Too Much Money

An article written by AEI talks about the likelihood of children out-earning their parent's, particularly wealthy parents, and particularly how this likelihood is declining. I think this statistic is very true. Of course, coming from rich and successful parents does not incline one to have to become another groundbreaking businessman and make millions. Some people desire a more "normal" lifestyle. Yet even with these drawbacks, I still believe there is a problem in our current generation, and I think some of these problems come from the parent's of the kids. 

If someone wants to become successful, first they must have a legitimate desire to succeed. And if a kid grows up living a rich lifestyle, his parents always providing for him, etc. why would he have a desire to support himself when he is already being excessively supported by his parents? When my sister was in college, she had many different roommates, and many times she has told me stories of her roommate being someone who doesn't try in school, doesn't work, doesn't even help around the apartment, but still has money for a nice car, nice clothes, etc. As my sister would probably say, they are extremely lazy and rude. But why is this? Because their parents provide everything for them, and when everything is already being provided, why should there be a need to try for anything? 

I don't say all this to claim parents are the sole problem of their children not becoming successful, for a parent obviously cannot control the actions that their son or daughter takes, but I think they definitely can influence them. If a parent stops providing every little thing for their child and in turn teaches them the importance of hard work, then I believe that kid will grow up with a better mindset of how to become successful in what he chooses to do. My parents are a little more well off than others, and they definitely could spoil me a lot more than they do, but they choose not to because they know I will become prone to being lazy and it will be harder for me appreciate the value of hard work. So instead, everything I buy always comes from my own money, and in order to do that I've had to get a job and start providing for myself. At times it's a little troublesome but I appreciate my parents forcing me to work hard for what I want because I know it will build important traits for me in the future, and I think all parents should do the same. 

How the Music Industry Effects Popular Music Culture

How the Music Industry Effects Popular Music Culture

Music is no doubt one of the most popular, as well as populated, forms of media today. I’m sure, without even asking, I can assume that everyone in this room actively listens to music. In fact, according to Nielsen’s Music 360 report from 2014, “93% of the U.S. population listens to music, spending more than 25 hours each week jamming out to their favorite tunes. In fact, 75% of Americans say they actively choose to listen to music, which is more than they claim to actively choose to watch TV,” which comes at around 73% (Everyone).  But what many may not know is that by simply listening to music, consumers are affecting the lives of artists in a big way. However, even more control is put upon artists and even consumers too by the likes of record labels, managers, big corporations, etc. Many may not realize it, as they carelessly continue to listen to their favorite radio station, but the industry is virtually responsible for what and who gets played on the radio, what becomes popular, and, essentially, what the average consumer will listen to and like.

Even more control is put upon the music artists and producers, however. In a business world where artists charge venues hundreds of thousands of dollars to book them while others must pay the venue themselves just to get a gig, money is obviously wildly unequal, and everyone is rushing to be the next star. Once again, this can be sourced back to the big corporations and labels. When nearly all the money is found at the top, artists rush to get signed by big labels and reach global status. Yet, when labels limit their releases to only specific genres or styles, it creates an over-saturation of similar-sounding and uninspired tracks.

In a forum through the popular site Reddit, a user asked “In your opinion, what is the biggest problem with EDM (electronic dance music) nowadays?” Various people responded, making comments such as “Too many people in it solely for fame.”, “Over saturation of tracks that often are indistinguishable from each other.” or “The lack of M in EDM.” One made the statement “[EDM] is just hard to be original. It’s basically making music so people can jump, get high, drunk, party and [stuff] like that” (In Your Opinion). This commenter makes an important observation. Many people and artists have criticized EDM’s recent movement as being too commercial and lacking any real character. As the commenter said, labels have curated a following of songs lacking originality and made essentially for the sole purpose of making someone jump up and down. Many music artists would not be so brave to talk about this issue as Porter Robinson.

In 2014, Porter Robinson shocked the pop culture scene when he came clean and spoke his true feelings on the current state of EDM. In 2010, before the age of 20, Porter Robinson had struck fame and in the following years he would go on to work with some of dance’s biggest artists such as Skrillex and Lady Gaga. His fame also brought him performances at some of dance’s biggest festivals such as Ultra and Tomorrowland (Nijjar). Yet, as his name grew bigger, he quickly realized he was not happy with the music he was making as well as the current EDM scene. Porter Robinson soon gained more attention from his open and transparent thoughts. In an interview with NME, he states:

[EDM] is quite functional. It exists to make people go crazy and to me, in a lot of ways, it’s entertainment, it’s not art. In terms of expression, I think there’s kind of a ceiling to what you can do when you’re trying to operate within this tiny little circle of stuff that can make people go crazy and jump up and down.

Porter Robinson makes the bold statement of “EDM is entertainment, it’s not art.” I believe Porter Robinson implies that many times, within the dance scene, artists are now making tracks without any real sentimental attachment or meaning, but rather only making songs for the sole purpose of having a good time, or “entertainment.” Porter Robinson wanted change. He wanted to show true emotion but realized there was a lack of control in the music he was making. He makes this distinction in another interview with Radio.com. The interviewer asks him “what are your thoughts on the current state of DJ’s and EDM?”, to which Porter Robinson replies, “I think that there are requirements when you’re making a big, mainstage smash song. There are rules. There are things you have to do and if it doesn’t succeed in making people jump up and down and go crazy then the song is not successful. It fails as an EDM sing.” These requirements and restrictions became so detrimental to Robinson that it even began to affect his health. While talking with The Fader, he explains:

Last year, I literally had like four or five full-blown anxiety attacks onstage. When I was in Australia, that’s when it was at its worst. I was yelling at fans, “Dance music is terrible!” I fully...freaked out. I was playing these songs, and people were dancing, and they were watching me, and I remember feeling, ‘These people, their...week is this. They spent money on these tickets. They’re excited to see me, and they think I stand for all these things.’ I would play these songs I don’t like that much, and they’d do well, and then I was trying to play this Chrome Sparks record that I thought was so good, and it didn’t go off. I tried a few more times, playing other songs I thought were better and more to my taste, and I remember Aaron, my manager, and Dan, my tour manager, coming onstage like, “Dude, just get through the hour. It’s going to be okay. Remember, you’re doing this...so you can do what you love” (Cooper).

Many artists may not go through as serious mental struggles as Porter Robinson did, but, on the contrary, many will also not be willing to be so open and transparent with how they feel. Porter Robinson coming clean with his feelings towards the EDM and pop culture scene was a first of its time, but it helped mark a new era of creativity within a stagnant bubble of music, something which arguably can be one of the most important elements within any career or hobby.

    Although the mention of religion is something that generally is avoided within pop culture, when it comes to the issue of creativity and self-expression, a look into the Judeo-Christian worldview will show many similarities to the same points that Porter Robinson was speaking for.

Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline Protestant, All these denominations have the same belief that music is a form of expression and a way to give praise to God (Theology; Saint Lawrence; Fr. Avram Brown). Like Porter Robinson was talking about when he describes a lack of originality and a want for creativity, in the Christian faith, we are called to model after God, and God being the creator of all things, which is creative in nature, we too are called to be creative as a way of glorifying God. In a secular world where often money and popularity are the ultimate goal, sometimes it is already assumed for the man without God to choose the path that leads to those material items. Yet, with God in the picture, suddenly desire goes beyond the materialistic item, but nothing will come without struggle. So, in the same way that there is a struggle within pop culture to find originality, there will also inevitably be a struggle when, as Christians, we are called to be creative as an expression of spirit and worship (Fr. Avram Brown)

    This call for expression through music has been practiced since early Christian history. As far back as Genesis 4:21, we see a mention of musical instruments. Throughout the Bible, there are various other mentions of using music as a form of worship. “I will sing of your love and justice; to you Lord, I will sing praise” (New King James Bible, Psalm 101.1). “The Trumpeters and musicians joined in unison to give praise and thanks to the Lord. Accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments, the singers raised their voices in praise to the Lord and sang : ‘He is good; his love endures forever’” (New King James Bible, 2 Chronicles 5.13). Since God created the heavens and the earth, men and women, as children of God, have been called to give him praise and, as seen in these few verses, people have been using music as a way of self-expression and to worship God for thousands of years, and still today, music has transformed throughout time and now in almost every type of church service, Songs are sung throughout the service as a way to glorify God.

    Now, in modern times, music dominates the media platform, yet self-expression and creativity seem to be a fleeting memory. This idea is not put to thought by only Porter Robinson, however. Various other artists within the pop culture and EDM scene have expressed their concerns for the current state as well as future of this dance platform. Possibly most surprising to comment on this issue was Diplo. At 38 years old, Diplo has been within the EDM scene for nearly two decades and many argue he is one of the most influential figures within dance music, being responsible for pioneering it to the global success it has received. In 2016, Diplo was awarded “Dance Artist of the Year” by Billboard, and following his year-end success, Billboard interviewed Diplo in which he made a shocking statement:

The DJ world is the corniest...group of people. We’re not celebrities, we’re not famous for any good reason. We’re just … really lame. Besides people like Dillon Francis, who makes fun of the whole thing, or Calvin Harris, it’s a sinking ship. It’s a really lame culture. I’m sad that i’m part of it, but I play the game (Ringen).

Diplo quickly gained backlash from this comment, with people mocking him for criticizing the culture that he essentially molded himself. But, among the hateful words, Diplo’s statement brought out the thoughts of other like-minded artists like Kill The Noise and Craze, both prominent figures in the dance scene. Both went to Twitter to say some supportive words for Diplo, saying “‘edm is wack except for my friends - Diplo’ to be honest I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that statement. That’s how I feel too,” and “Yes I agree EDM DJs are a sinking ship...and lame...He said it not me” (Magnetic). Diplo is not the only big name to have a few words to say about the dance scene, however. Dating back even farther than Diplo, Carl Cox has his own opinion of everything that is happening now. In an interview with Dancing Astronaut, Carl Cox said “I don’t think it’s underground vs overground,’ I just think it’s pop culture versus people who actually love the music. Some of these people have no clue why they are standing in front of these DJs in the first place.” While possibly a little harsh, Carl Cox brings some light to the issue later in the interview when he says:

The pop culture stuff - I don’t think it’s damaged anything. It’s opened people up to a whole new sound and eventually they will grow out of what’s commercial and pop and find the thing that keeps them coming back for years and years. As long as you have a heart and soul and a passion for what you are doing people will find you (Spada).

Carl Cox brings positivity to an issue that seemingly only received negative credit, and while what he says might be true, unfortunately it is often not the case as artists rush to get money. Once again, we can draw this issue back to the big labels and corporations.

