docid
stringlengths 1
6
| title
stringclasses 1
value | text
stringlengths 0
17k
|
|---|---|---|
3135 | I think your math is off but I don't have time to work it out. It seems like the top 4 could conceivably have less than 2.2 million jobs between them. Your math appears to leave nothing for the other 46 states which is not the intent of that statement. The other 46 just added less than 113,500 each but the majority of that 2.2 million could still be distributed among them. |
|
3143 | like he had anything to do with that.. when did you check out bro? did you just say you expect a plan for nuclear terrorism? actually? maybe your parents should handle your posts for you if they can. the plan for nuclear terrorists is kill them before they push the ever lovin motherfuckin button. But by all means, tells us your detailed plan to handle these men. |
|
3149 | Looking for the best in brain-building activities has most likely seen the excitement around LEGO Bricks in recent years. An increasing number of parents and educators are recognizing the learning opportunities these little interlocking bricks can bring to their kids. |
|
3150 | Beside standard Swift (which may be registered and checked for money laundering) there are the money transfer companies (Western Union) and the electronic currencies like bitcoin. Besides that is buying something very expensive (gold / diamonds) and sell them again a possibility to transport vast amount of value. |
|
3155 | > I don't have any data for this, but I believe online sales would increase as brand awareness increases. There are also benefits where you can buy online and have it delivered, but return in person. Right, right...I wonder if it's beneficial sometimes to have a physical location because the consumer is less likely to make the purchase if they have to go through the process of shipping it back. Would be very interesting to see if after X amount of time if a brand is still as prominent online as it was in Y location after it left physically, or does leaving physically cause a degradation in brand awareness and thusforth sales. >Probably low rents. Commercial real estate is a difficult business. Hot locations are always rented. Bad locations will do anything to keep their tenants. Figured. I wonder how common re-negotiations are. >I have never seen either of those items be accepted for return... They do, and then they are damaged out. Perhaps this is part the answer, in order to have a lenient return policy physical locations are part of the equation to decrease loss. |
|
3169 | Well, as far as anecdotal evidence goes, my SO is working on a undergraduate finance degree at U of T, and has been hired at the Canadian office of a large American bank, in a field related to IB. That said, if it's possible to be hired at the Canadian office of an American bank, presumably it is possible to apply and 'cross-over' to an American branch in the future - all you need is to be able to get your foot in the door, and be re-hired to another position as an insider, with references from your MD, Director and Associate. Another piece of anecdotal evidence is that many of her superiors have degrees in other subject areas. The reality is, they're looking for smart people - pedigree is probably reasonably unimportant. I'm not sure if this information is transferable to work as a quant, though. In many ways, your discipline would be more technical, or skill based, and require less 'character' from the applicant, and more competency. As for Montreal.. the only two schools pedigreed Americans know of are McGill and U of T, generally in that order (everyone will know of McGill, and about half of those people will know of U of T). I can imagine that either of the two schools would be an excellent choice - I am biased toward U of T for personal reasons, and also because it is located directly beside Bay Street, so the networking opportunities for the widest variety of international banks (and private wealth managers) are definitely there, but I wouldn't knock McGill, from a reputation perspective. I think the reality is that while you should consider your options *carefully*, whatever option you choose will be based on a lot of over-thinking - it's unavoidable, and a good thing, but ultimately, I imagine, meaningless. If you're smart, driven and connected, you *will* get the job, regardless of which of those two schools you choose. |
|
3173 | No. An employer is legally obliged to deduct taxes from your pay cheque and send them to the IRS. The only way round that is to either provide evidence of deductions that would reduce your tax bill to nothing, or to become self-employed. |
|
3181 | > Operating in a country that allows you to make profit, in my opinion, establishes a duty to pay one's fair share of taxes. Paying legislators to make laws enabling tax avoidance is, in my mind, unethical. Clearly we have a different idea of what is ethical and not. You have stumbled upon the heart of exactly why Burger King's actions (and those of other companies that do similar things) are perfectly justified, although perhaps not in the manner you intended. In the entire developed world, corporations are taxed at a certain rate on the income that they make as a result of business operations in that country. In the US, US headquartered corporations are taxed at a certain rate not only on the income that they make a result of business operations in that country, but also on the income that they make as the result of business operations in other countries. Operating in a country that allows you to make a profit established a duty to pay one's fair share of taxes. Operating in a country that allows you to make a profit does not establish any duty to pay one's fair share of taxes *to an entirely different country*. Or at least, no moral or ethical obligation to do so. The US may try to make a legal obligation to do so, but I certainly can't fault any company which tries to avoid that obligation, since the obligation is inherently unjust in the first place. If you don't want companies doing stuff like this, might I suggest that your country should stop imposing such ridiculous tax laws, and get in line with the rest of the developed world. Every other country in the world is content to tax their fair slice of the pie for stuff that happens in their borders; only the US expects a bite out of everyone else's pie too. Same should go for personal income earned by US citizens living abroad. They should have no obligation to pay US income taxes. |
