First Comes "Love", Then Comes Marriage...

Springtime, a season soon approaching where love is in the air. You love to be specific, but is it maybe too young? The Article, Say Yes. What Are You Waiting For? discuss how the "suitable" age for marriage has increased and how younger couples are just as likely, possibly more, to work out in the long run. But I, personally, have my own fears about young marriages. My parents married at around 20. High-school sweethearts, destined to be with each other... or so they thought. In my family alone I've seen a handful of divorces because of rushed marriages. Rushed because in the moment they felt a whole swirl of emotions that made it seem like they were, "the one", when in reality they were in the far too dangerous, "puppy dog" phase. Now don't think I'm the "Scrooge" of young marriages, I'm all for it, after a certain amount of time. If you begin dating in high school say, Jr year, I push for that couple to wait until after college. 6 years. I know that seems like a long time, and many ask, "If you know now? Why wait?". Well if I know now what will six years do? If thought of waiting six years puts a damper on your feelings towards your significant other, then how true and passionate are those feelings? I've always been taught that if you do not love yourself, know yourself, accept yourself, then how can it be expected that you do those things with your spouse? This is why I do not think young marriages (ages 18- around maybe 25) are always a good idea. We are naturally fickle people who get caught up and do things before the reality sets in that they are not the people you actually want to be with. Another issue, brought up by my lovely teacher who assigned this surprise blog, is the couple sex life, or lack there of up until marriage. I won't touch on it much because I can't vouch for every young couple out there, but i will say it is possible. Hard, but very possible. I know, personally at least 7 couple who dated for a handful of years and waited until marriage. I understand it is difficult, especially if that is who are meant to be with and who want to be connected with them on that level, but i don't think it is an argument for young marriages. I don't think its a reason people should use to move up the wedding date, because they just can't wait anymore. How romantic, you want to move up the date to this spring instead of next because you just can't wait another year to screw. True love right there. Again, don't think I am against younger marriages. I love them, if they are confident in who they are, are at a good place and if they really found someone to spend the rest of their lives with, not just someone who makes you laugh sometimes and is chill to hang out with. I will never judge a young couple for making that next step in their relationship. I may think, "oh their a little young" but if they are happy, truly (not just momentary) happy, then they should get married. If that's what they want. But if its not something they want, I want, you want. If you've had doubts, serious one not just the ones you have after a fight. Then listen to yourself. If you're dating through high-school, through college, and you are not 1000% sure they are who God intended for you, don't get married just because its the next step. But if your young, and truly in love, then be together. Just make sure its for love, real love.

Mo' Money Mo' Problems

My grandma, grandpa, my mother, my father, all started getting paid at minimum wage and some even lower. They all saved their money, pinched pennies, went to college and moved up the ladder of their career. They didn't stay in the environment where they only got paid minimum wage and where they were only scraping by. My mom and my dad, two kids, cancer medical bills, with father jumping from job to job just trying to get by with minimum wage, did not give up and become content on barley getting by. They both now make more money than I even know. But I fear that if minimum wage were to be raised, that would  make the workers content with barely breaking even. Now don't get me wrong, I only work 2 maybe 3 days a week so I wouldn't throw a fit if the wage was raised a couple more bucks. I just don't think its necessary. I honestly think that if it keeps getting raised people will make it a goal to work at a fast food place because it makes "decent" money with little to no skills needed. Which apparently has become a goal for the youth of our country.

Have any of the workers who want the increase in pay stopped and thought about how higher pay means less jobs. Especially in a fast food place or small business, the higher they pay one worker the more likely they wont be able to hire another. Which one promotes unemployment in younger generations and means more work for the people who did get hired because they are understaffed. Clearly the people really pushing for the increase, the ones who want to make enough to afford to get high but still live in their parents basement, haven't thought about that scenario. And if they did I'm sure they'd jump bandwagons because we all know they want to do as little work as possible.