    Another issue that many may be oblivious to is how little profit artists actually receive back from their sales. While big name artists are making tens of millions of dollars, mid-tier to low-tier artists earn little to nothing. In a post on Tumblr, music artist Nick Thayer broke down exactly how much money he makes. “People often think there’s a huge amount of money in this scene,” he says. “There is, but it is very concentrated and in the hands of very, VERY few people.” In 2012, Nick Thayer released a ten track EP named Like Boom. In total, the EP made around 13,000 sales. For simplicity’s sake, each sale is two dollars each, and for each sale, there is roughly a 50% split for the site that sells it. After this, there is another 50% split with the label. On top of these splits, there is yet another cut with any remixers or vocalists that are featured on the songs. After all the cuts, Nick Thayer’s profit from 13,000 sales comes down to less than 4,000 dollars, but the expenses don’t end here. As Nick Thayer explains, he must then pay for the management cut, professionally mastering each track, artwork that is useable across all platforms, publicity campaigns, and other small fees. After all the expenses are calculated, shockingly, Nick Thayer shows he ended up losing money after his release rather than earning (Thayer). He acknowledges that there are areas he could have cut costs down, but his evaluation is still a very real, yet sad reality that many up and coming artists face. As Nick Thayer said, money circulating around the music industry is very concentrated and only in the hands of the biggest stars. The industry is greedy, and artists know it. In an interview with Thump, music veteran Fatboy Slim makes a bold statement, “Make no mistake,” he says, “EDM will crash and burn. It’s based on a pyramid scheme of making money and as soon as it stops making money the whole house of cards will fall down” (Baines).

   In the music industry, it is extremely difficult to become successful and the people working in it don’t make it any easier. To truly acquire flourishing within this business, it requires cooperation on the artists end as well as the consumers. In an industry where there is constant bombardment to sound a specific way, it is the artist’s job to believe in their own work, not someone else’s. But artists cannot fuel their creativity without the support of the consumer. “Please support artists you like in any way you can think of,” says Nick Thayer. “Buy the whole EP when they release it instead of just one song. Share the links to their music on Facebook or Twitter or re-post them on Soundcloud. You would not believe the difference this can make” (Thayer). If possible, donations also make a huge difference in the lives of artists. Ultimately, we choose whether we want to make a difference or not, it will not happen over time. When it comes down to the EDM industry, I believe music artist Reid Speed sums it up in the best way possible:

when so much of ‘what sells’ in EDM today is just marketing at work, and when what is being sold is often not even made by the person who collects the paycheck for maybe not even really playing the show, we have a serious disconnect at play. Do YOU really want that? Do YOU really want to see more ghost-produced button pushers winning because they have the biggest marketing budget? Or would you prefer to see authentic artists reaping the benefits of their talents? The choice is ours (Calvano).

Works Cited

Baines, Josh. “Fatboy Slim: “Make no mistake: EDM Will Crash and Burn”.” Thump. Vice

            Media, 02 June 2015. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

Fr. Avram Brown. Personal interview. 6 Mar. 2017.

Calvano, Jordan. “Reid Speed Perfectly Sums Up The Underground vs. EDM Debate With One

            Image.” Magnetic Magazine. Magnetic Magazine, 09 June 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.

Cooper, Duncan. “Porter Robinson Conquered EDM, and Now He Wants More.” The Fader.

            The Fader, 31 July 214. Web, 22 Mar. 2017.

“Everyone Listens to Music, But How We Listen Is Changing.” Nielsen. The Nielson Company,

            22 Jan. 2015. Web. 13 Feb. 2017.

The Holy Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006. Print.

“In Your Opinion, What Is The Biggest Problem With EDM Nowadays?” Reddit. Reddit Inc.,

            n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2017.

Magnetic. “Artists Respond to Diplo Regarding His Comments on EDM and the Industry.”

            Magnetic Magazine. Magnetic Magazine, 13 June 2016. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.

“Theology of Music.” St Peter’s Anglican Church. St Peter’s Anglican Church, n.d. Web. 20

            Mar. 2017.

Nijjar, Aneet. “Porter Robinson.” Billboard.com. Billboard Music, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

NME. Porter Robinson Interview: ‘EDM is entertainment, It’s Not Art’. Online Video Clip.

            Youtube. Youtube, 5 June 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

Radio.com. Porter Robinson on DJing and the State of EDM. Online Video Clip. Youtube.

 Youtube, 12 Aug. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

 Ringen, Jonathan. “Diplo on Why DJ Culture Is a ‘ Sinking Ship’ and Wishing He Was

            Beyoncé.” Billboard. Billboard Music, 6 Sept. 2016. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.

“Saint Lawrence Orthodox Church Liturgical Music.” Saint Lawrence Orthodox Christian

            Church. Saint Lawrence Orthodox Christian Church. n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.

Spada, Andrew. “Carl Cox Reflects On Miami Music Week, Ultra, and the Growth of a

            Movement.” Dancing Astronaut. Dancing astronaut, 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

Thayer, Nick. “Do You Wanna Know Just How Much Money I Make?” Like Boom. Tumbler, 24

            Mar. 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

The importance of being different

When I watched Tim Harford's presentation for TED Talks on "How frustration can make us more creative" I couldn't help but connect it to my senior project topic of "How the music industry is affecting popular music culture." Harford constantly makes it clear that by encountering struggles and frustrations, we are forced to think outside of the box making our creative process prosper even more than if there were no problems to begin with. However, like I address in my senior project, within the music industry, or any industry really, there seems to be a push to remove any forms of creativity. Taking the hard way and being different is frowned upon and instead taking the easy way and being just like everyone else is the popular choice.

Nowadays, individuality seems very distant within any creative industry (music, art, fashion, etc.) and, while Harford's ideology of struggles is very much true, it is the exact opposite of what society tells us today. Why work extra when you don't need to? Do the least amount of work possible. That is what society tells us today. Similarly, within the creative industries, artists are pressured to copy what's popular and stay away from individuality. But when copying what's popular brings popularity as well as money, can you blame the artists?

Why does creativity and individuality even matter though? If we can obtain quicker results by doing less work wouldn't that be the better option? As said earlier, that is what society has been saying is the better choice, but through overcoming challenges we are able to mature and overall be more productive in the future. If we settle for what's easy now then soon our whole demeanor becomes lazy and in the future, it will become gradually harder to overcome obstacles that arise.

In Harford's talk, he uses the example of jazz pianist Keith Jarrett. Jarrett was preparing for a concert, however, the concert house had made a mistake and provided the wrong piano. Jarrett was about to give up on his concert and go home, but he decided to overcome his problem and perform. Jarrett's performance came to be the best selling piano and solo jazz album in history, all because he worked through his problems rather than avoiding them.

The industry will always be hungry for money and will do anything to maximize its profit. So ultimately it is our own choice to change. It has become natural to simply follow the rubric and when frustration arises, find the easiest possible way to avoid it. But by overcoming our problems we can grow and mature. As Harford says, "However we do it, all of us from time to time need to sit down and try to play the unplayable piano."

Smith and economic continuity

A pioneer of his time, Smith has now become known as the father of economics, with his ideas being the basis of modern economic standards. Most notable for his book "The Wealth of Nations," Smith also wrote another book titled "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." Both which harbor his great economic zeal. Throughout his work, Smith pushes, above all, the idea that for an economy to thrive, it must also coexist within a thriving population. I.e. for economic flourishing to occur, inevitably there must also exist human flourishing.  

Within Smith's writings, his philosophies rely heavily on the ideas of self-interest and maximizing return. Each person, by looking out for his or her own needs, will inadvertently create the best possible outcomes and situations. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest," Smith wrote. In a society where people, all specialists in a specific area, work to meet their own needs in the best way possible, their efforts will, in turn, benefit the society as a whole. Smith created a metaphor to better explain this known as the invisible hand. Smith explains that within a society based upon individual self-interest, flourishing will occur by an "invisible hand" that guides supply and demand, creating the greatest good for all. each individual focusing on their own needs will essentially benefit the group as a whole. And within a society solely driven by self-interest, the greatest flourishing occurs, through the help of the invisible hand as Smith explains. 

Though Smith focuses heavily on self-interest, he also stresses the idea of the division of labor. Another popular example by Smith is the work it requires to make a pin. If it requires 18 different steps to create a pin, one man accomplishing every step will only make a handful of pins a week. But if those 18 steps were rather divided among 10 different men, then production would increase to thousands of pins a week, rather than the unsatisfying handful made by the one person. Smith argues that through the division of labor and specialization, prosperity is created. "It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labor, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people," states Smith.

Adam Smith pioneered many philosophies about the art of economic flourishing that have become cornerstones in today's world. But it wasn't through single-minded thoughts that Smith became such a scholar. Understanding the relationship between human flourishing and economic liberty was what stood Smith apart from others. More than that, though, Smiths ability to understand that an unbreakable bond between the two must be in place for true flourishing to occur has made Smith as great as he is. 

Why happiness matters

World Happiness Report 2017 - Norway is the world's happiest country, and The United States falls into 14th. Yet despite being ranked 14th, writer James Pethokoukis still says  he'd "take economic growth over happiness any day." Of course, each man is entitled to his own opinion, but, personally, I think happiness matters more than economic growth. First, I must give context to this statement, however.

Of course, economic growth is important for any country. Even the researchers of the World Happiness Report acknowledge this. High incomes "may not buy happiness in general, but it gives individuals the opportunity to be healthier, better educated, better clothed, and better fed, to live longer, and to live well." This is especially true in countries where most of its citizens live in poverty. But this is where the differences come in. In a 3rd world country, someone who lives in poverty only cares for living a better life outside of that poverty. Economic growth to the point that it brings its citizens out of poverty will most likely make that country extremely happy. providing a bed to sleep on at night, food to eat, a shower to clean yourself in, etc., all these are huge steps within a country that is struggling economically. But the better off a country is, the less the economic growth actually matters.  If economic growth was really the underlying factor for happiness, then the biggest and richest countries would be ranked the highest, but this is simply not true. In fact, China, arguably the world's largest economy, is no happier than it was 25 years ago. "we're getting richer, but our social capital is deteriorating," says Dr. Sachs about the U.S. Once an economy is great enough for its citizens to be self-sufficient, soon economic growth falls to the background, and really what matters is social growth and cooperation. "It's the human things that matter. If the riches make it harder to have frequent and trustworthy relationship with people, is it worth it?" asked John Helliwell, one of the head authors in the WHR report. When looking at America, there is huge evidence of social cooperation becoming more important than economic growth.