|
3188 | More likely employees that were either never trained, trained improperly, or just don't give a fuck. I'm sure there was plenty of Target employees raking in free money but it was clearly not just an inside job with how widespread the practice became. |
|
3217 | I am from Australia, so my answer is based on my experience over here, however it should be similar for the USA. Generally, what determines both the price of houses/apartments and the rents for them is supply and demand. When there is high demand and low supply prices (or rents) generally go up. When there is low demand and high supply prices (or rents) usually go down. What can sometimes happen when house prices go down, is that the demand can drop but so can supply. As the prices drop, developers will make less money on building new houses, so stop building new houses. Other developers can go bankrupt. As less people (including investors) are buying houses, and more people (including investors) try to sell their existing houses, there will be more people looking to rent and less rental properties available to rent. This produces a perfect storm of high demand and low supply of rental properties, causing rents to rise strongly. When the property prices start to go up again as demand increases, there is a shortfall of new properties being built (due to the developers not building during the downturn). At this time developers start to build again but there is a lag time before the new houses can be completed. This lack of supply puts more pressure on both house prices and rents to go up further. Until equilibrium between supply and demand is realised or an oversupply of rental properties exists in the market, rents will continue to rise. |
|
3222 | This depends in part on where you are. Sometimes signing over the title is all it takes to transfer ownership, sometimes more is involved. Contact your local department of motor vehicles (or equivalent) and ask them about how to transfer ownership, about registration (probably NOT transferrable), about license plates (you may need new ones), and about when the next inspection will be due (here, I think they gave me a grace period of one month to complete that even though it had been inspected for the previous owner two months earlier). |
|
3233 | VPN service allows access to secure data surfing. With many added features you can register for the service on your android phone as well. Invite and earn referal also available on the VPN service. Feel free to visit our website 24x7. |
|
3243 | I would presume this goes entirely through the credit card network rather than the banking network. I am guessing that it's essentially the same operation as if you had returned something purchased on a card to the store for credit, but I'm not sure whether it really looks like a vendor credit to the network or if it is marked as a different type of transaction. |
|
3251 | I got down voted for my comment. But, this is exactly what a lot proponents of higher capital taxes argue. That, if you are not a hoarder of wealth; then, you should not worry about a high capital gains tax. And, again as the video clearly demonstrated. Capital gains prevent labor gains; where the lower and middle classes earn. |
|
3279 | Most mutual funds underperform the stock market. Of those that over-perform, much of the performance can be attributed to dumb luck. Most mutual funds exist to generate fees from you, rather than make you wealthy. In my opinion, if you want to invest in one, choose a no-load index fund, and you will outperform most other funds. Better still get some good financial education and learn to manage your funds/investments yourself. |
|
3283 | "http://finance.yahoo.com/stock-alerts/stock-watch/add/?.done=/stock-alerts/ You will have to have a yahoo account. If you want to provide an alternative delivery email address, visit the URL above. Click ""Stocks Watch"", enter ticker(s) and price(s) at which you want alerts, then at the bottom select the ""email"" radio button. If your preferred email address is not listed, click the ""Add an email address"" link and follow the instructions. I don't know what their limit is, but I currently have three addresses set up -- two to non-@yahoo addresses -- and it works fine." |
|
3293 | This seems really simple to me. |
|
3312 | "The link you originally included had an affiliate code included (now removed). It is likely that your ""friend"" suggested the site to you because there is something in it for your ""friend"" if you sign up with their link. Seek independent financial advice, not from somebody trying to earn a commission off you. Don't trust everything you read online – again, the advice may be biased. Many of the online ""reviews"" for Regal Assets look like excuses to post affiliate links. A handful of the highly-ranked (by Google Search) ""reviews"" about this company even obscure their links to this company using HTTP redirects. Whenever I see this practice in a ""review"" for a web site, I have to ask if it is to try and appear more independent by hiding the affiliation? Gold and other precious metal commodities can be part of a diversified portfolio, a small part with some value as a hedge, but IMHO it isn't prudent to put all your eggs in that basket. Look up the benefits of diversification. It isn't hard to find compelling evidence in favor of the practice. You should also look up the benefits of low-fee passively-managed index funds. A self-directed IRA with a reputable broker can give you access to a wide selection of low-fee funds, not just a single risky asset class." |
|
