One, either she is not interested in you at all; and she is too cowardly and too dishonest and too low-quality to be real with you, failing to respect your time, emotion, etc. She knows full well ahead of time there is no possibility, but leads you on anyway to let you down “soft” after she has built you up.

Two, she finds you attractive but isn’t interested in romance with you… women like this enjoy having men at their feet, wanting to be with them. They enjoy the ego stroking and the sexual validation of having numerous suitors, and play hard to get when she is impossible to get. These sorts of women have many male “friends”, all of whom want to be with her. In fact, she has so many friends that she will reject any man who offers strict platonic friendship on account of having “too many friends as is”… when in reality she is rejecting your platonic friendship on account it doesn’t validate her sexually and on insults her ego to know and be reminded of the fact that you are not interested in more. She rejects any mans offer of friendship and offers friendship to any man who wants romance.

Three, she is interested in you romantically, after all. But she is too busy sluttily playing the field without actually having sex. She calls it “hanging as friends” when in her mind its “dating without commitment or monogamy”. She enjoys “dating” multiple men simultaneously while she decides between the two (or more) of you. She rationalizes this behavior so as to not feel like a slut, and she does so by calling it “friendship first”.

I suppose there is the possibility that she is interested in you romantically, just doesnt want to appear too eager either.  Its still deceptive, though.  The question as this point is, does she have other prospects, suitors?  Has she been on other dates recently?  And very importantly, did she go out of her way to insist that it wasn’t a date?

Well, I got in trouble. Not once, but twice. For “working off the clock”.   Apparently Im too socialist to be appreciated.  I dont need to make the nickel I would have made running those errands.  Im not that much of a money-grubbing greedy douchebag (ie capitalist).  I believe in the team, in the society, in charity, in helping out and contributing.  I was in the military after all, I know a thing or two about teamwork, loyalty and getting the same salary no matter how much or how little work is to be done.  I know a thing or two about charity, too.  Such qualities are not respected in capitalism. Particularly in business politics.

There is an insurance liability issue, though.  Had I injured myself while off the clock on company property, there would be a huge hissy fit at the corporate level. And I would undoubtedly have lost my job.  I get that, dont get me wrong.  But it wasnt like I was lifting heavy weight or playing with chemicals or sharp objects. I wasnt even handling food.  I just handed a clean rag, for the love of god. As minor of a tasks as a task can be, and completely non-threatening.

I argued, “why am I even allowed in the kitchen, then? I stand a greater chance of slipping and falling on the kitchen tile while doing absolutely nothing at all, and the same dilemma would exist either way. But I am allowed to be here, no policy against it… how does that make sense? Either way policy allows me to be here, and the risk to me is the same whether I work or not, so why not contribute in some small fashion? Or else change policy and force everyone out of the kitchen entirely who isnt on the clock.”

Of course, no change to policy was made.  I, however, made it a point to never help out off the clock again.  I also don’t come into the kitchen anymore of my own free will.

Why am I even there off the clock? Because I show up early. Simple as that.  Management wont clock me on early – too stingy with ten minutes worth of pay, even when everyone else is overworked. So until its time to clock on, I am just there.  Sometimes for quite extended periods.

Okay, so now Im standing in the lobby waiting to clock on. In full uniform, of course.  Customers wonder why I dont hold the door open. They wonder why I wont seat them, why I wont take their order, etcetera.  They complained to management, and shit roles downhill.  Of course now management wonders why I didnt do minor tasks like open the door for a guest.  I said “Im not qualified to decide between what work is acceptable off the clock and which arent.”  I of course highlighted the earlier examples of my getting in trouble for doing elsewise.

“Use some common sense”, they retort. Common sense?  Whose common sense told them that passing a clean rag was too much work?

Funny? It gets better.

Instead of waiting in the lobby, I waited outside distant from the door.  Of course, living in the Pacify Northwest where its constantly cold and rainy doesnt help with the head cold and the flu.  I risk getting ill, and compromising the sanitation of food as well as my general performance.  I cant afford to take days off from work to rest and recover, just to get ill again my first day back doing the same routine.

“Wait in the car,” you say?  Management suggested that too. Except I dont have a car.  Does management at a local restaurant want to give one of their employees a company car just to get to work? I dont think so.  Besides, I couldnt afford a car – even so much as the gasoline for it – on the wage and hours I get.  Its questionable they would suggest a solution which is obviously unaffordable, as they are the ones that ultimately decide my take home pay.

What I normally do is take mass transit or hitch a ride from a friend or room mate.  This is why I show up so early at all.  I abide by other peoples schedules. Coming “right on time” isnt really an option for me. Neither is coming to work late, for obvious reasons.

Its funny, but even if I did have a car and could abide by my own schedule, I still would show up early.  Why? Because the traffic is unpredictable. The commute time is unpredictable.  Id rather show up early to work every day by leaving early than run the risk of showing up late because I left home as late as I could take it.  Who doesn’t schedule themselves to show up at least five minutes early?  Irresponsible not to.

So waiting in the kitchen isnt an option, waiting in the lobby isnt an option, waiting outside isnt an option. Neither can I clock on early nor clock on late.  I cant wait in a car, unless I broke into one.  I cant work off the clock and I cant get away with not working off the clock.  What else is there?

I have one and only one option remaining.  I can show up to work as early as I normally do and wait in the lobby… but do so wearing regular clothes.  Then I can change into my uniform when its time to clock on. Oh, the genius!

Except there is no changing room, there is no locker, and management wont accept liability for my possessions that Id be forced to leave lying around.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont.  Either way management will have an excuse to fire me when and if they ever arbitrarily decided on a whim to do so.

I responded to her criticisms of him with this…


Why should one persons openness and friendliness make you feel threatened? No offense, but its an indicator of everyone elses fakeness to feel that way. Instead of criticizing him for being more friendly than you expect, more friendly than youre used to, more friendly than you are, and generally more friendly than everyone else is... instead, criticize everyone else for not being as friendly as him, for being more closed.

Would you like this guy any more if he was a jerk instead? Either you want to know a friendly person who obviously wants to know you... or you want to know an ass. I guess that is your call. And done say there is "middle ground" because there isn't. A person who is in the middle is a person who doesn't actually do anything. If he is neither offensive nor friendly then the two of you wont ever get to know one another. He is being proactive and assertive, as all men inevitably must be in regards to women.

People in our society are so afraid to be open and friendly and genuine. Is it that you don't know how to reciprocate? Are you made awkward on account of his being so atypical? Other people are fake, closed, afraid to open up.

He is who he is, like it or hate it, no one has the right to judge him... most especially for being friendly, of all things.

If experience has taught me anything its that: whether or not someone perceives you as creepy or charming depends entirely on whether or not they have first thought you attractive, i.e. their vested interests. If you have previously chosen to like them, their advances are "charming"; and if you previously found them unattractive then their same exact advances are perceived as creepy. And the only difference in most all cases is not what they do or how they do it, but rather whether or not you found them attractive or not, first. That's a social double standard on the part of the person who is receiving the affection.

I'm inclined to believe women only want to befriend those men they see as sexual prospects.

I don't know which is the case, I'm not there. Just make sure you aren't being biased and/or prejudiced on account of your own wants and interests in relation to him. He might just make you a good friend after all. The least you could do is get to know him personally before you judge. I for one don't find other peoples wants for intimacy insulting. I, in fact, wish people were more open with me.

That's my rant for now. This reply wasn't meant to be offensive, just insightful. Hope it helped. I learned this in an Interpersonal Relationships class, by the way.

That’s what I wrote her. And that is exactly how I perceive people in our society, that’s how I perceive women in our society – Superficial social hypocrites who pick and choose which men, based on sex appeal, have decent personalities. They distinguish creepiness and charm only on a subconscious level using physical attributes as the sole criteria.

