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

I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

thecut.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 187 posts

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#151

Post by isostatic »

jorvi wrote: post #125
isostatic wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typical health care costs in developed countries is on the $3k-$5k per person per year range [0] (The U.S. is nearly $10k a year) However, on average the U.S. government (thus taxpayer) funds half of the health care costs, meaning that the private sector has to fund about $5k per person per year. That would suggest the SAG employer is paying $3500 a year and the SAG employee $1500 a year. [0] https://data.oecd.org/he…

Here in The Netherlands we pay ~€90~€120 premium to insurers. The €90 package only gives you access to select hospitals per region for non-emergency care, and you aren’t covered for ‘extras’ like physiotherapy. The €120 package is pretty much the ‘all-in’ package. On top of that you have a ~€380 deductible. Everything except medicine costs goes from this deductible first. If you really trust your health (or have the…

It's fairly irellevent who pays, everyone ends up paying in the end.

The Netherlands spends $5385 per year per person on healthcare, 80% of that is spent by the government.

The UK spends $4192 per year, again 80% is by the government. The UK has trickier cost areas to handle too (healthcare in Scottish islands is far more per person than in Rotterdam)

Measuring the objective quality of a health care system is almost impossible (it varies dramatically on your subjective priorities), let alone measuring value per dollar, but I don't think I've ever seen one that claims the Netherlands is better than Scanadavian ones.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#152

Post by rock_hard »

gonvaled wrote: post #122
rock_hard wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some people just decided to don’t give a shit about GDPR...hard to blame them. They law (while well intended) is totally out of proportion and puts the internet in danger. It’s insanly stupid and backwards...just like the new copyright laws the EU is working on. Europeans are shooting themselves right back into the dark ages...and I probably wouldn’t care if they weren’t ruining it for everyone else too. And be…

Maybe europeans are ruining it because (insert here giant US Corp) has been stealing tax revenue, and because the US gov is spying on europeans.

Your definition of stealing is a weird one. As far as I know (insert here giant US Corp) has always followed local tax laws.

I think Europeans are just being bitches about the fact that they haven’t been able to replicate Silcon Valleys success (with noteable exceptions such as Spotify, Zendesk and others which ultimately also moved their HQs to the US though).

Yes, the US spies on Europeans and everybody else, just as Europeans and the rest of the world spy on the US. It’s what nation states do...they spy on each other. You and I might not like it but it’s whats it is...no need to single out the US.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#153

Post by beat »

beat wrote: post #126
carlmr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of things I always wonder about. Libertarians and other free-market enthusiasts should actually be for collective bargaining and unions. Because in an actual free market it's legal to form unions, just like it's legal to form a corporation. Collective bargaining is a feature of a free market. If you don't like the idea of unions and collective bargaining, you don't like free markets.

Agreeing with this and referencing Peter Thiel, which I do a lot. In Zero to One , Thiel argues that the pure, ideal free markets that politicians and economists dream of drive profits to zero. Think about the math - it's obvious. You see this in high competition markets for effectively identical products, like groceries or gas stations. Razor-thin margins. The only way to profit is via some sort of localized monopol…

Dug up a relevant quote, just for kicks...

"Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines. Actually, capitalism and competition are opposites. Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition all profits get competed away. If you want to create and capture lasting value, don't build an undifferentiated commodity business."

- Peter Theil, Zero to One

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#154

Post by FireBeyond »

ahartman00 wrote: post #128
wastedhours wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only the US, but in a lot of places. A large number of these people will have been outside of the "real world" for a good proportion of their adult (and often, child) lives. Without comprehensive financial education early in schools, and with careers in industries detached from a lot of financial pressure, surrounded by hanger-ons and perceptions of lifestyle. I actually have a lot of empathy for these groups who…

"people will have been outside of the "real world"" This. I met a woman who was a nurse practitioner or something like that. She had a young boy and girl. Her plan was for them to be a pro football player and actress. So she would take them out of school to go to football or acting camp. She actively discouraged them from focusing on school. If these kids are successful, they will be lacking basic skills we take for…

> Her plan was for them to be a pro football player

The NBA has been trying to do a better job about educating people on the reality of professional sports.

A lot (the vast majority) of people overestimate children / youth skill, especially parents.

The NBA has been big on trying to encourage players even beginning to start college ball as taking college seriously, and by more than just empty words. Saying things like "There are 350+ NCAA basketball teams, each with a roster of up to 13 players. There are two draft rounds, 60 players. Even adjusting for four years of college players, there is less than a 3% chance you will be drafted to the NBA, even if you play college ball".

There is even at high levels, a huge disparity of quality and talent.

When I grew up in Australia, before refereeing basketball at a very high level, I was involved in cricket. I remember a promo event, where two international cricketers from India visited a local club.

They faced off against the kids, and just hit balls around the field gently for them to run and get.

Then they faced off against the state team.

Every single ball was hit out of the park, without a hint of exaggeration. Some with a bounce or two, but every single one hit the fence. Fast, slow, good, bad, it didn't matter. It was just effortless. I think that did a lot to dawn on people who thought "My kid/adult son is playing at the state level, he could be like these guys one day". Maybe. But most likely not.