3315 | I'll have to think it through, but at the very least unless your debt is a pure discount instrument and you are using cash flows, some if that money IS getting paid during those 5 years. As in if you are using earnings, they pay p&i. Or if earnings and pure discount instruments, then amortized interest (I think, been a while). You see the actual numbers and know what you are trying to do, but I'm a little lost. Are you building a discount model with a multiple terminal and using ev as the multiple? Are you using free cash flow to firm for the discounting? I'm guessing that's the case. |
|
3336 | "Yes, kinda. Talk to local banks about a business account, and tell them you want to enable certain employees to make deposits but not withdrawals. They don't need to know you're all the same person. For instance I have a PayPal account for business. These allow you to create ""sub accounts"" for your employees with a variety of access privileges. Of course I control the master account, but I also set up a ""sub account"" for myself. That is the account I use every day." |
|
3364 | pretty good post. i just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that i have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. ganska bra inlägg. Jag har bara snubblat på din blogg och ville säga att jag verkligen haft läsa dina blogginlägg. |
|
3366 | The best would be to spend the money in US dollars. Order something from eBay/Amazon, even for resale, or pay someone in the US for services that you don't care where they're coming from, etc. |
|
3373 | "For most banks this is not the case. Transfers within the bank are usually instantaneous. It is not uncommon for banks to draw out the length of transactions because while the money is ""transferring"" or ""settling"" it is actually sitting on the bank's balance sheet, being lent out but not earning any interest. A good deal for them when you aggregate over the millions of customers they have. Your bank may be trying to squeeze a few pennies of interest out of you. Delays in transactions also allow their fraud team the flexibility to investigate transactions if they want to. Normally they probably don't but if the bank delays all transactions, then those being investigated will not be aware of it." |
|
3376 | Oxford Review makes a lot of sense. You're right - I should start off with a small goal. I am planning to do a reach out to about 100 professors and kind of take it from there. Would you be interested in being an advisor? |
|
3390 | *Follow the rules. You’ve learned and passed driving exam by knowing and following the rules so just keep on doing and practicing it for a safe tour. *Don’t drive as if you own the road. Remember that there are other vehicles across the way. *Before heading to a long road trip, be sure that you have plenty of rest or sleep so that you’ll be alert when driving. *Listen to traffic reports or updates to know the best route that you take. |
|
3426 | You were told wrong. Lifetime Learning Credit is not a refundable credit. I.e.: it reduces your tax liability, but you cannot get refund if it exceeds your tax liability. See the IRS pub 970 for more information: A tax credit reduces the amount of income tax you may have to pay. Unlike a deduction, which reduces the amount of income subject to tax, a credit directly reduces the tax itself. The lifetime learning credit is a nonrefundable credit. This means that it can reduce your tax to zero, but if the credit is more than your tax the excess will not be refunded to you. You may be able to qualify for a different benefit: the American Opportunity credit. This one is (partially) refundable. See here for details. This credit is available until 2017. |
|
3439 | It's not worth the effort - executing a transaction costs time and money,and if you get only back your 14 cent, why'd you care? Same reason why some people don't pick up a penny - not worth the effort |
|
3455 | As I'm sure you are reading in Hull's classic, the basic valuation of bonds depends on the chance of entity defaulting on those bonds. Let's start with just looking at the US. The United States has a big advantage over corporations in issuing debt as it also prints the same currency that the debt is denominated in. This makes it much easier not to default on your debt as you can always print more money to pay it. Printing too much currency would cause inflation lowering the value of debt, but this would also lower the value of US corporate debt as well. So you can think of even the highest rated corporate bonds as having the same rate as government debt plus a little extra due to the additional default risk of the corporation. The situation with other AA rated governments is more complicated. Most of those governments have debt denominated in their local currency as well so it may seem like they should all have similar rates. However, some governments have higher and some actually have lower rates than the United States. Now, as above, some of the difference is due to the possible need of printing too much currency to cover the debt in crisis and now that we have more than one country to invest in the extra risk of international money flowing out of the country's bonds. However, the bigger difference between AA governments rates depends more on money flow, central banks and regulation. Bonds are still mostly freely traded instruments that respond to supply and demand, but this supply and demand is heavily influenced by governments. Central banks buy up large portions of the debt raising demand and lowering rates. Regulators force banks to hold a certain amount of treasuries perhaps inflating demand. Finally, to answer your question the United States has some interesting advantages partially just due to its long history of stability, controlled inflation and large economy making treasuries valuable as one of the lowest risk investments. So its rates are generally on the low end, but government manipulation can still mean that it is not necessarily the lowest. |
|
3463 | You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems. |
|
3465 | "I'm from north jersey and not much of a gambler, so I'm def not their normal customer. But I'm young(ish) and have some extra cash - they need to find a way to get me and my crowd. I think if they did organized trips, like party-buses drive back/forth, cheap/reasonable hotel room prices, and maybe some entertainment - I'd go. And i'd drop enough money on shopping, restaurants, and booze to make it worthwhile. One problem is that when I think ""what should I do this weekend?"", driving 3 hrs to pay for parking so I can gamble at a rundown hotel doesn't seem to come to mind." |
