Mildly interesting
-
wrote on 19 Jun 2025, 01:44 last edited by
-
wrote on 19 Jun 2025, 01:47 last edited by jon-nyc
Wyoming has the highest ratio but only ~half a million people. So two billionaires.
One is Lukas Walton, a grandson of Sam Walton of Walmart, the other is a Swiss guy named Hansjörg Wyss.
-
wrote on 19 Jun 2025, 01:50 last edited by
Montana - 2 Cargill heirs, a Pritzger (Hyatt hotels) and a local self-made guy. In mining.
-
wrote on 19 Jun 2025, 12:37 last edited by
Meh, being a billionaire ain’t what it used to be. Being a millionaire is only upper middle class.
-
wrote on 19 Jun 2025, 13:24 last edited by Mik
I remember in a finance class in the early 80's the teacher talking about how we'd all need $2 million to retire comfortably. I got the impression no one really listened, but I was a little older and did. He was pretty spot on.
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 09:40 last edited by
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 10:17 last edited by
This is sad.
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 10:28 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:
This is sad.
Does it come down to institutional attitudes towards birth control or abortion, or the moral chastities of the cultures?
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 10:31 last edited by
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 14:22 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:
This is sad.
It is.
Now overlay that map with one with abortion rates. My bet is that one is even sadder.
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 15:04 last edited by
Also sad.
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 15:41 last edited by
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 15:48 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:
Also sad.
Wow, the numbers in the early 1900s were surprisingly high…
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 16:32 last edited by
That surprised me too. More spinsters as med died more frequently at a younger age?
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 16:58 last edited by
Reagan broke it.
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 16:59 last edited by Doctor Phibes
@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:
That surprised me too. More spinsters as med died more frequently at a younger age?
I had a surprising number of maiden great aunts who were born in the 1890's, but I think that was probably due to WW1. The impact of that war would have been less noticeable in the US as a considerably smaller proportion of the male population died.
Did the US Civil War affect the 1900 figures?
-
@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:
That surprised me too. More spinsters as med died more frequently at a younger age?
I had a surprising number of maiden great aunts who were born in the 1890's, but I think that was probably due to WW1. The impact of that war would have been less noticeable in the US as a considerably smaller proportion of the male population died.
Did the US Civil War affect the 1900 figures?
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 17:03 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Mildly interesting:
@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:
That surprised me too. More spinsters as med died more frequently at a younger age?
I had a surprising number of maiden great aunts who were born in the 1890's, but I think that was probably due to WW1. The impact of that war would have been less noticeable in the US as a considerably smaller proportion of the male population died.
Did the US Civil War affect the 1900 figures?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Mildly interesting:
@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:
That surprised me too. More spinsters as med died more frequently at a younger age?
I had a surprising number of maiden great aunts who were born in the 1890's, but I think that was probably due to WW1. The impact of that war would have been less noticeable in the US as a considerably smaller proportion of the male population died.
Did the US Civil War affect the 1900 figures?
That’s what I was wondering about…But then, there’s an old saw about there being no bigger boost in new marriages and babies than a war breaking out. Maybe that’s not as true as advertised.
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 17:05 last edited by
@Axtremus said in Mildly interesting:
Reagan broke it.The birth control pill broke it. -
@Axtremus said in Mildly interesting:
Reagan broke it.The birth control pill broke it.wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 17:46 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Mildly interesting:
@Axtremus said in Mildly interesting:
Reagan broke it.The birth control pill broke it.Eisenstadt v. Baird was decided in 1972.
-
wrote on 20 Jun 2025, 18:01 last edited by
And you expect the cultural ramifications to be immediate? The majority of the women of 32 years of age were already married in 1972… This would have had far greater impact on women younger than 30, with the results becoming noticeable ~ 1980. It also coincides with higher divorce rates, and more women entering the workplace, which completely shifted the economy for good and ill.