|submitted by EvisGamer to technology [link] [comments]|
|submitted by ham88 to planbshow [link] [comments]|
wow what a commie /sComment removed from /Economics - test822 - Created on 07/18/18 00:06:16 UTC - permalink
Very troubling.... That people are catching onComment removed from /Economics - wtf_is_taken - Created on 07/18/18 00:15:11 UTC - permalink
I'm certain that the Fed's concern is authentic!Comment removed from /Economics - Tranejam - Created on 07/18/18 00:25:51 UTC - permalink
Our area has been a hot market, growing for the last 6-7 years, but it’s slowed down significantly this summer. Last summer, houses had several offers the day they went up for sale, but this summer there’s not much movement. We’re either in a bubble or just reached the max price in my area.Comment removed from /Economics - BiffyMcGillicutty1 - Created on 07/18/18 00:33:54 UTC - permalink
Still, our house “value” (theoretical until someone actually forks over the money) is 43% higher than when we bought it 5 years ago. Can’t say we would fork over that kinda cash if we were just buying now.
I've got a house for ya..Comment removed from /Economics - MrPractical1 - Created on 07/18/18 00:47:44 UTC - permalink
I wonder if that means they’ll renege some of these planned interest hikes? Probably not.Comment removed from /Economics - GortonFishman - Created on 07/18/18 00:48:44 UTC - permalink
I’ll bet he also talks about how poor food service employees are treated as he tips 2%.
Incredible! I look forward to nothing being done about it.Comment removed from /Economics - Yolo420dab - Created on 07/18/18 00:51:59 UTC - permalink
Really? And you are just now realizing this? Oh, that’s right...you are are a card-carrying member of the elite, so your life has been minimally impacted, unlike most of ours.Comment removed from /Economics - smitty637 - Created on 07/18/18 01:11:29 UTC - permalink
The greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history was when there was no central bank. The Fed Reserve is a ponzi scheme.Comment removed from /Economics - s4mu8l - Created on 07/18/18 01:11:59 UTC - permalink
they hurt more than they help. tax policy should take more into account than just the government's budgetComment removed from /Economics - ThereIsReallyNoPun - Created on 07/18/18 01:22:13 UTC - permalink
Were? Latest round has just begun.Comment removed from /Economics - guisar - Created on 07/18/18 01:41:32 UTC - permalink
You're right still today people are on some bad shit.Comment removed from /Economics - SporkydaDork - Created on 07/18/18 01:42:53 UTC - permalink
No my friend, there isn’t. Eventually global wages will reach an equilibrium point. It may take 50 years to happen, but if businesses are shopping for the cheapest combination of labor and production costs, their tendency to minimize costs will force wages lower.Comment removed from /Economics - StormCrow1986 - Created on 07/18/18 01:48:40 UTC - permalink
Compare this to workers seeking better wages with limited mobility (i.e. they may or may not be able to travel for better pay) and you can see pressure to keep wages higher.
The interplay of these two forces will always mean that eventually wages will be similar everywhere.
It'll be real troubling when the guillotines come outComment removed from /Economics - maahhkus - Created on 07/18/18 01:57:34 UTC - permalink
That assumes social factors won't interfere. Inefficiencies in the economic development of some countries will negatively affect wages, wars will change the economic standing of some countries and facilitate migration, someone in a particular country will develop technology that drives their economy, etc. Economies are not static, and there will always be outside forces that prevent an equilibrium from forming naturally. On its own, the ocean would eventually stop making waves: but external forces like the tide or geothermal vents will continue influencing it for the foreseeable future. Same thing with economics.Comment removed from /Economics - lordderpingtonthe3rd - Created on 07/18/18 02:04:19 UTC - permalink
But muh trickle downsComment removed from /Economics - antman152 - Created on 07/18/18 02:09:40 UTC - permalink
Heck, this keeps up and they may have to downgrade to 'Concerning'.Comment removed from /Economics - alanthar - Created on 07/18/18 02:13:34 UTC - permalink
Heck, we may even see, in our lifetime, a drop to Vexing.
Truely, a historic moment in time.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin; Former Chairman of the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors (Bush) & Former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (Republican Congress) said in 2014 that income inequality needed to be addressed at the national level but it wouldn't happen because it had become a partisan political issue - making compromise impossible.Comment removed from /Economics - meauho - Created on 07/18/18 02:13:56 UTC - permalink
In 2014 Alan Greenspan (Former Chairman of Fed Reserve) & Christine Lagarde (Director of the International Monetary Fund) both addressed income inequality at the National Association for Business Economists.
Greenspan called income inequality "the most dangerous trend affecting the US", and Legarde said "rising inequality and economic exclusion can have pernicious effects"
The NABE's own membership have called for government economic policy to address income inequality because several large businesses refused to acknowledge its existence and were spending more money trying to fight it than a solution would cost.
They aren't "just now realizing" it, they just know that it's political suicide to bring it up while Republicans are in charge - even if they are Republicans.
NAFTA had a negligible effect on employment and wages while it improved net economic welfare.Comment removed from /Economics - lalze123 - Created on 07/18/18 02:14:32 UTC - permalink
Today is the 100th anniversary of the logical outcome of extreme income disparity: a small number of people shot and thrown down a mineshaft.Comment removed from /Economics - tomdarch - Created on 07/18/18 02:16:00 UTC - permalink
I'm not saying that's an ethical or good way of responding to this problem, but it's certainly one standard outcome when it's allowed to go on too long and to a great extent.
What is the Federal Reserve saying?Comment removed from /Economics - cyber_rigger - Created on 07/18/18 02:18:06 UTC - permalink
Mercantilism is the only way! /sComment removed from /Economics - mustdashgaming - Created on 07/18/18 02:30:02 UTC - permalink
Wow. Does the federal reserve chair have any thoughts on massively devaluing our currency, bailing out big banks, or fucking with the US economy over and over again with decisions made from unelected officials?Comment removed from /Economics - waffleezz - Created on 07/18/18 02:32:50 UTC - permalink
I live in Iowa - it's a sellers market on the Iowa side of the river. There are a lot of people moving out of Illinois - something about taxes and unfunded government liabilities...Comment removed from /Economics - Sam_Fear - Created on 07/18/18 02:37:50 UTC - permalink
Jerome Powell: Man of the People. I guess they did the math and figured out they've screwed the workers so bad there's nothing left to steal from them.Comment removed from /Economics - wwwwho - Created on 07/18/18 02:44:36 UTC - permalink
Come on the Fed Chair not understanding basic economics isn't news.Comment removed from /Economics - beyond_hate - Created on 07/18/18 02:59:22 UTC - permalink
really nowComment removed from /Economics - DapperMasquerade - Created on 07/18/18 03:01:06 UTC - permalink
i'm shocked, this is new information to me
I hate long-run equilibrium arguments for two reason:Comment removed from /Economics - nerdponx - Created on 07/18/18 03:04:18 UTC - permalink
- Perot makes a good point that I think many people would miss. In 15-20 years, wages would equalize. But in the meantime, you've "wrecked the country" (his words, not mine). If harm is done to the country in that 15-20 year period, it's possible that the short-term harm is actually greater than the long-term gain. This is not NAFTA-specific. It applies to a lot of cases.
- By the time equilibrium would have been reached after one particular adjustment to some part of the system, many other adjustments, shocks, and changes will have occurred. Therefore, unless equilibrium will be reached quickly (my guess is less than 1 year is probably safe) then you run the risk of the equilibrium you planned for never materializing at all, and something else taking its place. The global economy is a big, chaotic, dynamical system. Shit happens outside of the one particular market you happen to be looking at.
