combine all these veritable psychoses that are governing US employers and ask yourself one simple question - can a normal person, with logical thought and the desire to work hard and succeed ever possibly stand a chance to survive in an environment like that? You have a dying domestic labor market where everything is outsourced not just to save money on labor costs, but to lower lawsuit/sexual harassment risk. You have people being promoted not based on their intelligence, ideas, innovations or observations, but by the fact they're enslaved to the company because they indebted themselves to the point they literally had to sell their soul and financially whore themselves out which makes them "obedient" (the most sought after trait in America). You have the primary gatekeepers to employment staffed by the world's ditziest, dumbest people asking questions that have nothing to do with employment, effectively turning away any true leaders, thinkers, innovators, in exchange for somebody who can provide the best rehearsed answer to "have you ever had a difficult situation with an employee? how did you solve it and why?" And the entire thing is being managed by lazy, incompetent aging brats who are so talentless they cannot create their own job security, but instead they must stifle any potential usurpers by maintaining the status quo.
If you consider that, you can't POSSIBLY think there's something "wrong" with you or that somehow you're a bad employee, which only proves my previous case.
Understand, and understand well, that there is nothing wrong with you. You did your best, you did the right thing, you made the right choices, and that's all you can do. If your career is not heading the way you would have liked by now, understand it's not your fault. Even if your boss or former boss lectures you about how you didn't do this minor thing right, or criticizes you on some nebulous grounds of you not having the right "attitude" or not being a "team player," assuming you did the right thing and tried your best, chances are it's more of a criticism of themselves and their inability to lead or make decisions, than it is a legitimate criticism of you.
Yes, this is an arrogant assumption. And yes, it takes a lot of bravado to make such assumptions. But all one has to do is look at the current economic state of the US and realize that is the empirical evidence that you are right. Because if the US economy was booming and US corporate domestic sales were booming, then, yes, you would PROBABLY be in the wrong - the leaders of the various institutions of the US are probably doing something right by the fact the economy is doing well. But since the economy is craptastically stagnant, and the government bankrupt, for employers and various leaders to have the gall to blame their inadequate and incompetent leadership on their employees is laughable. For them to tell you during review time, "well, you really only earned an "average" rating despite your 60 hour work weeks" is hypocritical.
Thankfully, you have the choice as to whether or not to believe them. If you choose to, realize this is doing nothing more than believing a lie. It won't help you in your long term future success, if anything it will hurt you because you are basing your decisions of a falsehood. However, if you choose not to, and realize they're nothing but a bunch of ass-kissing, brown-nosing, debt-enslaved suits, you will be able to make better decisions about who you want to work for, what kind of work you are WILLING to tolerate, and (as I've found out) you TELLING them what you are and are not going to do. It's counter-intuitive, but just ask any girl which guy gets more success:
The compliant yes man who asks her "whatever you want to do dear."
Or the motorcycle bad boy who dares to tell the girl one word , "no."
This rule or "law" or whatever you want to call it, is simply commonsense. You are the independent variable. You are the one that needs to improve. You are the sole entity to blame if there is failure
...except in life there are two rare instances where you will NOT be to blame.
One of those instances is for the young and now full-grown adult men who in their youth failed time and time again when it came to interacting with the opposite sex on social, romantic or sexual grounds. You tried, you failed. It's your fault.
You tried, you failed again. It's your fault.
You trained, tried harder, failed harder. It's your fault.
You changed tactics, experimented, tried really hard, and failed really bad. It's your fault.
You went all out, trying crazy new tactics, rehashing old ones, put yourself in your best physical shape, invested thousands of man-hours, burned millions of calories and failed even more spectacularly than Lehman Brothers. It's your fault.
And after anywhere from 10-25 years of failure (depending on how independent minded you were), you inevitably started daring to ask a VERY arrogant question:
"What if there's nothing wrong with me, but something wrong with everybody else?"
Understand why this is a very arrogant question. For something to be wrong with EVERYBODY ELSE, and NOT wrong with the SOLE INDIVIDUAL implies:
1. You are somehow brilliant or very special.
2. You are also so brilliant you are smarter or better than everybody else
3. Something has universally infected other people, while sparing you, putting you into "black helicopte,r" conspiracy theory territory.
At first you fight this thought that let this possibility enter your mind. And you go back to banging your head against the drawing board to try another thousand slight permutations or variant of approaches to attract some lass. But in the end, by the sheer volume of approaches, experiences, experiments, self-inflection and years of human life spent trying to "succeed" at this challenge, your mind is tortured into forcibly accepting the only remaining explanation:
"No, there's nothing wrong with me. There IS INDEED something wrong with everybody else on a societal level. Don't know what it is, but by god, it's not me!"
Some people call it taking the red pill. (I, however, think to go through the torture yourself and have the courage to make this assumption WITHOUT the benefit of The Manosphere to lay it all out for you, deserves some other title - but that is an aside, NOR is it meant to belittle people who did take the red pill). Whatever we decide to call it, once we entertain this arrogant assumption, it is amazing how everything falls into place and makes sense. NOT because it conveniently benefits us or merely excuses and rationalizes our failures in the past. But because IT DOES EXPLAIN EVERYTHING.
It's akin to fighting on the ground, having no idea where whose lines are, getting shelled left and right, being driven insane by chaos, and then magically being transported to a command center where you have crystal clear satellite imagery with friendlies being tagged with beacons and enemies being tagged by heat signatures, AND proving your hunches were indeed correct all along.
It just took you the arrogance to make such an assumption to get this bird's eye view and save your sanity.
Now, focus all we want on The Manosphere, that is not the topic I'm talking about today. For there is going to come the time many of you, if not all of us, are going to have to man-up again and once again question,
"Is it me, or is there something wrong with everybody else?"
but in a different sphere.
And I'll give you a hint - this has nothing to do with the sexes. Women will have to ask this question too because we're all going to have the honor of being in the same machine-gun strafed boat here.
Anybody get it yet?
Bueller? Bueller?
Alright, I'll tell you.
We're ALL going to have to gin up the courage to ask this question when it comes to our relationship with employers:
"Is it me, or is there something wrong with the employers in the US?"
Again, the two issues parallel each other very closely.
If you have a hard time being reliably employed, you have failed. There MUST be something wrong with you.
You try working for multiple employers, try multiple tactics, you'll still fail. Therefore there MUST BE something wrong with YOU.
You try really hard, volunteer to work more, take on different projects, suggest new ideas and innovations. You still fail (hell, you'll get punished for thinking of new ideas). Therefore there MUST be something wrong with you.
And dare you start to suggest or theorize there's something structurally, fundamentally, or universally wrong with employers, corporate America and our current system of employment/labor market, then you are just (fill in the blank)
....not a team player
....a disgruntled employee
....a slow learner
....somebody who just doesn't "get it"
....a bad employee
....somebody who's just lazy
Never mind you are willing to work hard.
Never mind you did all the right things, got the right degree, got the right certification.
Never mind you came up with ideas that would have saved the company money, or crushed the competition, or heck, saved the entire US economy.
No, there's most DEFINITELY something wrong with YOU, and those crafty HR "generalists" with their scripted "pure-extract of inane" interview questions will be able to smoke you out without you knowing it (even though they themselves have gone through three divorces, 47 failed relationships, host 3 cats as pets, and are the world's worst judges of character).
And, much like you were veritably forced to have the arrogant epiphany about courting when you were 25, you will have to come to the same arrogant conclusion about the realities of the labor market and employer-employee relationships in America. And just like me and a handful of people that have gone before you, you will realize once you make this assumption, you'll see employment and employers for what they are and hereafter be able to make better decisions.
Of course, humility and modesty may intimidate you from making such an arrogant assumption. However, permit me to make several observations about corporate America that may convince you that there is indeed something fundamentally dysfunctional about modern day employers and that, no, you're not a bad employee, and no, you're not insane.
First, let's look at HR. I could write a book about HR, but we'll instead focus on the fact that HR is dominated by women which cannot be overlooked and draws many parallels between The Manosphere "world" and the "working world." Much like dating, women are predisposed to believe that they are the prize and you are lucky if you get the honor to date her. You have to do all the leg work, you have to beg and plead, and if you prove yourself worthy, you will be rewarded with a date. Applying for a job is the exact same.
HR operates from this exact same premise - that the job is the prize to be won and that you should be honored to even be considered for the position. Matter of fact you should thank her for pelting you with inane questions that have nothing to do with the job or the industry. What they fail to realize, in both instances, is it is a two way street. Not only do applicants need jobs, but companies need labor. Yes, they can take some arrogant liberties with an Obama-induced 8+% unemployment rate, but now that I've taken the "employment red pill" I sit in awe when an HR interviewer asks me with naked arrogance
"So why do you want to work here?"
as if it's a given I want to work there.
When I reply in a deadly serious tone
"Money."
the look on their face or the silence at the other end of the phone is hilarious. But it still proves my point. They PRESUME you are the one at a disadvantage and are the one bargaining from a position of weakness. When in reality, you are merely the other and equally important side of the coin.
Regardless, the point is not whether unemployment breeds arrogance on the part of employers, it's the fact we have to endure something as stupid as the "HR screening interview" in the first place. None of the questions have any predictive value as to the future performance of an employee. The "best" answers are lies and the furthest thing from the truth. The person conducting the interview is typically clueless about your profession and anything involving math. It does nothing to find and detect the best candidate. And, no, you're not insane for thinking the same. So don't fret it when "HR" doesn't call back. They were never going to in the first place.
Another aspect of HR is that it's "wishlist" for qualities and traits in a candidate for a job is equally impossible as the typical Ameircan woman's "wishlist" for qualities in a man for courtship. I've spoken of it before, but when they're asking for 5 years experience in a software that has only been on the market for 3, you might as well be asking for a bad boy alpha motorcycle riding preacher, who's an animal in the sack, but only after you're married, who's also rich, but never married, and no children, but wants to take care of your 3 children from 4 other guys.
Again, you're not insane when you look at the list of requirements, do some quick math, and realize in the 6 billion people in the world, 1/8th of a person would qualify.
Second, abandon HR and look at the management in general of companies today. Corporate America is no longer headed up by hardened, WWII vets who are ready to propel corporate America to new levels of greatness. It's headed up by hippie Baby Boomers, followed by the ranks of Gen X middle management. The psychology that comes with this is nothing as simple or logical as achieving greatness, or revolutionizing industries, or simply going out, kicking ass and taking names. It's been replaced by people who are more concerned about maintaining the status quo so they can keep their jobs. To run the firm or their division as their own personal fiefdom. And so when a logical, young whipper snapper like you comes in with new ideas, innovations and creations, understand the reason you're getting fired is NOT because your ideas are "wrong" or "stupid," but because they've exposed just how inefficiently the company or division has been managed and your ideas are likely to result in the layoff of the unnecessary fat - ie - your boss and 40% of upper management.
Third, never discount that fact that unlike you and me, the majority of Americans are HORRENDOUS managers of their own personal finances. They racked up debts going to college. They racked up credit card debts in their 20's. They had kids they can't afford. Ergo, they literally cannot afford the luxury you have to speak out and say,
"Hey, that's a horrible idea! If we introduce that product, then our product will kill 30,000 infants and shave 100,000 kittens!"
No, they have to shut up, not rock the boat, because they need food on the table and little Jimmy needs braces.
Because of the financial mismanagement of the majority of Americans, understand corporate America has the luxury of employing millions of yes-men and yes-women.
Oh, you may be right.
And yes, you may save the company in the end.
But you are rocking the boat with your bachelor and bachlorette ways. And if an employer has the choice between hiring somebody who asks difficult and reality based questions, or somebody who is a slave to their debt, and therefore will never question management, they're going to go with the psychologically defeated automoton every time.
