The world is full of ambitious people who have the drive but not the resources. I know I could’ve had a PhD or two under my belt but couldn’t even afford to get an Associate’s degree. (2 complete years). In the USA, you have a SMALL window of help: Age 18-23, approximately. After that, help dries up and life moves on. Gotta work. Had your chance, etc. I don’t regret it because the US is a class based system, mostly hinging on family community status and provable family income. Even with assistance, if your family couldn’t have afforded tuition, it also means you won’t be able to afford to avail yourself of opportunities that come only to those with sufficient connection and family (not personal) income. I didn’t have that and it’s ok. I like my life and glad for the choices I made out of what was available and my capabilities and drive. But I feel for those who DO want more, strive for it, have the intelligence but get little of the assistance (for lack of family community status and family income). If you pry behind the stories of the “self made successes”, you’ll usually find big helpers along the way that “lift” them up and continue to, often political in some way.

The world is full [read full article]

 

Strange American narrative: “Single Mothers” as cause of most social ills. Nowadays, you’re more likely to hear “single parents” instead of “single mothers”, but it’s implying “single mothers”. The theory goes, women are irrational without a man’s logical mind. They’re unable to teach rationality to their sons, for that reason and because they make less money, so they’re always working, leaving nobody home most of the time, which is why the boys turn to the streets and join gangs for their “real family”. I’ve heard versions of this my whole life and it’s ridiculous and incorrect. But a lot of people believe this to be fact.

Strange American narrative: “Single … [read full article]

 

Nowadays, you’re more likely to hear “single parents” instead of “single mothers”, but it’s implying “single mothers”. The theory goes, women are irrational without a man’s logical mind. They’re unable to teach rationality to their sons, for that reason and because they make less money, so they’re always working, leaving nobody home most of the time, which is why the boys turn to the streets and join gangs for their “real family”. I’ve heard versions of this my whole life and it’s ridiculous and incorrect. But a lot of people believe this to be fact.

Nowadays, you’re more likely [read full article]

 

Politicians don’t want to spend tax money (not their money but they find ways to make it theirs) on mental health. They’ll do it for prisons but not schools nor long term psychiatric care. If the same funds that used to be spend for long term care was spend on community mental health programs, simple outpatient facilities mental and wellness programs, I think you’d see less problems caused by the unstable. The problem isn’t precisely the loss of institutions: it’s the loss of mental health as a managed aspect of communities, whether institution or outpatient. In short: the money’s not spend on mental health anymore, not unless you’re of the correct class. Then the funds show up.

Politicians don’t want to [read full article]

 

50% is actually good odds in some circumstances and there are ways to mitigate risk. For example: You have money to invest. You break into two categories: Low risk | High risk. Money you can afford to lose goes into high risk. Money you can afford to lose goes into low risk. You can split low risk / high risk at the 50% line if you like. Notice I didn’t say “Money you cannot afford to lose”. Money you cannot afford to lose you do not invest.

50% is actually good … [read full article]