Re: Canadian Health Care - not good enough for the elite.

On 2010-02-06 10:21:35 -0800, Tony <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

On 2/6/2010 12:20 PM, Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
On 2010-02-05 20:35:45 -0800, Tony <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Being married is the foremost predictor of wealth. It's easy to
understand why.

Cite?

It's intuitive.

It's not, actually, that's why I asked.

A healthy marriage may also be the starting point for a growing net
worth. Not only is divorce very costly in the short run, the long-term
effects of not being married dramatically affect how financially
secure you become. Consider:
[A bunch of things to consider, snipped]
Sufficient?

That's your "cite"?! You realize that, had Paul presented such
lightweight crap, we'd be all up & down his ass, right? I'm sort of
morally obligated to give you the same treatment.

"Fair and balanced" guy that I am, and all... ;)

Then your job is to find refuting cites. What do you think of that?

Refuting what?! You put up an opion piece that said their MAY be a correlation. I can't very well refute that. Heck, I even agree.

I just don't think it has anything to do with the "foremost predictor of wealth."

So you think it doesn't make sense that people who live in one house as opposed to two, and only have one set of appliances, and one heating bill, and one electric bill, wouldn't accumulate wealth faster than those who are single or are encumbered by a divorce settlement?

No, Tony, I never said any such thing. Just as I didn't refute your claim that the sky is blue or the Sun is hot. However, not one of those three things has anything to with whether or not marriage is the "foremost predictor of wealth", which is the thing about which we're talking.

Tony's Paul impression:

* Make an outlandish claim.
* When asked for supporting evidence, provide an opinion piece that doesn't actually support the outlandish claim, although it uses one or two of the same words."
* When it's pointed out that the citation provide has nothing ot do with claim made, attack the person and suggest that they think something absolutely absurd.
* Fail to see any connection in any of this.

If you do, I'd like to see your cite. If you don't, I'd like an apology for you jacking me around for no reason.

And I want a pony! ;)

a) I don't believe the absurd thing you said, so no citation is needed to back-up the thing I don't believe.
b) I wasn't jacking you around for no reason. (i) *I* find jacking you around highly entertaining! ;) But, seriously, (ii) the reason I mentioned is is not so much to jack you around (that's just a collateral benefit <G>), but to point out that you're making outlandish claims, then being exceptionally Paul-esque in your follow-ups.

Marriage is good (overall, for many people.)
Marriage financially a good deal.
Marriage is sacred, if you believe in such things.

But marriage is NOT "the foremost predictor of wealth."

I don't know for certain what IS the foremost predictor of wealth but, if I had to guess, I'd guess that it's something like being born into an old-money wealthy family.

There are certainly no shortage of married poor people. In fact, they probably outnumber married rich people. Hence, using "is married" as a predictor of wealth is more likely to give you a wrong answer than a right one.

And, while many married couples may be better-off financially than they would be (summed) as individuals, that still doesn't have anything to do with "foremost predictor of wealth."

So why don't you tell us what you think is the foremost predictor.

As above, I'm not sure. That's why I was asking where you got the idea that it was marriage. At first, I was willing to believe you had some sort of back-up but, from your reply, I'm starting to think you just pulled it out of your ass.

*MY* wild-assed guess is that it's "being born to an old-money, still-wealthy family." I've not done the research but I bet that, if I did, I'd find that the percentage of correct wealthy predictions made that way far outstrips the percentage of wealthy-predictions that "is married" gives.


Caveat: If you're going to pull some sort of "marriage is, by definition, the greatest wealth one can possess" kind of re-define-the-words-to-support-my-POV trick, then I'll just concede. But that's silly.

<Cue "It *IS* the key to 'The Greateest Treasure In All The Land'!" scene from Men In Tights...>

So why don't you put up or shut up (no offense ;)

What was that, Paul? Sorry, you're speaking way beyond my ability to comprehend; you'll have to dumb it down for me a bit.

<G>

--
Please remove your pants if you want to send me e-mail.
Lots of good cigar info, the ASC Birthday page, FAQs, vendors and more at
<http://www.ManyFriends.com/Cigars/>
A "great" review is one with the name of the cigar before the review text in the body of the post. :)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Female choice study - cant remember if this was posted
    ... Wealth is key for marriage, ... according to a pioneering study of the "marriage market" ... "As the sex ratio increases, married men are predicted to need up two ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Mister Khloe Kardashian wont split assets with (fake) wife 50/50
    ... it won't play anywhere. ... wealth. ... Anything Lamar earned prior to the marriage she can not touch. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: The RARE necessities...
    ... ....Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: From Obedience ... to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage," compared the current ... spiked at a time of rapid wealth creation. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Laying Waste to Frank Of Sillilands Silliness
    ... > As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce rates ... children to "save themselves" for marriage so they rush into marriage ... polygamy becomes quite common. ... off their wealth or power. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.policy)