Our country always boasts that we are the best of the best, that no one is better than a true American. But do we really want to boast when in a sense we are promoting laziness. Or is that our new American dream? Just getting by. For those in a truly difficult situation or those with really no ambitions in life, sure stay in the minimum wage hole. But for the teens and young adults who have true potential and just need a kick in the pants, why encourage them to waste their lives in a dead end job? We all, by nature, are inherently lazy. Getting up to do my blog was a small battle that I had to win. But I won it. But if it was due and I didn't do it at all but was still given the same grade as someone who put in the time and effort to do it, I guarantee I would not have woken up and wrote this. Same goes for jobs I think, if I were to make a good enough pay check making pizzas to go out with friends, pay bills, get food, gas, and have a little extra left over; why would I have the desire to further my education to get a better job when I'm doing alright just making pizzas. But I don't want to make pizzas for the rest of my life. And I know some people don't want to work at McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Wendy's, etc., for the rest of theirs because they actually want to make a difference. We need to correct the overwhelming urge to do nothing in the next generation, not encourage it by making it more appealing to have a lower class job, so that we can do more for the world than  just taking your order.

I'll Vote for You, but Not be Seen With You

Social Media is notorious for the "I'll say what I want to you, but not to your face". But I didn't think it would carry to the disrespect of the now swore in president, Trump. Now I'm not the biggest fan of him but if I were to tweet or post saying "I'd vote for Trump and your should too", then I'd back that up with real life. Some of the most influential people of our time did this. The A list celebrities who were all for Trump are suddenly worried about their image after receiving invitations to his inauguration. Now if the president I was helping campaign for, the president I tried to persuade my fans to voting for, sent me a personal invitation to him getting sworn in (something they said they wanted) I wouldn't just be ecstatic, I would be honored. But they practically all declined. Because they don't wanna be seen at a Trump function ? Is that really how you want to welcome our next leader ? By embarrassing him ? By giving him false hope that he would have a crowd of famous people to raise his already blemished name ? Again, I'm not the biggest fan, but even I wouldn't do that. I know Trump doesn't need any help pumping up his ego, he can handle that himself. But I'm sure that was a blow to him as a leader and and influential icon to see how many people didn't want to go and show support because they didn't want to be seen showing support. 

But the fact of the matter is, these sought after celebs are snatching but the usually hard to come buy inauguration tickets because quite simply they don't want them. They don't want to attend. "Historic and wonderful as it is, I'd rather cut my own liver out with a butter knife (than go). This comes straight from a columnist who made rounds supporting and vouching for Trump and now wont go. And some celebs (in my opinion) stooped lower than just declining, and just never said yes or no. So when someone asks who's coming to the inauguration they would have to answer with the embarrassing answer of, "I'm not sure". They have the balls to say yes, I'll go and give you the support I've supposedly been giving the beginning. Or a no, I don't want to be seen with you. His campaign was thoroughly mocked for its lack of big brand names and now it is happening at one of the most important events of his life and in history in general. 

My question is, why does it matter so much if you have all the big names who say anything to raise their names just a little higher? Now trust me I understand the want to have the A listers at the inauguration, it defiantly helps it be a more sought after event to go to is all the famous people are there. But wouldn't it mean more to have all the little people there? Invite the people who stood by him during the chaos and riots. Who despite his vulgar and out there mannerisms, still casted their vote for him because they saw a future they wanted in his ideas. I understand why the famous people who are pro-Trump are highly desired by Trump. But at they same time if they refuse to be seen with him, refuse to show support in real life. How big of Trump fans could they be. Yes, celebs have a big impact, but the "little" people of this world are the ones who stick by what they say. Cause frankly, unlike people who rely on what others think, they don't give a damn.

Is Happiness Truly the Key?

In the Article, Adam Smith and Human Flourishing, Ryan Hanley discusses Adam Smith and his views and hopes on a flourishing society. A lot in this article flew over my head because I've never really viewed society the way Adam Smith does. One repeating concept that is hard to miss is happiness. Now I've always heard if you're happy then everything/ everyone around you will feel that and begin to be happy as well. But maybe that's just my optimistic mom trying to get me to not be cranky all the time. But Adam Smith makes the argument that if one is flourishing, then so shall the rest. That if the society itself is, again, flourishing so will the people apart of it. And that kind of struck a cord because of how true that is. Whenever something is going well for the larger portion of any group, it lifts the smaller portion higher, if not to the same state as them.