If the first two votes make the majority (“yay and yay” or “nay and nay”) then the third voter knows there is no point to voting… he holds no influence and the problem reduces to one in which the decision is made if and only if it is unanimous between two people. Why then cast the third vote? If the third voter is in disagreement, perhaps his best course of action is to refrain from voting all together, in order to prevent the vote from closing and the decision from being implemented.

If he must cast a vote, however, he should vote contrary to the other two. Therefore, if the decision is good it is still enforced, and if the decision is bad he wont be blamed – he will in fact be appreciated for his forethought and insight.

Then, if the first two voters give different votes… then the third voter is the deciding vote and he holds all the power. Essentially, the first two voters are abstaining from vote entirely and just letting the third guy make the sole decision. If the third voter knows he is the deciding factor, does he not bare sole responsibility for the outcome of the decision?

Does this line of reasoning seem reasonable? Is it a legitimate paradox of reason, a cognitive paradox? Or is it just my own confusion and fallacy?

It seems to me just because there are three voters, and for each their vote is weighted the same, doesn’t equivocally mean the vote is democratic and fair. Its an unusual phenomenon, perhaps, but doesn’t exist solely on paper – I perceive it in reality as well during any electoral vote. The television will announce the victors of certain collages and states to other states during the election process, and conceivably altering other peoples votes (at least for the nations and committees in which tallying begins prior to the end of the voting process, not relevant for all countries).

You may argue that on a grander scale the influence is insignificant. Perhaps that is true, but existent nonetheless. Is any degree of unfairness any less unfair than the hypothetical fairness it should be?

You may also argue that on the small scale of three voters, whether or not the third voter has all or no influence is determined by the first two votes, and therefore the possibilities nullify – that on average the third voter has just as much influence as the other two. I disagree. The third voter always has all or none of the power. The third voters degree of influence is never average or on par.

The argument that the third voters influence is average in the long run is a statistical fallacy. I’m reminded of the three statisticians hunting a deer. The first misses left, the second misses right, and the third lowers his gun and says “we hit it”. Obviously having the choice of two extremes never averages to somewhere in between.

In order to be truly democratic, it seems, the best course of action is to obscure all votes from all voters until all votes have been cast… then and only then tally them up and reveal the results.

The first word, “if”, introduces a conditional statement – your typical if-then argument.  As a conditional statement, if the statement on whole were true, its consequent (the then part) can only be taken seriously if the antecedent (the if part) were also true.  Its a common, and even famous syllogism known as modus ponens.

Similarly (although off-topic for my purposes)  if the conditional statement were true as a statement unto itself, and the conclusion were false then we may deduce that the antecedent is also false.  Another syllogism called the modus tollens.

If conclusions are drawn that do not follow the above two patterns, we have one of two common fallacies of reason: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.  That is, if the conditional statement were true.  And if the conditional statement were false, nothing can be concluded – but then why would it be said?

So, it stands to reason that, “if I were a betting man…”, whatever I may say next can be taken as a general truth (within the limits of probablistic reasoning of the gamble – also off-topic), strictly if I were a betting man.  And if I was not a betting man, then whatever I may have said after that is easily disregarded.

I realized this today that with this conditional if-then statement, the idiom only makes sense, logically, if you know the speaker is a betting man. Then its a modus ponens syllogism and not a denial of the antecedent.

Oh, but wait…

If the speaker were a betting man, wouldnt he just say “I’d bet…” and not “If I was a betting man…”?  Why would a betting man include additional words and complicate a sentence with the conditional if it were a truth about himself? If the antecedent were a truth, implicit or inherent to ones character, why make it a conditional statement? Why would a betting man who was sure about the truth not be willing to actually place the bet?  It seems rather deceptive, if not hypocritical, if you ask me.

If you arent a betting man, all you are doing is overtly exhibiting confidence in the conclusion through language in the hopes of swaying your listener, but logically you arent saying anything worthwhile.  You’d might as well have remained quiet or simply said “I dont know”.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the expression “If I were a betting man” implies that you are not a betting man.

So what does that say about the conclusion?  That it holds just as much water as anything else you might have said?

American idioms, annoyingly amusing. It makes me thankful that English is my first language.

Most people would answer yes, switch the track.  Not to sound callous, but I’m here to tell you how wrong that is.

Does it occur to you that the ten kids playing on the used track are being irresponsible for doing so, and the one kid playing on the unused track had the forethought and wisdom not to play on a used track. Why should the responsible, fore-thinking child be sacrificed for the stupid, irresponsible ones?

Does it also occur to you that the ten kids playing on the used track may be fully aware that a train may come – after all, they are the ones playing there – and may move? While the kid playing on the unused track may not even consider the possibility that a train may come because its supposed to be an unused track. Therefore, switching tracks guarantees the death of the one while not switching tracks does not guarantee the death of the ten.

Does it also occur to you that the unused track may be unused for a reason, and that switching the train may end up sacrificing the passengers lives as well?

Lets talk probability. What’s the probability that none of the ten kids will see the train coming and warn the other nine? Far lower than that of the one kid not noticing, that is for sure.

Or perhaps all 11 children are just plain stupid. In which case the Darwinian approach to the problem is to purity the gene pool of such retardedness. Same conclusion is reached – its better to let the train go toward the ten kids.

To ease your moral confusion in all this, its improbable that the train would actually plow down all ten kids anyway. Maybe nine, maybe one, maybe none at all by shear luck.  The burden isn’t nearly as great. The burden is in fact more comparable to that of the one child on the other track – except there you must take an active role in the sacrifice.

You are not personally responsible for what bad luck brings. Should all ten be killed, it was nothing more than a judgment call in probabilistic thinking.

Now lets talk about ignorance. You don’t know what the children know and you don’t know what the children don’t know. They may be watching, or not, listening or not, suicidal or not. But you, an outsider who is ignorant of their perceptions and knowledge and intentions, are making a decision, imposing your own will, into the equation.  Your impositions the children are guaranteed to remain ignorant of, themselves.

It seems to me that by switching the track, you are complicating the situation beyond what may very well be what they expect. Don’t get me wrong, its important to get involved in moral controversy and dilemma – but in such of a way as to change the scenario first then ask questions later would be irresponsible of you.

You are not at fault for the fact that parents are not present.  Choosing to do nothing is not inaction, it is still a decision and it still carries moral culpability.  Chosen inaction does not alleviate you of the obligation to take responsibility of your decision.  But had you not been there at all, the same “decision” would have been made.

If you are a believer in the divine then one could argue your being there was no accident.  And that it was your purpose to switch the track.  This is survivors guilt.  Perhaps you did have a purpose. But perhaps that purpose was not to switch the track at all, but to come to the aid of the surviving children.   If you work on the track, or are stationed at the switch, then your being there is no accident – but not for any divinely intervening reasons – if not you then someone else.  Then again, who is to say that it wasn’t the devil who put you there to cause more death and destruction?

What would I do?  I don’t know. That’s why this is such of a popular moral dilemma.

Modern computers run fast. The internet is fast. And there are plenty of websites out there that serve web pages whose contents are almost exclusively advertisement… to my everlasting frustration.

A long while ago I noticed the website about.com. I hate that site. I never ever find any useful content on their pages. Their pages have so much junk on them that it takes over a minute to load it all. And I end up with two lines worth of actual content applicable to my search inquiry. And I give a 90% chance I already knew everything the page had to say, anyway, as it was trivial information.

Those two lines of almost-meaningful content are stretched and divided about several advertisements. At least three-quarters of the page are advertisements for a dozen different things. This may not be true every day or on every article of theirs… but it seems to be the trend I have observed. And I exaggerate a tad bit, so please don’t call me a liar. In any case, I find it nearly pointless to ever go to that site. I have actually begun to add the logical expression “-site:about.com” to my Google searches – it removes all search results to a website from your list.

Most websites are guilty of this to some extent. I don’t fault most of them, though. I don’t mind an advertisement here or there. But I do mind it when it takes my browser over a minute to load a page comprising of only adverts and useless trivialities otherwise.