And finally, let's not forget that American employers are spineless. They stand for nothing. They fear everything. And instead of adhering to some code of morals or ethics, they instead cower and fear the slightest bit of criticism in fear they may lose .0003% market share. This allows people like lawyers, sue-happy employees, sexual harassment filers, protestors, nepotists, crusaders and the like to essentially make it impossible for a corporation to hire anybody with a brain or slightly opinionated personality. They hire robots, automotons, preferably the heavily indebted type, as they are the ones with the least risk.
Of course, they're the ones with the least amount of creativity and leadership and innovation, but hey, at least we're not getting sued.
In short, the strategy of American employers is no longer that of achieving excellence or dominance in their field. It's no longer going out, doing your best, kicking ass, taking names and crushing the competition. It's one of self preservation and retaining what little fiefdom they have. If you ask any major (or minor) US company what their "growth strategy" is, it's not to create new and amazing products that will obsolete the competition. It's an amazingly lame, "grow the company outside the US while we bribe congress with our lobbyists to introduce legislation that will give us an edge against our competitors."
Now, you combine all these veritable psychoses that are governing US employers and ask yourself one simple question - can a normal person, with logical thought and the desire to work hard and succeed ever possibly stand a chance to survive in an environment like that? You have a dying domestic labor market where everything is outsourced not just to save money on labor costs, but to lower lawsuit/sexual harassment risk. You have people being promoted not based on their intelligence, ideas, innovations or observations, but by the fact they're enslaved to the company because they indebted themselves to the point they literally had to sell their soul and financially whore themselves out which makes them "obedient" (the most sought after trait in America). You have the primary gatekeepers to employment staffed by the world's ditziest, dumbest people asking questions that have nothing to do with employment, effectively turning away any true leaders, thinkers, innovators, in exchange for somebody who can provide the best rehearsed answer to "have you ever had a difficult situation with an employee? how did you solve it and why?" And the entire thing is being managed by lazy, incompetent aging brats who are so talentless they cannot create their own job security, but instead they must stifle any potential usurpers by maintaining the status quo.
If you consider that, you can't POSSIBLY think there's something "wrong" with you or that somehow you're a bad employee, which only proves my previous case.
Understand, and understand well, that there is nothing wrong with you. You did your best, you did the right thing, you made the right choices, and that's all you can do. If your career is not heading the way you would have liked by now, understand it's not your fault. Even if your boss or former boss lectures you about how you didn't do this minor thing right, or criticizes you on some nebulous grounds of you not having the right "attitude" or not being a "team player," assuming you did the right thing and tried your best, chances are it's more of a criticism of themselves and their inability to lead or make decisions, than it is a legitimate criticism of you.
Yes, this is an arrogant assumption. And yes, it takes a lot of bravado to make such assumptions. But all one has to do is look at the current economic state of the US and realize that is the empirical evidence that you are right. Because if the US economy was booming and US corporate domestic sales were booming, then, yes, you would PROBABLY be in the wrong - the leaders of the various institutions of the US are probably doing something right by the fact the economy is doing well. But since the economy is craptastically stagnant, and the government bankrupt, for employers and various leaders to have the gall to blame their inadequate and incompetent leadership on their employees is laughable. For them to tell you during review time, "well, you really only earned an "average" rating despite your 60 hour work weeks" is hypocritical.
Thankfully, you have the choice as to whether or not to believe them. If you choose to, realize this is doing nothing more than believing a lie. It won't help you in your long term future success, if anything it will hurt you because you are basing your decisions of a falsehood. However, if you choose not to, and realize they're nothing but a bunch of ass-kissing, brown-nosing, debt-enslaved suits, you will be able to make better decisions about who you want to work for, what kind of work you are WILLING to tolerate, and (as I've found out) you TELLING them what you are and are not going to do. It's counter-intuitive, but just ask any girl which guy gets more success:
The compliant yes man who asks her "whatever you want to do dear."
Or the motorcycle bad boy who dares to tell the girl one word , "no."
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
$700 Billion in Dating Wealth Transfers
Dalrock had an interesting piece about a woman who had 50 dates in 6 months, and another who had 100 dates in a year, but still couldn't find "the right guy." Naturally he focused on "choice addiction" whereas my biased mind wandered in the realm of economics.
"How much money are guys forking over for these girls? I mean, how much in non-taxable income is that? It's certainly significant!"
So off to the Excel spreadsheet I went to do some very rough back-of-napkin economics.
Most women, we will admit, do not get 100 dates a year, let alone 50. But I think it's safe to say the average woman will have 10 dates a year.
The dates I estimate cost more than the $5 el-cheapo movie you could afford in college, vs. the $120 fine wine and dining night out when you're in your upper income tax bracket. Let's say $50 just for s's and g's.
But wait! Women do go dutch sometimes! Yes, "sometimes." I'll say 20% of the time based on personal experience (unless somebody can cite a government database that tracks this), netting out a $10 per date subsidy by the dutch going dames. Net cost to the guy per date $40.
How many years does the average woman date? Well in the olden days, maybe 5-10. But given dating starts around 14, average age of first marriage is 28, so 14 years. BUT WAIT! Let's not forget divorce, allowing people to pleasure of going out dating again! 7 year itch, plus 28, woman is back on the market at 35, 20 years until she's 55 and more or less off the dating market forever. 14 + 20 = 34. Let's just call it 35 to account for the R-Hamster Effect.
So in the end, the average woman can expect to get $14,000 over the course of her life in free food, movies, drinks and other forms of entertainment. I actually think that's a little low, but I'll just stick with my methodology.
Final factor to account for is the number of women dating at any given moment. I'm too lazy to look up demographic data and population distribution over age. Let's call it 50,000,000 or 1/3 the current female population.
Total bill = $700 billion.
Sound about right?
My question is whether or not we ought to start factoring in these income and wealth transfers when calculating the "wage gap."
"How much money are guys forking over for these girls? I mean, how much in non-taxable income is that? It's certainly significant!"
So off to the Excel spreadsheet I went to do some very rough back-of-napkin economics.
Most women, we will admit, do not get 100 dates a year, let alone 50. But I think it's safe to say the average woman will have 10 dates a year.
