Is $800 a year a lot? Invested for 30 years with a 8% return it will be $100k or maybe $300/month in safe withdrawals. Im not trying to beg a question here... Really is that a lot of money? $300 isn't enough to live on but it's maybe a quarter of the poverty line? I guess that would be significant when added to social security.
Is that per capital lottery spend just total sales divided by population? The more interesting statistic would be average spend by people who buy at least a ticket a month. I'm sure the $761/month is brought down by people who buy 0-5 tickets a year.
We are not back in a yo-yo compared to the 19th century. We are two recessions apart from the longest period of continued growth in US history (1990's). Then there was a recession in 2001, and then another in 2008-2009.5.
You should check out the Wikipedia article for "list of recessions in the United States." It spells out recession duration and time since previous recession.
My personal pet peeves with HN is that there is a vocal minority that is completely dismissive of the entire field of economics. Obviously, the field has pluses and minuses, but it's nuts there are people that completely think the whole field is useless or harmful. Economics didn't become a major academic field studied in every college in the country (world even?) by being a bunk science.
Actually, Keyenes correctly predicted some of the main reasons WWII happened. If more world leaders had listened to him, then we probably could have prevented world war 2.
He predicted that after WWI that the reparations required of Germany would be too burdensome on their economy which would in turn lead to another war.
Does this work for your entire career or does it only work until you hit some kind of "salary cap" for your local market? I've had a few good raises in a short period of time, but I'm scared I can realistically only get one or two more in before I reach the top of the market.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think this highly depends on the state you are in. From my googling, judges in my Midwestern state are very reluctant to strike down any kind of contract made between two adults.
I agree with everything you just said, but its also an average across age groups. It would not surprise me to see many 40year old workers getting 1% yearly raises for the rest of their career. What would surprise me is if there are a significant number of 25 year olds only making 1% raises until they are 35. Most industries will pay a premium for an individual with ten years of experience over someone with no experience (a recent graduate).
Those wage growth numbers discussed are an average. It would be very strange to have someone not have any significant raises between year 0 of their career and year 10.
Who are you angry at? My loans will be paid off in less than four years from now (7 total) and possibly as little as two more years (if I can figure out how to not eat out so much...). My college education was a fantastic investment.
Funny, no one has ever asked me whether or not I own a brand new car or own my own house in a job interview. However, every interview has asked me about my college education.
Maybe you are the one who needs to reevaluate their priorities.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. You are making the world out to be a false dichotomy, either you spend $100k or 0 for a college education. One means you are broke and the other means you can buy a fancy car and a house. My point is that it is a spectrum. My schooling cost me $50k. I got a small, liberal arts environment in a cool city with access to a variety of internships. State schools around me did not offer that combination.
A) I enjoyed my schooling and I don't mind paying $500/month in loans for it and B) it didn't cost $100k and C) I find it nuts that you are bragging about the fact you got to buy a car because you didn't have student loans.
I take a lot of pride in my liberal arts education and how it shaped my world view. I would never in a thousand years trade it in for a car and a house... And it cost less too.
It's silly to say that a student should only go to college if they can afford to do it with no loans. I think a large part of the "student loan" problem is that we don't talk about income enough. It is completely reasonable for a comp sci major from a good school to graduate with $75k in loans ($900 payments). That will not be a burden for them. Likewise, a $20k student loan ($300 payments) should be manageable for someone who makes $40k a year. The issue is when the person who only real prospects pay $40k a year and they have $75k in loans.
Betting on Zero is a great documentary. If you want a competing view point, you should read the blog posts by John Hempton, an Australian hedge fund manager.
I think it is important to work for as many different companies as you can during your twenties so you can figure out what is important to you. Then spend your thirties trying to find your way back to your favorite environment so that you can spend your forties in it.
You want utility companies to be a regulated monopoly because of their economies of scale. Consumers would be worse off with two small electric companies because their per unit of electrical price would be higher. Competition can't price away the fixed costs of building a power plant or stringing electrical wires all over town. However the monopoly has pricing power and needs the government regulation to prevent it from unfairly raising prices for consumers like they would to maximize profit without the regulation.
Natural monopolies are bad because they can use their market position to unfairly prevent new entrants to the market. For example, Amazon may buy all of a key supplier's product and prevent the upstart from even having a chance because they can't buy any of that product. The monopoly can raise prices to whatever level they want, despite what the market would dictate because the consumer doesn't have another alternative.
I think you have formed a bit of a strawman argument here. Monopolies are never good for markets, pretty much but definition. Regulated monopolies, such as utility companies, are sometimes good for consumers though.
I don't exactly know what you mean by irrational actors are good for overcoming a market crisis, but I'd probably say that the market isn't functioning in a crisis and that irrational actors might put it back in a normal state, irrational actors are not good for functioning markets.
Is that per capital lottery spend just total sales divided by population? The more interesting statistic would be average spend by people who buy at least a ticket a month. I'm sure the $761/month is brought down by people who buy 0-5 tickets a year.