But here is what prompted this post. This is the story I wish to tell. A few weeks ago my desktop computer broke. I was forced to break out this ancient laptop from storage. It was “mediocre” back when I bought it in 1999. Its crappy beyond crappy. But it lets me get online – otherwise I would toss it in the trash, not worth its parts. This computer is slow and it maintains a slow internet connection. And this is what I have observed through it all, if any of you want to try it.

Nearly all of the websites I go to which serve advertisements, I actually can watch as the page loads.  I watch as it loads text, as it loads media. I watch the page unfold before me byte by byte. What I have observed is how the web page content is prioritized.

First, advertisements. Second, the pages intended content.  It doesn’t matter if its text or media, adverts always come first.  I am forced to sit and watch, and wait, for junk to load before I can get at what I want to get at.

Websites are fully capable of discerning which operating system I have. They can tell me what browser I am using.  They can, or should, be able to tell above all other variables how fast the connection is.  And yet, they still force the most elaborate media down my throat on what is equivalent to a 10k connection.  Thank you.

Thank you for taking the time to violate my privacy by logging my IP address, but not caring enough to provide a page that would be appropriate for my connection speed.

Whats worse is if that page happened to be useless to me, like about.com, which already took forever and provided nothing worthwhile.

There are in fact adverts so fantastic and high-tech that my browser on my computer actually freezes up.  I’m forced to reset and I am sure never to risk recurrence by going back.

Given my predicament,  I would simply deactivate all media and JavaScript and CSS in my browser to speed things up – except I wouldn’t get the useful media that I need for my research, I wouldn’t get the content-type that my browser and computer can handle, nor would advanced sites like wordpress.com work for me.

For one, anyone on food stamps can buy junk food. Ice cream, chips, soda pop. These products have near zero nutritional value. Its no wonder the people who need EBT in the first place are the sort of “American trash” that end up with health problems, too. Junk food makes you slow, lazy, depressed, unwilling to work. It carries a huge psychological weight beyond that of the physical weight you will also inevitably bare.

I personally feel that junk foods should be stricken off of the EBT acceptance list. People who literally need the help don’t need the gluttony or the indulgence. We should indulge because we deserve. We should indulge as a personal reward, in moderation. And most especially we should indulge on our own hard earned dollar, not on someone elses tax contribution to the state.

What strikes me is that certain products, such as special diet products, special nutrition products, vitamins, certain health foods, these are already not on the EBT allow list. I cant get the vitamins I want. I cant get the performance drinks I want. I cant stay healthy, fit – of mind and body. I cant stay performing at my best, working to find work to get off of EBT. Oh, but I could buy a twenty pound box of candy bars though.

I can barely afford to eat with EBT. But my poor cat is hungrier than I am. Apparently, there are too many strays and unwanted pets in these United States. There are too many animals without home or shelter. The lucky ones are the ones found by animal shelters. Assuming they arent eventually put down, that is. Animal shelters and the pound are where animals go when they cant be taken care of.  These establishments are funded by donations directly from the people, most of which are tax deductible anyway.

And while we Americans on EBT are stuffing our own faces with candy bars bought on my neighbors tax money, my cat starves because EBT doesnt allow cat food – which forces me to decide between abandoning a beloved family member to a stranger or to the county.

I can buy a loaf of bread from the brand-name shelf brought in from a distributor.  But I cant buy bread made fresh at the bakery. The state considers that an indulgence, apparently.  Yes, doughnuts should be stricken from the list… but regular fresh baked bread?  If that is too great of an indulgence, then why are candy bars allowed?

They have this stipulation about food “ready to eat”.  Which is why fast food and bakery products and restaurants are not allowed.  But bread is ready to eat, isn’t it? So are candy bars, as a matter of fact.

I think indulgences should be disallowed.  This policy would seriously adjust what could and could not be allowed for food purchase.  I’m wondering how much the state would actually save in the long run if the promoted healthy foods (albeit perhaps not the special diet products), and disallowed the candy and chips and pastries… tossed cat food in, dog food, bakery products.  I think the economy and the health of the poor American would improve. I think peoples motivation and mental health will improve.