The dates I estimate cost more than the $5 el-cheapo movie you could afford in college, vs. the $120 fine wine and dining night out when you're in your upper income tax bracket. Let's say $50 just for s's and g's.
But wait! Women do go dutch sometimes! Yes, "sometimes." I'll say 20% of the time based on personal experience (unless somebody can cite a government database that tracks this), netting out a $10 per date subsidy by the dutch going dames. Net cost to the guy per date $40.
How many years does the average woman date? Well in the olden days, maybe 5-10. But given dating starts around 14, average age of first marriage is 28, so 14 years. BUT WAIT! Let's not forget divorce, allowing people to pleasure of going out dating again! 7 year itch, plus 28, woman is back on the market at 35, 20 years until she's 55 and more or less off the dating market forever. 14 + 20 = 34. Let's just call it 35 to account for the R-Hamster Effect.
So in the end, the average woman can expect to get $14,000 over the course of her life in free food, movies, drinks and other forms of entertainment. I actually think that's a little low, but I'll just stick with my methodology.
Final factor to account for is the number of women dating at any given moment. I'm too lazy to look up demographic data and population distribution over age. Let's call it 50,000,000 or 1/3 the current female population.
Total bill = $700 billion.
Sound about right?
My question is whether or not we ought to start factoring in these income and wealth transfers when calculating the "wage gap."
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
I Told You Law Degrees Are Worthless
When you major in the liberal arts you have three options after you graduate;
1. Work at McDonalds
2. Get a masters in your field and work at McDonald's
3. Go to law school and then still go work for McDonald's.
The concept that being a lawyer is a sign of success is ancient history belonging to the days of the 1930's. Today all you liberal arts majors went to "law school" because you knew you could avoid math there and now there's a flood of you hitting the market.
Look, I know you blew $150,000 on a law degree, but could you maybe spend $13 of that and at least find out why you can't get a job as a lawyer?
1. Work at McDonalds
2. Get a masters in your field and work at McDonald's
3. Go to law school and then still go work for McDonald's.
The concept that being a lawyer is a sign of success is ancient history belonging to the days of the 1930's. Today all you liberal arts majors went to "law school" because you knew you could avoid math there and now there's a flood of you hitting the market.
Look, I know you blew $150,000 on a law degree, but could you maybe spend $13 of that and at least find out why you can't get a job as a lawyer?
19 Drinks, But No Responsibility
*Heavy sigh*
To quote Tom Leykis, "Yes, I can leave my car running with the doors open in Stockton. Is it illegal for somebody to steal my car. Am I an idiot for leaving the car running with the doors open? Yes."
Wait wait! I know! let's have a "slut walk!" That'll solve the world's problems.
Hat tip.
To quote Tom Leykis, "Yes, I can leave my car running with the doors open in Stockton. Is it illegal for somebody to steal my car. Am I an idiot for leaving the car running with the doors open? Yes."
Wait wait! I know! let's have a "slut walk!" That'll solve the world's problems.
Hat tip.
Your Child is NOT Your "Legacy"
Of the common lies told to you by people scared of life (which I will make a post on later) one of them is that somehow there is value or importance in carrying on a name or leaving your genetic material behind in the form of a child. And commonly I am asked when people find out I had a vasectomy;
"Don't you want to leave a legacy behind?"
I look at them funny, because I'm curious what they believe the definition of "legacy" to be. So obviously, it's time for another lesson.
Understand simply doing what an estimated 50 billion humans have been doing for the past 2 million years (breeding) is nothing great, nothing grandiose, and nothing special. I don't care how many "baby showers" there are or how many trillions of dollars are spent, or how precious you think you're little baby is.
Humans are INCREDIBLY common
INCREDIBLY numerous
and none of us in the universal sense are special.
Having said that though, what I don't understand is when people have a kid, in terms of their own personal legacy they seem to forfeit their individuality and any dreams they may have had, and instead focus on the child. Now understand I am NOT saying that if you bring a child into the world, your first and foremost responsibility should not be that child. It should be. What I'm saying is the instance a couple has a child, it's as if 100% of their own personal achievements now have no meaning. How so many people now pride themselves off of simply bringing another human being into the world, and then like a tired runner, "eh, that's far enough. I've exercised enough for the day."
Forget climbing Mt. Everest.
Forget starting that company.
Forget white water rafting in Colorado.
Forget the 3 month vacation in the south of Europe.
And forget that book you always wanted to write.
My life is defined by my ability to test the temperature of Gerber food.
Now, before I go on, I want to discern very clearly what my criticism is here.
It is not "having children." It is not, "whooping up the DINK lifestyle." It is not "mocking people who have children."
It is a genuine question of curiosity - "What changes in people when they have a kid that they now think their legacy is limited to, defined by and embodied in that kid?"
Or another way to put it,
"Why does the focus of one's personal legacy go to another human being?"
Now I can't answer these questions (but I welcome other people to try), but what I can do is refocus people's thoughts as to what truly is going to be your legacy, because "legacy" is not what you "feel" it should be. It's going to be what it IS.
In short your legacy is YOURS. YOU will determine YOUR legacy, not your child. It will be your mark on this planet, how you did unique and interesting things specific to you, and how people will remember you by. The fact you had a kid does NOT affect your legacy, simply because they're so common. Having kids is nothing special. But starting a company IS special. Working on art or rebuilding old cars IS special. Writing music, climbing mountains, competing in sports, writing books, heck, there was a guy on "The Tonight Show" who took bird droppings and made jewelry out of them! Those things ARE special.
And the reason I bring it up is really not to mock people who have the ho-hum life and can't understand why I don't want to carry on a last name or leave some of my genes behind. It's to wake those people up and say, "Hey, buddy, I know you have a kid. But you also have your own unique and interesting life. What do YOU want to do with it? You can't just want to sit around all day doing the same ol', same ol' all the time. You can't think your only purpose in life was to bring that kid into the world? Because, by default logic, what's his/her purpose? Merely to do the same?"
