WE turn to screens for nearly every decision. Where to eat. Where to vacation. Where to eat on vacation. Where to get treatment for the food poisoning you got at that restaurant where you ate on vacation. Where to write a negative review calling out the restaurant that gave you food poisoning and ruined your vacation. So it’s no surprise our screens are becoming the first place we turn to when looking for romance — because you need someone to take care of you when you get food poisoning on your vacation, right?
One of the most amazing social changes is the rise of online dating and the decline of other ways of meeting a romantic partner. In 1940, 24 percent of heterosexual romantic couples in the United States met through family, 21 percent through friends, 21 percent through school, 13 percent through neighbors, 13 percent through church, 12 percent at a bar or restaurant and 10 percent through co-workers. (Some categories overlapped.)
By 2009, half of all straight couples still met through friends or at a bar or restaurant, but 22 percent met online, and all other sources had shrunk. Remarkably, almost 70 percent of gay and lesbian couples met online, according to the Stanford sociologist Michael J. Rosenfeld, who compiled this data.
And Internet dating isn’t just about casual hookups. According to the University of Chicago psychologist John T. Cacioppo, more than one-third of couples who married in the United States from 2005 to 2012 met online.
Online dating generates a spectrum of reactions: exhilaration, fatigue, inspiration, fury. Many singles compare it to a second job, more duty than flirtation; the word “exhausting” came up constantly. These days, we seem to have unlimited options. And we marry later or, increasingly, not at all. The typical American spends more of her life single than married, which means she’s likely to invest ever more time searching for romance online. Is there a way to do it more effectively, with less stress? The evidence from our two years of study, which included interviews around the world, from Tokyo to Wichita, Kan., says yes.
TOO MUCH FILTERING The Internet offers a seemingly endless supply of people who are single and looking to date, as well as tools to filter and find exactly what you’re looking for. You can specify height, education, location and basically anything else. Are you trying to find a guy whose favorite book is “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” and whose favorite sport is lacrosse? You’re just a few clicks away from this dream dude.
But we are horrible at knowing what we want. Scientists working with Match.com found that the kind of partner people said they wanted often didn’t match up with what they were actually interested in. People filter too much; they’d be better off vetting dates in person.
“Online dating is just a vehicle to meet more people,” says the author and dating consultant Laurie Davis. “It’s not the place to actually date.” The anthropologist Helen Fisher, who does work for Match.com, makes a similar argument: “It’s a misnomer that they call these things ‘dating services,’ ” she told us. “They should be called ‘introducing services.’ They enable you to go out and go and meet the person yourself.”
What about those search algorithms? When researchers analyzed characteristics of couples who’d met on OkCupid, they discovered that one-third had matching answers on three surprisingly important questions: “Do you like horror movies?” “Have you ever traveled around another country alone?” and “Wouldn’t it be fun to chuck it all and go live on a sailboat?” OkCupid believes that answers to these questions may have some predictive value, presumably because they touch on deep, personal issues that matter to people more than they realize.
But what works well for predicting good first dates doesn’t tell us much about the long-term success of a couple. A recent study led by the Northwestern psychologist Eli J. Finkel argues that no mathematical algorithm can predict whether two people will make a good couple.
PICTURE PERFECT People put a huge amount of time into writing the perfect profile, but does all that effort pay off?
OkCupid started an app called Crazy Blind Date. It offered the minimal information people needed to have an in-person meeting. No lengthy profile, no back-and-forth chat, just a blurred photo. Afterward, users were asked to rate their satisfaction with the experience.
The responses were compared with data from the same users’ activity on OkCupid. As Christian Rudder, an OkCupid co-founder, tells it, women who were rated very attractive were unlikely to respond to men rated less attractive. But when they were matched on Crazy Blind Date, they had a good time. As Mr. Rudder puts it, “people appear to be heavily preselecting online for something that, once they sit down in person, doesn’t seem important to them.”
Some of what we learned about effective photos on OkCupid was predictable: Women who flirt for the camera or show cleavage are quite successful. Some of what we learned was pretty weird: Men who look away and don’t smile do better than those who do; women holding animals don’t do well, but men holding animals do. Men did better when shown engaging in an interesting activity.
We recommend the following: If you are a woman, take a high-angle selfie, with cleavage, while you’re underwater near some buried treasure. If you are a guy, take a shot of yourself spelunking in a dark cave while holding your puppy and looking away from the camera, without smiling.
TOO MANY OPTIONS As research by Barry Schwartz and other psychologists has shown, having more options not only makes it harder to choose something, but also may make us less satisfied with our choices, because we can’t help wonder whether we erred.
Consider a study by the Columbia University psychologist Sheena S. Iyengar. She set up a table at an upscale food store and offered shoppers samples of jams. Sometimes, the researchers offered six types of jam, but other times they offered 24. When they offered 24, people were more likely to stop in and have a taste, but they were almost 10 times less likely to actually buy jam than people who had just six kinds to try.
See what’s happening? There’s too much jam out there. If you’re on a date with a certain jam, you can’t even focus because as soon as you go to the bathroom, three other jams have texted you. You go online, you see more jam.
One way to avoid this problem is to give each jam a fair chance. Remember: Although we are initially attracted to people by their physical appearance and traits we can quickly recognize, the things that make us fall for someone are their deeper, more personal qualities, which come out only during sustained interactions. Psychologists like Robert B. Zajonc have established the “mere exposure effect”: Repeated exposure to a stimulus tends to enhance one’s feelings toward it.
Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS
Charles
4 minutes ago
This is a fascinating article by Aziz Ansary and Eric Klinenberg. What is it, exactly, that makes two people come together? I like their...
Sarah T.
34 minutes ago
Back in 1995, when the internet was new to most of us, I started playing trivia games on America Online. I found fun, like-minded people and...
Annette
34 minutes ago
I love the ending with the 'meeting them in person'. That's been the challenge for me - getting the guy off the computer and out on a date!...
SEE ALL COMMENTS
WRITE A COMMENT
This isn’t just a theory. In a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the University of Texas psychologists Paul W. Eastwick and Lucy L. Hunt suggest that in dating contexts, a person’s looks, charisma and professional success may matter less for relationship success than other factors that we each value differently, such as tastes and preferences. In fact, they write, few people initiate romantic relationships based on first impressions. Instead they fall for each other gradually, until an unexpected or perhaps long-awaited spark transforms a friendship or acquaintance into something sexual and serious.
Think about it in terms of pop music. When a new song featuring Drake comes on the radio, you’re like, “What is this song? Oh another Drake song. Big deal. Heard this before. Next please!” Then you keep hearing it and you think, “Oh Drake, you’ve done it again!”
In a way, we are all like that Drake song: The more time you spend with us, the more likely we are to get stuck in your head.
No one wants to invest too much on a first date. After all, the odds are it won’t be a love connection. It’s hard to get excited about a new person while doing a résumé exchange over beer and a burger. So stack the deck in your favor and abide by what we called “The Monster Truck Rally Theory of Dating”: Don’t sit across from your date at a table, sipping a drink and talking about where you went to school. Do something adventurous, playful or stimulating instead, and see what kind of rapport you have.
SWIPE AWAY Apps like Tinder boil the dating experience down to assessing people’s images. Compared with stressing out over a questionnaire, swiping can be fun, even addictive. Within two years, Tinder was said to have about 50 million users and claimed responsibility for two billion matches.
As with all other new forms of dating, there’s a stigma around swipe apps. The biggest criticism is that they encourage increasing superficiality. But that’s too cynical. When you walk into a bar or party, often all you have to go by is faces, and that’s what you use to decide if you are going to gather the courage to talk to them. Isn’t a swipe app just a huge party full of faces?