I'm sorry. Just trying to maximize efficiency and remove that deadweight loss yknowComment removed from /Economics - WMSTEOOPAAFFWC - Created on 07/18/18 03:22:43 UTC - permalink
Yes, many of us are very troubled. Now what?Comment removed from /Economics - neomech - Created on 07/18/18 03:25:25 UTC - permalink
Average annual wages for workers has increased almost every year, who cares if they make a smaller share if they’re making more money?Comment removed from /Economics - HitemwiththeMilton - Created on 07/18/18 03:37:55 UTC - permalink
economics by the way 😬
LOLComment removed from /Economics - Anon48529 - Created on 07/18/18 03:52:26 UTC - permalink
Federal Reserve chair comments about ANYTHING regarding the state of the USA is ridiculous. -98% value of the dollar since the fed was established to add debt to every dollar printed. But its okay cuz no one is paid in USA currency, right?
You begin to see why cocaine wasn't just a rich person's drug back thenComment removed from /Economics - SuperHighDeas - Created on 07/18/18 04:23:56 UTC - permalink
yes, but clearly we went the other direction for over 100 years, I'm asking how.Comment removed from /Economics - SamSlate - Created on 07/18/18 04:24:15 UTC - permalink
Don’t suck Bilderberg, Rothschild and Soros dick then. These guys own most of the money in the world and just want to build a global government, single market, and take 100%. Federal reserve serves the Rothschild, the Rockefellers, not the people.Comment removed from /Economics - boomBoomcandydoom - Created on 07/18/18 04:30:54 UTC - permalink
Its against the rules to point out the federal reserve has attached debt to every dollar printed, resulting in -98% value of the dollar since 1913?Comment removed from /Economics - Anon48529 - Created on 07/18/18 04:53:12 UTC - permalink
i mean thats fine but how the fuck do you have a "substantive contribution" to a thread that pretty much says "hey this really obvious thing is really obvious"Comment removed from /Economics - DapperMasquerade - Created on 07/18/18 04:55:17 UTC - permalink
You know you’re on Reddit when the “economics” sub starts pushing socialist propaganda.Comment removed from /Economics - HitemwiththeMilton - Created on 07/18/18 05:45:06 UTC - permalink
Shut the fuck up Federal Reserve chair you literal fucking vermin.Comment removed from /Economics - sweden_person - Created on 07/18/18 06:16:01 UTC - permalink
I bet America would find things "very troubling" if we ever audited you.
It’s referencing and addressing the public figure whom the title quote belongs to. Public figures are not immune to insult or criticism per Reddit rules, Steve Huffman said.Comment removed from /Economics - boomBoomcandydoom - Created on 07/18/18 07:37:01 UTC - permalink
Comment removed from /Economics - AJGrayTay - Created on 07/18/18 13:18:11 UTC - permalinkknuckle dragging NeanderthalsYou're goddamn right there.
No.Comment removed from /AskEconomics - microgrower40799 - Created on 07/18/18 13:48:55 UTC - permalink
You mentioned the word 'joke'. Chuck Norris doesn't joke. Here is a fact about Chuck Norris:Comment removed from /badeconomics - Chuck_Norris_Jokebot - Created on 07/18/18 17:36:30 UTC - permalink
Chuck Norris does not need to know about class factory pattern. He can instantiate interfaces.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to offer myself of if I ever want to retire.Comment removed from /Economics - stumpdawg - Created on 07/18/18 17:40:05 UTC - permalink
Terriers and Bariffs everywhere.Comment removed from /Economics - stumpdawg - Created on 07/18/18 18:21:57 UTC - permalink
So does this mean whirlpool is sick of winning?