And it's not even that having a legacy is a mutually exclusive event with having children. If anything it's a complimentary event that enhances both your lives through hobbies. How great would it be to rebuild a classic car with your dad? Or build kites from scratch? Or brew beer together? Or...um...do whatever girly things moms and daughters find interesting. Having a true legacy will only benefit your child.
Of course, maybe I'm being too optimistic for the average American family today. I picture chemistry sets, go karts, writing books, working in the garage on inventions and other 1950s-esque scenes in my mind with a clean cut father with a pipe in his hand passing on his wisdom, skills and inventions. Perhaps I should just accept the average "legacy" will be "your father like baseball" and "your mother liked reading Harlequin romance novels."
"Don't you want to leave a legacy behind?"
I look at them funny, because I'm curious what they believe the definition of "legacy" to be. So obviously, it's time for another lesson.
Understand simply doing what an estimated 50 billion humans have been doing for the past 2 million years (breeding) is nothing great, nothing grandiose, and nothing special. I don't care how many "baby showers" there are or how many trillions of dollars are spent, or how precious you think you're little baby is.
Humans are INCREDIBLY common
INCREDIBLY numerous
and none of us in the universal sense are special.
Having said that though, what I don't understand is when people have a kid, in terms of their own personal legacy they seem to forfeit their individuality and any dreams they may have had, and instead focus on the child. Now understand I am NOT saying that if you bring a child into the world, your first and foremost responsibility should not be that child. It should be. What I'm saying is the instance a couple has a child, it's as if 100% of their own personal achievements now have no meaning. How so many people now pride themselves off of simply bringing another human being into the world, and then like a tired runner, "eh, that's far enough. I've exercised enough for the day."
Forget climbing Mt. Everest.
Forget starting that company.
Forget white water rafting in Colorado.
Forget the 3 month vacation in the south of Europe.
And forget that book you always wanted to write.
My life is defined by my ability to test the temperature of Gerber food.
Now, before I go on, I want to discern very clearly what my criticism is here.
It is not "having children." It is not, "whooping up the DINK lifestyle." It is not "mocking people who have children."
It is a genuine question of curiosity - "What changes in people when they have a kid that they now think their legacy is limited to, defined by and embodied in that kid?"
Or another way to put it,
"Why does the focus of one's personal legacy go to another human being?"
Now I can't answer these questions (but I welcome other people to try), but what I can do is refocus people's thoughts as to what truly is going to be your legacy, because "legacy" is not what you "feel" it should be. It's going to be what it IS.
In short your legacy is YOURS. YOU will determine YOUR legacy, not your child. It will be your mark on this planet, how you did unique and interesting things specific to you, and how people will remember you by. The fact you had a kid does NOT affect your legacy, simply because they're so common. Having kids is nothing special. But starting a company IS special. Working on art or rebuilding old cars IS special. Writing music, climbing mountains, competing in sports, writing books, heck, there was a guy on "The Tonight Show" who took bird droppings and made jewelry out of them! Those things ARE special.
And the reason I bring it up is really not to mock people who have the ho-hum life and can't understand why I don't want to carry on a last name or leave some of my genes behind. It's to wake those people up and say, "Hey, buddy, I know you have a kid. But you also have your own unique and interesting life. What do YOU want to do with it? You can't just want to sit around all day doing the same ol', same ol' all the time. You can't think your only purpose in life was to bring that kid into the world? Because, by default logic, what's his/her purpose? Merely to do the same?"
And it's not even that having a legacy is a mutually exclusive event with having children. If anything it's a complimentary event that enhances both your lives through hobbies. How great would it be to rebuild a classic car with your dad? Or build kites from scratch? Or brew beer together? Or...um...do whatever girly things moms and daughters find interesting. Having a true legacy will only benefit your child.
Of course, maybe I'm being too optimistic for the average American family today. I picture chemistry sets, go karts, writing books, working in the garage on inventions and other 1950s-esque scenes in my mind with a clean cut father with a pipe in his hand passing on his wisdom, skills and inventions. Perhaps I should just accept the average "legacy" will be "your father like baseball" and "your mother liked reading Harlequin romance novels."
Monday, June 04, 2012
Advertising on the Tom Leykis Show
As some of you may or may not know, I ran a spot for "Worthless" on the Tom Leykis Show.
Tom's show is no longer on radio, but on the internet, and for those of you familiar with "Blog Talk Radio" and other such formats, you know the jury is still out whether or not a "radio show" can be done over the internet.
Well, I'm here to tell you that not only can it be done, but that I also believe internet-based radio shows will prove to be more revolutionary and effective than most people would imagine.
First, Tom's first month back on the air got him a listenership of 400,000 people. That is amazing because even when I had a "regular" talk radio show, I think I got 3 or 4 people to tune in.
Second, his audience is not relegated or limited to FCC regulations or contracts or syndication. It's available to anybody in the world, period.
Third, because it's internet radio, and there is comparably lower costs to launch an internet show than there is a regular radio show, people like you and me can afford advertising and reach a similar, if not, larger audience.
As proof, your humble Captain spent a mere $500 on getting one month's worth of advertising on The Tom Leykis Show. I spent THREE TIMES that amount on a LOCAL, NON-PRIME TIME regular radio show for my first book. The results?
I had $1,500 in sales the month my spot ran on The Tom Leykis Show.
I sold a whopping 6 books when my spot ran on the regular radio show.
Now there is much more to advertising on internet based radio shows, as I believe it will play a vital role in the future of The Manosphere (and post you will NOT want to miss), but for now, understand one simple thing:
The Tom Leykis Show, as far as I can tell, is the single biggest asset entrepreneurs such as you and me have.
Did all my sales come from Tom's show? No, of course not. Many of you have been kind enough to promote "Worthless" and I sincerely appreciate it. But I certainly made my money back, meaning advertising on the Tom Leykis Show is a wise investment.
If you haven't done it, go there now and e-mail Gary or call 818-52-RADIO.
They did not pay me or ask me to do this. This is a genuine endorsement of his show.