In a world of infinite possibilities, perhaps the best thing new dating technologies can do is to reduce our options to people within reach. In a way they’re a throwback to a past age, when proximity was crucial. In 1932, the sociologist James H. S. Bossard examined 5,000 marriage licenses filed in Philadelphia. One-third of the couples had lived within a five-block radius of each other before they wed, one in six within a block, and one in eight at the same address!
Today’s apps make meeting people fun and efficient. Now comes the hard part: changing out of your sweatpants, meeting them in person, and trying for a connection so you can settle down and get right back into those sweatpants.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Monday, June 8, 2015
LOVE: THE VOWS TO YOU
I vow never to make you guess how I’m feeling or what I’m thinking. I know you’re not a mind reader, and I won’t make you try and be one.
I vow to never, ever break your trust, but also to lie to you if it means making you smile.
I vow always to treat you like you’re the most amazing person in the world. Because, to me, you are. You mean the world to me. If you ever forget exactly how incredible of an individual you are, I vow to be there to remind you. Actions speak louder than words, but I’ll use both — just to be safe.
I vow to make you fall in love with me all over again, every chance I get. I vow to surrender myself to you and always keep you guessing. I’m yours — all of me. I want you to know me inside out, and I vow always to let you in. I will never distance myself from you because there’s no distancing myself from you; we’re one in the same.
I vow to be an incredible parent and role model for our children.I’ll wake up in the middle of the night to change diapers, rock cradles and read stories so you can get an extra hour of sleep.
I’ll teach our children by example and make sure they grow to be strong, confident, capable, compassionate and intelligent individuals — just like you.
I vow to make compromises.To be honest, I’m not worried about having to give up something for you because I know you wouldn’t make me give up something I love. And if I give up the things I don’t love, you’re doing me a favor.
I vow to fight your battles with you as a team.If you grow weak, I’ll be there to fight your battles for you. .
I vow never to abandon you.I will never, ever leave you. I will never give up on us and fight tooth and nail just to hold on to you.
I vow to dedicate my life to you and to be there for you until your last breath — or my own.I will be there for you through the best times and the toughest times. Most importantly, I want us to be there for each other when the curtains close.
I vow to never, ever break your trust, but also to lie to you if it means making you smile.
I vow always to treat you like you’re the most amazing person in the world. Because, to me, you are. You mean the world to me. If you ever forget exactly how incredible of an individual you are, I vow to be there to remind you. Actions speak louder than words, but I’ll use both — just to be safe.
I vow to make you fall in love with me all over again, every chance I get. I vow to surrender myself to you and always keep you guessing. I’m yours — all of me. I want you to know me inside out, and I vow always to let you in. I will never distance myself from you because there’s no distancing myself from you; we’re one in the same.
I vow to be an incredible parent and role model for our children.I’ll wake up in the middle of the night to change diapers, rock cradles and read stories so you can get an extra hour of sleep.
I’ll teach our children by example and make sure they grow to be strong, confident, capable, compassionate and intelligent individuals — just like you.
I vow to make compromises.To be honest, I’m not worried about having to give up something for you because I know you wouldn’t make me give up something I love. And if I give up the things I don’t love, you’re doing me a favor.
I vow to fight your battles with you as a team.If you grow weak, I’ll be there to fight your battles for you. .
I vow never to abandon you.I will never, ever leave you. I will never give up on us and fight tooth and nail just to hold on to you.
I vow to dedicate my life to you and to be there for you until your last breath — or my own.I will be there for you through the best times and the toughest times. Most importantly, I want us to be there for each other when the curtains close.
LOVE: HOW I SEE YOU AND YOU SEE ME
I do not see the woman I am with as the container she comes in. I do not look at her from the outside in or see only the soft little folds in her skin. I do not see her as the vehicle that carries her double D breasts or the head upon which her curly hair rests.I do not see her body as “her.I do not confuse his body for his person.
I see her as an endless supply of compassion and as the music that her voice makes. I see her as warmth in winter and as inspiration and as the definition of unconditional love. I see her as acceptance, as hope, as faith. I see him as her brilliant ideas and her wit and her wild sense of adventure. I see her as an endless sunrise. I see him as her soul. I see her as the bigger heart that forgives me.. I see her as the kind, smart, wonderful woman everyone told me I should find…before they specified that none of that counts unless she’s beautiful.
I see the woman I’m with as the way she cares for others, as the way she laughs at the innocence of children and small animals and grimaces at liars and cheaters and the way she gathers Christmas presents for the homeless. I see the woman I’m with as my renewed faith in humanity, as the lessons I have learned in love. I see her as the overcoming of obstacles, as the soft water tension that supports our tiny boat in an endless sea. I see her as the unbreakable chain on our bike, as the strong film that protects the inside of a fragile egg, as fireworks and high fives and the fizz of a celebratory champagne bottle. I see her as the heartstrings that pull tight to wrap my hand up in her.
I see her as the encouragement she gives me and the love that she puts out into the world. I do not see her body as the barrier between my heart and her or as the moat that blocks the rest of the world out of the palace in the middle. I see the woman I am with as the love I share with her and as the strength we give each other. I see her as the goodness that she brings out in me. I see him as her character, as the woman she is, as the image her heart and soul portray.
She sees me as a soul, a human mind, who needs a body to hold him to the earth. She sees me as ideas that need a head to fill and an eternity that needs some time to kill, and she sees me not as a way but as a will. She sees me as feelings that occupy my physical space and as expressions that manifest themselves in my face. She sees me as a partner and when she looks at me we see what lies behind our eyes. She sees me as myself, as the words I speak and the thoughts I think, as the dreams I chase, as my hopes, and my happiness, and as the fears I face.
Perhaps that is because she and I are the exception, and not the rule, the content rather than the cover, the flawed rather than the flawless. Fortunately for me, I learned to love in spite of flaws and in spite of the world’s bad examples, and that has taught me that my love is not about what other people see. All that matters is the way I see her and the way that she sees me
I see her as an endless supply of compassion and as the music that her voice makes. I see her as warmth in winter and as inspiration and as the definition of unconditional love. I see her as acceptance, as hope, as faith. I see him as her brilliant ideas and her wit and her wild sense of adventure. I see her as an endless sunrise. I see him as her soul. I see her as the bigger heart that forgives me.. I see her as the kind, smart, wonderful woman everyone told me I should find…before they specified that none of that counts unless she’s beautiful.
I see the woman I’m with as the way she cares for others, as the way she laughs at the innocence of children and small animals and grimaces at liars and cheaters and the way she gathers Christmas presents for the homeless. I see the woman I’m with as my renewed faith in humanity, as the lessons I have learned in love. I see her as the overcoming of obstacles, as the soft water tension that supports our tiny boat in an endless sea. I see her as the unbreakable chain on our bike, as the strong film that protects the inside of a fragile egg, as fireworks and high fives and the fizz of a celebratory champagne bottle. I see her as the heartstrings that pull tight to wrap my hand up in her.
I see her as the encouragement she gives me and the love that she puts out into the world. I do not see her body as the barrier between my heart and her or as the moat that blocks the rest of the world out of the palace in the middle. I see the woman I am with as the love I share with her and as the strength we give each other. I see her as the goodness that she brings out in me. I see him as her character, as the woman she is, as the image her heart and soul portray.
She sees me as a soul, a human mind, who needs a body to hold him to the earth. She sees me as ideas that need a head to fill and an eternity that needs some time to kill, and she sees me not as a way but as a will. She sees me as feelings that occupy my physical space and as expressions that manifest themselves in my face. She sees me as a partner and when she looks at me we see what lies behind our eyes. She sees me as myself, as the words I speak and the thoughts I think, as the dreams I chase, as my hopes, and my happiness, and as the fears I face.