|
3466 | You must consider the different levels of risk associated with each loan. When the bank loans you money, it does so based on a high degree of information about your financial situation (through your credit report + additional information gathered at the time of granting your request). It feels quite confident that you will repay them, and therefore considers you to be low risk. In order to make a profit off of all its low risk clients, the bank only needs to charge a small rate of interest - competitive with the market but enough to cover the losses from clients who will default. When you loan money through a peer-to-peer program, you are at two distinct disadvantages from the bank: (1) Your loan portfolio will not be diversified; that is, you may have only a single person or a small handful of people owing you money. Any catastrophic event in their lives may wipe out their loan to you. Whereas the bank can play the averages with a broader client base. (2) You have less information, and ultimately less (effective) power to reclaim your losses. Would you feel confident walking behind the desk at a bank today, and deciding whether to approve someone's loan based on the information that the bank's back-end has already determined is necessary to make that decision? Now how about when you are doing it on your own? Because of this, you take on more risk from a peer-to-peer loan than a bank takes on from you. That's why the person is willing (or, required due to market availability) to pay a higher rate; they know they are higher risk. That doesn't mean this is a bad idea, just that there is a specific reason that the difference in rates exists, and it implies that you should consider carefully whether the risks outweigh the benefits. Note that the concept of taking a buy/sell position on two theoretically identical assets while earning a net profit at no risk is known as 'arbitrage'. Arbitrage situations rarely exist, and never for long. Whenever you see a position that appears to be arbitrage, consider what might make it not so. ie: you could buy inventory in location A, and sell it at 10% higher margin in location B - but have you considered transportation, carrying costs, and interest for the period that you physically held the inventory? The appearance of arbitrage may (in my opinion) be a sign that you have incomplete information. |
|
3468 | "https://money.stackexchange.com/a/79252/41349 https://money.stackexchange.com/a/79261/41349 Adding to @Chris H answer about damage limitation Online purchases could include phone/tablet app purchases, which could be an issue if you have children or you are a victim of fraud. First link from googling ""Kid racks up almost $6,000 on Jurassic World in-app purchases"" Adding to @Michael C. Answer I think credit cards perhaps can make it more difficult to budget, if you are more lazy/have limited savings. These might happen more long term if you don't keep track of your spending. I.e. If your credit limit matches your monthly income, and if you pay off your card each month, I think it is harder to overspend as you don't have more credit available than you can afford to spend. However this is countered by that, a slightly higher credit limit may help to avoid fees from exceeding your credit card limit. I think due to that some/not all purchases are instantly ""banked"", i.e. the shop might send all of its monies to its bank at the end of the day or something like this, so you can just keep spending not realising you have exceeding your credit limit and get hit by fees." |
|
3481 | "Yes it's entirely possible; see below. If you can't find anything on transfers out (partial or otherwise) on anyone's site it's because they don't want to give anyone ideas. I have successfully done exactly what you're proposing earlier this year, transferring most of the value from my employer's group personal pension scheme - also Aviva! - to a much lower-cost SIPP. The lack of any sign of movement by Aviva to post-RDR ""clean priced"" charge-levels on funds was the final straw for me. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner! Transfer paperwork was initiated from the SIPP end but I was careful to make clear to HR people and Aviva's rep (or whatever group-scheme/employee benefits middleman organization he was from) that I was not exiting the company scheme and expected my employee and matching employer contributions to continue unchanged (and that I'd not be happy if some admin mess up led to me missing a month's contributions). There's a bit more on the affair in a thread here. Aviva's rep did seem to need a bit of a prod to finally get it to happen. With hindsight my original hope of an in-specie transfer does seem naive, but the out-of-the-market time was shorter and less scary than anticipated. Just in case you're unaware of it, Monevator's online broker list is an excellent resource to help decide who you might use for a SIPP; cheapest choice depends on level of funds and what you're likely to hold in it and how often you'll trade." |
|
3495 | When a company IPOs the underwriters sell a given percentage on IPO day and shortly thereafter. Whatever is sold on IPO day trades freely. Insiders, employees and investors who bought before the IPO only sell a percentage of their shares on IPO day. They all also agree to 'lock up' the remainder for a period of time, so that not everyone is rushing to the exits right away. Well, if you're an employee you don't per-se agree, it's just how your stock options are setup and you don't really have a say in the matter. |
|
3511 | Why is this on r/finance lol. But of course that's a common thing. 300 a month sounds extremely cheap depending on where you are. Sounds like your friend is trying to take advantage of your dad owning a house and stay there for free, no? |
|