Tom's show is no longer on radio, but on the internet, and for those of you familiar with "Blog Talk Radio" and other such formats, you know the jury is still out whether or not a "radio show" can be done over the internet.
Well, I'm here to tell you that not only can it be done, but that I also believe internet-based radio shows will prove to be more revolutionary and effective than most people would imagine.
First, Tom's first month back on the air got him a listenership of 400,000 people. That is amazing because even when I had a "regular" talk radio show, I think I got 3 or 4 people to tune in.
Second, his audience is not relegated or limited to FCC regulations or contracts or syndication. It's available to anybody in the world, period.
Third, because it's internet radio, and there is comparably lower costs to launch an internet show than there is a regular radio show, people like you and me can afford advertising and reach a similar, if not, larger audience.
As proof, your humble Captain spent a mere $500 on getting one month's worth of advertising on The Tom Leykis Show. I spent THREE TIMES that amount on a LOCAL, NON-PRIME TIME regular radio show for my first book. The results?
I had $1,500 in sales the month my spot ran on The Tom Leykis Show.
I sold a whopping 6 books when my spot ran on the regular radio show.
Now there is much more to advertising on internet based radio shows, as I believe it will play a vital role in the future of The Manosphere (and post you will NOT want to miss), but for now, understand one simple thing:
The Tom Leykis Show, as far as I can tell, is the single biggest asset entrepreneurs such as you and me have.
Did all my sales come from Tom's show? No, of course not. Many of you have been kind enough to promote "Worthless" and I sincerely appreciate it. But I certainly made my money back, meaning advertising on the Tom Leykis Show is a wise investment.
If you haven't done it, go there now and e-mail Gary or call 818-52-RADIO.
They did not pay me or ask me to do this. This is a genuine endorsement of his show.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Politically Incorrect Recession Medicine
I told you it was politically incorrect.
File your complaints with somebody else for not listening to my warnings.
File your complaints with somebody else for not listening to my warnings.
Seven Brothers Lakes
I revisited the Big Horn Mountains this weekend on account they are really tall mountains whereas the Black Hills are much shorter. Hiked to "Seven Brother's Lakes." Only saw 6 of them. However I did see a moose and a beaver.
Remember kids, you can work and pay taxes, or you can just umm....not.
Remember kids, you can work and pay taxes, or you can just umm....not.
Nice Suit
I've been catching up on my full DVD series "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." Among the many other things I like about the show, the fashion is one of those things. Thought this suit looked incredibly sharp.
Crusders are Jerks
Crusaderism is a psychological disease I discovered long ago. Oh, mock me if you will, and claim, "how can you, an economist, have a gall to say you discovered a psychological disorder?" But in due time, a real psychologist will discover it, give it some kind of official name, and then people will say,
"Ha! THAT??? POTUS Cappy discovered that about 50 years ago!"
However, since I've pointed out crusaderism and explained what it is, more and more people are being able to identify instances of it and are starting to see the deadly serious ramifications.
One of these not-so deadly ramifications is that crusaders are indeed jerks.
The tone of the article is one of "surprise" or "shock." To find out that people who participate in crusades are also highly correlated with being a jerk. People who study crusaderism, however, would not find this surprising at all. The reason why is that crusders are, if anything, incredibly selfish and lazy people. They put themselves first and find easy ways to give themselves self-worth and value. I won't go into detail, but you can see all the detail about crusaderism here, but take two people as an example:
The urban, masters degree intellectual who shops at Whole Foods. Does s/he have a masters in engineering? no. Probably a masters in art history or something like that. Drives a Prius, doesn't have a real job, relies on the taxpayer in one way or another for his/her income. KNOWS deep down inside they majored in sociology because they are too lazy to do math, and don't really contribute anything of value to society. AND SO by "going green" (which takes nothing and avoids math) they can claim not only are they doing something of value, they are superior to you cretins that shop at Wal-Mart.
vs.
The humble Asian student who is studying electrical engineering. S/he works hard, drives a beat up Toyota, studies advanced mathematics and electronics everyday, will inevitably build the processors to the computers on the GPS on the urban masters candidate's Prius, but can't afford as of yet a Prius, let alone overpriced food at Whole Foods or Starbucks. They go on to get a great job at Unisys, they pull in $250,000 and are then accused of being evil rich people that must pay more in taxes for the urban masters degreed dweller to "help" poor people or "the chillllldreeeeennnnnn."
Quite frankly, who would you rather hang out with? Obviously the poor Asian kid because they are intellectually honest. They are true to themselves. They are real men and women of strong moral caliber and you can expect them to treat you with the same courtesy. The other person is just an intellectually dishonest hypocrite and cover it up as much as they try with "buying the right food" or "driving the right car" or "voting for the right candidate" their personality will still shine through and show them to be the assholes they genuinely are.
hat tip
"Ha! THAT??? POTUS Cappy discovered that about 50 years ago!"
However, since I've pointed out crusaderism and explained what it is, more and more people are being able to identify instances of it and are starting to see the deadly serious ramifications.
One of these not-so deadly ramifications is that crusaders are indeed jerks.
The tone of the article is one of "surprise" or "shock." To find out that people who participate in crusades are also highly correlated with being a jerk. People who study crusaderism, however, would not find this surprising at all. The reason why is that crusders are, if anything, incredibly selfish and lazy people. They put themselves first and find easy ways to give themselves self-worth and value. I won't go into detail, but you can see all the detail about crusaderism here, but take two people as an example:
The urban, masters degree intellectual who shops at Whole Foods. Does s/he have a masters in engineering? no. Probably a masters in art history or something like that. Drives a Prius, doesn't have a real job, relies on the taxpayer in one way or another for his/her income. KNOWS deep down inside they majored in sociology because they are too lazy to do math, and don't really contribute anything of value to society. AND SO by "going green" (which takes nothing and avoids math) they can claim not only are they doing something of value, they are superior to you cretins that shop at Wal-Mart.
vs.