"The country is mired in a roiling social crisis that is getting worse," writes Dr. Sachs. "Yet the dominant political discourse is all about raising the rate of economic growth." Dozens of problems infect America's society, and averting focus to economic growth won't fix the issues. Within the needs of America, to make a happy country, there is a need to fix the social construct, not make the economy greater. I don't say this to put economic growth down, but rather say that everything relates to the needs of the country. If a country requires economic growth, then surely focusing on that will increase the overall happiness and value of the country. But if a country faces other issues, such as social cooperation, then surely that is the issue to focus on.

Why you should invest in Alibaba

Alibaba is the world's largest retailer with operations in over 190 countries. It has made more revenue than Amazon and eBay combined, and, in 2015, its online sales surpassed all US retailers combined. In 2013, Alibaba accounted for over 60% of all packages delivered in China, and in 2014, it accounted for 80% of all online sales within China. Alibaba has over 20 different companies and affiliations including web marketplace Tmall, consumer-to-consumer sales site Taobao, and daily deals site Juhuasuan. Alibaba also owns their own paying network called Alipay as well as their own cloud network called Alibaba Cloud. All of this aside, size and popularity do not determine the success of a company, but Alibaba's statistics still show it is a viable company. 



From March to September of 2016, Alibaba showed a 38% growth rate. Despite falling in the months after, the company came back when the new year started, rising over 16% in just the month of January, and it has continued to rise in the months following. 

With e-commerce growing every day, Alibaba shows huge potential growth being the largest e-tailer in the world, and it's nearly 450 million active buyers are only expected to grow. As said earlier, China's online sales, as well as package deliveries from 2013 to 2014 can already show the huge impact Alibaba plays in the country. China's online market is estimated to reach 1.1 trillion by 2020, and with Alibaba being the leader in all three of china's e-commerce segments (business to business, business to consumer, and consumer to consumer), the company can only excel in the coming years. Alibaba is not a company only invested in e-commerce, however. As company founder Jack Ma puts it, "this narrow definition of e-commerce is only a fraction of the Alibaba Group strategy." The company is actively establishing itself in various areas of business to help millions of Chinese as well as foreign companies. These areas include e-commerce, financial services, logistics, data and cloud computing, and marketing and trading services. 

Founder Jack Ma and his management are also great company leaders, and data backs it up. As said by Bain, "Since 1990, founder-led companies have consistently outperformed other S&P companies. From 1990 to 2014, they performed 3.1 times better...Even when we exclude tech companies, founder-led companies outperformed other S&P 500 companies by 1.8 times from 1990 to 2014."

Alibaba might not boast huge numbers immediately, but overall, with the rise in size and popularity of e-commerce, as well as the companies great founder-led leadership, as a long-term investment,  Alibaba will certainly reward its clients. 

The leaders of our future

Let's just jump right in. Are stay at home parents successful? Well, what is the definition of success? Many might say something that earns you a plethora of money, allowing you to live worry-free. While, in many cases, this situation very well may be a success story, it is essentially saying that if you aren't receiving a steady income of cash, you are not successful. But actually, a quick google search of "success definition" shows that success is simply defined by "the accomplishment of an aim or purpose." By this definition, success is no longer bound by cash, but rather anything that someone has accomplished or completed, And I feel this is a much more appropriate definition. In my eyes, someone who makes little or even no cash but is able to do what they love is much more successful than one who makes six figures a year but hates their job. So, to come back to the question, are stay at home parents successful? Yes, they are. 

 Those that say someone who goes to college and gets a degree just to throw it away and become a stay home parent clearly doesn't understand the significance of raising children. Rather, doesn't understand the importance of education in general. As The Federalist says, "education is not just a synonym for job training." School does much more than just prepare you for your career or job. School helps teach you valuable characteristics that simply prepare you for life. Of course, education will make you..well, more educated, which is always a good thing. But beyond simple knowledge, school helps you be disciplined, studious, self-sufficient, etc. and overall more mature. When one goes to college, many times it is their first time living without their parents and away from home. Often students must get a job to help pay for college and living expenses. And of course, there are classes that you must attend and homework to do. Essentially a schedule to follow. Similar to if you had a job. College is an important period of time that helps nurture young adults into responsible and mature adults. More often than not, one who goes to college will undoubtedly be more mature than one who never went to college and stayed home, forgetting about school or a career.  

 And to say that, having finished college, choosing to be a stay home parent is a waste of education is a complete disregard for tomorrow's future. Acquiring a good, well-paying job is always a plus, but once you retire, who takes your place? The generation behind us, which is the parents job to raise up to greatness. Becoming a stay home parent to raise your children is vital in the molding of the future generations. This is not to say that two parents who work a job are terrible, for a child can grow to be an amazing man even with two working parents. But rather I mean to imply that one who neglects raising children for thought of using a college degree for a higher purpose has no sensibility for the future, and is also rather narcissistic one could assess. 

Hamilton's legacy

Alexander Hamilton isn't a Founding Father for no reason. Many of his principles have remained as key cornerstones in our government today. But his great thinking didn't emerge until 1775 when he was participating in the Revolutionary War. Hamilton, being diligent and determined, quickly rose among the ranks and soon gained attention from many generals asking for his position as their aide. He declined the offers saying the battlefield was best for him, that is, until George Washington too asked for his aide, an offer he could not refuse. As Washington's new aide, Hamilton wrote letters to congress, drafted orders, and eventually even issuing orders himself for Washington. During this time, he became aware of several issues with congress. Many of which he believed came from the Articles of Confederation.

