If your goal is to go to Australia as a financially independent guy, then I'd agree. That would be a tall order finding someone with the same resources and dream.
If all you want a woman for is candlelight dinners and sex, then I'd agree too. Just pay for the whores.
If you want a meaningful relationship with a woman, the only thing standing in your way is your attitude. You may have some other obstacles, but those are probably surmountable.
Read my piece on the age of 29 and the fact that women, on the whole, don't change much, upon hitting 30.
And what makes you think that those professional women aren't a bunch of control freaks either? The expression, *my money is my money and your money is my money*, is more common than you think.
I read your hypothesis on women changing after 30, and don't think you have much data regarding that. Even if you are right, you could go find a 25 yr old, or find a 30 yr old who shares many of the same thoughts, hobbies, and goals as you. You don't have to go through the formative years together so much as find someone who is sympatico and start growing together. When people get much older, they stop changing, and perhaps get more like themselves as they stop trying to mask their personality.
I don't really understand your complaint about professional women. Are they more likely to be control freaks then successful men? If you don't want a control freak, find a laid back professional woman. They are out there.
My wife and I have our own money pools and a shared pool. What would be considered hers on divorce is a matter of state law and a prenup. It's not too hard to figure that out, though. I'm pretty sure that most states assume that the money made during marriage is joint property. However, the money made before marriage or inherited does not become joint property unless it is commingled. If you want to spell that out, then see a lawyer and get a prenup.
There is a huge straw man in the room. Rin and some others put forth the idea of a woman who shops and screws off all day while he works. He could date a professional woman (doctor, lawyer, etc., not prostitute) too if he lost the crappy misogynistic attitude. He'd have to be wary of gold diggers considering he has a nest egg, but that is not too difficult.
I'm kind of surprised you've been so successful in your financial life. You have the conformity / willingness to brown-nose, and willingness to work hard part down. But optimism and desire to grow seem to be in short supply.
I don't agree that you have to grow together when you are younger to be happy and successful. You do have to grow together as adults. If you start growing in different directions, it's probably game over.
I met a 21 yr old when I was thirty, who I ended up marrying. We've been together for 12 years, and she's still my best friend. Even if 85% of marriages suck, it doesn't mean that yours has to. You made it into the top 15% in the income bracket. It's quite possible that you could do it in the relationship area too if you are intelligent and apply yourself. If you are dense or don't apply yourself, you'll probably end up in the bottom 85%. Picking the right partner and luck has a lot to do with it too. My first marriage was a flop due to poor selection, but I learned and moved on with life.
I couldn't care less if someone in my social circle chooses not to get married. When reading your thoughts, though, my first reaction is that you talk a lot about the possibility of losing your money or having some gold digger using you. If that's true, then I might discuss it with you, because you seem too scared to show up for the game. If you really just don't want a good marriage or long term relationship, then fine. I'm not sure why you would choose to avoid a good marriage, but it's your life so good on you for living it on your terms.
Report says home prices dropped 0.1% month over month.
It doesn't seem like a big leap to go from a handicap ramp and wheel chair accessible john to a gluten free or nut free option without a surcharge. This falls into the 'whatever' category.
Weight * mileage is closely approximated by the current gas tax.
No worries. If someone wants to tax battery powered cars based on mileage, that would be fine. I'm sure that the current mileage laws and reporting when people get their cars worked on could be tied in. It could be an annual self-reported thing as well. If you lie, it will catch up with you when you sell your car.
In a related story. Smarter people who have more money prefer more expensive cars than dumber people with less money.
medicaid increase might be due do increased drug coverage, but that's a guess.
This is clear evidence that either
1) the opportunities for lower class folks - say bottom 30% are much worse than they used to be.
2) the 'means' test has gotten easier to pass.
3) people have gotten lazy.
The biggest increases are in food stamps, wic, disability (SSI) and medicaid. So, food and medicine for the bottom tier and disabled of society.
I've checked the test for food stamps for a member of my extended family who is not doing well. You have to be pretty darn poor to qualify, basically, someone working 40 hrs a week at minimum wage and living on their own would get some help. That pretty much rules out #2.
I don't think people have fundamentally changed so much and gotten lazier, but that's debatable.
I'm thinking it's b/c the job creators are buy creating jobs in other countries. The opportunities are just not good for the bottom 30%.
The disabilities issue has something to do with the Bush wars, as 3.6 million vets are on disability. I don't know how the others on SSI break down.
What do you whiners think is the reason for the increase?