The healthier you eat, the less you eat. The more efficiently the body functions. Healthy foods would ultimately cause EBT users to spend less on their food stamp purchases, saving the state money.  And those who would choose to fill up on candy bars anyway will do so on their own dollar.

Frankly, its a matter of ethics. Yes, the state should offer EBT. I feel this socialized food is ethically obligatory.  But likewise the people should not be abusing it either.  Abuse makes it more costly for the state than it needs to be.

Making note of the socialist trend in medical care as of recent, I think this would be a good move for the state in regards to food stamps. Improved health now would save money on state-funded medical care later.  Isn’t it ironic that this socialized medical trend will eventually allow you to get surgery for free, but EBT wont let you buy bandages now?  If your tooth hurts, go to the dentist on the states tab – on the tax payers tab. And yet EBT wont let you buy toothpaste now, no matter how badly you may need it.  The state is willing to let your teeth rot out of your mouth, incapacitating you with pain, because you’re not allowed to spend $5 on toothpaste every 3 months via EBT  – but they will cover your $900 dental bill six months down the line.

I think food stamps shouldn’t just be for food, though.  I think it should be for all the necessities of life.  I said necessities.  That includes food and toothpaste alike. It should cover one gallon of water, per person per day, on the water bill. If you are so poor that you need EBT to cover your tab then, well, necessities are still necessities and income is still zero.  Id hate to be arrested for strolling down the street stark naked because I couldn’t afford to buy myself clothing -  “I wont give you what you need to live a law-abiding life, and I will arrest you for not.”  I’m sorry, but I’m a bit confused at this point.

Okay, here is the law: If you bought goods without knowing it was stolen, you wont be prosecuted. In order to be prosecuted you have to be aware that the goods were stolen when you bought them.

The problem is, however, that the State has made the assumption that if you don’t pay for goods – that is, you received them for free – then you should have suspected they were stolen and turned them down. Ultimately, the State can prosecute you for receiving stolen goods that you didn’t even know were stolen… simply because you received them for free.

The only difference, the only variable, between the two scenarios is… the price!

Should you inadvertently accept goods that were stolen though you didn’t even know, whether or not you received them for free makes the sole difference between prosecution and not!

I find this to be highly socialist. Here is a perfect example within our society of laws being highly socialist.

Never mind the fact that the goods were stolen… it is apparently an irrelevant variable. What matters is whether or not you paid for them. What matters is whether or not the exchange was one of capitalism. What matters is whether or not the parties participated in the capitalist agenda, whether there is… sales taxation? (I guess?!)

I am quite upset about this. Not that I have anything against socialism in general, but the shear fakery and hypocrisy of our own society… of the corruption of a capitalist government to interfere with law. Socialism.  If you ask me, a government should neither be socialist nor capitalist… economics and the profit motive should be left out entirely of politics.

For law to step in and dictate to me that any price other than zero is the only acceptable price for a transaction… well, that is just interference by the government in the economic trade of goods. How is that anything short of socialist?

All else being equal, why should “But I paid for it with my own money” be a valid defense when standing in front of a judge? What is the actual difference between, “I paid $1″ and “I paid $0″?

I understand that thieves should be prosecuted. I understand that stolen goods should be given back to their rightful owners. I understand that anyone who accepts stolen goods (for any price), knowingly or not, only aids the thief’s and promotes the problem of thievery. And if the receiver of stolen goods knew the goods were stolen, no matter how much they paid, yes, they should be prosecuted for promoting the problem.   But I don’t get where the government gets off letting the naive go simply because they paid while prosecuting other naive simply because they didn’t. How does that make sense? How is that fair or just?

I just dont get it. The sticker price decided upon by the person selling it makes the difference in my own legal culpability.

Why doesn’t the judicial system just step in now and dictate prices altogether? It makes more sense to regulate all transactions rigorously just to prevent thievery, instead of prosecuting people for taking advantage of a good deal… which, by the way, is what capitalism and entrepreneurship is all about.

Laws made by corrupted, capitalist politicians have actually managed to weasel in a capitalist caveat. Essentially, you are protected from prosecution – even from the illegal purchase of stolen goods – if you paid a reasonable price.

Can an individual protect themselves from prosecution if they have a receipt proving the transaction occured, even if the price on the receipt is a zero?

Has it occured to anyone that since wives stopped being housewives while both the husband and the wife work, the cost of living has drastically risen.

There are now two incomes, possibly even three, in the home. For a given household with such profound income, money becomes easier, living choices become more expensive and people expect more as standard.

But as money becomes easier to acquire for a household and their worth increases, they are willing to afford more. Indeed, those they buy from are willing to ask for more.

It seems to me that when the man was the bread winner (not that women cant be) the household income was less and so was the cost of living. I see a correlation here.

Its okay for a wife to be a housewife and its okay for a husband to be a househusband. But when you have both working and neither staying home, its not just the “raised kids” who suffer absent parents. It is the economy on whole that suffers in the long run and prices start to rise on account of the surplus of income in the region or neighborhood.

As dual income families went from being unheard of to being a trend, then to being the standard, the costs of living, and more notably the cost of housing, has suffered the most in price hikes.

Anymore its almost necessary for there to be a dual income if you expect to afford a decent home.

Its pretty sad, I think, that a single man or woman cannot really afford a house unless they make outrageously good income. The average person absolutely needs the help of an also-professional marital partner… or else live in a crappy bachelors pad with three other people (same situation).

I have met men who held down two jobs in addition to their wife who has one job (even in this 10% unemployment), just to pay the bills… we arent even talking about an assertive, goal-oriented family looking to get ahead.

I find it horrid in our society where a family of two adults and their children have to hold down two or three jobs just to keep their home. I believe that if the cost of living is that outrageously high – for anyone – then its too high for all.

I find it horrid that none of these three employers are willing to employ anyone for a decent wage at full time hours on account that they would have to fork over profits for other employment benefits. Three different men may work 40 hours a week a piece for the same three different employers, part time each… when all they have to do is shuffle their hours and employers around a bit, each of those three men could work those 40 hours for just one employer. But the employers wont have it. And the employees spend much of their time and money unnecessarily commuting between jobs (adding to pollution and traffic).

Our society condones divorce as an easy, expected practice; they praise strong independent women who are professionals and they scorn the independent man for his continued bachelorhood; all the while making it impossible to survive financially unless you are unreasonably successful or married.

What I have something against is the practice in which corporations and businesses take advantage of the added income as an excuse to take it all back with jacked up prices. At that point, what’s the point?

I would rather live in a society in which we all made half as much money but everything was twice as affordable (then the value of the dollar would be doubled)… working half as many jobs for the same hours, where employers respected their employees as people and werent trying desperately to beat the costs of success, where earning every cent wasnt a competition to the financial death of someone else… where the standards of living werent forced into lowering, and where linearly rising standards didnt necessitate exponentially rising income. A society in which if you started receiving double the income, I would congratulate you on your success without doubling the price of the service Im selling. A society where two incomes werent required to live the American dream. Twice as much work as the 1950′s to live the same free, carefree lifestyle never was he American dream. Three times the pay is irrelevant when everything costs three times as much.

No, Im not criticizing inflation. Im pointing out the cause… one of them, anyway. The cause Im referring to and criticising is this: the fact is that people wanted double the wealth so they worked double the work. Its reasonable. But when double the work and double the wealth became the standard, prices rose not because value rose but because money availability rose. And we are left in the same situation we always have been in… except now we are working twice as hard, entire families in fact.

And it should be no wonder employment opportunities are on a shortage. They are being hogged up by men and women living in a single household, working two to three jobs, just to scrape by. And for what? You have those 10% unemployed, and their families who are living in the streets… not because they cant find one job but because they cant find three.