3519 | The top feature of these stacking windows and doors is that you can make considerable savings with their help because their design and make creates a kind of airtight construction that reduces the flow of outgoing and incoming heat and your home will stay cooler for longer in summers and warmer for longer in winters. |
|
3525 | "Don't get me wrong. If I could consistently see 2 movies a month with this, it would be worth it. And there are almost certainly 24 movies I'd enjoy seeing in cinemas in a given year. It's just a big ""if"" for a lot of people." |
|
3528 | This slave rents from slumlords now. They suck, but at least I was able to keep my dog. The 10 years that it will take to rebuild my credit is daunting, but it's not okay to artificially inflate the price of something, only to drop it back down to half of the original price in the span of 2 years. Nothing happened to that neighborhood. It was and still is quiet and lovely. But the schools there were abysmal, and I can't let my very gifted daughter think she's doing well when she's not working for the A that she gets. |
|
3533 | "Warren Buffet isn't using any special sauce. He looks for value and ignores hype, greed, and fear. He buys what he knows and looks for companies that generate cash and/or are available for a discount of their true value. He explains what he looks for in a company and his reasons for buying it. He has said on numerous occasions, ""I look for intrinsic value."" (So there's your formula.) Human nature is often irrational and investing seems to bring out the fear and greed. I've always been a bit surprised when people ascribe some sort of sixth sense to Warren Buffet's success. He just works hard and doesn't deviate from a sound strategy. ""Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful."" And of course, rule one: ""Don't lose money."" It's not a joke. How many people buy high and sell low because of fear and greed? When the market tanks, buy more. Finally, anyone can invest with Buffet without all the work. Just buy a few shares of BRK.A or BRK.B." |
|
3544 | "Oh Dear, our poor Oranagenottan is having a temper tantrum, poor baby, being called a ""Fucking Moron"" must really sting when all your life you have been wanted to be taken seriously, but life has been a series of Bankruptcies and Humiliating failures, and here you finally are, the President of the United states, arguably the most powerful man in the world and they just keep hounding you and making fun of you and ridiculing you. All that anger and frustration, must be boiling over, the moment that all that you thought of yourself and all that you had become was finally coinciding and the world looked at you and thought #Fucking Moron and then they all laughed You must be so very angry" |
|
3548 | well, no, i just see some really huge numbers been thrown around, like Spain's banks will need several tens of Bn euros to be rescued... that's a huge amount of money, even if not a large share of the problem, a nation in trouble should not be saving the private sector's ass. |
|
3550 | > Amazon's share of new book unit purchases was 41%, dominating 65% of all online new book units, print and digital. The company achieved that percentage by not only being the largest channel for e-books, where it had a 67% market share in March, but also by having a commanding slice of the sale of print books online, where its share in March was estimated at 64%. [source](http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bea/article/62520-bea-2014-can-anyone-compete-with-amazon.html#path/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bea/article/62520-bea-2014-can-anyone-compete-with-amazon.html) |
|
3555 | >This is actual socialism, you understand that, right? Did you forget to read the part of socialism that defines it as workers controlling the means of production? This is not socialism. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. I'm not advocating that. I said the exact opposite. I advocate the private ownership of the means of production. I also advocate the distributed private ownership of the means of production. The more capitalists and entrepreneurs, the better. The scenario i described helps distribute the means of production to more individuals. >Ya, and this is also exactly socialism's end goal The ends are one thing, the means are another. |
|
3556 | I'm not so sure I buy this article, but for anyone who doesn't know, Rajan wrote a great book called Fault Lines that linked entrenching class disparity in the U.S. with the mortgage build up and the following crisis. Great read |
|
3559 | "(relix already hit on some of this) It's hard to explain this to a five-year-old, because there are some fairly abstract concepts involved, but here goes... All actual ""money"" is debt. All of it, including monetary gold, etc. (Don't argue with me yet, I'll get to that.) Imagine a pretend world with no money, some kind of primitive villiage or something. Now let's invent paper money. You can't just print a bunch of paper that says people have to give you stuff, because nobody would honor it. But you *could* print IOUs. Let's walk through this... - Let's say you're an apple-farmer and I'm a hunter. You want some meat but haven't harvested your crops yet. You say to me, ""hey, go hunt me some meat and I'll give you 1/10th of my apple harvest in the fall"". Fair enough, I give you meat, you owe me apples. There's probably a lot of this kind of stuff going on, in addition to normal barter. In time, standard ""prices"" start to emerge: a deer haunch is worth a bushel of apples, or whatever. - Now, let's say a week later, I realize that my kid needs a new pair of shoes more than I need a bushel of apples. I come back to you and say, ""Hey remember that bushel of apples you owe me? Could you write a marker, redeemable for one bushel of apples, that I can give to the shoemaker in trade for a pair of shoes?"" You say okay, and we have invented a *transferable note*, something a lot like money. - In time, our little villiage starts to figure out that a note redeemable for a bushel of apples can be swapped for all kinds of things. The fisherman who doesn't even like apples will accept apple-certificates in trade for fish, because he knows he can trade them to boat-builder who loves apples. In time, you can even start to hire