Perhaps that is because she and I are the exception, and not the rule, the content rather than the cover, the flawed rather than the flawless. Fortunately for me, I learned to love in spite of flaws and in spite of the world’s bad examples, and that has taught me that my love is not about what other people see. All that matters is the way I see her and the way that she sees me
Sunday, May 31, 2015
ARTICLE:The Breathing Trick That Puts You to Sleep in Seconds
The 4-7-8 breathing technique was pioneered Dr. Andrew Weill from Arizona, who describes the yoga-inspired method as “utterly simple, takes almost no time, requires no equipment and can be done anywhere.”
Dr.Weill claims that 4-7-8 breathing can help people fall asleep in just 60 seconds by acting as a “natural tranquiliser for the nervous system” that reduces stress and tension in the body.
How do you do it?
1. Before you begin, place the tip of your tongue on the roof of your mouth just above your teeth and keep it there throughout the exercise.
2. Exhale completely through your mouth quite forcefully so you make a “whoosh” sound.
3. Close your mouth and inhale quietly and softly through your nose for a mental count of four.
4. Hold your breath and count to seven.
5. Next, exhale completely through your mouth, making another whoosh sound for eight seconds in one large breath.
6. Now inhale again and repeat the cycle three times for a total of four breaths.
Related: Mom With Skin Cancer Shares Graphic Photo as a Warning Against Tanning
Remember: All inhaling breaths must be quiet and through your nose and all exhaling breaths must be loud and through your mouth.
How does it help?
It takes on more oxygen relaxes the parasympathetic nervous system and promotes a state of calmness.
It helps rebalance the nervous system which can become over stimulated during times of stress.
It helps you connect with your body and your breathing and distract you from everyday thoughts that can prevent you from sleeping.
Dr.Weill claims that 4-7-8 breathing can help people fall asleep in just 60 seconds by acting as a “natural tranquiliser for the nervous system” that reduces stress and tension in the body.
How do you do it?
1. Before you begin, place the tip of your tongue on the roof of your mouth just above your teeth and keep it there throughout the exercise.
2. Exhale completely through your mouth quite forcefully so you make a “whoosh” sound.
3. Close your mouth and inhale quietly and softly through your nose for a mental count of four.
4. Hold your breath and count to seven.
5. Next, exhale completely through your mouth, making another whoosh sound for eight seconds in one large breath.
6. Now inhale again and repeat the cycle three times for a total of four breaths.
Related: Mom With Skin Cancer Shares Graphic Photo as a Warning Against Tanning
Remember: All inhaling breaths must be quiet and through your nose and all exhaling breaths must be loud and through your mouth.
How does it help?
It takes on more oxygen relaxes the parasympathetic nervous system and promotes a state of calmness.
It helps rebalance the nervous system which can become over stimulated during times of stress.
It helps you connect with your body and your breathing and distract you from everyday thoughts that can prevent you from sleeping.
THOUGHTS: WHAT I LEARNED FROM MY DIVORCE
Do you want me to tell you what I learned from my divorce: Marriages become beautiful when two people embrace the only good reason to get married: to practice the daily sacrifice of their egos.You were born with a good and beautiful heart, and it will never leave you. But you started to doubt if your heart was good enough.At first, we only use the ego-wall to keep people out. But eventually, as we grow up, we get tired of hiding fearfully and we decide the best defense is a good offense. We put cannons on our ego-wall and we start firing. For some people that looks like anger. For other people, it looks like gossip and judgment and divisiveness. One of my favorite ego-cannons is to pretend everyone on the outside of my wall is wrong. It makes me feel right and righteous, but really it just keeps me safe inside of my ideas
The entire purpose of marriage is to dismantle your ego-wall, brick by brick, until you are fully available to the person you love. Open. Vulnerable. Dangerously united.People have sex because for a moment at the climax of it, their mind is without walls, the ego goes away, and they feel free and fully connected. With sex, the feeling lasts for only a moment. But if you commit yourself to marriage, you commit yourself to the long, painful, joyous work of dismantling your ego-walls for good. Then, the moment can last a lifetime.
What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Marry someone who has also embraced the only good reason to get married. Someone who will commit to dying alongside you—not in fifty years, but daily, as they dismantle the walls of their ego with you.Someone who will be more faithful to you than they are to their own safety.Someone willing to embrace the beauty of sacrifice, the surrender of their strength, and the peril of vulnerability.In other words, someone who wants to spend their one life stepping into a crazy, dangerous love with you and only you.With my walls down,
The entire purpose of marriage is to dismantle your ego-wall, brick by brick, until you are fully available to the person you love. Open. Vulnerable. Dangerously united.People have sex because for a moment at the climax of it, their mind is without walls, the ego goes away, and they feel free and fully connected. With sex, the feeling lasts for only a moment. But if you commit yourself to marriage, you commit yourself to the long, painful, joyous work of dismantling your ego-walls for good. Then, the moment can last a lifetime.
What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Marry someone who has also embraced the only good reason to get married. Someone who will commit to dying alongside you—not in fifty years, but daily, as they dismantle the walls of their ego with you.Someone who will be more faithful to you than they are to their own safety.Someone willing to embrace the beauty of sacrifice, the surrender of their strength, and the peril of vulnerability.In other words, someone who wants to spend their one life stepping into a crazy, dangerous love with you and only you.With my walls down,
Monday, May 25, 2015
Monday, May 18, 2015
Sunday, May 17, 2015
THOUGHTS: WHY NO ONE BUY MUSIC, MOVIES AND BOOKS ANYMORE
The music industry and piracy, the movie industry and torrents, newspapers and online news. What do all these have in common? Supply, demand and a shifting market.
I’m a big fan of capitalism and lean quite a bit to the libertarian side of the political spectrum. I believe that free markets almost always find the right direction to move to. Every time I see the government cracking down on piracy, file-sharing and smuggling I wince. And every time I see the government defend an industry, I wince a bit more. I wince because I don’t believe black markets would be around if it weren’t for organizations monopolizing their products and defending their huge profits.
The Internet has opened the market on music and it’s saturated. When I was a child, I didn’t realize that there were millions of artists in the world. The marketplace only had room for hundreds or thousands. For me it was just KISS. Now that the marketplace has opened up, demand has stayed the same but the supply is everywhere. It’s only natural to see that the costs of music would spiral downward while the supply increased.
But it didn’t. The price of an album hasn’t changed in 25 years despite the incredible supply of music and the ease at which it’s distributed via the web. No one complained when the music industry was selling CDs a hundred times their cost. And, with movie stars, rappers and rock stars showing off their new Bentleys, it’s hard for me to empathize at all with the industry. If honest people are sharing music instead of buying it, it means the risk of being caught outweighs the price of the music. The problem isn’t honest people, music, or filesharing… it’s that the music industry ain’t what it used to be.
In my living room I have a HDTV and a surround sound system that I can shake the house with. Why would I go pay for a $12 movie ticket and $10 popcorn and a drink when I can watch a movie for the fraction of the cost in the comfort of my own living room? I can’t match IMAX… I’m willing to pay extra for that experience. The movie industry isn’t a battle between piracy and the movie cinema, it’s a battle between the home theater and the movie cinema. And the home theater is winning!
If the movie industry hopes to succeed, they’d lower the price of cinema tickets and food, add some additional luxuries (perhaps dinner, wine and some cappuccino), and put in some circular seating with an intermission so I can make it a night out with friends. I can’t download that experience!
I’ve read that newspapers are going to attempt putting up pay walls again. I think we’ve been through this a few times… and they still don’t get it. The Internet is the information superhighway… newspapers are the potholes. Newspapers use content to fill the holes that they can’t sell ads into and many have given up on digging deep to find the real story. I don’t pay for a newspaper because I find better news online, direct from the source, without a slant, and without advertising wrapping around it.
