521–530 of 573 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why is that?
Different states have different levels of economic development. Since all states share a common currency, it isn't possible for states like Mississippi to devalue their currency in order to be competitive with California. Large fiscal transfers between states are necessary to keep things balanced out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone forgets Chicago. In the US, it's the most important financial center outside of Manhattan and is the third place city in number of Michelin starred restaurants (fewer than SF; Seattle has none). Boeing moved their corporate HQ there from Seattle because of its financial prominence. It has a world class university in U. Chicago and excellent bus/rail transit across the metro area. But the Chicago area is seri…
What's Chicago known for these days? When I think of Seattle, I think of music (grunge was big, and today there's still a lot of it), Amazon, Microsoft, tech stuff, and arts. When I think of SF I think of free-spirits, the 60s, and startups. When I think of New York I think of movies, finance, artists (especially writers), publishing, and fashion. When I think of Chicago, I think of. . . corruption? Commodities marke…
World's biggest food fair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_of_Chicago
If you don't like house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_hip_hop
For the amateur economist :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_%28economics%29
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you completely ignore risk then what you say is true (especially with interest rates so ridiculously low). However, if we're talking about improving lives, I personally find value in eliminating debt (including the mortgage) as quickly as possible because such obligations represent risk. I could apply all these extra mortgage payments to other things (rental property, stock market, etc.), but then I stand a varyin…
I actually think of it the opposite way: if you put money into paying down debt, you know exactly what the return on that capital will be. It's the interest rate on the debt (in pre-tax dollars for mortgages, after-tax for almost every other form of debt). Money is fungible; any money that's not locked up in debt-service is freed up for other purposes, like investing in other assets. I tend to advise people I know to…
For student loans, I agree with you, and I'm putting all my extra money into them while saving the bare minimum for a bit of security if something bad happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in New Zealand and interested in potentially moving to Portland one day. I'm aware that the city has a great reputation for arts and food (which is the appeal for me and my family) and personally prefer living in smaller cities. The regular folk music events, street markets and greenery all seem very appealing! Are there many job opportunities for software developers there however?
Move to Sydney instead. Seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the state with the surplus. The weather in Texas isn't anything to write home about, but in every way that matters it's a more competently run state.
They probably have a surplus because they underfund health care system, among other things... (I remember being surprised at the full-time firefighting budget cuts not long before the huge fires two years ago) EDIT: Oh and apparently there is no surplus http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/us-usa-deficits-st...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can conservatively spend 3% of a lump sum each year and the earnings will keep up with inflation. So if you had $1m in savings, you could spend $30k/year in today's dollars forever (and still have $1m at the end). If you want to spend down the principal, the calculation becomes more complex and you need to use software rather than a rule of thumb.
I thought the typical withdraw rate is 4% to maintain a portfolio indefinitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NYC is a big place and its not all the same. One could, for example, live in Brooklyn, pay a more reasonable rent and be surrounded by interesting people all with access to great food and bars. I suppose you could stretch that a bit further to Queens as well. Manhattan itself is quickly changing into a business district. You go there to work, grab dinner or hit the theater, then leave.
What parts of Brooklyn? Isn't it hard to get to work in midtown if you live in Brooklyn? The "nice" parts of Brooklyn always seem just as expensive as Manhattan when I check.
What you say is true though, the "nice" parts of Brooklyn are as expensive as, if not more expensive than Manhattan. Manhattan's cost of living, relative to NYC in general, is plateauing, while Brooklyn is shooting upwards. Rent on the Upper East Side is downright affordable now, and even not-super-cool neighborhoods like Chelsea have stabilized.
Compare with Park Slope, where the price ceiling is nowhere to be found, or Williamsburg which is definitely more expensive than all but the most desirable areas of Manhattan. Dumbo too.
But, good news is, there are lots of gentrifying-but-not-quite-done-yet neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Bushwick and Prospect Heights come to mind, though I'm sure there are others I'm not remembering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling people crack-heads and shambling zombies is pejorative. You don't casually use words like fag, dyke, tranny, bitch, ho, nigger, Indian (for native / aboriginal), and kyke, right? If you want a name, say "drug-addicted homeless person". We're talking about the most badly abused people in our society and you and the author are simply abusing them more with these words. Surprise, they aren't there to say anythin…
This comment does not belong on HN. It's angry, self-righteous, and unproductive. Comparing people who defecate, urinate, shoot-up, stink, and leave needles on your front porch to other minorities is really offensive. Especially when these people have all the resources in the world to get out of their situation. Often they have better apartments than the people they are begging money from.
That said, you're also completely out to lunch.
> "Especially when these people have all the resources in the world to get out of their situation.
They can? Have you been homeless, or worked with the homeless? What do you think is a sufficient upside to convince someone to be hated by everyone around them, be addicted to all kinds of dangerous chemicals, shit on the streets, and sleep in their own filth?
Do you also realize that the majority of the homeless population suffers from severe mental illnesses - severe enough to make them effectively non-functioning? Do you know the proportion of the homeless population who are veterans suffering from PTSD?
So you have a group of people who are, predominantly, suffering from a wide variety of mental illnesses that prevent them from functioning in life, and they have "all the resources in the world" to get out of it. Right. That's like chaining someone up, giving them a nail file, and asserting that they have all the tools to get out of it.
Hell, even if we institutionalized most of these people the bulk of them won't ever "get out of it". There are two distinct classes of the homeless - the situationally homeless, and the chronically homeless. Most liberal-minded people like to believe that all homeless are capable of being returned to "normal", where in fact a large portion of them will never escape their mental illnesses enough to be functional members of mainstream society, even with the best of help.
> "Often they have better apartments than the people they are begging money from."
Citation needed on this. There are, of course, some people out there scamming a quick buck by taking advantage of the homelessness situation. Did you watch that one NBC expose on that one woman in Queens, NY, and extrapolate this to all homeless?
I considered moving to SF but chose Austin instead. I refuse to live in a state with such a dysfunctional government and ridiculously high taxes. Some of the same reasons I left NY. You can do tech anywhere. You do not need to live in the bay area. If you really like the city pick a place (like Austin) with inexpensive direct flights and go a few times a month. You'll still save money.
But now you're living in TX? Despite Austin being an enclave of politically progressive views, you're still surrounded by well armed pickup truck driving rednecks on their way to the Dairy Queen in 110" heat? Paying the SF "tax" is worth every penny in my opinion.
Yes, people here are (on average) conservative and well-armed, and the most common vehicle is a Ford F150, but I wouldn't describe anyone here as a redneck. They're happy, polite, friendly, community-minded people.
I'm not entirely sure I could say the same thing about San Francisco, where I didn't like living at all. But that's fine, isn't it? Different cultures for different types of people.