 In 1782, Hamilton set out to fix the Articles, with the mindset that a strong central government was key to America's success. In the coming years, he would become an important political figure. With a strong central government still in mind, Hamilton was key to approving the new constitution. Since his time in the military, he knew the Articles of Confederation were too weak to support the government, and, when he met in Philidelphia to discuss a revision, Hamilton did everything he could to approve the new constitution. Along with James Madison and John Jay, they wrote the 85 Federalist Papers with Hamilton having written 51 of them. With his efforts, he was a powerful advocate in the ratification.

In 1789, when George Washington was elected president, he saw Hamilton's finesse and appointed him secretary of the treasury. At this time, his political career would be at it's highest. However, not everyone was in agreement with his viewpoints. In his Report on Public Credit, Hamilton addressed several vital issues. Rather than being against the huge debt collected from the Revolutionary War, he was in support of it stating that  "the government's debt was the price of liberty." Hamilton observed that "America was a young country rich in opportunity. It lacked only liquid capital, and government debt could supply that gaping deficiency."  He also addressed the issue with war bonds, stating that the bonds should not go to the soldiers who sold them, but the speculators that bought them because the soldiers had shown little faith in the county's future. Hamilton ended his report with a way of eliminating the debt if need be. That was through a sinking fund that "would retire about 5 percent of the debt each year until it was paid off. Because outstanding bonds currently traded below their original face value, such purchases would benefit the government as the securities rose in price."

Soon after the report was submitted, it started gaining negative traction. "Opponents sensed that [Hamilton] was moving too fast, on too many fronts, for them to grasp all his intentions." Hamilton's opinions caused many uproars as people did not agree with his ideology. Perhaps because the majority of people were focused on the present, while Hamilton's vision "was fixed on America's future. He was laying the groundwork for a great nation."

Despite the initial intense opposition to his policies, Hamilton's ideology gradually became accepted. When he stepped down from his position as secretary of the treasury in 1795, he had left behind him a far more secure economy and government that would not have happened without his controversial ideas.

Abortion, Looking at the statistics

Disclaimer: (So you don't kill me, Bicknell) This blog does not convey my actual opinions in any way and is just one outlook on the issue that is largely based around statistics.


Abortion is a heated topic that many people have strong sides for, but as most people argue whether it is right or wrong, they are fueled mostly by personal opinions and are not so knowledgeable when it comes to the facts and statistics.

So, here are the facts.

According to The World Health Organization (WHO) approximately 40 - 50 million abortions occur worldwide every year. over 60 percent of the world's countries have little to no restrictions on abortion. Around 26 percent of countries prohibit abortion, and the remaining percent of countries will allow abortion under specific circumstances. Studies have shown, however, that countries where abortion is illegal still have roughly the same amount of abortions as countries that legalize abortion. In fact, out of those 40 - 50 million annual abortions, around half of those come from countries where abortion is illegal. Looking at statistics shows that this is true. Analyzing countries where abortion is illegal such as Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, etc. show that they have around the same rates of abortion (36 per 1,000 women) as countries such as Vietnam or Singapore where abortion is legal. However, one thing that does change between these countries is the safety behind the abortions.

As around half of all abortions come from countries where it is illegal, logically, half of all abortions are also considered to be unsafe as professionals, as well as safe environments, are not readily available or easily accessible. Out of those abortions, nearly 67,000 women die annually.

Studies also show that, in developed countries, abortion rates are steadily on the decline yet the opposite is true for developing countries, abortion is steadily increasing. This can partly be attributed to the fact that in developed countries, sex education as well as access to prevent unwanted pregnancies is more readily available while these may be more scarce in developing countries.

Legal or illegal, statistics show that abortion rates remain equal, and the only main difference is the safety level between those abortions. The effects of making abortion legal allow women more access to safer environments and safer professionals that they may have not received beforehand.


Disclaimer 2: Abortion statistics can vary greatly depending on the factors attributed to the research. All statistics shown may not be 100% accurate in depiction. I carefully chose the statistics to add and any statistics that had too much varied information I did not include.

information gathered from:
http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/abortion-rate-globally-US/2015/04/15/id/638599/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Abortions
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/abortion-around-the-world-where-are-rates-highest/
https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/AbortionMap_Factsheet_2013.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWKqeJxzeBc
http://afterabortion.org/pdf/WeberLettertoThompson&CDCReAbortionStats.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

The rules of marriage

Marriage is a varying topic, as the so called 'rules' can change depending on religion, tradition, personal preferences, etc. But one thing that always seems to change from person to person is the age that two people should get married at, whether it's just a personal preference or a firm belief that a specific age is most appropriate. However, can a marriage's success really be judged from an age range or how long two people have been dating? Or is it rather merely from the basis of the two peoples characters? I believe the latter. 

Many may believe that if a boy and a girl are dating, and they then go to college, it is best that they wait till they finish college to get married. Reasons for this may be that marriage will put too much distraction on college study, or that one is not ready for the rigors of marriage yet. But why should one's maturity level be judged by their level of education. A poor kid that never went to college can easily be on a much higher maturity level than say a rich kid that recently graduated college. And on the other hand, why should two people's level of intimacy towards each other be judged by the amount of time they have been dating? once again, two people that have been dating for two years can easily be closer than a couple that has been together for five years. And for that couple dating for two years, they may mutually agree that they are ready for marriage while the couple dating for five years may say that marriage is not right for now. 