farm-workers without giving them anything except a note promising a cut of the future harvest. Now, you are issuing *debt*: a promise to provide apples. The ""money"" is a transferable IOU-- your workers get a promise to provide value equal to a day of farm-work, or whatever, and it's transferrable, so they can use it to buy whatever they want. The worker gets fish from the fisherman, not in exchange for doing any work or giving him anything he can use, but in exchange for an IOU that the fisherman can redeem anywhere. So far so good. But there are a couple of forks in the road here, on the way to a realistic monetary system, that we'll address separately: - What happens if your apple orchard is destroyed in a wildfire? Suddenly all the notes that everyone has been trading are basically wiped out. It didn't ""go"" anywhere, it's just gone, it doesn't exist. Real value was genuinely destroyed. There is no thermodynamic law of the conservation of monetary value-- just as you and I created it by creating transferable debt, it can also be genuinely destroyed. (We'll get back to this in a minute, it gets interesting). - The second issue is that, in all probability, the whole town is not *just* trading apple-certificates. I could also issue promises to catch deer, the fisherman could issue promises of fish, and so on. This could get pretty messy, especially if you got the notion to issue more apple-certificates than you can grow: you could buy all kinds of stuff with self-issued debt that you could never repay, and the town wouldn't find out until harvest-time comes. Once again, value has been ""destroyed"" people worked and made stuff and gave you stuff in exchange for something that doesn't exist, and will never exist. All that stuff they made is gone, you consumed it, and there is nothing to show for it. The above two concerns are likely to become manifest in our village sooner or later, and probably sooner. This leads to the question of *credit*, which is, at its most basic, a measure of *credibility*. Every time you issue an apple-certificate, you are *borrowing*, with a promise to repay from future apple-harvests. After the first couple of town scandals, people will start taking a closer look at the credibility of the issuer. Let's say the town potato-farmer comes up with a scheme where his potato-certificates are actually issued by some credible third-party, say the town priest or whatever, who starts every growing season with a book of numbered certificates equal to the typical crop-yield and no more, and keeps half of the certificate on file, issuing the other half. Now there is an audit trail and a very credible system that is likely to earn the potato-grower a lot of credit, compared to other farmers in town. That means that the potato-grower can probably issue more notes at a better exchange rate than some murkier system. Similarly, the town drunk probably won't get much value for his certificates promising a ship of gold. Now we have something like a credit market emerging, and the potato-farmer is issuing something closer to what we might call a modern ""bond""... (continued in a reply to this post...)" |
|
3566 | "There are books like, ""The Millionaire Mind"" that could be of interest when it comes to basics like living below your means, investing what you save, etc. that while it is common sense, it is uncommonly done in the world. Something to consider is how actively do you want your money management to be? Is it something to spend hours on each week or a few hours a year tops? You have lots of choices and decisions to make. I would suggest keeping part of your savings as an emergency fund just in case something happens. As for another part, this is where you could invest in a few different options and see what happens. There would be a couple of different methods I could see for breaking into finance that I'd imagine: IT of a finance company - In this case you'd likely be working on customizations for what the bank, insurance or other kind of financial firm requires. This could be somewhat boring as you are basically a part of the backbone that keeps the company going but not really able to take much of the glory when the company makes a lot of money. Brains of a hedge fund - In this case, you may have to know some trading algorithms and handle updating the code so that the trading activities can be done by a computer with lightning speed. Harder to crack into since these would be the secretive people to find and join in a way." |
|
3574 | They'll largely be fine. They're to the point where it's all about business plans and securing financing. Determining long term risk for these types of firms are the main hold up at this point. But, given that everything else is flooded with investment capital already, I expect more and more lenders to get into the space. |
|
3579 | "Forbes is simply a well-distrubted content farm. Forbes doesn't write articles to ""inform the reader"" or ""make a coherent argument."" Forbes writes articles simply to get attention from crowds to increase readership to increase ad revenue. Forbes' business model is quite simple: (1) hire a bunch of pseudo-intellectual ""executive writers"" and have them scribble whatever idiotic idea comes to mind. And since these ""executive writers"" are such genius, they don't even to do research. The end result is a magazine and website written in doublespeak. (2) have an outsourced bureau in India construct lists of the ""words richest"" and ""most expansive"" things/people^1. This way the publication appeals to the not-so-bright-and-rather-gullible-mid-level-executive manager^2 who is looking at ways to get ahead in his job so he/she can afford to buy Rolex watches and Armani tuxes so they can appear to be rich, powerful, and successful. These mid-level-executives try to implement all the bad ideas they pick up reading in the work place. Of course this nothing new. The majority of business/investing magazines operate in the same manner (e.g. Smart Money, Money, Entrepreneur, etc). Think of Forbes as Cosmopolitan of business periodicals^3. Think of Forbes as Paris Hilton in a crowd of other attention-hungry socialites in front of a bored