So I do like that there is some (though not enough) effort at saying "Hey, you need a fallback, because you almost certainly will need it". Even earlier than college, if needed.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#155

Post by npsimons »

holman wrote: post #17

If any of this is at all interesting to you, I'd recommend checking out the very excellent ESPN documentary "Broke": http://www.espn.com/30for30/film?page=broke ESPN's 30 for 30 docs are really great, even if you're not particularly huge into sports. Broke is one of my favorites (after a "The Two Escobars"). It goes into a lot of detail about how ill-prepared many professional athletes are for the lifestyle, how they…

> "whatever, they're all soft, tattooed millionaires anyway"

Despite my disdain for spectator sports "soft" is never a word I would use for their athletes. If anything, I would expect those who have had to work so hard and stay disciplined would be able to roll that discipline over into fiscal responsibility.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#156

Post by dalbasal »

hyperpape wrote: post #124

I can't find the story, but several years ago, an NBA player bought a bunch of fast food franchises, and there was collective head-scratching about why he'd do that. Matthew Yglesias pointed out that it was brilliant: the value of the franchises was that they were illiquid, so that he had a backstop against overspending or family members asking for money. About that last point: for those of us who come from middle cl…

On that last point... an analogy When the microfinance exuberance started dying back about 5 years ago, I heard the following interpretation of micro-credit:

Poor rural people need credit because they can't save. They can't save because they owe their neighbours a moral debt.

Jennifer really needs $50 to pay her kid's dentist bill. She looked after your grandmother, when she was sick and you were away. You owe her (and love her, you're friends).

If you have $50 saved, you will get requests that cannot be refused. Everyone is broke and everyone owes eachother favours. Debt is the only way of getting a lump sum. The critic concluded that saving with a (big) negative interest rate is a bitter pill, but better than nothing.

Fast food franchises sound like a great idea, if they aren't too failure prone. You lock up illiquid assets. You can give family members jobs, if necessary/appropriate. The bad idea side effects of this is that businesses can potentially lose money as well as value.

The spanner in any such system will always be debt. You can lock up all your assets but if you have assets to your name, you can get credit and spend those assets regardless.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#157

Post by knuththetruth »

dizzystar wrote: post #146
knuththetruth wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. All tech workers could have similar benefits if they unionized en masse using a structure similar to that of actors.

Getting into and maintaining SAG membership is very time consuming and expensive. You could work in the industry for years and never get in. Others get lucky and get in within a few months. A lot of people are SAG Eligible but can't afford the initial fees to get in. It's not like a standard union where you show up to work every day for months and you are in. Non-union basically do the exact same thing as union folk,…

Well, the good thing about unions, is they're democratically organized. So, tech workers should look at what works in SAG (performance based pay w/reasonable floors, great benefits), emulate that, and set aside the problems/barriers you describe.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#158

Post by beat »

hyperpape wrote: post #124

I can't find the story, but several years ago, an NBA player bought a bunch of fast food franchises, and there was collective head-scratching about why he'd do that. Matthew Yglesias pointed out that it was brilliant: the value of the franchises was that they were illiquid, so that he had a backstop against overspending or family members asking for money. About that last point: for those of us who come from middle cl…

That reminds me of the basic investing advice by a friend of mine who is a $100M fund manager. He says there are three factors to any investment - risk, returns, and liquidity. Fix one of these three. If you want low risk, you must sacrifice either high returns, or high liquidity. So most good investments (relatively low risk and high returns) have poor liquidity - it can be slow and difficult to convert the invested capital back into cash. Buying fast food franchises is a good example. They're reliable cash cows, but hard to sell.

The ultimate returns come from low liquidity and high risk. That's the world of venture capital. Without the possibility of 100x returns, it's absolutely stupid to invest in new businesses with little likelihood of survival. Money tied up in preferred stock is effectively illiquid and can be completely lost (hence the term "liquidity event"). And that can and should take years.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#159

Post by beat »

edanm wrote: post #86
carlmr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of things I always wonder about. Libertarians and other free-market enthusiasts should actually be for collective bargaining and unions. Because in an actual free market it's legal to form unions, just like it's legal to form a corporation. Collective bargaining is a feature of a free market. If you don't like the idea of unions and collective bargaining, you don't like free markets.

> Libertarians and other free-market enthusiasts should actually be for collective bargaining and unions. This depends on what you mean by "be for collective bargaining". As in most things, the details matter, and the slogan "be for unions" is almost meaningless. In the sense that people should be able to form and/or join unions etc, then absolutely, I think most libertarians would be totally for it. But often when p…

Thanks for pointing out the bargaining power asymmetry problem. Asymmetries in power are fundamental to how markets work, but when most people say "free market", they mean some imaginary world where buyer and seller have exactly the same power.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#160

Post by foobaw »

hyperpape wrote: post #124

I can't find the story, but several years ago, an NBA player bought a bunch of fast food franchises, and there was collective head-scratching about why he'd do that. Matthew Yglesias pointed out that it was brilliant: the value of the franchises was that they were illiquid, so that he had a backstop against overspending or family members asking for money. About that last point: for those of us who come from middle cl…

I know Shaq also has a bunch of Five Guys'. Not sure if it's the same reason.
Post reply on HN