According to the article, LG's retail price went up by ~11% and Samsung's ~18%, while Whirlpool's prices shot up by 30% at Lowes. Consumers are looking at the higher prices and are opting to just not buy washing machines rather than buying Whirlpool's, so yeah, I think they're sick of winning, especially if additional tariffs on components continue to raise the MSRP.Comment removed from /Economics - ddhboy - Created on 07/18/18 18:33:58 UTC - permalink
Or move to a cheaper place for retirement? Damn man, there are plenty of options better than killing yourself.Comment removed from /Economics - zaccus - Created on 07/18/18 18:56:49 UTC - permalink
Cheaper place? That's not going to do me shit when I'm still working at 80Comment removed from /Economics - stumpdawg - Created on 07/18/18 19:09:10 UTC - permalink
The COL of rural America is low. Its a lot lower than you think. A dollar goes so much further in rural America than it does in San Francisco.Comment removed from /Economics - Hyndis - Created on 07/18/18 19:18:26 UTC - permalink
My grandparents are almost 90 and they live very comfortably on Social Security alone. Just Social Security and nothing else. They recently bought a house. A very lovely home with a nice yard and garden. They're able to do that because rural Oregon is a very cheap place to live.
And if social security goes private like the Republican party so desperately wants, then I lose everything?Comment removed from /Economics - stumpdawg - Created on 07/18/18 19:30:09 UTC - permalink
My comment was hyperbole...but not by much.
Who could have known economics was so complicated?!Comment removed from /Economics - ZmeiOtPirin - Created on 07/18/18 19:30:38 UTC - permalink
Social Security is a question of votes, not economics. Old people get Social Security. They would like to continue receiving Social Security. Old people all vote.Comment removed from /Economics - Hyndis - Created on 07/18/18 19:33:27 UTC - permalink
Any politician who wants to win an election (which is every politician) needs to pander to that voting block. This means don't touch Social Security. Its called the third rail of American politics for a reason. Touch it and die.
Still getting my head around why people would want to retire...Comment removed from /Economics - DxR77 - Created on 07/18/18 19:45:40 UTC - permalink
https://www.nirsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Millennials-Report-1.pdfComment removed from /Economics - whathe2016 - Created on 07/18/18 19:46:23 UTC - permalink
From the report itself, 8.8% of Asian millennials have > $100k saved for retirement. Far more than other racial groups.
I guess doing your homework and listening to your parents about what to major in does pay off*.
*Even though college acceptance boards discriminate against you, the odds are good you had to learn to speak English late in life, and your parents probably aren't college educated.
Mass genocide?Comment removed from /Economics - Magic_Leather_Jacket - Created on 07/18/18 19:46:38 UTC - permalink
But it's going insolvent by 2030-2040, right after the average Boomer being statistically dead. It's a problem, but they're literally fighting to the death to keep unfunded entitlements that their children both have to pay for and likely won't see.Comment removed from /Economics - cavscout43 - Created on 07/18/18 19:46:53 UTC - permalink
I was thinking old age.Comment removed from /Economics - HTownian25 - Created on 07/18/18 19:47:51 UTC - permalink
Funny enough, this likely plays into why rural areas tend to be more conservative (as well as the educational differences).Comment removed from /Economics - cavscout43 - Created on 07/18/18 19:48:30 UTC - permalink
That being said, I absolutely would ditch large urban metros when retirement age rolled around. Save for a Manhattan/Hawaii retirement, then move to rural Idaho or something when the day comes. Live like relative royalty.
wait...18 year olds don't have anything saved for retirement?? What a bunch of idiots.Comment removed from /Economics - TDual - Created on 07/18/18 19:52:52 UTC - permalink
Lumping a bunch of 18-37 year olds together and talking about statistics across that group is asinine.