Oh sure, I gave a go at The Daily.. an attempt by the newspaper industry to bring all the unreliability of newspaper delivery to the iPad. It’s slow, it crashes, and it’s rarely news. They should call the it The Yesterday! But, since news is an entire industry, there’s somehow some entitlement they deserve outside the bounds of capitalism that entitles them to continue trying to make 40 percent profit margins? Sorry oldspapers… get back to great reporting and people will pay for the content.
In each of these cases, I don’t fault the consumer and I empathize with the folks breaking the law. After all, isn’t this just capitalism? When the cost surpasses the desire, the only thing left is a black market to get the product or service from. Unfortunately, these industries grew so big and powerful that they’ve got politicians in their back pocket to try to crank out laws every week to try to stop the hemorrhaging. Folks… this isn’t a criminal issue, it’s a market issue.
Given this rant, you may think that I’m all about piracy. Absolutely not! There are countless examples of products and services that have adjusted. And I believe that people are paying for content more than they ever have in the past. When I was a kid, my parents had a phone, a newspaper, a black & white television, and paid for vinyl albums. As an adult, I pay for smart phones, voice messaging, mobile apps, a data plan, a text messaging plan, (x my kids’ plans) cable television, on demand movies, broadband internet, XBox Live, iTunes and Netflix.
These aren’t just a few bad apples that have taken to a lifetime of crime. Chances are, the average person you know is pirating or distributing music or movies. When the crime goes mainstream, the problem isn’t the crime… you have to start wondering what’s flawed with the market that generates that type of response.
Locking up a guy that creates a network where people distribute and download isn’t the answer, either. We’ve been through this with Napster and the Pirate Bay. With Megauploads down, a few thousand other sites are out there that will enable the activity. The newest ones are virtual private networks with anonymous gateways and encrypted communications so governments can’t snoop. The piracy and theft market on music and movies isn’t going anywhere.
I’m tired of these corporations stating that the money lost to the industry is in the [insert]illions. That’s just a bold lie. People that were going to steal a movie weren’t ever planning on spending the money in the theater. You didn’t lose money by them stealing it, you lost money because you charged too much and the home theater is kicking your butt.
And don’t tell me that people won’t pay for content and our only recourse is to lock everyone up. We’re all paying for content everyday! The price simply has to match the value. The folks at Angie’s List have proven this… paid reviews are trustworthy and save their subscribers thousands of dollars. Angie’s List has great retention with their customers and are so popular they were able to go public!
Markets are changing and these other industries are NOT adapting. Why are they making that a criminal issue and not an economic one? Keep up with the efforts of large corporations to criminalize more and more of the web by reading the Deeplinks blog at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
I’m a big fan of capitalism and lean quite a bit to the libertarian side of the political spectrum. I believe that free markets almost always find the right direction to move to. Every time I see the government cracking down on piracy, file-sharing and smuggling I wince. And every time I see the government defend an industry, I wince a bit more. I wince because I don’t believe black markets would be around if it weren’t for organizations monopolizing their products and defending their huge profits.
The Internet has opened the market on music and it’s saturated. When I was a child, I didn’t realize that there were millions of artists in the world. The marketplace only had room for hundreds or thousands. For me it was just KISS. Now that the marketplace has opened up, demand has stayed the same but the supply is everywhere. It’s only natural to see that the costs of music would spiral downward while the supply increased.
But it didn’t. The price of an album hasn’t changed in 25 years despite the incredible supply of music and the ease at which it’s distributed via the web. No one complained when the music industry was selling CDs a hundred times their cost. And, with movie stars, rappers and rock stars showing off their new Bentleys, it’s hard for me to empathize at all with the industry. If honest people are sharing music instead of buying it, it means the risk of being caught outweighs the price of the music. The problem isn’t honest people, music, or filesharing… it’s that the music industry ain’t what it used to be.
In my living room I have a HDTV and a surround sound system that I can shake the house with. Why would I go pay for a $12 movie ticket and $10 popcorn and a drink when I can watch a movie for the fraction of the cost in the comfort of my own living room? I can’t match IMAX… I’m willing to pay extra for that experience. The movie industry isn’t a battle between piracy and the movie cinema, it’s a battle between the home theater and the movie cinema. And the home theater is winning!
If the movie industry hopes to succeed, they’d lower the price of cinema tickets and food, add some additional luxuries (perhaps dinner, wine and some cappuccino), and put in some circular seating with an intermission so I can make it a night out with friends. I can’t download that experience!
I’ve read that newspapers are going to attempt putting up pay walls again. I think we’ve been through this a few times… and they still don’t get it. The Internet is the information superhighway… newspapers are the potholes. Newspapers use content to fill the holes that they can’t sell ads into and many have given up on digging deep to find the real story. I don’t pay for a newspaper because I find better news online, direct from the source, without a slant, and without advertising wrapping around it.
Oh sure, I gave a go at The Daily.. an attempt by the newspaper industry to bring all the unreliability of newspaper delivery to the iPad. It’s slow, it crashes, and it’s rarely news. They should call the it The Yesterday! But, since news is an entire industry, there’s somehow some entitlement they deserve outside the bounds of capitalism that entitles them to continue trying to make 40 percent profit margins? Sorry oldspapers… get back to great reporting and people will pay for the content.
In each of these cases, I don’t fault the consumer and I empathize with the folks breaking the law. After all, isn’t this just capitalism? When the cost surpasses the desire, the only thing left is a black market to get the product or service from. Unfortunately, these industries grew so big and powerful that they’ve got politicians in their back pocket to try to crank out laws every week to try to stop the hemorrhaging. Folks… this isn’t a criminal issue, it’s a market issue.
Given this rant, you may think that I’m all about piracy. Absolutely not! There are countless examples of products and services that have adjusted. And I believe that people are paying for content more than they ever have in the past. When I was a kid, my parents had a phone, a newspaper, a black & white television, and paid for vinyl albums. As an adult, I pay for smart phones, voice messaging, mobile apps, a data plan, a text messaging plan, (x my kids’ plans) cable television, on demand movies, broadband internet, XBox Live, iTunes and Netflix.
These aren’t just a few bad apples that have taken to a lifetime of crime. Chances are, the average person you know is pirating or distributing music or movies. When the crime goes mainstream, the problem isn’t the crime… you have to start wondering what’s flawed with the market that generates that type of response.
Locking up a guy that creates a network where people distribute and download isn’t the answer, either. We’ve been through this with Napster and the Pirate Bay. With Megauploads down, a few thousand other sites are out there that will enable the activity. The newest ones are virtual private networks with anonymous gateways and encrypted communications so governments can’t snoop. The piracy and theft market on music and movies isn’t going anywhere.
I’m tired of these corporations stating that the money lost to the industry is in the [insert]illions. That’s just a bold lie. People that were going to steal a movie weren’t ever planning on spending the money in the theater. You didn’t lose money by them stealing it, you lost money because you charged too much and the home theater is kicking your butt.
And don’t tell me that people won’t pay for content and our only recourse is to lock everyone up. We’re all paying for content everyday! The price simply has to match the value. The folks at Angie’s List have proven this… paid reviews are trustworthy and save their subscribers thousands of dollars. Angie’s List has great retention with their customers and are so popular they were able to go public!
