231–240 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyone making over $60k per year could [...] save 20% of their income without dropping below the median household income of $50k. 20% of 60k is 12k, 60k - 12k = 48k. So no, the claim isn't true for the most trivial of reasons.
Nitpicking, 48k is close enough for the point to still be valid. You are technically correct though.
Mathematics is the one discipline where "close enough" isn't close enough. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> economic efficacy of social programs probably varies wildly, especially when we're talking about government social programs. As opposed to literally everyone having to figure this out on their own? Say what you will about government programs, they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.
> Say what you will about government programs, they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors. What I'll say is that I think this is a ludicrous assumption to make, for the same reason that it would be ludicrous to assume that government food distribution or automobile production would be more consistent than pushing the problem out to millions of indivi…
You should read for comprehension next time: I'm not saying anything about efficiency, merely that consistency is an odd angle to pick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> economic efficacy of social programs probably varies wildly, especially when we're talking about government social programs. As opposed to literally everyone having to figure this out on their own? Say what you will about government programs, they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors.
>they're going to be more consistent than what you get pushing the problem out to millions of individual actors. There are data that suggest otherwise: Walmart, not FEMA was the best at doling out aid during Katrina; on the other side of the political spectrum, the same could be arguably be said for OWS during Sandy. On the other hand, if you're going to argue that the government is consistently bad at doling out aid…
This isn't what I was saying at all: I was merely saying that consistency is the wrong angle to complain about. Efficiency is a separate discussion but the one thing a large government program will be is consistent – for better or worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
41% of working age Americans are jobless. The official unemployment calculation is a joke.
there would be civil war if this were remotely true. ever think about those "facts" for a second?
As some one who takes great meticulous care in planning and investing regularly, both for the long term and super long term(retirement savings), I can pitch in and offer some advice here. First advice I would give is, totally avoid using credit cards. It might sound impractical, but I've found some workarounds for it. Which is to use my debit card as a credit card. Go frugal for a few days and save some money in the…
My friend... That sounds like some really BAD advice. Gold (even Warren Buffet warns against), Real-Estate (which is extremely risky, limits your job and movement flexibility), No Credit Cards (so you plan on having no credit history?), I don't even know where to begin. That's some terrible advice.
I consider it to be a huge oversight that they left off building an emergency fund. Before buying a house, buying individual securities, or maxing any retirement contributions, you need enough liquidity in your investments to get you through an illness or layoff that leaves you without income for a year. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent peers of mine will be paying extra on mortgages, student loans, and retirem…
Wouldn't save 20% of your income cover that? It's just a management detail after that (i.e. leave some of that 20% liquid for emergencies).
However, unless you have especially nasty rates on student loans, paying them off shouldn't come before accumulating some fairly liquid savings. The same probably goes for paying extra on the principal on your mortgage and maxing out retirement plans.
I consider it to be a huge oversight that they left off building an emergency fund. Before buying a house, buying individual securities, or maxing any retirement contributions, you need enough liquidity in your investments to get you through an illness or layoff that leaves you without income for a year. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent peers of mine will be paying extra on mortgages, student loans, and retirem…
That sounds wrong. An unexpected year-long unemployment isn't unheard of, but for an already-employed investing professional (i.e. not a recent entrant/re-entrant to the employment market who wouldn't be able to take this advice anyway) it's really quite rare. Certainly it's not true that most people "need" to do that, as it won't happen to them. This sounds like the kind of failure mode better addressed by solutions…
Also keep in mind that it's huge to have 6 months of expenses easily available while evaluating job offers. You're much more likely to settle when you have to worry about paying your mortgage next month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No. Poor people cut out non-essentials, be more efficient, and save money. If you have surplus income after paying for essentials, you aren't poor.
Then you'd be amazed at what the government defines as "poor" now. Using data from the Census Bureau, the Department of Energy, and many other federal agencies, see this detailed report (tons of charts, numbers, and links to sources). http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov... You may be surprised to see "poor" households usually include: * the usual money-saving appliances (fridge, stove, microw…
What the government defines as "poor" is irrelevant to the substance of the criticism being raised here. Words have different meanings in different contexts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have insurance for that. Why isn't that suggested then? No, someone thought they'd be cute and throw a political jab in there.
That is a form of social insurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> would include never having a mortgage, which would be a huge lost opportunity for many A lost opportunity? If you can afford a house easily buy one, if you cannot afford it a mortage is anything but a huge opportunity. http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/03/why-i-am-never-going-to... http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/05/why-i-would-rather-shoo...
This advice seems to completely gloss over one key fact: You have to live somewhere . Seriously- if you didn't, buying a house would be a terrible investment! But you do, so the cost of owning a house needs to be compared to the cost of renting, instead of being discussed as a normal investment.
Emm, the linked articles get into exactly this.