My sister was dating her boyfriend for maybe four years (more or less) before she got married. This was last year. Her husband is still in college yet they are happily living together with no issues. They were ready for marriage. Also my youngest sister who was again recently married had only been dating her boyfriend for about two years. Her husband is also still in college, but in their minds, they did not need to wait three, four, or five years before they could marry. They made the decision when they felt they were ready, and that was after around two years. 

I think the time of someone's marriage should not be limited to the amount of years they have been dating, or a specific age they both need to be. Of course there is a certain age range where people just simply won't be mature enough to handle the hardships of being committed to another person, but that age range can still vary greatly from person to person. Overall, someone should judge their readiness for marriage on their and their partners character rather than concrete time/age restraints. 

If the Billionaire Boys Club was real

Since 1987, The World Economic Forum, more commonly known as Davos, has been meeting in the small mountain town of Davos, Switzerland to discuss various political, economic, or business issues and so on. Each year there is a theme that the thousands of various well-known elitists will discuss, this year's theme being responsive and responsible leadership. With talk of such serious issues, and so many top-tier people attending, Davos strives to put off a seemingly respectable aura. Yet rather than political or economic expertise, the only thing each member seems to have in common is a high social status and a surplus of money. 

As described by Simon Constable, a writer for Forbes, rather than "the intellectual pursuit of economic ideas," The World Economic Forum "was a vision of social climbing on steroids." The name 'World Economic Forum' seems to be a name that thousands of elitists simply hide behind as they enjoy various parties veiled in exclusivity. Members give the impression that the different lectures and panel discussions are just a side show, as they rush to an expensive hotel to make an exclusive meeting with a businessman. Liz Alderman for the New York Times explains "Many deal makers retreat to hotel suites for much of the conference, forsaking the official program in favor of a whirl of meetings, emerging only to attend private parties in exclusive chalets on the Davos slopes or invitation-only power dinners." Another article by the New York Times tells of the various colored badges each member receives. The badges essentially display how important each person is. The higher the badge level the less restrictions one has. Another reason for people to, as described by Constable, try to climb the social ladder of success. 

All of this is not to say that Davos is a useless meeting made for big names to grow even more, however. Though it may seem few and far between, important issues are addressed during this meeting, and as there may not be immediate effects, there is no doubt that some advancements are being put forward.  Various topics of discussion included strengthening global collaboration, restoring economic growth, and reforming capitalism. Bloomberg does an excellent job of summarizing the key issues discussed. 

If thousands of top-class politicians and businessmen want to gather to make various business or economic plans, I think that is completely fine. But the problem that Davos holds is that it tries to hold a status of a meeting that will automatically reap benefits for the world, just because its members are at the top of society. As Simon Constable said, "Of course, there were some wonderful folks present, but mostly it was a disgusting spectacle of the shallow seeking to shimmy their way into prestige positions." 

What immigration really does to our country

As Trump moves into his new position as president, many policies will be changed. One of those being immigration. Trump says "Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens." Trump obviously apposes immigration. Saying that it takes away our citizen's jobs and hurts are country. This may be true to some extent, as every foreigner that gets a job is one less American that gets one, but there are more nuances to this issue. So what does immigration really do to America?

The problem with thinking this way is you are generalizing every immigrant as a low-educated, low-skill worker that won't contribute much to this country, and that simply isn't true. In fact, arguably foreigners coming into America, skilled or unskilled, actually increase job opportunity and income of American workers. Studies show that immigrants do lower wages, but that is only to other immigrants. According to Current Population Survey (CPS) data from 1994–2007 as well as a study by Heidi Shierholz from 2010 titled: Immigration and Wages, we see that an increase of immigrants lowered previous immigrants wages by 4.6 percent. However, for American citizens, it actually increased wages by .6 percent. The reason for this is that when immigrants come here, they often have the same skillsets, if not better than the previous arrivals, making them easily replacable, while American citizens are seemingly untouched. 

The Huffington Post says, "A big part of the anti-immigration narrative is the perception that the majority of immigrants are poor, uneducated, and unskilled." But as stated, even for lowskilled immigrants, the effects are rarely negative, rather  positive even. However, one thing that is often over looked is the contribution that highskilled immigrants bring. 

According to a study by Stuart Anderson titled: Immigrants and billion doller startups, "Immigrants have started more than half (44 of 87) of America's startup companies valued at 1 billion dollars or more and are key members of management or product development teams in over 70 percent (62 of 87) of these companies." Of those startup companies, immigrant founders create about 760 jobs per company. Do the math and that equals to around 33,440 jobs. To put the immigrant contribution into an even better perspective, we can compare their contribution to the American economic output. Studies show that from the years 2009 to 2011, immigrants contributed 14.7 percent of the total economic output, while the overall population only contributed 13 percent. 

Of course their are still drawbacks to immigration, but facts show that the positives obviously outweigh the negatives. When looking at America on a long term basis, it's obvious that immigration is necessary to help develop the well-being of our country. 

Fashion at the expense of someone's life

Whether it's a 20 dollar jacket from Walmart or a 1000 dollar jacket from Gucci, we all buy clothes. Some enjoy fashion more than others and are willing to pay top dollar for top quality items, but often times, it's not the quality that people care about, but rather the name brand. But with designer items being so expensive, many people don't have the money to buy them, and instead, resort to buying fakes. Other than a disrespect for the original designer, most people don't see a problem with buying fakes. Just another business trying to make money, just in a semi-unethical way. But what many don't understand is that the counterfeit industry is much worse than it seems, and a documentary by Complex puts this trillion dollar industry into perspective. 