Markets are changing and these other industries are NOT adapting. Why are they making that a criminal issue and not an economic one? Keep up with the efforts of large corporations to criminalize more and more of the web by reading the Deeplinks blog at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
THOUGHTS: WITH MY WALLS DOWNS
Marriages become beautiful when two people embrace the only good reason to get married: to practice the daily sacrifice of their egos.You were born with a good and beautiful heart, and it will never leave you. But you started to doubt if your heart was good enough.At first, we only use the ego-wall to keep people out. But eventually, as we grow up, we get tired of hiding fearfully and we decide the best defense is a good offense. We put cannons on our ego-wall and we start firing. For some people that looks like anger. For other people, it looks like gossip and judgment and divisiveness. One of my favorite ego-cannons is to pretend everyone on the outside of my wall is wrong. It makes me feel right and righteous, but really it just keeps me safe inside of my ideas
The entire purpose of marriage is to dismantle your ego-wall, brick by brick, until you are fully available to the person you love. Open. Vulnerable. Dangerously united.People have sex because for a moment at the climax of it, their mind is without walls, the ego goes away, and they feel free and fully connected. With sex, the feeling lasts for only a moment. But if you commit yourself to marriage, you commit yourself to the long, painful, joyous work of dismantling your ego-walls for good. Then, the moment can last a lifetime.
What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Marry someone who has also embraced the only good reason to get married. Someone who will commit to dying alongside you—not in fifty years, but daily, as they dismantle the walls of their ego with you.Someone who will be more faithful to you than they are to their own safety.Someone willing to embrace the beauty of sacrifice, the surrender of their strength, and the peril of vulnerability.In other words, someone who wants to spend their one life stepping into a crazy, dangerous love with you and only you.With my walls down,
The entire purpose of marriage is to dismantle your ego-wall, brick by brick, until you are fully available to the person you love. Open. Vulnerable. Dangerously united.People have sex because for a moment at the climax of it, their mind is without walls, the ego goes away, and they feel free and fully connected. With sex, the feeling lasts for only a moment. But if you commit yourself to marriage, you commit yourself to the long, painful, joyous work of dismantling your ego-walls for good. Then, the moment can last a lifetime.
What’s the secret to a happy marriage? Marry someone who has also embraced the only good reason to get married. Someone who will commit to dying alongside you—not in fifty years, but daily, as they dismantle the walls of their ego with you.Someone who will be more faithful to you than they are to their own safety.Someone willing to embrace the beauty of sacrifice, the surrender of their strength, and the peril of vulnerability.In other words, someone who wants to spend their one life stepping into a crazy, dangerous love with you and only you.With my walls down,
Friday, May 15, 2015
ARTICLE:How Your Hometown Affects Your Chances of Marriage By DAVID LEONHARDT and KEVIN QUEAL (THE PROBLEM IS WHERE I AM LIVING)
How Your Hometown Affects Your Chances of Marriage
By DAVID LEONHARDT and KEVIN QUEALY MAY 15, 2015
Growing up in some places — especially liberal ones — makes people less likely to marry, new data shows.
Places that make being married at age 26...
Less likely
More likely
The place where you grow up doesn’t affect only your future income, as we wrote about last week. It also affects your odds of marrying, a large new data set shows.
The most striking geographical pattern on marriage, as with so many other issues today, is the partisan divide. Spending childhood nearly anywhere in blue America — especially liberal bastions like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston and Washington — makes people about 10 percentage points less likely to marry relative to the rest of the country. And no place encourages marriage quite like the conservative Mountain West, especially the heavily Mormon areas of Utah, southern Idaho and parts of Colorado.
These conclusions — based on an Upshot analysis of data compiled by a team of Harvard economists studying upward mobility, housing and tax policy — are not simply observations about correlation. The economists instead believe that they have identified a causal role that geography plays in people’s lives. The data, which covers more than five million people who moved as children in the 1980s and 1990s, suggests that children who move from, say, Idaho to Chicago really do become less likely to marry, even if the numbers can’t explain exactly why these patterns exist.
We have also written about other findings from the study, focusing on upward mobility, and we encourage you to explore them when you’re done here.
Not Married? The New York Effect
The places that discourage marriage most tend to be cities, including San Francisco, Philadelphia and New Orleans, as well as their surrounding areas. Nationwide, the jurisdiction with the single largest marriage-discouraging effect is Washington. But the New York area stands out even more. If we boiled down the list to only the country’s 50 largest counties, the top five in discouraging marriage would all be in the New York area.
How can the researchers think they’re capturing a causal effect here — in which a child who moves to New York actually becomes less likely to marry? Because they have studied more than five million people who moved as children during the 1980s and 1990s. Those who moved to New York, among other places, were indeed less likely to marry than otherwise similar people who grew up elsewhere. And the younger that children were when they moved to New York, the less likely they were to marry.
One caveat: All of these statistics analyze a child’s odds of being married by age 26. We asked the researchers, Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, whether the differences in marriage may be much smaller than these comparisons suggest. That is, does a childhood make marriage less likely — or simply delay marriage?
It does not seem to simply delay marriage; the researchers found very similar patterns when they looked at the data up to age 30. The places that made marriage more likely at 26 also tended to make it more likely at age 30. The children in the study aren’t yet old enough for conclusions beyond age 30. But the best guess for now is that these differences aren’t only about timing. Children who grow in New York, among other places, appear less likely to be married by 26, less likely to be married by 30 and probably less likely to marry at any point.
Red and Blue America
Marriage effects by 2012 presidential vote
Each circle represents one county; circles are sized by population
90% Romney80% Romney70% Romney60% RomneyEven60% Obama70% Obama80% Obama90% Obama-15 pts.-10 pts.-5 pts.+5 pts.+10 pts.+15 pts.+20 pts.+25 pts.↑ Marriage more likely↓ Marriage less likelyMore Democratic →← More Republican
Based on share of two-party vote; estimates are based on a full childhood in each county (up to age 20).
One of the most striking relationships we found in the data was between political ideology and the marriage effect: The more strongly a county voted Republican in the 2012 election, the more that growing up there generally encourages marriage.
And it’s not simply about rural areas leaning Republican and promoting marriage — although both are true. The few metropolitan counties that voted Republican in 2012 turn out to be in marriage-encouraging places, such as Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Fort Worth, as well as Waukesha County, Wis., just west of Milwaukee.
Polling data tells the same story about partisanship and marriage attitudes. When the Pew Research Center asked last year if society was better off when people made marriage and having children a priority, 59 percent of Republicans (a group that includes people who lean Republican) said yes, while only 36 percent of Republicans said society was just as well off if people had other priorities. For Democrats, the shares were virtually flipped: 35 percent and 61 percent. These attitudes evidently affect children growing up in different places.
It’s also worth noting that this data set isn’t the only one to suggest that a child’s environment affects later marriage patterns. In a 1990s experiment with housing vouchers, known as Moving to Opportunity, poor children who moved to less poor neighborhoods at a young age became more likely to marry as adults than similar children who grew up in poorer areas.
The Complicated South
For poor people
For rich people
Places that make being married at age 26...
Less likely
More likely
The Deep South presents the most complex picture. It nudges affluent children toward marriage and lower-income children away from it. By comparison, the Northeast generally discourages marriage for children of all income levels, and the Mountain West encourages it for children of all levels.
Race certainly plays a role here. Lower-income children in the South are disproportionately black, and marriage rates are also lower among African-Americans. But the data suggests that race is not the only factor: When poor families move to the South, their children become less likely to marry, and there is no evidence that the effect is restricted to only one race.
Consider Tate, a mostly white county in northern Mississippi, about 35 miles south of Memphis. It has one of the largest class differences. If you’re rich, it’s one of the best places in the country at making marriage more likely; if you’re poor, it’s one of the worst.
The Small-Town Effect
Politics isn’t the only dividing line on marriage. Less densely populated places also seem to promote marriage, even after taking an area’s political leanings into account.
The only two states that both make marriage significantly more likely and that voted Democratic in 2012 are Iowa and Oregon. Those two states have a much lower population density than California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and most other blue states. That’s a sign that rural areas and small towns encourage marriage more than cities.
