At LT1 (via lactate measurements) at peak 100k fitness with elite economy (n=1) ratios were roughly 23% fat, 77% carb. FATMAX was near 28% at slower speed. This is via training using the now-standard (at elite levels), high-carb approach for fueling ultra marathons.
So many factors--including gut training and fueling--play into this. Most aren't even aware of the details, and the "we don't need no carbs for performance" folks still generally bury their heads in the sand. For performance, we're seeing huge skews to carb-based energy for endurance that were considered "wild" just 5 years ago.
"The Census Bureau measure overstates current income inequality between the highest and lowest 20% of earners by more than 300% and claims that income inequality has risen by 21% since 1967, when in fact it has fallen by 3% ... In 2017, among working-age households, the bottom 20% earned only $6,941 on average, and only 36% were employed. But after transfer payments and taxes, those households had an average income of $48,806. The average working-age household in the second quintile earned $31,811 and 85% of them were employed. But after transfers and taxes, they had income of $50,492, a mere 3.5% more than the bottom quintile."
> I can't see any realistic way that the ergonomics would be better than your haphazard hotel room setup
Looking down onto your lap sucks over time. Resting your head (pillow or other head support) while wearing AVP vs. holding it up is the key to using AVP for better ergonomics compared to using just the laptop.
1) The worst interview I ever had (BY FAR) was at Google--disrespectful people, no respect for time, I could go on and on. And I went back to try again to get that money showered on me. Worth it in the long run.
2) Their new system for "performance management" is a hoax. Just like at all other places, it "documents" what you should do so they can fire you more easily with unspoken rules and all sorts of arbitrary causes as well. A friend literally hit EVERY pre-agreed target and still got pushed out for "not delivering".
> when you have enough money to not worry. Unfortunately for most people ... paycheck to paycheck
This is some truth to this argument, but the frequency with which it's brought out as an excuse to just dismiss any argument one doesn't like is too high in North America.
Simply bashing every argument with, "but some people are in a bad situation" doesn't really further discussion all that much.
In about 1930, Keynes wrote "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" [1] wherein he wrote:
"I believe that this is a wildly mistaken interpretation of what is happening to us.
We are suffering, not from the rheumatics of old age, but from the
growing-pains of over-rapid changes, from the painfulness of readjustment
between one economic period and another. The increase of technical efficiency
has been taking place faster than we can deal with the problem of labour
absorption; the improvement in the standard of life has been a little too quick ...
We are being afflicted with a new disease of which some readers may not yet have heard the name, but of which they will hear a great deal in the years to come--namely, technological unemployment. This means unemployment due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour."
While there's no guarantee that what Smith got wrong then is the same as now, it can be a reasonable outcome that "the jobs" won't just disappear.
----
Keynes also speculated on what to do with newfound time as a result of investment returns on the back of productivity [1]:
"Let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that a hundred years hence we are all
of us, on the average, eight times better off in the economic sense than we are to-day. Assuredly there need be nothing here to surprise us ... Thus for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem-how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well."
The modern FIRE movement shows that living at a dated "standard of living" for 10-15 years can free one from work forever. Yet that's not what most people do today. I would suggest that there are deeper aspects of human drive, psychology, and varying concepts of "morality" that are actually bigger factors in what happens to "jobs".
> It is true that working for free is bonkers. Priority number 1 is always rent, at minimum cover that so that business is priority 1.
You can work "for free" if investments cover all your basics ... so only bonkers under the assumption that you haven't taken care of your basics already.
Of course, a bad market makes it longer, but the converse is also true: it's more likely a good market makes it shorter! (historically markets go up more than down, of course)
Add a spouse that also saves and invests, and you can have MORE than $45,000/yr of expenses covered within 7 years of earning at that rate. You can also back off to part time or have one spouse continue working after having kids, and all you need to do is cover SOME (not even all!) of your expenses.
> I want to do that? - living at that spending level is likely to affect my long-term health and happiness
The freedom of not dealing with "the cult of impact" [1] and other such silly things is amazing. Having a huge pile of money allows solid peace of mind in a way most people can't even conceive.
And finding out how much happiness you can get independently of spending money is truly eye-opening. Most people are too scared to even TRY finding fulfillment away from what society tells us is "fun".
> But that actually creates a deferred tax obligation. Let’s say the tax rate you pay that at is 20% (very optimistic
There are also ways to get at this money with almost no taxes paid later IF you are not working--look for "Roth IRA conversion ladder".
Also look into "Mega Backdoor Roth" for more tax sheltering.
> That seems challenging in Northern California
You don't have to retire to California. Just pay minimal costs while you're there. Many places in US are beautiful, have great infrastructure and health care, and don't cost as much.
And investment growth is a LOT; don't ignore it. And after just a few years of not working, unless you have a bad start you can probably live off of much more than the initial safe withdrawal rate.
This is very easy, actually. You just happen to like fancy things and houses, probably.
> Now if you’re dual cogs with no kids, maybe. If you do have kids, you’re not retiring until long after ten years.
I find it depressing that so many people use kids as an excuse to avoid facing their own problems with money and spending. Look deeper and you can find happiness with a lot less.
> You also can’t withdraw at as high a “safe rate” as people planning for an ordinary retirement at ~65 do
Solvable, including consideration of valuations via CAPE PE 10. Based on past data, the safe withdrawal rate (SWR) happens to be around 3.25-3.5% of assets to extend to a 60-year time horizon [1]
> at constant 2% inflation (ha!) you need a very safe source of consistent (not average!) 6% returns to retire with 80,000/yr income on $2m, without eating into principal.
For most of this research, "failure" constitutes running out of money. Preserving the initial portfolio value in inflation-adjusted terms can also be solved for. It takes the SWR closer to 2.8-3% for 60-year horizon with high equity valuation corrections.
> You’ll be exposed to tens of thousands in risk per year on top of (low) tens of thousands in premiums per year for a family Exchange plan.
Better to cap expenses and be ready to pay for it than live in fear. Save, invest, and move on with life.
> $2m isn’t “retire at 35” (… or 45) money. It might be “take a big gamble and maybe get lucky… for a while” money. Or semi-retire money.
Depends on how much money you need to spend every year to be happy. Sounds like you need a lot of it. For many, $2m would be fine, even with a very long time horizon. And if any problems crop up, there would be a 15-20 year warning during which a small income boost could top things up.
At LT1 (via lactate measurements) at peak 100k fitness with elite economy (n=1) ratios were roughly 23% fat, 77% carb. FATMAX was near 28% at slower speed. This is via training using the now-standard (at elite levels), high-carb approach for fueling ultra marathons.
So many factors--including gut training and fueling--play into this. Most aren't even aware of the details, and the "we don't need no carbs for performance" folks still generally bury their heads in the sand. For performance, we're seeing huge skews to carb-based energy for endurance that were considered "wild" just 5 years ago.