# Thread: Thoughts on Jordan Peterson

1. It's not so much his views I take issue with, it's more his line of thought. He seems to be a very associative thinker - he doesn't go clearly from point A to point B. His crying always seemed a bit fake to me, too.

2. Originally Posted by Raver
No worries on the late response, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Anyways, that was a typo on my part, I meant to say that the salary covers about a third of the housing cost, which is actually very different than today. I'll use different examples to illustrate my point because the main issue comes down to largely the cost of living in purchasing homes and condos rather than the cost of other items.

If you divide the cost of a new house with the average salary in 1953 like so:

9,525 / 4,011 = 2.37

It amounts to roughly the cost of a house being 2.37 times greater than a yearly salary.

Let's fast forward 30 years to see the difference:

82,600 / 21,073 = 3.91

The cost of a new house in 1983 was 3.91 times greater than the average yearly salary, which is a noticeable increase from being 2.37 times greater in 1953.

Now, let's fast forward to roughly the present day, which is 35 years later to illustrate my point further:

Let's look at October 2018, where the average American household income was \$63,220:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/423...usehold-income

Also, the cost of a new American house in October 2018 was \$395,000:

https://www.census.gov/construction/...uspricemon.pdf

So if we do the math, it is:

395,000 / 63,220 = 6.25

The average cost of a house in the US in 2018 was 6.25 times greater than the average US household salary in 2018, which is a big difference compared to 3.91 times greater in 1983 and 2.37 times greater in 1953. It would be important to note that the difference is significantly greater between the average US home and the average US salary if you go to American cities with ludicrous housing costs like San Francisco, New York and Seattle. However, it's only fair that I use the average US housing cost of the nation as a whole and not the average housing cost of those US cities. So basically my point is that salaries are not keeping with the rising cost of inflation specifically with the purchase of homes and condos.

Salaries may be keeping up with inflation in terms of purchasing of other items, but I think it's safe to say that the most important factor for quality of life and standard of living is the homes and condos we are able to afford to purchase. In some cities, the cost of homes and condos are still reasonable, but unfortunately in other cities they are far too expensive. This shows how slowly over time, the poor and the middle class will find affordable housing to purchase more difficult to come by as time goes by as the slow increase of housing costs is not something that our salaries are keeping up with, which means our standard of living is slowly decreasing over time.

This only benefits the 1% that are easily able to profit off the increasing housing costs, for which they sell once the price increases or simply allow lower class citizens to rent. Let's not forget another important factor here. In 1953, it was typical of the majority of households to have the husband working with one salary to provide the income for the entire family, while the wife provided at home. In 1983, you were more likely to find women working to help provide for the household and family compared to 1953, but still not as much as today. Finally, in 2018 it is safe to say that the majority of women help provide an income for the family along with the men.

So not only have housing prices increased considerably compared to the household salary, we now need two incomes instead of one income like we did in 1953 to provide for the family making the problem even worse than it appears. Some say the income disparity occurred due to the increase of the labor market from women entering the workforce, but that is another debate in and of itself and this situation could have other factors contributing. Also, to be fair I used the household income in 2018 rather than a single income in 2018, which would of revealed a greater disparity between the average income and the cost of new homes.
I won't write a long response since this is taking too much of my time than I'd like.

I'd just like to note that you didn't account for:

1. House size: The average size of a new house in the US has doubled since 1960. The average Canadian or American each has double the residential space of the average UK, Spanish, or Italian resident.
2. Population: continues to increase but many big cities are already saturated, supply and demand pressure is there. Lots of investments are still flowing there and most high paid jobs are in big cities, thus driving pricing even higher.
3. Interest rates: are very low, people paid up to 20 percent in the 80s. Long dated mortgages of 15, 20 and longer years started in the mid 1930s. Private mortgage insurance started up in 1957 with the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company. Those innovations brought home ownership to the masses – no longer did you have to be able to afford a huge, short term loan with a massive down payment. That is a huge discount on house costs.

I still believe it's just a matter of adjusting expectations and having financial discipline. Most people can afford to be home owners. But I'm not going to spend more time on this topic. Cheers.

3. Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
I won't write a long response since this is taking too much of my time than I'd like.