paparazzi^4. In general, magazines are full of pointless and misleading information--the business of magazines has been marginalized into the business of cheaply putting words (and pictures) between advertisements. Forbes isn't about providing its readers with smart analysis; Forbes is about making a cheap magazine and filling it up with ads. So writers are judged on sheer output, not quality^5. Today an article made it to the front page of reddit titled *89 Business Cliches That Will Get Any MBA Promoted And Make Them Totally Useless*^6 --I found this article to be wonderfully meta, since it implies that people who follow what they preach are useless. This gives me hope. Of course if things continue to degrade magazines will likely be entirely picture based by about 2020^7. Please make it a point to only read/watch/listen/buy media that at least attempts to produce quality and unbiased content. If companies stop getting paid to manufacture shit, they will hopefully stop making shit. **tl;dr** Forbes is a very elaborate content farm 1. Bonus points are awarded for lists that also tie-in three or more cleavage pics 2. there are quite a few of these people 3. Cosmo: ""10 ways to bring your man to orgasm"", Forbes: ""10 buzzwords you need in your resume"" 4. My point being things will naturally become quite obscene/ridiculous/dumb. 5. AMA Request: Forbes Editor/Writer 6. [link](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/06/19/89-business-cliches-that-will-get-any-mba-promoted-to-middle-management-and-make-them-totally-useless/) 7. In which case, we can only hope that either: magazines go bankrupt, 2012 Apocalypse predictions are correct. edits* grammar elaboration being anal" |
|
3583 | I think you are thinking too hard about this. If a billionaire's assets increase 70% in the stock market, he created $700M in new wealth. If 300 people each create a million dollars in new wealth. We have 300 new millionaires creating 300M in wealth, but still 70% of wealth among the 301 people was created by the billionaire. 300 new millionaires is still a good thing, no matter what you think about how to tax a billionaire's assets. |
|
3616 | Your search for Sydney Handyman ends with Sydney Handyman Hire. Our growth in the last few years has come by earning the trust and building good relationships with clients. We have a track record of providing excellent services which allows our clients to focus on their work. Address: 6/17-21 Bowden Street, Alexandria, NSW 2015, Phone No: 1300 336 547 |
|
3623 | "There's an elephant in the room that no one is addressing: Suckers. Usually when there's a bubble, many people are fully aware that its a bubble. ""This time its different"" is a sales pitch to the outsiders. It the dotcom boom for example a lot of people knew that the P/E was ridiculous but bought objectively valueless tech stocks with the idea of unloading them later to even bigger fools. People view it like the children's game musical chairs: as long as I'm not standing when the music ends some other sucker gets left holding the bag. But once you get that first hit of easy money, its sooo tempting to keep playing the game. Sometimes, if it lasts long enough, you start to drink your own kool-aid: gee maybe it really is different this time. The best way to win a crooked game is not to play*. *Just in case someone thinks I'm advising against the stock market in general, I'm not: I'm advocating not buying stocks that you know are worthless with the hope of unloading them on some other sucker." |
|
3628 | I can't believe anyone in their right mind would put US health care above most 3rd world healthcare. The lowest quality care I ever receive is in the US. It feels like hospitals are constantly trying to upsell me, and doctors are trying to squeeze treatment into my insurance coverage, instead of doing what is most medically appropriate. In the developing world, I can go to the best private clinic, typically full of western educated doctors, and pay cash for first class medical treatment. Then pay cash that is less than a deductible in the US. |
|
3644 | You have to remember that Costco only builds in richer areas too. I live near the Quad Cities (Davenport, Iowa is the biggest of those cities) and we are just getting our first Costco (not sure if they have even broken ground yet). And it is closest to Bettendorf, the richest city in the area. There are no Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, etc in the area. As of now, there is one Trader Joe's in Iowa, in Des Moines, with another going up in Iowa City. Any chain that can be that selective about locating themselves in the richest neighborhoods will almost always be able to afford to pay more, unlike Walmart which is everywhere. |
|
3656 | Many companies actually just issue new shares for employee compensation instead of buying back existing ones. So actually, the share price should go down because the same value is now diluted over more shares. In addition, this would not necessarily affect companies with many employees than those with fewer employees because companies with more employees tend to be bigger and thus have more shares (among which the change in demand would be distributed). Also, I think many companies do not issue shares to employees every pay day, but just e.g. once every quarter. |
|
3669 | Google Finance gives you this information. |
|
3686 | ">Interest rate swaps are now over 80 percent of the massive derivatives market, and JPMorgan holds about $57.5 trillion of them. Without the protective JPMorgan swaps, interest rates on U.S. debt could follow those of Greece and climb to 30%. CEO Dimon could, then, indeed be “the guy in charge”: he could be controlling the lever propping up the whole U.S. financial system. This guy is a total idiot. To anyone wondering why, learn what is meant by ""notional value"" and you'll unedrstand why people that list numbers like this as if it has that much importance do not understand derivatives. In short, 57 trillion in *notional value* means vastly less in actual play, far too little to backstop the US government, where a trillion is an actual trillion." |
|