January 7, 2015, in Paris, two masked gunmen, Said and Cherif Kouachi, entered the office of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine. The two brothers were working on behalf of Al Qaeda and were seeking vengeance on the staff who released a cartoon that seemingly mocked Islam and the prophet Muhammad. By the end of the day, the gunmen had killed 12 people and injured about a dozen more. Their arsenal consisted of various assault rifles, machine guns, pistols, a shotgun and a grenade launcher. And how did they get the money to obtain these weapons? Through the selling of counterfeit goods on the streets of Paris. 



This example was a direct link between counterfeit items and an act of terrorism, and of course, the selling of fake goods is rarely going to have this straightforward of a connection. But just because there isn't a direct link, it doesn't mean that there is no link at all. In fact, profits from the selling of fakes have been linked to sex trafficking, identity theft, gang violence, and the global drug trade. Funding these illegal activities isn't the only thing that goes on behind the scenes, however. Often, to make the most money, these organizations use child labor and run under sweat shop conditions to fuel their production. "There are a lot of ugly things that go on to make this allegedly beautiful bag." says retired NYPD captain Peter Moreno. "There's all kinds of kidnapping, dirty money." 

Throughout the years, many stories have arised of the various ways these groups produce their merchandise. Li Qiang, founder and executive director of China Labor Watch, says "Factory workers may work 12 hours each day and have only one day or two days off each month. They live in a small dormitory with ten roommates, and they may have contact with toxic chemicals during work." Ariele Elia, assistant curator at The Fashion Institute of Technology in New York, reports of children being handcuffed to sewing machines being forced to work. Dana Thomas, in her book 'Deluxe: How luxury lost its luster' tells of an investigator who found seven children under the age of ten making fake designer handbags. "The owners had broken the children's legs and tied the lower leg to the thigh so the bones wouldn't mend. They did it because the children said they wanted to go outside and play." 

With stories such as these, many people may ask why the police do not shut down more people distributing counterfeit items. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. With the selling of goods online becoming more popular, it becomes harder to track down the sellers. "When you're in the online universe it's very difficult, because of privacy protections, to actually locate the true owner." says Amy Goldsmith, co-chairman of the IP department at the law firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin in New York. To further complicate matters, online sellers try hard to hide their identity in case of being caught. "The addresses are fabricated. The addresses are in the wrong country." also says Goldsmith. "The addresses will give you the right town, but the street name doesn't exist. The company name can be incorrect. It's a total fraud." Even for sellers that sell on the streets, officials won't pay much attention to them. The big crimes are often buried under a lot of smaller, less important crimes. And with other issues such as murder, rape, theft, etc, some people selling fake purses on the street just aren't a big enough issue. 

With the consumer being the main fuel for this industry, it is ultimately the consumer that can make the most change. Smart decisions on the buyers end can essentially have a greater impact than efforts made by the government. As Elia says, "If you find a fake Louis Vuitton for 26＄," before you buy it, ask yourself "what is the human cost?" 

Resolving our debt

As many know, America is largely in debt, with our national debt being over 14 trillion, 75% of GDP, and gross debt being over 19 trillion, 105% of GDP. For the past 2 decades, the national debt has constantly increased, and if nothing is done to help lower the debt, it is projected to nearly double in the next 30 years. 
                                                                                                                         

When seeing such a high number, many people will automatically assume that our country is in great danger and that we must work to solve this problem as soon as possible, and yes our debt is dangerously high, but what many people don't understand is that having debt isn't necessarily bad, and a monitored amount can actually benefit a country. As said by Investopedia in its article titled The National Debt Explained, "When debt is used appropriately, it can be used to foster the long-term growth and prosperity. But high levels of national debt for prolonged periods of time has a severe impact on the overall economy." Our country seems to be keen towards spending too much, yet many suppose that without that spending, our country might be in an even worse condition, but there is no doubt that a continuation of this habit will most definitely put our country in a worse condition. That is why addressing the growing debt issue now rather than later is very crucial in controlling it. Fixing the debt can not happen in a day, but will require a gradual process, and starting now will help ease the disruptions that come with that. As stated by fixthedebt.org, "if we start now, we would need spending cuts and/or tax increases equaling 2.9 percent of the economy to bring the debt gradually down...in the next 30 years. Waiting 5 years, however, would require adjustments of 3.4 percent of GDP and waiting 10 years would require 4.3 percent."

In November of 2014, the CBO issued a report that analyzed 79 different options to reduce the annual deficit and the national debt. Of those 79 options included plans to increase government revenue, reduce spending, changing entitlement-specific programs, etc. Of course, many of these options are hard choices to make that many people will not enjoy, and for years, Americans have been ignoring the real issue and opting out for what is easy now, which in turn has continued to intensify American's debt problem. CBO's tax plans claim to be able to raise federal revenues by 1.9 trillion dollars from 2016 through 2024. Whether the plans would work or not, it seems to not matter as politicians have seemingly been forced to sign a pledge to never raise taxes. "the pledge has become practically required for Republicans seeking office, and is a necessity for Democrats running in Republican districts." says Grover Norquist's Americans for tax reform.

America's debt may not need to be completely exstingished, but it's obvious that measures need to be taken now rather than later. But the real issue lies within the minds of the Americans. If a solution is to be put in place, the people of America need to allow it, rather than putting it off until they are forced to deal with it.