A Pew analysis, similarly, found that the five states where the highest share of men were currently married (with at least 56 percent in each) were the Republican bastions of Idaho, Kansas, Utah and Nebraska — as well as Iowa. None of these states are especially urban.
Utah is worth special attention. It’s not surprising that it leads the nation in encouraging marriage: The state is home to a large Mormon population, which is well known for marrying young. Yet Utah isn’t just on top of the list; it’s on top with a bullet. A childhood in Utah County, home of Brigham Young University and the city of Provo, makes marriage 20 percentage points more likely by age 26 than an average childhood in the United States.
By comparison, a childhood in Manhattan, on the other end of the spectrum, makes marriage only 12 percentage points less likely
By DAVID LEONHARDT and KEVIN QUEALY MAY 15, 2015
Growing up in some places — especially liberal ones — makes people less likely to marry, new data shows.
Places that make being married at age 26...
Less likely
More likely
The place where you grow up doesn’t affect only your future income, as we wrote about last week. It also affects your odds of marrying, a large new data set shows.
The most striking geographical pattern on marriage, as with so many other issues today, is the partisan divide. Spending childhood nearly anywhere in blue America — especially liberal bastions like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston and Washington — makes people about 10 percentage points less likely to marry relative to the rest of the country. And no place encourages marriage quite like the conservative Mountain West, especially the heavily Mormon areas of Utah, southern Idaho and parts of Colorado.
These conclusions — based on an Upshot analysis of data compiled by a team of Harvard economists studying upward mobility, housing and tax policy — are not simply observations about correlation. The economists instead believe that they have identified a causal role that geography plays in people’s lives. The data, which covers more than five million people who moved as children in the 1980s and 1990s, suggests that children who move from, say, Idaho to Chicago really do become less likely to marry, even if the numbers can’t explain exactly why these patterns exist.
We have also written about other findings from the study, focusing on upward mobility, and we encourage you to explore them when you’re done here.
Not Married? The New York Effect
The places that discourage marriage most tend to be cities, including San Francisco, Philadelphia and New Orleans, as well as their surrounding areas. Nationwide, the jurisdiction with the single largest marriage-discouraging effect is Washington. But the New York area stands out even more. If we boiled down the list to only the country’s 50 largest counties, the top five in discouraging marriage would all be in the New York area.
How can the researchers think they’re capturing a causal effect here — in which a child who moves to New York actually becomes less likely to marry? Because they have studied more than five million people who moved as children during the 1980s and 1990s. Those who moved to New York, among other places, were indeed less likely to marry than otherwise similar people who grew up elsewhere. And the younger that children were when they moved to New York, the less likely they were to marry.
One caveat: All of these statistics analyze a child’s odds of being married by age 26. We asked the researchers, Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, whether the differences in marriage may be much smaller than these comparisons suggest. That is, does a childhood make marriage less likely — or simply delay marriage?
It does not seem to simply delay marriage; the researchers found very similar patterns when they looked at the data up to age 30. The places that made marriage more likely at 26 also tended to make it more likely at age 30. The children in the study aren’t yet old enough for conclusions beyond age 30. But the best guess for now is that these differences aren’t only about timing. Children who grow in New York, among other places, appear less likely to be married by 26, less likely to be married by 30 and probably less likely to marry at any point.
Red and Blue America
Marriage effects by 2012 presidential vote
Each circle represents one county; circles are sized by population
90% Romney80% Romney70% Romney60% RomneyEven60% Obama70% Obama80% Obama90% Obama-15 pts.-10 pts.-5 pts.+5 pts.+10 pts.+15 pts.+20 pts.+25 pts.↑ Marriage more likely↓ Marriage less likelyMore Democratic →← More Republican
Based on share of two-party vote; estimates are based on a full childhood in each county (up to age 20).
One of the most striking relationships we found in the data was between political ideology and the marriage effect: The more strongly a county voted Republican in the 2012 election, the more that growing up there generally encourages marriage.
And it’s not simply about rural areas leaning Republican and promoting marriage — although both are true. The few metropolitan counties that voted Republican in 2012 turn out to be in marriage-encouraging places, such as Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Fort Worth, as well as Waukesha County, Wis., just west of Milwaukee.
Polling data tells the same story about partisanship and marriage attitudes. When the Pew Research Center asked last year if society was better off when people made marriage and having children a priority, 59 percent of Republicans (a group that includes people who lean Republican) said yes, while only 36 percent of Republicans said society was just as well off if people had other priorities. For Democrats, the shares were virtually flipped: 35 percent and 61 percent. These attitudes evidently affect children growing up in different places.
It’s also worth noting that this data set isn’t the only one to suggest that a child’s environment affects later marriage patterns. In a 1990s experiment with housing vouchers, known as Moving to Opportunity, poor children who moved to less poor neighborhoods at a young age became more likely to marry as adults than similar children who grew up in poorer areas.
The Complicated South
For poor people
For rich people
Places that make being married at age 26...
Less likely
More likely
The Deep South presents the most complex picture. It nudges affluent children toward marriage and lower-income children away from it. By comparison, the Northeast generally discourages marriage for children of all income levels, and the Mountain West encourages it for children of all levels.
Race certainly plays a role here. Lower-income children in the South are disproportionately black, and marriage rates are also lower among African-Americans. But the data suggests that race is not the only factor: When poor families move to the South, their children become less likely to marry, and there is no evidence that the effect is restricted to only one race.
Consider Tate, a mostly white county in northern Mississippi, about 35 miles south of Memphis. It has one of the largest class differences. If you’re rich, it’s one of the best places in the country at making marriage more likely; if you’re poor, it’s one of the worst.
The Small-Town Effect
Politics isn’t the only dividing line on marriage. Less densely populated places also seem to promote marriage, even after taking an area’s political leanings into account.
The only two states that both make marriage significantly more likely and that voted Democratic in 2012 are Iowa and Oregon. Those two states have a much lower population density than California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and most other blue states. That’s a sign that rural areas and small towns encourage marriage more than cities.
A Pew analysis, similarly, found that the five states where the highest share of men were currently married (with at least 56 percent in each) were the Republican bastions of Idaho, Kansas, Utah and Nebraska — as well as Iowa. None of these states are especially urban.
Utah is worth special attention. It’s not surprising that it leads the nation in encouraging marriage: The state is home to a large Mormon population, which is well known for marrying young. Yet Utah isn’t just on top of the list; it’s on top with a bullet. A childhood in Utah County, home of Brigham Young University and the city of Provo, makes marriage 20 percentage points more likely by age 26 than an average childhood in the United States.
By comparison, a childhood in Manhattan, on the other end of the spectrum, makes marriage only 12 percentage points less likely
Sunday, May 10, 2015
LETTER: THE LETTER THAT NICE GUY USUALLY GET
I’d say you probably don’t remember me, but I know you do. I know you remember me the way you remember every single girl you’ve ever latched onto like a leech who also happens to recommend books and carry shopping bags. I know you remember me because this is a small town and people talk and you wouldn’t believe some of the things people tell me you say about me, except that I guess you would because I know for sure that you said them.
I know you’ve waxed poetic at length to anyone who will listen (and a fair few people who won’t) about how I don’t know what I’m missing. And you know what? I guess you’re right. I don’t know what I’m missing. Maybe if, somewhere between the endless offers of a lift home and the free coffees I didn’t want and the little intimate gifts “just because”, I’d read your mind and deduced using my psychic powers that you were in love with me, things might have turned out differently. (Like maybe I’d have filed a restraining order. Maybe I’d have stopped seeing the favours you did me as the acts of a friend and started seeing them as the acts of a predator. Maybe I’d have never allowed myself to be alone in a room with you. But I digress.) For the sake of argument, let’s say you’re right and I don’t know what I let slip by when I decided to go after that [confident] jerk [with a sense of self-worth and a whole host of interesting hobbies] instead of letting you woo me like a princess in the tackier class of fairy tale.
