Friday, April 01, 2011


So i read about the 7 co-workers in NY who claimed the $319 million lottery winnings.  it's kinda funny.  when they throw a number like 319,000,000 out there every thinks "those people are stupid rich!!!!" but not really.  taking cash option and after taxes, each of them take home just over 19 million.  so they're set for life if their smart, but they won't be buying any islands any time soon.

i was reading another article on how some guy was writing about how he hated the lottery because he saw it as preying upon the poor.  it offers a false sense of hope more or less according to this guy.  now, to be fair, he wasn't opposed to the novelty and amusement of it all, the problem was that so many people see it as a legit retirement strategy.  to which i agree.  if your whole plan to retire is "win lotto" then you might as well the join the underpants gnomes.  (step 1: collect underpants  step 2: ????  step 3: profit) 

here's the thing.  the idea of instant wealth can ONLY be something that appeals to the poor.  they're the only ones with nowhere else to look.  you think the CEO of GM is sitting around wondering how much better life would be if he suddenly had an extra 20 mil?  no.  something like the lotto only stimulates the hopes and dreams of those who have none.  look, i'll speak from experience here.  i don't see a good future for me.  i don't look towards the horizon with anything approaching optimism.  here's where i sympathize with people who think instant money is the only way out.  what else is there?  when you live paycheck-to-paycheck what the hell else is there?  people who scrape by don't sit around and talk diverse stock portfolios.  they talk about saving up to get their car fixed or trying to figure out which kid they get to send to college. 

and speaking of that, i'll say this.... if i have anything remotely close to a retirement "plan" so far all i got is "don't get married or have kids".  seriously, that's it.  if i'm ever saving up for the future i better make damn sure i'm the only one i'll be spending it on.  i dunno HOW those of you with families do it.  like, i seriously can't comprehend what budgeting and saving around a spouse with kids would be like.  so i guess kristen, carrie, yolanda, and kristin all dodged a bullet cuz I am NOT a good provider. 

which brings me to another thing.  i've been reading in a lot of different opinion pieces a reference to this book about how Men are (basically) refusing to "grow up" nowadays.  that the strides in female empowerment have left us as peter pans who refuse to grow up and accept big boy responsibilities.  to which i say "wow, only a chick with a huge ego would believe THAT load of shit."  the truth lies more along the lines of how Scott Adams said in a blog piece he wrote (scott adams creator of Dilbert) offering the theory that guys just take the path of least resistance.  which is true.  guys are refusing to marry more and more not because "oh we just can't handle a strong woman."  it's because we ask "why the shit would i roll the dice on getting hitched when the odds are LITERALLY 50-50 that i'm going to get divorced which puts me at the mercy of a law structure currently designed to favor the woman?  why would i willingly offer up my youth and wealth when odds are i'm going to end up getting fucked over in the end?"  i don't get how anyone sees that as "refusing to grow up" and not "calculated logical conclusion based on a pro-con agruement favoring personal gratification".  like i said, only the vanity of a woman would interprit this as "giving up to the might of women!!" and not "why am i playing a rigged game?"

No comments: