death rates of white middle class American males

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-03-2017, 07:03 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(03-03-2017, 05:56 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(02-28-2017, 01:05 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Any prospective marriage partner, whether male or female, is sort of dumb to marry unless they want to possibly give up a substantial portion of cash flow. The only exceptions to this are cases where one is marrying "up." But if one's marriage couples one with a lesser earner, one will be making a financial sacrifice, one way or another.

I don't get your logic.  Let's say you have two people making $40,000 a year, living in two separate households, paying rent or mortgage for their separate apartments, with two sets of furniture, etc...  When they marry, they move into one dwelling.  How does that not save money?  Same goes for if one makes $50,000 and the other makes $30,000; both are still better off combining income and sharing a home.

Unless you are comparing tax rates of married couples versus cohabitating couples.  That's another story...

Another factor is if children come into the picture.  Yes, children are a big hit on one's finances.

With the rate of divorce, no one in their right mind who is at risk of paying alimony should get married, unless they really, really, really dig the notion of marriage.

Agreed.   And, may I say,  the trade of sex for assorted weed/booze highs, that inanimate substances in lieu fleeting, scratch that itch , sex drive may well work in the favor post 1970's divorce enablers. Pocket pussies/Flesh lights/ uber alles!!!!   You  see, divorce for the possessors of the Y chromosome donate, regardless of prior X/Y pairings... OK, over and out... rags........  Sot weedery , along with variant weederies, give =, 1,2,JCL,  this sorta thinge.  Yeah,    profound , does, happen, when ya, find your own path to being at 1 with the ultimate God,   Universal Force of the Universe.   That entity put Eric's planets and left the riddle, that Eric may have now.  Stuff, like that, yeah. stuff. 

Hmmm....   How about tying the US dollar to a unit of K Joules ?   Set it to = 1 dollar = 1 K Joules. Now that we have that, here's how the money supply would work.
Any entity that contributes base load K Joules, is entitled to sell those as shares on the energy market. Also, any entity that contributes 1 KJ to fuel supplies may also issue futures.  So, now you get a market where producers, instead of the FED, can add currency in relation to the number of KJ's online. Also, if you're a household, thing will be such that the number of KJ's saved = money in the bank. So, that's say household has 20 , 19th century incandescent bulbs and borrows , X KJ's and buys whatever LED lights. Now... y'all s see how a JK backed currency would work. If any economic actor has a direct rationale for either demand reduction and/or add something to the grid   . Wrt to some current stuff. Since KJ's from current oil can be set to a negative number. You do this since you'd borrowed non native KJ's.
Fossil fuel JK's are mined and have a direct negative effect wrt climate change. Essentially , it's easy to  set a negative number, since stuff mined, isn't equal to carbon dioxide levels.  Meh... just call it pollution recapture , so... as to ... maintain...  market discipline is more vectors.