The humble Asian student who is studying electrical engineering. S/he works hard, drives a beat up Toyota, studies advanced mathematics and electronics everyday, will inevitably build the processors to the computers on the GPS on the urban masters candidate's Prius, but can't afford as of yet a Prius, let alone overpriced food at Whole Foods or Starbucks. They go on to get a great job at Unisys, they pull in $250,000 and are then accused of being evil rich people that must pay more in taxes for the urban masters degreed dweller to "help" poor people or "the chillllldreeeeennnnnn."
Quite frankly, who would you rather hang out with? Obviously the poor Asian kid because they are intellectually honest. They are true to themselves. They are real men and women of strong moral caliber and you can expect them to treat you with the same courtesy. The other person is just an intellectually dishonest hypocrite and cover it up as much as they try with "buying the right food" or "driving the right car" or "voting for the right candidate" their personality will still shine through and show them to be the assholes they genuinely are.
hat tip
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Amazing
Absolutely amazing.
My brain has so been brainwashed to see things differently in the past via black and white films that even though I KNOW the human eye 100 years ago saw the same colors, people and landscapes I do today, I can't imagine people 100 years ago seeing anything besides black and white...or my dad seeing anything that wasn't tinted 1970's yellow.
Still, click on the pictures. My favorite is the dog. It shows things have not changed at all with dogs.
My brain has so been brainwashed to see things differently in the past via black and white films that even though I KNOW the human eye 100 years ago saw the same colors, people and landscapes I do today, I can't imagine people 100 years ago seeing anything besides black and white...or my dad seeing anything that wasn't tinted 1970's yellow.
Still, click on the pictures. My favorite is the dog. It shows things have not changed at all with dogs.
GDP Yield Per Dollar in Education Spending
Permit me a chart that will probably go down in Cappy Cap history as one of my more important ones:
Now lend me your ears, especially you "the children are our future" hypocrites who have no shame in abusing the children when it comes time to protecting your overpaid jobs. I want to make sure your ear drums burst.
WE SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY ON EDUCATION!!!!!!
Period.
End of discussion.
Truth as truth can only be told.
Of course, I can't assume that everybody reading this post is a regular Cappy Cap reader and therefore doesn't need a hand-holding explanation of the chart above, so let me explain to you in simple terms the wonderful economics lesson the above chart tells us all and the ramifications of it.
The above chart is quite simple. It shows us "GDP Yielded per Dollar in Education Spending." Or, in other words, "How much GDP is produced for every dollar we spend on education."
It is a measure of the efficiency and effectiveness of our education system in that it essentially shows us our return on investment in education.
Notice in the olden days we could expect that for every dollar we "invested" in the precious little children, we could expect about $32 in economic production in return. It peaked during WWII where we almost doubled that rate of return, and even during the great depression it had a trough of $21. But still the average was reasonably high.
In the 50's our ROI for education averaged in the upper $20's, but then in the 60's it started a very measured and deliberate decline. This decline continues today where we get LESS THAN HALF OUR OLD SCHOOL RETURN - $14.52. The cause of this decline I presume was that blessed, wonderful and highly ineffective "Great Society."
Whatever the cause, the fact still remains that education has been suffering a phenomenon economists like to call "Diminishing Marginal Utility" or "Diminishing Returns."
Or in English - "We ain't getting our bang for our buck."
It is here, no doubt, liberals, leftists, socialists, communists and other economic parasites will try to change reality, redefine words, and tender touchy feely arguments that are not based in reality or logic. However, for those people, allow me to do you the favor of tendering your arguments for you because I know you so well because I know your ulterior goals and motives:
1. "Well education isn't all about the money. It's about becoming a well-rounded person. It's an experience" etc. etc. touchyfeelygarbage, touchyfeelygarbage.
2. "People don't get an education just so they can go and work. They do it so they can enhance their intellect and lives. You don't want a bunch of dumb people running around the country, do you? You want a place where everybody is smart like us in San Francisco or New York."
But, if you can stand to be as open-mined and as intelligent as you hypocrites all claim you are, permit me not a counter-argument, but reality.
1. BS. The amount of money students, their parents and taxpayers spend on education, you damn well better believe money matters. When people blow $100,000 on a college degree, unless you're some spoiled pampered brat whose parent can afford it, you are CRIPPLING YOUR ECONOMIC FUTURE. Liberal or conservative. Capitalist or parasite. Your political ideology and naivete does not matter as that $100,000 in student debt will destroy you and your future regardless.
2. The government (which means me and the dwindling percent of the population who actually produce something on value in this country) pay for 75% of all educational spending. That's right, other people are paying for the majority of your education.
READ
WE HAVE EVERY GOD DAMNED RIGHT TO DEMAND A RATE OF RETURN
AND
WE HAVE EVERY GOD DAMNED RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT OUR MONEY IS SPENT WISELY ON DEGREES AND EDUCATION THAT LEADS TO GENUINE ECONOMIC PRODUCTION AND NOT FINANCE SOME BLEEPING HOBBY DEGREE LIKE SOCIOLOGY, WOMEN'S STUDIES AND WHATEVER OTHER DEGREES YOU LEFTISTS PURSUE THAT ARE VOID OF MATH, RIGOR AND PURPOSE.
Of course, ultimately, I know this is not a debate. I know that this is falling on deaf ears which relegates this post for posterity. Debates require both sides to have theories, but no proof or evidence, which results in speculation, logic, thought and an attempt to convince the other person to see it their way. Debate also requires intellectual honesty of both parties. This is instead one of two things:
A psychological problem in which people who "argue" otherwise simply are psychologically impaired and cannot accept fact, data, statistics or truth (aka-ignorance, delusional).
Or
A problem of evil. Where people who "argue" otherwise know full well I, and millions of others are right, but know to indignantly feign disagreement so they can continue to unfairly milk the system for their advantage at our expense.
And so for those of you who are evil, know that you're not fooling any one.
And for those of you who are ignorant, know that we no longer care to discern between the two because the costs to us are the same.
WE SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY ON EDUCATION!!!!!!
Period.
End of discussion.
Truth as truth can only be told.
