Michael Allen's Blog: Michael Allen Online, page 31

A Meat-Based Carrot In Response To Vegetable-Based Cheeseburgers

If vegans can have cheeseburgers, than meat-eaters should be able to have meat-based vegetables. The marrot is the meat carrot I can sink my teeth into.

Michael Allen - Novelist and Screenwriter

The Odd Phenomenon Of The Popeyes Chicken Sandwich

What's going on with this sandwich? There is no way it's so good that people are willing to murder over it! Get a grip! You need Cheez-Its in your lives...

Michael Allen - Novelist and Screenwriter

What Happens When An Eel Gets Stuck In A Man’s Butt?

There is no punchline. You haven’t been setup for a joke. This happened in real life and what you are about to see is what the guy had to go […]

Michael Allen - Novelist and Screenwriter

Stephen King’s Annie Wilkes Is Back In Season 2 Of ‘Castle Rock’

Annie Wilkes invaded our psyche when she appeared in Stephen King’s 1987 novel Misery. It wasn’t hard to imagine what she would be like, but Kathy Bates gave us that […]

Michael Allen - Novelist and Screenwriter

Hurricane Dorian Was Sophisticated Drug Mule For The Cartels

The path of the hurricane and the projected paths show there is something more to Dorian than meets the eye.

Michael Allen - Novelist and Screenwriter

Hilarious Cheers Blooper From ‘Please Mr. Postman’ Season 7 Episode 12

I just caught a blooper on ‘Cheers’ and I can’t figure out why it exists. How did they make this mistake? It’s from Season 7 Episode 12 ‘Please Mr. Postman’ […]

Michael Allen - Novelist and Screenwriter

Good Guy With A Gun Stops A Walmart Shooting

When they say there are no 'Good Guys with Guns,' there are plenty of incidences where the good guy with a gun was there.

Michael Allen - Novelist and Screenwriter

Freedom of Speech Confusion

People think they can say whatever they want because they are protected by the Freedom of Speech. Our First Amendment protects us all from certain legal ramifications, but that is all you can expect. There are always consequences to your actions!

You can almost say whatever you want without facing any criminal charges. The only thing you can’t say are words that incite a riot like yelling “fire” in a theater.

But, you can expect consequences for words that spark controversy. Don’t get confused! Your boss can fire you if your remarks cause the company to lose business because your words reflect on them.

A school might be able to discipline you because it is not a legal action. A school is an entity within itself. Parents can protest and that might keep an act of discipline from taking place.

You can get sued for what you say! If your words cause damage to a business or a person’s reputation, you can find yourself in a court of law answering for what you said, how you said it, in what way it was intended…etc.

Yes, you can almost say whatever you want without facing incarceration for your words. But, there are other consequences and don’t be shocked when people exercise their rights as a response to you exercising yours.

Personally, I will say whatever I feel like saying, whatever I feel is right or is important. But, I am willing to face the consequences for my actions. I know there will be many!

The Useless Electoral College

This presidential campaign will be so close that it actually gives me a chance to prove my hypothesis. Actual votes compared to state by state electoral votes change the result of the election. If true, electoral votes are an outdated method and we have available the resources we need to get a more accurate count.

 

I will show in numbers what I mean. But, I won’t be able to prove my hypothesis until after the election. That’s when I will be able to take tally and come up with actual numbers in real time.

But my hypothesis is fairly easy to understand. Each state has a number of electoral votes that are sent to Washington D.C. after Election Day. These electoral votes are calculated based on the population of the state. For instance, California has almost 40 million residents and gets 55 electoral votes while Wyoming has over half a million residents and gets 3 electoral votes. All other states fall between these two extremes and are awarded electoral votes accordingly.

If those were the only two states, let’s go with the widely held notions that California will vote Democrat and Wyoming will vote Republican. In that case, President Obama will win hands down with 55 electoral votes to Governor Romney’s 3 votes.

But if actual votes are counted, the election could be flipped. What if California votes Democrat by only a fraction of a percentage while Wyoming votes Republican overwhelmingly? That means that the vote in California might only be separated by a hundred thousand votes while Wyoming could possibly make up the difference.

In an example, if California voted Democrat at 50.1% that would be 18,664,232 Obama votes to 18,589,724 Romney votes. So, Wyoming would only have to vote 60% Republican to flip the election. At 60%, 338,176 votes would be for Romney while 225,450 would be for Obama. In that case, Romney would win the election with 18,927,900 votes to 18,889,682 votes for Obama.

This is particularly interesting in this election because of the state of Ohio. Depending on whose projections you are researching, everyone has their own perspective of how America looks on a political map. Obama is favored by such a small margin that it could actually come down to one state making all the difference in the world.

Ohio stands out to me because it is surrounded by Republican states and yet it is projected to vote democratically. Looking at a political map, everything else makes sense. The West Coast is voting Democrat. The middle states are mainly Republican. The North Eastern states are voting Democrat.