Do you believe that 18% is optimum or a maximum, or both? Does the optimum tax depend on the current wealth and income distribution, or is it fixed? Is there some reason for this, or are you just going on a hunch, or what?
I believe that there is an optimum, and it is generally a higher percentage than we see right now. However, the optimum income tax depends on the current income distribution and state of the economy. A progressive tax makes the most sense for income tax, because the benefits of the government favor the rich.
I really don't know. The above is a parody.
Parody is usually used to make a point. You have parodied a weak argument (straw man) and laughed at it. Now, you shy away from any discussion regarding what would be best. Well, you said you don't know and offered no opinion on the topic that you brought up.
What do you think the optimal tax rate is indigenous? Do you think that there is an optimum, or that lower is better or what?
Facts?!? That was more confusing the Matthew McConaughey aimlessly driving around mumbling to himself in an ugly Lincoln
WTF - the Captain actually made me laugh. I hate that Lincoln commercial. Back to the Krugman article - that was pretty damn simple and to the point, really.
You can believe in anything. In the end, the whole point of statistics is to justify any position.
This statement is silly crap spewed by people who don't understand statistics. Do you really believe it? Statistics can only be used to justify two opposing positions when one person is misusing it.
How do you know it is statistically significant. Out of the thousands of fund managers that start, do you not expect a few to do much better than average due to random chance?
The success of actively managed funds is highly dependent upon the prop trading teams. On the average, few will ever beat the long term indexes, over time, however, some will.
My point is that they do not beat the long term indexes on average. Furthermore, randomness can explain any success or string of successes of well respected fund managers.
Bill Millers fund beat the S&P 500 for 15 consecutive years after fees. Even he said that it's luck, because if the calendar year ended on a different month the streak would not have been there. Also, when you ask the question of how likely is it that one fund manager out of the lot beat the S&P for 15 straight years at some point during the time that the S&P has existed, the odds are 75%. So, it would be unlikely not to have such a trader. However, people attribute this to skill or brilliance, when it is really just luck.
My understanding is that passive funds perform just as well as actively managed funds over the long term, and that they significantly outperform managed funds after accounting for fees.
On average, do actively managed funds do any better than passively managed funds?
Asset managment is not particularly useful or honest. The difference between successful and unsuccessful financial managers is luck. People's poor grasp of statistics lets them get bamboozled by random chance, a hot hand, and some marketing.
There's Huckabee, Santorum, Perry, and Palin for a start, how's that work for you?
I say sperm - you say Santorum.
I'm hoping for Ben Carson to be the new Palin. He's like a unicorn. It would be nice to see how many republicans would come out and vote for a black guy. A white woman is one thing. They eat across the table from them occasionally. A black guy is another matter.
Carson thinks that the ACA is the worst thing that has happened since slavery, because it originated from Vladimir Lenin. On the other hand, he thinks that for profit insurance companies make absolutely no sense, and the government should pay for catastrophic care. But it should be paid for out of a fund supported by the profits of insurance companies. There is so much inconsistency there, he just might compete with Palin. Carson also thinks we should have a flat tax. I wonder if the flat taxers only want to make income tax flat, or if they want to have a flat tax when you add in property tax, income tax, sales tax, Medicare, and Social Security taxes.
On the Republican side, there ought to be a yearning for someone other than Jeb Bush. Lest our country be held up by the whim's of Senior Bush's sperm.
Jesus Herbert BushChrist. To quote Jesse Jackson, "Stay out of the Bushes.'
I'm pretty liberal, but don't think this has anything to do with democracy being broken.
Did you know that Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012 and didn't even come close to control?
Basically we've had a majority vote for Democrats for years now and Republicans have power for some reason.
That's exactly my point. The problem is that the Democrats win the popular vote in the House, but the House is run by a bunch of Looney Toone right wingers. The House is supposed to be representative of the popular vote, because it was designed to be weighted by population. It is not representative of the popular vote, because the Republicans have Gerrymandered the fuck out of it. That is a legitimate gripe.
Complaining that the Senate is working exactly like it was designed to, representing each of the states equally, is a losing battle.
I'm pretty liberal, but don't think this has anything to do with democracy being broken.
The House represents the people, and the Senate represents the States. Each is a perfect democracy, giving equal weight per person in one case, and per State in another case. Giving States equal power does tend to help Republicans, but that's life.
The real problematic issue is Gerrymandering. It is a corrupt way of disenfranchising whole groups of people while helping those in power keep power. There is no good reason for it that I can see outside of corruption.