Then what?
You want me to know you’d have treated me like a princess, but I’m not a princess. You want me to know you’d have worshipped me like a goddess, but I’m not a goddess. You want me to know you’d have waited on me hand and foot, but I’m a functioning human being with agency and independence and I don’t need anyone to wait on me. You want me to know you’d have given me everything I could ever have possibly wanted, but you’re wrong there, because one of the things I wanted – one of the things I still want – is not you.
That’s the thing, see? You could drive me to the edges of the Earth as a “favour”, you could come shopping with me and take me out to dinner and watch movies and let me cry to you over the phone, but you couldn’t make me want you as anything other than a friend and you still can’t. You’ll never be able to. Oh, sure, if you’d asked me out when we first met, before we settled into the routine of girl-and-secret-admirer, maybe I’d have thought about it. Maybe I’d have let you take me out to lunch at a little bistro somewhere and we could have talked like real people and not like Pygmalion attempting to breathe life into his Galatea, and maybe we’d have found out that we had things in common and it would have led to a few more dates and maybe a relationship. Or maybe I would have turned you down and you’d have felt sad about it for a while but you would have moved on and we could have been friends – real friends – and you wouldn’t be obsessively combing through my Facebook photos at midnight and I wouldn’t be writing you this letter.
But you couldn’t make me love you just because you wanted me to, and you still can’t.
You say I’ll regret it. You say that ten, twenty, fifty years from now, you’ll be the one that got away. You say that when I’ve been rejected by a string of [confident, interesting, engaging] jerks and I no longer have my youthful beauty and I’m too old to have kids, I’ll wish I’d settled for you. And maybe you’re right. Maybe one day I’ll be fifty years old and single and childless – but even then, I still wouldn’t regret not being with you. I wouldn’t regret not signing up for a lifetime of being treated like a marble statue on a pedestal created by an obsessed boy-child with an ideal of perfect womanhood to which I could never truly measure up. I wouldn’t regret avoiding that slavish devotion, that expectation of reciprocity of a passion I didn’t and don’t and will never feel. No, I’m sorry – even if you end up being right and I find myself alone and unloved and unlovable, I will never regret that.
Since we’re making predictions, though – and oh, how you love to do that when you talk about me (did you really think I wouldn’t hear of it? did you really think they’d never tell?) – let me make a few of my own.
I predict that I’ll have an enjoyable, interesting relationship with my jerk (who has introduced me to sports and taught me how to shoot a gun and helped me rediscover my love of philosophy and supported my dreams of being a writer and held my hand while I cried without expecting anything in return). I predict that if things don’t work out, I’ll find someone else, and maybe he’ll introduce me to painting or sculpture or belly dancing or yoga or basketball because he’ll have interests other than pleasing me and he’ll want to share them with the woman he loves. I predict that some day, if I choose to, I’ll marry one of those jerks you hate so much and we’ll probably have a few kids and we’ll fight sometimes because nobody’s perfect, not even people in love, but we’ll make up because nobody stays angry forever, especially people in love. And maybe we’ll divorce in five years or maybe we’ll grow old together and see the birth of our great-grandchildren, but the one thing we won’t do is live out some fantasy of a man “winning” a woman with niceness and a woman showing her gratitude with sex.
That’s what you never understood about relationships, Nice Guy. You can’t win people, not with all the put-on niceness in the world. You can’t mould yourself into what you think a woman wants and hope she’ll fill all the gaps in you. You have to be your own person (do you even know who that is any more?) and cultivate your own interests and live your own life and hope that one day, you’ll find someone who thinks your life is pretty neat and wants to share it with you, someone with a life of her own that’s so neat you want to share it with her.
That’s a relationship, Nice Guy. Not unwanted gifts and free rides home and pining over someone and hoping that if you hang around her long enough, she’ll feel the way you want her to feel. A relationship is two people sharing their lives – their messy, imperfect, fantastic, exciting, terrifying, amazing lives – because it’s what both of them want to do, not because one of them wants the other to want it.
This guy I’m seeing, this jerk? He’s pretty sweet. We’re talking about getting married, maybe having kids some day. He read Hamlet for me because I mentioned I liked Shakespeare and I went to a football game with him and had the time of my life. We fight sometimes and we laugh a lot of the time and we never expect anything of each other that the other wouldn’t be willing to give. I think maybe we’re going to go the distance. But even if we don’t, it still will have been worth it, because he’s helped me grow as a person and I’ve helped him grow as a person and neither of us is Galatea and neither of us would want to be Pygmalion because what kind of relationship can there be between a man and his idol?
I hope you figure that out one day. I’d hate for all your prophecies about other women to come true for you.
Get over me. You never had me to begin with. You never will.
Sincerely,
A girl who goes for jerks.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
ARTICLE:Income Inequality Is Costing the U.S. on Social Issues bY Eduardo Porter
Income Inequality Is Costing the U.S. on Social Issues
Eduardo Porter
Thirty-five years ago, the United States ranked 13th among the 34 industrialized nations that are today in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in terms of life expectancy for newborn girls. These days, it ranks 29th.
In 1980, the infant mortality rate in the United States was about the same as in Germany. Today, American babies die at almost twice the rate of German babies.
“On nearly all indicators of mortality, survival and life expectancy, the United States ranks at or near the bottom among high-income countries,” says a report on the nation’s health by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine.
What’s most shocking about these statistics is not how unhealthy they show Americans to be, compared with citizens of countries that spend much less on health care and have much less sophisticated medical technology. What is most perplexing is how stunningly fast the United States has lost ground.
The blame for the precipitous fall does not rest primarily on the nation’s doctors and hospitals.
The United States has the highest teenage birthrate in the developed world — about seven times the rate in France, according to the O.E.C.D. More than one out of every four children lives with one parent, the largest percentage by far among industrialized nations. And more than a fifth live in poverty, sixth from the bottom among O.E.C.D. nations.
Among adults, seven out of every 1,000 are in prison, more than five times the rate of incarceration in most other rich democracies and more than three times the rate for the United States four decades ago.
The point is: The United States doesn’t have a narrow health care problem. We’ve simply handed our troubles to the medical industry to fix. In many ways, the American health care system is the most advanced in the world. But whiz-bang medical technology just cannot fix what ails us.
As economists from the University of Chicago, M.I.T. and the University of Southern California put it in a recent research paper, much of America’sinfant mortality deficit is driven by “excess inequality.”
Advertisement
American babies born to white, college-educated, married women survive as often as those born to advantaged women in Europe. It’s the babies born to nonwhite, nonmarried, nonprosperous women who die so young.
Three or four decades ago, the United States was the most prosperous country on earth. It had the mightiest military and the most advanced technologies known to humanity. Today, it’s still the richest, strongest and most inventive. But when it comes to the health, well-being and shared prosperity of its people, the United States has fallen far behind.
Pick almost any measure of social health and cohesion over the last four decades or so, and you will find that the United States took a wrong turn along the way.
How did we get here? How do we exit?
As the presidential campaign draws the political debate to our national priorities, these questions must take center stage. As candidates argue over the budget deficit and the national debt, debate what to do about income inequality, address the problem of mass incarceration or refight the battles over the Affordable Care Act and the minimum wage, they should be forced to address how their policy wish list adds up to an answer.
Looking at how the United States compares with other nations is illuminating. As I noted in last week’s column, over the last four decades or so, the labor market lost much of its power to deliver income gains to working families in many developed nations.
But blaming globalization and technological progress for the stagnation of the middle class and the precipitous decline in our collective health is too easy. Jobs were lost and wages got stuck in many developed countries.
What set the United States apart — what made the damage inflicted upon American society so intense — was the nature of its response. Government support for Americans in the bottom half turned out to be too meager to hold society together.
The conservative narrative of America’s social downfall, articulated by the likes of Charles Murray from the American Enterprise Institute, posits that a large welfare state, built from the time of the New Deal in the 1930s through the era of the Great Society in the 1960s, sapped Americans’ industriousness and undermined their moral fiber.
A more compelling explanation is that when globalization struck at the jobs on which 20th-century America had built its middle class, the United States discovered that it did not, in fact, have much of a welfare state to speak of. The threadbare safety net tore under the strain.
Call it a failure of solidarity. American institutions, built from hostility toward collective solutions, couldn’t hold society together when the economic underpinning of full employment at a decent wage gave in.
The question is, Is there a solution to fit these ideological preferences? The standard prescriptions, typically shared by liberals and conservatives, start with education, building the skills needed to harness the opportunities of a high-tech, fast-changing labor market that has little use for those who end their education after high school.
Ensuring everybody has a college degree might not stanch the flow of riches to the very pinnacle of society. But it could deliver a powerful boost to the incomes and the well-being of struggling families in the bottom half.
And yet the prescription — embedded in the social reality that is contemporary America — falls short. In contemporary America, education is widening inequity, not closing it. College enrollment rates have stagnated for lower-income Americans. Sean Reardon from Stanford University notes that the achievement gap between rich and poor children seems to have been steadily expanding for the last 50 years.
On the left, there are calls to build the kind of generous social insurance programs, which despite growing budget constraints remain largely intact among many European social democracies. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, for example, is calling for an expansion ofSocial Security, paid for by lifting the cap on payroll taxes so the rich pay the same share of their income to support the system as everybody else.
That may be desirable, though at the moment, our greatest problems are not about the elderly. And at least for the foreseeable future, it remains a political nonstarter in a nation congenitally mistrustful of government. Just in time to kick off the presidential campaign, Republicans in the House and Senate were working on a budget that would gut Obamacare — most likely increasing the pool of the nation’s uninsured — and slash funding for programs for Americans of low and moderate income.
Yet despite the grim prognosis, there is hope. The challenge America faces is not simply a matter of equity. The bloated incarceration rates and rock-bottom life expectancy, the unraveling families and the stagnant college graduation rates amount to an existential threat to the nation’s future.
That is, perhaps, the best reason for hope. The silver lining in these dismal, if abstract, statistics, is that they portend such a dysfunctional future that our broken political system might finally be forced to come together to prevent it.
Eduardo Porter
Thirty-five years ago, the United States ranked 13th among the 34 industrialized nations that are today in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in terms of life expectancy for newborn girls. These days, it ranks 29th.
In 1980, the infant mortality rate in the United States was about the same as in Germany. Today, American babies die at almost twice the rate of German babies.
“On nearly all indicators of mortality, survival and life expectancy, the United States ranks at or near the bottom among high-income countries,” says a report on the nation’s health by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine.
What’s most shocking about these statistics is not how unhealthy they show Americans to be, compared with citizens of countries that spend much less on health care and have much less sophisticated medical technology. What is most perplexing is how stunningly fast the United States has lost ground.
The blame for the precipitous fall does not rest primarily on the nation’s doctors and hospitals.
The United States has the highest teenage birthrate in the developed world — about seven times the rate in France, according to the O.E.C.D. More than one out of every four children lives with one parent, the largest percentage by far among industrialized nations. And more than a fifth live in poverty, sixth from the bottom among O.E.C.D. nations.
Among adults, seven out of every 1,000 are in prison, more than five times the rate of incarceration in most other rich democracies and more than three times the rate for the United States four decades ago.
The point is: The United States doesn’t have a narrow health care problem. We’ve simply handed our troubles to the medical industry to fix. In many ways, the American health care system is the most advanced in the world. But whiz-bang medical technology just cannot fix what ails us.
As economists from the University of Chicago, M.I.T. and the University of Southern California put it in a recent research paper, much of America’sinfant mortality deficit is driven by “excess inequality.”
Advertisement
American babies born to white, college-educated, married women survive as often as those born to advantaged women in Europe. It’s the babies born to nonwhite, nonmarried, nonprosperous women who die so young.
Three or four decades ago, the United States was the most prosperous country on earth. It had the mightiest military and the most advanced technologies known to humanity. Today, it’s still the richest, strongest and most inventive. But when it comes to the health, well-being and shared prosperity of its people, the United States has fallen far behind.
Pick almost any measure of social health and cohesion over the last four decades or so, and you will find that the United States took a wrong turn along the way.
How did we get here? How do we exit?
As the presidential campaign draws the political debate to our national priorities, these questions must take center stage. As candidates argue over the budget deficit and the national debt, debate what to do about income inequality, address the problem of mass incarceration or refight the battles over the Affordable Care Act and the minimum wage, they should be forced to address how their policy wish list adds up to an answer.
Looking at how the United States compares with other nations is illuminating. As I noted in last week’s column, over the last four decades or so, the labor market lost much of its power to deliver income gains to working families in many developed nations.
But blaming globalization and technological progress for the stagnation of the middle class and the precipitous decline in our collective health is too easy. Jobs were lost and wages got stuck in many developed countries.
What set the United States apart — what made the damage inflicted upon American society so intense — was the nature of its response. Government support for Americans in the bottom half turned out to be too meager to hold society together.
The conservative narrative of America’s social downfall, articulated by the likes of Charles Murray from the American Enterprise Institute, posits that a large welfare state, built from the time of the New Deal in the 1930s through the era of the Great Society in the 1960s, sapped Americans’ industriousness and undermined their moral fiber.
A more compelling explanation is that when globalization struck at the jobs on which 20th-century America had built its middle class, the United States discovered that it did not, in fact, have much of a welfare state to speak of. The threadbare safety net tore under the strain.
Call it a failure of solidarity. American institutions, built from hostility toward collective solutions, couldn’t hold society together when the economic underpinning of full employment at a decent wage gave in.
The question is, Is there a solution to fit these ideological preferences? The standard prescriptions, typically shared by liberals and conservatives, start with education, building the skills needed to harness the opportunities of a high-tech, fast-changing labor market that has little use for those who end their education after high school.
Ensuring everybody has a college degree might not stanch the flow of riches to the very pinnacle of society. But it could deliver a powerful boost to the incomes and the well-being of struggling families in the bottom half.
And yet the prescription — embedded in the social reality that is contemporary America — falls short. In contemporary America, education is widening inequity, not closing it. College enrollment rates have stagnated for lower-income Americans. Sean Reardon from Stanford University notes that the achievement gap between rich and poor children seems to have been steadily expanding for the last 50 years.
On the left, there are calls to build the kind of generous social insurance programs, which despite growing budget constraints remain largely intact among many European social democracies. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, for example, is calling for an expansion ofSocial Security, paid for by lifting the cap on payroll taxes so the rich pay the same share of their income to support the system as everybody else.
That may be desirable, though at the moment, our greatest problems are not about the elderly. And at least for the foreseeable future, it remains a political nonstarter in a nation congenitally mistrustful of government. Just in time to kick off the presidential campaign, Republicans in the House and Senate were working on a budget that would gut Obamacare — most likely increasing the pool of the nation’s uninsured — and slash funding for programs for Americans of low and moderate income.
Yet despite the grim prognosis, there is hope. The challenge America faces is not simply a matter of equity. The bloated incarceration rates and rock-bottom life expectancy, the unraveling families and the stagnant college graduation rates amount to an existential threat to the nation’s future.
That is, perhaps, the best reason for hope. The silver lining in these dismal, if abstract, statistics, is that they portend such a dysfunctional future that our broken political system might finally be forced to come together to prevent it.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)