I'd just like to note that you didn't account for:

1. House size: The average size of a new house in the US has doubled since 1960. The average Canadian or American each has double the residential space of the average UK, Spanish, or Italian resident.
2. Population: continues to increase but many big cities are already saturated, supply and demand pressure is there. Lots of investments are still flowing there and most high paid jobs are in big cities, thus driving pricing even higher.
3. Interest rates: are very low, people paid up to 20 percent in the 80s. Long dated mortgages of 15, 20 and longer years started in the mid 1930s. Private mortgage insurance started up in 1957 with the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company. Those innovations brought home ownership to the masses – no longer did you have to be able to afford a huge, short term loan with a massive down payment. That is a huge discount on house costs.

I still believe it's just a matter of adjusting expectations and having financial discipline. Most people can afford to be home owners. But I'm not going to spend more time on this topic. Cheers.
Fair enough. I am not sure about the US, but in Canada we have townhouses or semi detached homes that are equivalent to small houses of the past and even they are ludicrously expensive even if cheaper compared to single detached homes. Yeah, naturally big cities will have more expensive homes for that reason, which is why I chose to use the average cost of a new home for the country instead.

Yeah, you bring up a good point with lower interest rates today. I suppose if you paid off the mortgage fast enough in the past it did not matter though, but today it would not be possible with such high house prices. I agree most people can be home or at least condo owners today, it is just that we are forced to purchase smaller homes or downgrade to a condo and save more money than the past like you mentioned. Later!

4. Originally Posted by Muddy
First off why did you make the presumption of me complaining about being poor? Is that your own neurotic thoughts towards being "successful" in the eyes of society today being projected? I never said anywhere here that I was poor. I'll admit, I do think my situation leaves some to be desired but for you to judge me as a loser when you have no precise knowledge of my situation is completely thickheaded. I not speaking solely about things that effect me personally but the things I observe happening both to the people in my local area in the trends happening through history and the world. And the idea of changing and combating these things motivates me far more then obtaining some extra bucks.

If you think the nationalist sentiment is exclusive to losers who live with their parents you are soarly mistake. My step-dad (whom I've had personal clashes with in the past, but I digress) for example makes around \$24 with lots of overtime hours as an inspector at a manufacturing as well as being a landlord who collects rent. He too is a nationalist and sees the same exact shit I do that's degrading the country. The military as well is one the demographics that houses the largest percentage of people who are nationalistic. Are they losers to?

And I got news for you, if you don't think civil war in the future is a possibility you are gravely mistaken. It doesn't take masses of angry people suddenly leaving their homes to attack one another to start a civil war. All it takes is a few key high ranking generals and politicians to decide, "You know what, I've had enough of this shit" to take matters into their own hands and create a domino effect that explodes into a civil war within a matter of days. It's happened many many times in various countries throughout history and even in recent history. With the current political divide it's more possible now then it's been in decades. This is why the hard-left globalist are pushing gun control so much, because it tends to be rural people who buy guns and rural people tend to be nationalist. There is also a high likely hood a good portion if not the majority of the military would side with the nationalist due to what I said before about nationalist being type of people who are likely to join the military. In such an event all the liberal media outlets, corrupt businesses, wall street bankers, SJWs, puppet conservatives and all the supporters of this shitty globalist capitalist system would be saying bye-bye.
You recently talked about being something like ‘not even middle class’ in the Random Thought thread, and have been complaining about that and not knowing what to do with your life. As if complaining about the things in this thread are disconnected from that and not enough anyway.

You just come across as a big nerd wanting to act out a revolutionary fantasy. This doesn’t even warrant any serious consideration.

5. Originally Posted by sbbds
You recently talked about being something like ‘not even middle class’ in the Random Thought thread, and have been complaining about that and not knowing what to do with your life. As if complaining about the things in this thread are disconnected from that and not enough anyway.

You just come across as a big nerd wanting to act out a revolutionary fantasy. This doesn’t even warrant any serious consideration.
You keep trying turn the discussion around into being personal without even attempting to debate any the logical aspects or philosophical aspects of anything I'm talking about. It's true that I've not been completely serious in many of my past post and I've that I have been learning as I'm going. My strategy when it comes to testing out any of my viewpoints is to dive deep and see anything constructive someone else might have to say. Attacking me with these sharp personal judgments and telling me how you think I'm saying all this because I'm a loser isn't going to go anywhere in the slightest.

