wouldn't it be easy to prove insider trading if the trades are registered?
How the hell are we supposed to retire?
- Thread starter rlb
- Start date
wouldn't it be easy to prove insider trading if the trades are registered?
Not a fan of realtors either. They'll say anything to get you to sign. They tell you your house will sell for a super inflated price. Ask them how long it will take for them to sell. Most times they have said 30 days (because that's what I want to hear I suppose). But when it's time to sign the contract it's valid for 6+ mos...because the asking price was inflated.... NOPE
Last edited:
One more quick story. Friend of ours wants to buy a particular house in our area. Makes an offer, it's accepted. Price is covid inflated. Just ridiculous. Fearing the appraiser/underwriter disagrees on home value, the sellers realtor attempts to have my friend sign a notarized addendum to pay CASH to make up the difference. Crazy
A Potted Plant
Honorary Sod
Worse than Fucking worthless
Fire Lord Jim
Well-Known Member
Average is a useless figure. Outliers ruin the number. We need median. And we are not average. Net worth by age
w_b
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Bean Counting Today says something like 50% of the US population has 98% of the net worth. Sucks to be the other 50%; relatively, aye.
thegock
Well-Known Member
Somewhere, I had recommended this linked article for @Carson , but I can't find the post:
Cables R 4 peasants
This Atlantic article that summarizes Pen's treatise, "Income Distribution" is worth reading to the end, cuz it elaborates on Pen's article w/r/t to the US and how things had change over the 35 years up to its publication in 2006. Besides the skewedness of income, it also cites greater inequality in the US that has increased. Wealth is a different matter, doe similar.
But, ya know, who understands those economists?
Cables R 4 peasants
This Atlantic article that summarizes Pen's treatise, "Income Distribution" is worth reading to the end, cuz it elaborates on Pen's article w/r/t to the US and how things had change over the 35 years up to its publication in 2006. Besides the skewedness of income, it also cites greater inequality in the US that has increased. Wealth is a different matter, doe similar.
But, ya know, who understands those economists?
Last edited:
THATmanMANNY
Well-Known Member
That’s very eye opening. Not sure how one in retirement timeframe can live on with a net worth of $200k’s 😕 (based on the median)
Fire Lord Jim
Well-Known Member
The economist in me cringes at the term "income distribution" as though there is a force unfairly delivering results. Distribution here is a mathmatical term describing data attributes. It is not fair, nor unfair, instead points that are part of mean, median, mode. But to the non-trained (well, trained to be entertained) there is something wrong with income distributions where each data point is not also the mode. The article spends a lot of time trying to get Atlantic readers to even understand what a graph looks like. It concludes with surprise that we have unequal outcomes. But isn't that the goal?
We start playing the Monopoly® game with equality. We each have two $500s, we each get $200 each time we pass go. Through choices and luck, we all end up broke except one person who gets everything. And we all try to be that one person. Imagine playing the game where we all start with differing amounts, but now as we round the board, we move to equality, and in the end, we are all equal. What incentive does any player have to make good choices? The outcomes will be unrelated to their choices.
What incentives are their for someone to invent a phone that fits in my pocket, to have trucks come up my driveway to deliver things I ordered yesterday, or to get so good at a sport that people will pay to watch? Our lives are made better by above average people.
Focusing on the distribution takes our attention away from the incentives. We need more people to strive for being above average. It would move the average up.
We start playing the Monopoly® game with equality. We each have two $500s, we each get $200 each time we pass go. Through choices and luck, we all end up broke except one person who gets everything. And we all try to be that one person. Imagine playing the game where we all start with differing amounts, but now as we round the board, we move to equality, and in the end, we are all equal. What incentive does any player have to make good choices? The outcomes will be unrelated to their choices.
What incentives are their for someone to invent a phone that fits in my pocket, to have trucks come up my driveway to deliver things I ordered yesterday, or to get so good at a sport that people will pay to watch? Our lives are made better by above average people.
Focusing on the distribution takes our attention away from the incentives. We need more people to strive for being above average. It would move the average up.
Fire Lord Jim
Well-Known Member
Most people will not do well in retirement. They have not saved enough.
But that net worth does not consider what triggers in retirement: If you have two spouses who worked, that is a lot of Social Security income each month. Medicare kicks in. If you retire with no debt, no money goes out for debt service If you sell your NJ home and buy in East Armpit, Mississippi that frees up some capital. And keep driving that 1977 Buick because there is no room for car payments.
rick81721
Lothar
Captain Brainstorm
Well-Known Member
The new message to our children. Study just enough, work just enough, aspire to be mediocre. Whatever you do, don't try to win, be first, or better, because that's not fair.
A Potted Plant
Honorary Sod
There is a place to use average, to provide a better picture than actual. Plus the outliers are on only one side of the spectrum.
A Potted Plant
Honorary Sod
Better then the if you go to college and take of a quarter mil of debt you're going to be successful.
Now it's go to county and get through a 4 year as cheap as possible. Or be a SoundCloud rapper
A Potted Plant
Honorary Sod
Like it's a choice for most people, when I was working at best buy in the early 2010s the amount of CS and engineering grads were far more than those without degrees and when I left they were now displaced with law degrees. Also the job placement figures of post graduates were a damn scam, if you were full time you were considered fully employed regardless of your degree.
I would consider myself lucky, if I get to retire it will be in my 50s, but if I don't I'm going to die working. I am only swinging for the fences or striking out. What's the point of saving for retirement if you do it at 72 with a life expectancy of 69.
mfennell
Well-Known Member
I know your just kidding but the life expectancy in the US is actually 77, down from 78.8 pre-COVID (lots of dead old people). If you make it to 65, your life expectancy is 85 or so.
THATmanMANNY
Well-Known Member
I know and get all that but who the hell wants to move to the armpits of america to die out and most likely be away from all family that can help you.
THATmanMANNY
Well-Known Member
I've already told my 7 year old she is going to community college.
It's insane what HS has come down to. I applied to 3 colleges. It seems the norm to apply to 8 now! (from what I hear)
I don't know if I will be employed here for another 10 years but Columbia U is free IF she gets in!
Last edited:
thegock
Well-Known Member
The key to the Pen treatise and the Atlantic article was the DEGREE of skewed distribution. Dr Michael Taussig (MIT), who was also head of the Economics Department at Rutgers College, made that point quite clearly for idiots like me.
One of my best friends said it well: "We are each the product of our cumulative decisions.". Of course, I also have met many people who were born on third base and just HAVE to tell you how they hit a triple.
However, it's quite a bit easier to earn more in the US than North Korea, for example. Also, if you are born to a wealthy family, your probability of earning more than average is much higher. He accepted these qualifications from me
I concur.
Last edited:
