Six Times Down, Seven Times up
Sorry, but if you've fallen down 7 times, then you only need to get up 7 times - and you're already up. You can't get up an 8th time unless you fall down again.So surely it should be "Fall down 7 times, get up 7 times".
Six times down, seven times up
I think you must be joking, but just in case you are not. This proverb -- like any proverb -- is poetic and is metaphor. (Not to mention the fact that this is an English translation.) No logical analysis is necessary or possible. Besides, what is inspiring about "fall seven, get up seven"? Nothing. The meaning of fall seven get up eight is simply to never give up, never give up, never give up no matter how many times you fall (fail). This proverb is one of my favorites and one of the most beautiful and inspiring for me in Japan. Remember that logic is only one way of looking at life, not the only way, nor is it the only form of intelligence. On the other hand, perhaps you were just joking :-)
Actually, "Fall down seven times, get up eight" is accurate, because in order to have fallen the first time, a person would have had to get up a first time prior to falling. It's like the old saying, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, it was the egg. Why? Because through evolution, the chicken, that is, the adult, and the egg cycle, (egg grows into a chicken and the hen lays the egg, which grows into the adult and lays and egg....) the growing chicken cannot change it's own genes and chromosomes. That slight change will occur over time (evolutionary time)when the male and female copulate and the gene/chromosome combinations of the egg are slightly different from it's parents genes/chromosomes. That is, the adults that copulated were the evolutionary stage before the actual chicken stage as we know it, but of course, quite similar. Then, the egg will have exhibited the morphological characteristics of the chicken as we know it today.
Fall down six times, stand up seven is the Buddhist equivalent to the Japanese proverb 七転び八起き (Nanakorobi yaoki), which literally means fall seven times and stand up eight, meaning that when life knocks you down, stand back up / keep trying.
These changes have increased wealth inequality significantly. In 1963, families near the top had six times the wealth (or, $6 for every $1) of families in the middle. By 2016, they had 12 times the wealth of families in the middle.
Put another way, white family wealth was seven times greater than black family wealth and five times greater than Hispanic family wealth in 2016. Despite some fluctuations over the past five decades, this disparity is as high or higher than it was in 1963.
White families accumulate more wealth over their lives than black or Hispanic families do, widening the wealth gap at older ages. In their 30s, whites have an average of $147,000 more in wealth than blacks (three times as much). By their 60s, whites have over $1.1 million more in average wealth than blacks (seven times as much).
In 2016, white families had about $130,000 more (or six times more) in average liquid retirement savings than black and Hispanic families. In sheer dollar terms, this disparity has increased more than fivefold over the past quarter-century: in 1989, white families had about $25,000 more (or five times more) in average retirement savings than black and Hispanic families. This gap is becoming more important as liquid retirement savings vehicles, like 401(k)s, replace more traditional defined-benefit pension plans.
Because black families, on average, have less wealth and fewer private resources, they may be more likely to turn to loans to finance their education. White families are five times more likely than black families to receive large gifts or inheritances, which can be used to pay for college.
These bad experiences often involve long wait times and an excessive number of hoops to jump through in order to get ahold of customer service representatives, with only 53% of customers saying they were able to resolve their issues the first time they reached out to a company.
In addition to being more likely to make a purchase, existing customers spend more money than new ones do, and this increases the more loyal they are. In numerical terms, the top 10% of most loyal customers will spend an average of three times more per purchase than the remaining 90% of customers.
There are several factors that cause this. One is that it costs six to seven times more to acquire a new customer than it does to retain an existing one, which means an increase in customer retention means lower costs for the same amount of revenue.
More specifically, keeping short wait times and easily accessible representatives is huge, as just 53% of customers said they were able to resolve their issue the first time they tried contacting a company.
New data from the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) show that long-standing and substantial wealth disparities between families in different racial and ethnic groups were little changed since the last survey in 2016; the typical White family has eight times the wealth of the typical Black family and five times the wealth of the typical Hispanic family.
In absolute terms, the gaps in median wealth between White and non-White families widen considerably at older ages. For example, amongst families under 35, White families have between $11,900 and $24,800 more in median wealth than Black, Hispanic, or other families. For families over age 55, the gaps widen to between $101,700 and $261,100. In proportional terms, however, the gaps are relatively stable or diminish with age. With respect to the Black-White gap at middle and older ages, the median wealth of White families is four to six times greater than the median wealth of Black families. These within-age ratios are somewhat lower than the Black-White ratio of nearly eight for all families combined (implied by Figure 1).
IRA and DC plans can only provide financial security in retirement if families accrue sufficient balances in the plans through investment contributions and subsequent returns on those contributions. Among working-age families, balances in retirement accounts also vary by race and ethnicity, and balances are larger amongst groups with higher rates of access and participation. For working-age families that have balances in such accounts, the typical White family has about $50,000 saved, which is two and a half times the amount saved as the typical Black or Hispanic family, who have about $20,000 saved in retirement accounts. The median balances for other families falls in between White and Black or Hispanic families, at about $34,000. Difference in balances likely reflect a combination of factors including differences in returns from the funds that contributions are invested in, differences families' lifetime contributions to retirement accounts, and differences in employer matching to DC plans. For example, the differences in access to employer-sponsored plans (Figure 5) imply that fewer Black or Hispanic families are eligible for a plan with an employer match.
Nearly all families have some type of highly-liquid asset, such as a checking account, savings account, or pre-paid card (Table 3). Conditional upon having a liquid asset, however, the typical White family has considerably more liquid savings than the typical Black, Hispanic, or other family. While the typical Black or Hispanic family has $2,000 or less in liquid savings, the typical White family has more than four times that amount. Other families fall somewhere in the middle, with the typical family holding $5,000 in liquid savings.
The JPMorgan (JPM) chief executive officer predicted on Friday that rising inflation could prompt the Federal Reserve to raise short-term borrowing costs as many as six or seven times, doubling down on his earlier bet that the currently-anticipated three to four increases are likely a low estimate of what investors can expect.
Some people also find it helpful to stick to a bathroom schedule. This involves going to the bathroom at scheduled times and gradually increasing the time between visits until there is a regular 3-hour gap.
Mike Trout - I wonder if there would be some pushback here if Trout retired today, but there shouldn't be. He's already won three MVPs and finished second four times. He's led the league in runs four times, RBI once, walks three times, on-base percentage four times, slugging three times, OPS four times, OPS+ six times and WAR four times. Few in baseball history can match that. He trails only Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker and Mickey Mantle in JAWS among center fielders, ranking ahead of Ken Griffey Jr. and Joe DiMaggio. Yes, he's already in on a peak basis. He's just compiling at this point when it comes to the Hall of Fame.
Joey Votto - A polarizing case, I'm sure. He's over 2,000 hits, but barely (2,093). He "only" has 342 home runs and 1,106 RBI as a first baseman. He is also a career .297 hitter through a low-batting-average era and led the league in OBP seven times. His .513 slugging helps him to a 145 OPS+, which is 51st ever. He has essentially the same WAR as Willie McCovey and basically the same JAWS as Miguel Cabrera. I think he's there, but it might take, say, five ballots.
Freddie Freeman - He's 33 and signed through 2027. He's a career .298/.386/.509 (140 OPS+) hitter with 1,903 hits, 414 doubles, 292 homers, 1,041 RBI, 1,086 runs, an MVP and a World Series ring. He had no black ink before 2018, but in the last five years he's led the league in runs three times, hits twice, doubles three times and OBP once.
Jose Altuve - Perhaps Carlos Beltrán's fortunes in voting provides a road map for all the players connected to the 2017 Astros, but Altuve's case seems much more tied to the scandal, given that Beltrán's career was basically over by that season. Aside from that, Altuve is 32 years old and has 1,935 hits, 379 doubles, 192 home runs, 696 RBI, 986 runs, 279 stolen bases, an MVP, two rings and one hell of a postseason resume. He's a three-time batting champ who has led the league in hits four times and stolen bases twice.