6. Originally Posted by Muddy
You keep trying turn the discussion around into being personal without even attempting to debate any the logical aspects or philosophical aspects of anything I'm talking about. It's true that I've not been completely serious in many of my past post and I've that I have been learning as I'm going. My strategy when it comes to testing out any of my viewpoints is to dive deep and see anything constructive someone else might have to say. Attacking me with these sharp personal judgments and telling me how you think I'm saying all this because I'm a loser isn't going to go anywhere in the slightest.
Are you sure?

Admittance is one first step. Anyway, busy, ttyl and have fun.

7. Originally Posted by sbbds
Are you sure?

Admittance is one first step. Anyway, busy, ttyl and have fun.
Mmmm k.

8. Anyone who speaks of Marxism as a 'postmodern' philosophy is a moron with no idea what he's talking about.

9. Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
Anyone who speaks of Marxism as a 'postmodern' philosophy is a moron with no idea what he's talking about.
Care to elaborate on this since the concept is neo marxism rather than marxism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

Jordan tends to criticize neo marxist thought, not old school marxism, which are two different concepts. If you believe neo marxism has nothing to do with post modernism then explain why that is the case.

10. Originally Posted by Raver
Care to elaborate on this since the concept is neo marxism rather than marxism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

Jordan tends to criticize neo marxist thought, not old school marxism, which are two different concepts. If you believe neo marxism has nothing to do with post modernism then explain why that is the case.
Mainly because 'neo-Marxism' is not a 'different concept.' It's either a continuation of Marxist thought, or an ephemeral autodescriptor of academics who want to sound more worldly by claiming themselves influenced by Marx.

Also, Peterson has no idea what he means by 'neo-Marxism' either, if he does use that term (I've only heard him moan about 'Marxism').

11. Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
Mainly because 'neo-Marxism' is not a 'different concept.' It's either a continuation of Marxist thought, or an ephemeral autodescriptor of academics who want to sound more worldly by claiming themselves influenced by Marx.

Also, Peterson has no idea what he means by 'neo-Marxism' either, if he does use that term (I've only heard him moan about 'Marxism').
I'm going to assume he states marxism in terms of being neo-marxism rather than classical marxism. Classical marxism has almost nothing to do with post-modernism as it's about communism and the elimination of capitalism so it is largely economic. Neo-marxism branches off into different areas that classical marxism never addressed such as gender and race equality, which are largely social. So while classical marxism is about class equality, neo-marxism expands that notion to several other areas.

The idea of equality beyond class and into gender and race is a fairly modern one. While, gender and racial equality are definitely aspects to strive for, they do seem to be exaggerated in this day and age as being more problematic than they really are, at least compared to how they used to be in the past. Most of Jordan Peterson's ideas seem to counter the notion of gender inequality predominately. So for that reason I think it is not much of a stretch to state neo-marxism as a post modernist philosophy. However, it would be incorrect to classify classical marxism as such.

12. Originally Posted by Raver
I'm going to assume he states marxism in terms of being neo-marxism rather than classical marxism. Classical marxism has almost nothing to do with post-modernism as it's about communism and the elimination of capitalism so it is largely economic. Neo-marxism branches off into different areas that classical marxism never addressed such as gender and race equality, which are largely social. So while classical marxism is about class equality, neo-marxism expands that notion to several other areas.

The idea of equality beyond class and into gender and race is a fairly modern one. While, gender and racial equality are definitely aspects to strive for, they do seem to be exaggerated in this day and age as being more problematic than they really are, at least compared to how they used to be in the past. Most of Jordan Peterson's ideas seem to counter the notion of gender inequality predominately. So for that reason I think it is not much of a stretch to state neo-marxism as a post modernist philosophy. However, it would be incorrect to classify classical marxism as such.
So liberalism basically.

13. He cries A LOT.

14. Originally Posted by velveteen
He cries A LOT.
I love it. Its refreshing.

15. Originally Posted by Finaplex
I love it. Its refreshing.
It takes a lot of confidence to be that vulnerable in public.

16. Jordan Peterson is a gate keeper to the alt right.

17. He's tangential as fuck. I hate listening to him.

18. JP's 12 rules book just got banned in NZ lol wtf.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...osque-massacre

19. Originally Posted by Muddy
JP's 12 rules book just got banned in NZ lol wtf.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...osque-massacre
This is just the start of it. Now critiquing islam is gonna get even harder.

20. Originally Posted by Muddy
JP's 12 rules book just got banned in NZ lol wtf.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...osque-massacre
Those New Zealanders. They're not gonna let anyone tell them to make their fucking beds.