Well where’s the fun in thatComment removed from /Economics - Magic_Leather_Jacket - Created on 07/18/18 19:53:27 UTC - permalink
You can still piss on their graves when they're gone.Comment removed from /Economics - HTownian25 - Created on 07/18/18 19:57:12 UTC - permalink
I started saving at 25, wish I had started at 18, only one other person in my friend group is saving, a lot of them see it as something they don't have to worry about till they're older, I keep trying to tell them the earlier you start the easier it is, put away what you can afford to now so you're not playing catch up in the future but many people are more interested in spending now and saving later.Comment removed from /Economics - redsalmon67 - Created on 07/18/18 20:07:43 UTC - permalink
Personally, I'll be defecating. Will save quite the sensory-overloading log for them. Palpably aromatic.Comment removed from /Economics - Amplifeye - Created on 07/18/18 20:10:01 UTC - permalink
Not a fair comparison. Asian millennials are still from a demographic that was pre-selected coming to the USA from already well off families.Comment removed from /Economics - ameriveaux - Created on 07/18/18 20:10:59 UTC - permalink
Thats like saying nigerian americans are better off because they are "Better". No, they come from families that are already doctors engineers and lawyers to get to the USA anyway
fewerComment removed from /Economics - MrFrode - Created on 07/18/18 20:11:28 UTC - permalink
Eliminating Medicare & Medicaid, maybe.Comment removed from /Economics - Poguemohon - Created on 07/18/18 20:14:40 UTC - permalink
Basically this.Comment removed from /Economics - deepredsky - Created on 07/18/18 20:17:43 UTC - permalink
I’m a millennial. Born late 80s. Most people I know eat out almost every meal, go out drinking a lot, and travel internationally once or twice a year.
I think retirement is the last thing on their mind.
Most of these people don’t really understand the effects of compound interest. 6% a year ain’t no joke.
Op trying to be racist lolComment removed from /Economics - edwardkirk1231 - Created on 07/18/18 20:18:07 UTC - permalink
yes good point, world population is therefore lower than 40 years ago, and our conundrum can be explained by bad boomers, not population crushComment removed from /Economics - pbrettb - Created on 07/18/18 20:20:19 UTC - permalink
Comment removed from /Economics - whathe2016 - Created on 07/18/18 20:22:57 UTC - permalinkfrom already well off families.Holy shit you are clueless about the circumstance under which most Asians came to USA!
Educate meComment removed from /Economics - ameriveaux - Created on 07/18/18 20:26:51 UTC - permalink
6% is very, very easy to achieve as well. Buy an S&P fund blindly and let it ride for 6%. If you buy dips strategically, maybe you get 8 or 9%, which is the historic average for the S&P anyways.Comment removed from /Economics - daviddavidson29 - Created on 07/18/18 20:28:36 UTC - permalink
That's a well known cognitive bias - we all think that our future self is much more virtuous and will have much more willpower (and money) to save.Comment removed from /Economics - bullpup1337 - Created on 07/18/18 20:29:48 UTC - permalink
Of course, fast forward 10 years, and you are still the same old you, still no money, but less time to save.
No, just pointing out the fact that personal choices make a huge difference where one ends up in life.Comment removed from /Economics - whathe2016 - Created on 07/18/18 20:34:40 UTC - permalink
And that it's not boomers, the rich or fill in the blank _________ scheming to impoverish millenials.
Yeah, but the guy above already explained how your sampling method is highly biased.Comment removed from /Economics - edwardkirk1231 - Created on 07/18/18 20:36:43 UTC - permalink
That's what Google and Wikipedia is for.Comment removed from /Economics - whathe2016 - Created on 07/18/18 20:39:00 UTC - permalink
Whew at least there’s thatComment removed from /Economics - Magic_Leather_Jacket - Created on 07/18/18 20:42:03 UTC - permalink
More than one way to skin a catComment removed from /Economics - Magic_Leather_Jacket - Created on 07/18/18 20:42:38 UTC - permalink
Lol no one can “buy dips strategically” repeatedly. Your overall returns will drop because your capital is underutilized (holding too much cash to wait for the dips), even if it appears your stock portfolio itself is doing 8-9%.Comment removed from /Economics - deepredsky - Created on 07/18/18 20:44:04 UTC - permalink
Just gotta hope the boomers don't ruin the world any more than they already have before we can affect some change.Comment removed from /Economics - wangofjenus - Created on 07/18/18 20:44:19 UTC - permalink
I've been fighting this battle since I was 22 making $40,000. I contributed from my first eligible paycheck and never stopped. I certainly do well now but I'm not making crazy money. But I'll hit $100k in retirement savings next month. I also never contributed a double digit percentage of my income.Comment removed from /Economics - x888x - Created on 07/18/18 20:48:41 UTC - permalink
I've been preaching for 9 working years now. Pale just don't get it. Many of my peers say "I can't afford to contribute." No you don't choose to. There's a big difference. It's pre tax money that you're getting taxed on. More importantly, it's almost always eligible to be doubled (or more) by their employer.