The article is summarizing a book, now on my reading list, written by Smith called, The Wealth of Nations. In the book there are three main topics in which it is divided. In the first, Economic Flourishing, it discuses the, "improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people." Smith knew that people would not be fond of the idea, thinking that it would, "translate into a new taste for luxury, leading to dissatisfaction with previous conditions, as well as the claim that high wages would tend to sap industriousness and incentivize laziness." But Smith ignored this concept and continued on with his belief of 'human flourishing'. Usually the larger chunk of a society are the workers, the people who serve the one percent. But how can a society 'flourish' if the main portion of the people are struggling to get by? The workers of the world feed and 'work' for the more fortunate, yet don't get to direct any of their hard work towards themselves, and if they do its not as great as what the higher up people are receiving. Hardly seems fair.

The second section is about 'Political Flourishing'. Adam Smith, "defined the flourishing economic order not as that which allows only a part of society to benefit, but one that instead promotes the flourishing of society as a whole". Referencing the beginning of this blog, it seems to be a key element with Smith that the WHOLE society benefits and not just part. Smith makes the point that all people within a society 'stand in need' of the others help. Smith then compares the flourishing, happy, ideal version of a society to one with out that bond who just work to benefit themselves. He makes it clear that that gloomy version of society can sustain in our reality. He does not make this comparison to try and bring a lighter side to the "everyman for himself" attitude so many people have. He points out how 'grim' that lifestyle would be to contrast the bright future his ideal society would have.
The third, and just as important section is, 'Moral Flourishing'. Up until this point the main focus has been how a society could, and should flourish. But Smith dives deeper into how an individual can flourish. In this section Adam Smith makes the statement, "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it." The point happiness comes up again. That others happiness is vital to ours and vice versa. The question that was asked at the end of the article was, "Once again, Smith gives reasons for s to wonder whether our happiness can in fact be separated from the happiness of those around us." And I don't think we can. When the world around you is happy, aren't you picked up from that dark place, even if its only a little. When your best friend, mother, significant other, etc., is down and not doing well; doesn't your mood decrease, if only slightly? If your coworkers and family are succeeding in life doesn't that make you want to work harder and flourish in your own? Overall, I've realized: if the society around you is succeeding, eventually so will you, happiness is a bigger player in the grand scheme of things than one may think, and that Adam Smith really really enjoys the word flourish.

Rich yet Poor?

Our country is in debt. There is no secret about it. And yet we are one of the richest economies in the world. In the article, Putting America's ridiculously large $18T economy into perspective by comparing US state GDPs to entire countries, Mark Perry puts into perspective the amount of money each state in the US puts out in comparison to other countries. California alone can beat out the entire country of France. California has a workforce of around 19 million, whereas France as a little more than 25 million workers. California could literally be able to be its own country with the amount of money we make, despite the fact it has less workers. And smaller states like New York is right up there with South Korea. Florida was ranked with Indonesia. New York, California, and Texas, if they were separate countries, would have ranked in the top eleven in the worlds largest economies. US put out $18 trillion in 2015 and yet somehow no matter how much we make we can never seem to crawl of our debt hole.

 Reading through the article I had the most common question apparently, "where is all of our money going?". I'm aware a large chunk goes to the military fund, and as a military brat I'm a little biased and believe its a good way to spend the money. I also understand there are things throughout the country that the money needs to go to but, why oh why are we this far in debt. But reading through the comments on the article and getting more and different perspectives that question seems to drift away. One comment sparked in my mind. Not the question of where its all going, but why is our country so expensive to live in and afford if we have no problem making money. Health care, housing, college why is it so hard to pay for when in reality we are flushed with cash. But at the same we have nothing. We can afford them obviously, we do we survive. But they are so high its becoming increasingly harder to.

Reading through others insights into the problem and I keep seeing "regulations" popping up and how if  more of them were repealed it would making living here so much less of a money ordeal. I'm not very familiar with regulations and taxes and all the nonsense. I'm only 17 and I'd like to hold to not adulting in that way for just a second longer. But from what I've heard taxes seems to be only rising. I, myself, don't have any real plans besides the simple, " we need to save the money, spend it wisely, and pay off our debts, don't spend more than we make." But the fact is we make plenty, our states make more than whole countries. But whatever the solution, it needs to begin to be resolved to avoid a further increase in taxes and increase in our seemingly never ending debt. We have one of the richest economies yet we also one of the poorest. First place and last? Slightly embarrassing...