Of course, I can't assume that everybody reading this post is a regular Cappy Cap reader and therefore doesn't need a hand-holding explanation of the chart above, so let me explain to you in simple terms the wonderful economics lesson the above chart tells us all and the ramifications of it.
The above chart is quite simple. It shows us "GDP Yielded per Dollar in Education Spending." Or, in other words, "How much GDP is produced for every dollar we spend on education."
It is a measure of the efficiency and effectiveness of our education system in that it essentially shows us our return on investment in education.
Notice in the olden days we could expect that for every dollar we "invested" in the precious little children, we could expect about $32 in economic production in return. It peaked during WWII where we almost doubled that rate of return, and even during the great depression it had a trough of $21. But still the average was reasonably high.
In the 50's our ROI for education averaged in the upper $20's, but then in the 60's it started a very measured and deliberate decline. This decline continues today where we get LESS THAN HALF OUR OLD SCHOOL RETURN - $14.52. The cause of this decline I presume was that blessed, wonderful and highly ineffective "Great Society."
Whatever the cause, the fact still remains that education has been suffering a phenomenon economists like to call "Diminishing Marginal Utility" or "Diminishing Returns."
Or in English - "We ain't getting our bang for our buck."
It is here, no doubt, liberals, leftists, socialists, communists and other economic parasites will try to change reality, redefine words, and tender touchy feely arguments that are not based in reality or logic. However, for those people, allow me to do you the favor of tendering your arguments for you because I know you so well because I know your ulterior goals and motives:
1. "Well education isn't all about the money. It's about becoming a well-rounded person. It's an experience" etc. etc. touchyfeelygarbage, touchyfeelygarbage.
2. "People don't get an education just so they can go and work. They do it so they can enhance their intellect and lives. You don't want a bunch of dumb people running around the country, do you? You want a place where everybody is smart like us in San Francisco or New York."
But, if you can stand to be as open-mined and as intelligent as you hypocrites all claim you are, permit me not a counter-argument, but reality.
1. BS. The amount of money students, their parents and taxpayers spend on education, you damn well better believe money matters. When people blow $100,000 on a college degree, unless you're some spoiled pampered brat whose parent can afford it, you are CRIPPLING YOUR ECONOMIC FUTURE. Liberal or conservative. Capitalist or parasite. Your political ideology and naivete does not matter as that $100,000 in student debt will destroy you and your future regardless.
2. The government (which means me and the dwindling percent of the population who actually produce something on value in this country) pay for 75% of all educational spending. That's right, other people are paying for the majority of your education.
READ
WE HAVE EVERY GOD DAMNED RIGHT TO DEMAND A RATE OF RETURN
AND
WE HAVE EVERY GOD DAMNED RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT OUR MONEY IS SPENT WISELY ON DEGREES AND EDUCATION THAT LEADS TO GENUINE ECONOMIC PRODUCTION AND NOT FINANCE SOME BLEEPING HOBBY DEGREE LIKE SOCIOLOGY, WOMEN'S STUDIES AND WHATEVER OTHER DEGREES YOU LEFTISTS PURSUE THAT ARE VOID OF MATH, RIGOR AND PURPOSE.
Of course, ultimately, I know this is not a debate. I know that this is falling on deaf ears which relegates this post for posterity. Debates require both sides to have theories, but no proof or evidence, which results in speculation, logic, thought and an attempt to convince the other person to see it their way. Debate also requires intellectual honesty of both parties. This is instead one of two things:
A psychological problem in which people who "argue" otherwise simply are psychologically impaired and cannot accept fact, data, statistics or truth (aka-ignorance, delusional).
Or
A problem of evil. Where people who "argue" otherwise know full well I, and millions of others are right, but know to indignantly feign disagreement so they can continue to unfairly milk the system for their advantage at our expense.
And so for those of you who are evil, know that you're not fooling any one.
And for those of you who are ignorant, know that we no longer care to discern between the two because the costs to us are the same.
From Our Muslim Agent in the Field
If there is a price tag to replacing fathers and husbands with government checks, this is it.
But that's alright. Remember, we don't need no stiiiiiiiinking fathers!
Besides, think of all the social work jobs criminals create for all those women majoring in "psychology" or "social work." Why, if people were responsible and stayed at home to take care of their children, then children wouldn't grow up to become criminals and then we wouldn't have all these social work/government program jobs. And we can't have that now can we.
Hey, you crazy kids enjoy that decline!
But that's alright. Remember, we don't need no stiiiiiiiinking fathers!
Besides, think of all the social work jobs criminals create for all those women majoring in "psychology" or "social work." Why, if people were responsible and stayed at home to take care of their children, then children wouldn't grow up to become criminals and then we wouldn't have all these social work/government program jobs. And we can't have that now can we.
Hey, you crazy kids enjoy that decline!
Friday, June 01, 2012
Now Those Are Classy Dames
Ha-YOOOOOGE language warning!
However, INCREDIBLY funny, only to be outdone by its wittiness and its macabre acknowledgement of reality.
Enjoy that decline, boys. Keep on enjoying that freaking decline!
However, INCREDIBLY funny, only to be outdone by its wittiness and its macabre acknowledgement of reality.
Enjoy that decline, boys. Keep on enjoying that freaking decline!
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Nick Keith is a Moron
But his dad is smart.
Noticed, however, how they villainize the father.
Heck, if Keith's dad wants to pay my way through engineering school, sign me up!
Christ, 36 years old and 8 YEARS IN CULINARY SCHOOL??????
Noticed, however, how they villainize the father.
Heck, if Keith's dad wants to pay my way through engineering school, sign me up!
Christ, 36 years old and 8 YEARS IN CULINARY SCHOOL??????
I Spy With My Little Eye
A reason this woman had to marry herself.
Anybody else see what I see?
I'll give you another clue from another woman who married herself.
I laugh thinking how when I was younger I thought I was the one with the problems.
ht
Anybody else see what I see?
I'll give you another clue from another woman who married herself.
I laugh thinking how when I was younger I thought I was the one with the problems.
ht
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)