Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

census.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#71

Post by rmrm »

lotharbot wrote: post #60
rmrm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with this line of thought, is that while completely true, it also doesn't mean a whole lot. It is completely dependent on it being the US stock market. And during a period for that stock market that had a number of incredibly important items go it's way. Its not backfitting because it happened, but we only find it meaningful because we happened to have been here during it. For any number of reasons, includin…

> "It is completely dependent on it being the US stock market." Not really. It's only dependent on stock prices inherently reflecting all of the information buyers and sellers have about their expectations, including expected risk and reward. Trying to "time" the market basically means trying to find a signal other buyers and sellers haven't figured out, or at least not enough of them to cause prices to shift accordi…

My point was that entire countries economies and political systems sometimes fail. That hasn't happened in the US in the same way as it's happened elsewhere. But if it had, then "timing" the market, by which I mean selling it, would not have been suboptimal.

Maybe I define market timing differently. Holding a healthy cash position for future investment and selling investments from time to time based on either their valuation or prospects, whatever that is called, is not a bad idea.

I contrast that with being 100% invested in index funds at all times, forever. That might backtest well, but that doesn't mean it will forward test at all well.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#72

Post by SamReidHughes »

vacri wrote: post #14
alistproducer2 wrote: post #5

For context, the survey covers 2015-16. The gains are from the last administration.

The first year of someone's term is very rarely affected by their policies. My particular pet hate is when politicians start bragging about how their policies are responsible for good economic news when they're still in the first three months. Truth is that economies change slowly, and politicians have much less control over it than we all like to believe.

The stock market is a prediction of future returns, so it is in fact a signal of what people think about the what the new politician's effect on certain companies' income.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#73

Post by SapphireSun »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #68
nostrademons wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a false dichotomy between you and the grandparent post. Most people have multiple fields they could potentially be interested in, with a wide range of incomes. And conversely, there are multiple fields that generate high incomes, with a wide range of appeal to you. In my view, you should take income as a signal, one piece of information. It's the market telling you which fields are valued by others and yet ha…

I think you have a very privileged view of what work is like. Most people will not have a career, they'll have a series of jobs. Most people do not have a broad range of opportunities to choose from which will offer them economic security. Enjoyment of the work is a factor, but it's so far behind economic security that I'm not sure it should be mentioned in conversations with young people when giving them advice abou…

I place the burden of bare economic security on society rather than the individual. It's really reactionary to say that someone that aspires to a healthy lifestyle is asking for too much. In this incredibly wealthy country, we can afford that. Many would argue, myself included, that the failure of aspirational thinking is producing the current crisis.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#74

Post by refurb »

empath75 wrote: post #46
baron816 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to time the market is a well known suboptimal strategy. Just leave your money and try not to worry about it.

Unless you’re retiring in the next five years or something like that.

If you're retiring in the next five years your exposure to equities should be lower regardless of what the market looks like.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#75

Post by refurb »

virmundi wrote: post #63
empath75 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you’re retiring in the next five years or something like that.

Do you think market will return to this level with your current basket of equities? There is an argument that the market has too much liquidity due to QE and low rates within the fractional reserve system. If the market crashes, will the monetary policy be there to get the market to these highs within 5-10 years? Also, if you think the market is going down, one doesn’t need perfect timing. You can get out and have ca…

This is true, but nailing that timing is really hard. I can't remember the exact numbers but if you missed the 10 best days for the market in the last 40 years, you missed out on 70% of the gains.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#76

Post by refurb »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #38
McBlorker wrote: post #4

I'm curious: is anyone at a point where they're pulling out of equities at all? I feel like things are getting a bit too good to be true in the markets. The Shiller P/E ratio is at a 2nd-time high - the only other higher time being the dot-com boom and bust: multpl.com/shiller-pe/

I'm not, but then again, the vast majority of my wealth at retirement is in paychecks I haven't earned yet. Even at 100% equity, I'd be happy to see a market correction. Like, people who started investing in stocks in 2009 are doing really well.

This is the key! Even when the economy was going into the crapper in 2008, I left my money in (just rebalancing annually). I lost 30% of my money at the bottom.

However, in the last decade or so, I made it all back plus another 60%. If I had pulled out I'm pretty sure I would have missed a lot of those gains.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#77

Post by forapurpose »

electrograv wrote: post #9

How is "all time high" income surprising, given that inflation essentially guarantees perpetually increasing dollar amounts of everything?

> How is "all time high" income surprising, given that inflation essentially guarantees perpetually increasing dollar amounts of everything?

Even when measuring real dollars, it's not a surprise. The great majority of the time, the aggregate national income, measured by GDP, grows in the U.S. and in any other advanced economy.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

In the last 30 years, I count 11 quarters out of 120 when the GDP shrank.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#78

Post by Consultant32452 »

SapphireSun wrote: post #73
Consultant32452 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have a very privileged view of what work is like. Most people will not have a career, they'll have a series of jobs. Most people do not have a broad range of opportunities to choose from which will offer them economic security. Enjoyment of the work is a factor, but it's so far behind economic security that I'm not sure it should be mentioned in conversations with young people when giving them advice abou…

I place the burden of bare economic security on society rather than the individual. It's really reactionary to say that someone that aspires to a healthy lifestyle is asking for too much. In this incredibly wealthy country, we can afford that. Many would argue, myself included, that the failure of aspirational thinking is producing the current crisis.

>I place the burden of bare economic security on society rather than the individual.

Perhaps I'm not parsing this properly, but it sounds like you're suggesting we should advise children on how to navigate the fantasy society you want to live in rather than giving them sober advice based on objective reality.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#79

Post by linkregister »

lotharbot wrote: post #59
alexasmyths wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" which means things like CPI are taken in to account." Yes - but we should all be weary of this. CPI is measured in funky ways, and it's tough one. Problems with measures: + Both housing and Oil prices are usually left out of the numbers they use (included in others). There are reasons for doing this, but it's bazonkers crazy to think of 'consumer prices' as not including their #1 item (housing) and a huge variable…

"core" CPI includes housing. This is funky for another reason: people don't live in similar housing to what people lived in in the past. If you look at census data (American Housing Survey) from 40-50 years ago, you find the average American home was under 1500 square feet, 2-3 bedrooms, 1-2 bathrooms, no AC, no laundry machines, and so on. In fact, the average American home in the 1970s was smaller and had less amen…

Are larger houses materially improving anyone’s lives? Over a certain amount of space, increases experience diminishing returns.

Meanwhile, the important things, such as percentage of income directed toward expenses and debt payment, and amount of leisure, may not have improved.

More households are composed of both prime-age adults working than 30 years ago. Are expenses simply rising to match this rate of increased employment?

Either way, it’s sketchy until those factors are quantified.

Re: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

#80

Post by SapphireSun »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #78
SapphireSun wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I place the burden of bare economic security on society rather than the individual. It's really reactionary to say that someone that aspires to a healthy lifestyle is asking for too much. In this incredibly wealthy country, we can afford that. Many would argue, myself included, that the failure of aspirational thinking is producing the current crisis.

>I place the burden of bare economic security on society rather than the individual. Perhaps I'm not parsing this properly, but it sounds like you're suggesting we should advise children on how to navigate the fantasy society you want to live in rather than giving them sober advice based on objective reality.

I don't think it's either or. We should give sober advice while acknowledging that a better future is possible. One without the other alternatively doesn't keep the door to that better future open or isn't practical.
Post reply on HN