21. NZ used to sound like an ideal destination when I daydreamed about expatriating.

22. I wonder if the bearded version is his evil doppelganger from the mirror universe.

23. Originally Posted by Doctor Weird
NZ used to sound like an ideal destination when I daydreamed about expatriating.
Well, you're not Jordan Peterson...

24. Originally Posted by Muddy
JP's 12 rules book just got banned in NZ lol wtf.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...osque-massacre
I read most of it. I think a lot of people who drool over Peterson would benefit more from reading this book instead of his book. It is more entertaining.

"For decades, we’ve been told that positive thinking is the key to a happy, rich life. "F**k positivity," Mark Manson says. "Let’s be honest, shit is f**ked and we have to live with it." In his wildly popular Internet blog, Manson doesn’t sugarcoat or equivocate. He tells it like it is—a dose of raw, refreshing, honest truth that is sorely lacking today. The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k is his antidote to the coddling, let’s-all-feel-good mindset that has infected American society and spoiled a generation, rewarding them with gold medals just for showing up.

Manson makes the argument, backed both by academic research and well-timed poop jokes, that improving our lives hinges not on our ability to turn lemons into lemonade, but on learning to stomach lemons better. Human beings are flawed and limited—"not everybody can be extraordinary, there are winners and losers in society, and some of it is not fair or your fault." Manson advises us to get to know our limitations and accept them. Once we embrace our fears, faults, and uncertainties, once we stop running and avoiding and start confronting painful truths, we can begin to find the courage, perseverance, honesty, responsibility, curiosity, and forgiveness we seek.

There are only so many things we can give a f**k about so we need to figure out which ones really matter, Manson makes clear. While money is nice, caring about what you do with your life is better, because true wealth is about experience. A much-needed grab-you-by-the-shoulders-and-look-you-in-the-eye moment of real-talk, filled with entertaining stories and profane, ruthless humor, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k is a refreshing slap for a generation to help them lead contented, grounded lives.
"

Excerpt from chapter 1:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B019MMUA8S...ng=UTF8&btkr=1

25. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
This video never fails to crack me up.

26. Originally Posted by Muddy
JP's 12 rules book just got banned in NZ lol wtf.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...osque-massacre
I don't even know what to say to this. Crazy.

27. Originally Posted by Muddy
JP's 12 rules book just got banned in NZ lol wtf.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...osque-massacre
This is stupid beyond belief. It is not like the shooter mentioned him as an inspiration or just simply mentioned him.

28. Originally Posted by Muddy
JP's 12 rules book just got banned in NZ lol wtf.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...osque-massacre
"Banned in NZ" is maybe a little too strong.

A national chain of bookstores in New Zealand has pulled copies of Jordan Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life from sale, directly linking the decision to the massacre of 50 people in two mosques in Christchurch.

“(It) is a decision that Whitcoulls has made in light of some extremely disturbing material being circulated prior, during and after the Christchurch attacks.

29. I was browsing in a little hippyesque indie bookstore a couple of weeks ago and I was almost tempted to ask if they carried his book, just to see what the clerks' reactions would be. But I didn't feel like causing a major scene that day. Would be funny to cosplay though, wear a red MAGA hat, get some fake tattoos with quotes from Ayn Rand, T-Shirt with a bearded cartoon lobster, and secretly videotape reactions of clerks at independent and feminist bookstores as I angrily demand to know why I can't get Peterson books.

30. Originally Posted by Doctor Weird
I was browsing in a little hippyesque indie bookstore a couple of weeks ago and I was almost tempted to ask if they carried his book, just to see what the clerks' reactions would be. But I didn't feel like causing a major scene that day. Would be funny to cosplay though, wear a red MAGA hat, get some fake tattoos with quotes from Ayn Rand, T-Shirt with a bearded cartoon lobster, and secretly videotape reactions of clerks at independent and feminist bookstores as I angrily demand to know why I can't get Peterson books.
"Life doesn't need rules, man. Life just, like, is."

31. he eats an all beef diet and it's started to rot his brain

ofc he was crazy before too

32. Originally Posted by Tallmo
"Banned in NZ" is maybe a little too strong.
Not as crazy as a nation banning the book, but still silly for a book store to do that.

Originally Posted by Moou
he eats an all beef diet and it's started to rot his brain

ofc he was crazy before too
Tell me what is so bad about him. You're entitled to your opinion, but I want to know what you think makes him crazy.

Page 4 of 4 First 1234

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•