Invest in crypto currencies now, and you’re set. When bitcoin hits a million USD, you’ll be scratching your head, or living the life.Comment removed from /Economics - xvult - Created on 07/18/18 20:50:44 UTC - permalink
Why would anyone brag about having China's tentacles all over them? Good luck.Comment removed from /Economics - InTheWhaleRoom - Created on 07/18/18 20:53:55 UTC - permalink
Wrong. My mother and her 6 siblings came here with less than $500 each (they were capped at that amount I believe). The 7 kids and my grandmother lived in name one room house in Taiwan. They worked hard and built their wealth. They all emphasized education in their kids. Almost all of the second gen went to good schools and made good careers.Comment removed from /Economics - optimus_maximus - Created on 07/18/18 20:54:59 UTC - permalink
It's a culture thing. When your family immigrates for economic opportunity, they don't easily take for granted their roots. It's not that "all Asians are good at math" as much as "Asians do math so they don't have to work in a Chinese restaurant like their first gen parents."
So is this what winning feels like? Trump said we winning right?Comment removed from /Economics - edwardkirk1231 - Created on 07/18/18 20:55:11 UTC - permalink
I sold most of my portfolio early 2017 to position myself to “buy the inevitable dip”. Instead, I missed an amazing year. I’m mostly all invested again, and who knows? Maybe now the dip comes and I get double whammied.Comment removed from /Economics - Williale - Created on 07/18/18 20:55:43 UTC - permalink
As they say, time in the market beats timing the market.
Image courtesy of Chainalysis. A similar chain of events taking place with this new scam will see the scheme pick up steam in the coming months, garnering more coins, before liquidating once the Ponzi becomes unsustainable, resulting in a correction in the Bitcoin market.. But, until that happens, Bitcoin may actually appreciate greatly, just as the cryptocurrency did in early-2019 as BTC’s ... Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme—the Internet’s favorite currency will collapse. ... Paul Krugman wrote a famous Slate piece about a private currency that was invented to facilitate the exchange of ... BitConnect has long faced allegations that it was, essentially, a Ponzi scheme. While Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced similar accusations, BitConnect was particularly notorious for ... Popular day trader and founder of Barstool Sports Dave Portnoy revealed that he bought $1.25 million worth of Bitcoin even though he thinks its “just one big Ponzi scheme” in an interview with crypto podcaster Anthony Pompliano. Portnoy summed up his view of crypto trading as: “You get in, and you just have to not be the one left holding the bag.” Tether’s Stablecoin Dominance Drops Below 80% as Audit Controversy Lingers On. The total volume of stablecoins in circulation is closing in on the $20 billion mark, while the market-leading coin, USDT’s share of the total circulating supply continues to shrink, data from Coinmetrics shows.
[index]          
The only industry Bitcoin has disrupted is the ponzi scheme industry. [ 40:50 ] Questions why people want a currency so detached from the real world. [ 41:12 ] People who use Bitcoin want the ... did this ponzi scheme cause the recent dump? is china's housing bubble bullish for bitcoin? Social Media: Follow me on Dlive: https://dlive.tv/MrSotko Follow... In August 1920 the „financial legend“ Charles Ponzi was arrested. In only a year he had taken in $20 million dollars from ten-thousands of victims. Often ref... It seems like everytime one Bitcoin Ponzi scheme scams away with their investor's money, another one pops up in its place. It's literally like playing a game of Whack-A-Mole. Elderhash follows the ... Why Bitcoin Is a Ponzi Scheme with David Heinemeier Hansson - Duration: 52:52. Make More Marbles Recommended for you. 52:52. The $65-Billion Ponzi scheme, ...