So, depending on how you look at Ohio, it could go either way. On a political map, it’s bordered by Pennsylvania and Michigan, which are projected to vote Democrat. But it’s also bordered by Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, which makes it look like it’s seated comfortably in Republican territory.

If everything goes as projected, Obama wins by a narrow margin. That comes out to 11 votes over the race for 270 electoral votes. But if Ohio votes Republican, the election flips and Romney wins by a narrow margin. Ohio has 18 electoral votes and could very well be the most critical state on the map this election year.

However, to continue with my hypothesis, if Obama wins by a narrow margin of electoral votes, what does that mean when compared to actual votes? What if Ohio votes Democrat by 60%? That comes out to nearly 7 million actual Obama votes to over 4.5 million actual Romney votes. There are plenty of actual votes for Romney to flip the election.

Electoral votes were put in place before computers and the age of the internet. I’m sure with all the resources we have available, that we can keep a more accurate account of votes. One suggestion is that we have a national registry where each state inputs votes with Democrat and Republican teams monitoring as an administrator punches in the calculations.

We already have people transferring votes from ballots that aren’t machine readable. Democrat and Republican teams are monitoring that exercise. There would be no difference in tallying everyone’s actual vote and then inputting calculations in a national registry for a pure total of how the nation truly voted.

Once the election is over, we’ll be able to look at the actual numbers. I have a spreadsheet ready with as much data as I can input at this time. After the election, I’ll be able to report whether or not my hypothesis would have made a difference in this election. But the most important factor about turning to actual votes as opposed to electoral votes is that it truly gives greater weight to every vote. When each vote actually counts, everyone has a voice.

The Middle Income Misinterpretation

It would appear to me that more people than you think are misinterpreting the middle income discussion. Misinterpretations are flying all over the place. So, I’m going to do what I do best and provide an angle that might add some perspective.

The misinterpretations started with Mitt Romney when he was reported as saying that the middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. But then, Barack Obama got into the mix when he defined “middle class” as making up to $250,000 a year.

In my eyes, they are both saying the same thing. But, let’s talk about some other numbers for a second. What so many people are focusing on is the fact that the “median” income is roughly $50,000 a year. But, if you make $200,000 a year, you are in the 94th percentile.

When people are reporting statistics, some fail to know what they mean. See what I did there? You will in a minute. A quick class on median is that it is the middle number in a list of numbers. That’s all.

If you have three incomes on a list: $20,000, $50,000 and $250,000. The median is $50,000 because it is the middle number. But, check this out! If the $250,000 income were removed and $10,000,000 were put in its place, the median would remain $50,000. It’s still the middle number.

I think a much better number to use is the mean, or the average. In the first scenario above, the mean income would be roughly $106,000. In the second scenario, it drastically changes to roughly $3.3 million. Big difference! While median doesn’t change at all based on any number above it or below it, mean is effected.

So, the median isn’t really a good number to use when you are trying to determine what I would have to call the middle of the middle income. The problem is that the U.S. Census Bureau even uses median. So, I’ll have to go with their calculations and they report, “Median household income was $50,054 in 2011.”

Page 7 – http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p...

So, let’s go with that for now. All that says to me is that’s the “middle” of the middle. That’s not the high end and that’s not the low end. That’s right smack dab in the middle.

The thing is that for the longest time we were talking about the top 5% of earners in America. Then, somehow our focus across the nation became the top 1% of earners in America. The difference is not small!

By the latest data available, from the IRS in July 2011, the top 5% of earners in America made at least $154,643 in 2009. The top 1% made at least $343,927. I don’t know why all this information isn’t digital and we can’t just have a huge computer spit out up-to-date statistics in real time. But, I’m confident I can continue with these numbers. I’m sure any variation will be slight compared to the amount of money we’re talking about anyway.

To return to what Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are saying, $250,000 and below isn’t a bad guestimate at where the TOP of the middle income is. Of course, everyone below that is included except, of course, for the low income. So, while reporters and other people who are trying to discuss the topic are attempting to stomp all over the top two presidential candidates for not “understanding” where the middle income is, I think it’s the non-credible media types who don’t understand.

If you make $50,000 a year, both Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama know that you exist and that you are somewhere near the middle of the middle. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that roughly $22,000 is poverty level for a family of 4. For 1 person, it’s just under $11,000.

So, $11,000 isn’t ideal for a person living alone and trying to make it. And for most of us across America, we’d love to make $250,000 and we really don’t think people who do belong considered in the middle income with the rest of us. But, those are roughly the two extremes of middle income.

Most of the news you are getting these days is skewed in some way. The best advice I have is to listen to what all sides have to say. Even if you don’t agree with someone’s opinion, take the time to listen. Take a good look at what they’re saying before you dismiss it. You just might find yourself weighing the truths from different angles and coming to a conclusion you can comfortably believe.

Posted in: Economy, Income by michaelallen / Tags: Barrack Obama, low income, median household income, median income, middle class, middle income, Mitt Romney, top 1%, top 5%