3714 | The only way I can think of to do this would be to take a cash advance against the card, then buy the wire transfer with that cash. Of course cash advances typically start accumulating interest immediately, since the credit card company isn't capturing a fee from the vendor, and may be at a different interest rate than other charges... so given the choice, I'd suggest you write a check instead. As @KiethS points out, there have been a number of scams involving getting people to send (non-cancellable) wire transfers and then not delivering the goods/services paid for. A wire transfer is, essentially, cash. If you don't know exactly who you're dealing with, don't. |
|
3717 | "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.nber.org/papers/w23371) reduced by 72%. (I'm a bot) ***** > NBER Working Paper No. 23371Issued in April 2017NBER Program(s): AG DAE ED EFG HE LS PR. Using panel data on individual labor income histories from 1957 to 2013, we document two empirical facts about the distribution of lifetime income in the United States. > For women, median lifetime income increased by 22%-33% from the 1957 to the 1983 cohort, but these gains were relative to very low lifetime income for the earliest cohort. > Partial life-cycle profiles of income observed for cohorts that are currently in the labor market indicate that the stagnation of lifetime incomes is unlikely to reverse. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ltobr/lifetime_incomes_in_the_united_states_over_six/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~161478 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **income**^#1 **lifetime**^#2 **cohort**^#3 **inequality**^#4 **labor**^#5" |
|
3737 | His parents did not hand the job to him at all. What is it with Reddit hating every person who lucked into being born with more money than they did? Does that mean he never earned anything? Is he not self made, no matter what he does, simply because he had some.advantages that you did not? |
|
3746 | Why would the companies pay more to cover personal risks of the employee? The employees will just have to suck it up and live with more risks. Employees who cannot work anymore because of that are the problem of the state and society, not of the company. There's a reason social safety nets were constructed in the first place. |
|
3750 | "The implication is market irrationality is stronger than market rationality. Aka nothing makes sense when TSLA climbs to $400 or when CMG rises to $750. I wouldn't say there is a systematic flaw in valuation. I think there is just a lot of ignorance. Markets are more open to household investors than ever before. You used to go to your broker and ask him what's up and he'd give you the inside scoop since you pay them money. Now you go onto marketwatch and get some random nobody's opinion on everything and make stock selections based on that. But eventually the chickens come home to roost and things will correct itself. Big players will jump ship and cause signals to other traders to jump ship. The public can pump stocks up pretty high but it doesn't just go to infinity. Eventually someone will stop and say, ""wtf is going on"" and start selling. Stocks are sold on a basis of a limit order book so it's real prices that people are paying. People don't care about prices currently because most don't have any finance knowledge but want to invest their own money. They just hear about Tesla doing something amazing (from some clickbait article or news outlet) and can't stop thinking about buying Tesla. They go to Chipotle and think ""wow this place is so good and hip, they must be a great investment"". The markets have been filled with more subjective analysis than ever before especially with so much low quality information at your fingertips. Equally ignorant people startin blogs about investment and personal finance being shepherds for other ignorant people. In the end they all lose. People who exclaim ""this stock is going up to $250 easily"" with literally zero quantitative analysis or even a baseline reference point to back it up are prime examples of this. Ignorance of markets and cheap money almost always lead to market runs that end catastrophically. Dot com bubble, 1929 market crash, 2008, it's always the same. People who have no business taking loans out or buying on margin or leveraging positions with debt only to get fucked over once things are brought back down to Earth. After 2 runs of QE, we now have cheap money and with everyone being a crier for their personal investment strategy, we now also have rampant ignorance. I don't expect things to last but no one can call the bottom or the top, or else you'd be very very rich. Have a safe portfolio, don't try to time the markets. Have a strategy that hedges against unexpected change, don't try to gamble on this change. Because it's ultimately impossible to predict the movement of every single person on this earth that invests their money into markets. So don't try. Just be prepared. ---- To expand further into valuation theory: at the end of the day, people invest their money to make more money. It's as simple as that. If your money doesn't grow in an investment vehicle, it's ultimately a shit investment. But no one values intrinsic value of a company's equity before they decide whether or not $380 for TSLA is a good/bad deal. As a result, stocks can be pumped up way higher and people still see the gains on their stocks through capital gains fueled by other optimistic investors. Non-zero sum goes both ways. People can make shitloads of money on stock without an equitable loser--people can also lose shitloads on stock without any real winner emerging from the rubble. When this bubble bursts, lots and lots of people will lose money on TSLA when people's expectations become rational and they stop paying $300 a share for a negative or 70 PE ratio. It's insane what multipliers people will pay for these companies without even realizing the implication--if you buy a share of a company with a PE ratio of 70, you just paid 70 times their earnings for a share. In an ideal world where they released every single penny of earnings as dividends, it would take you 70 periods to reclaim your money on that share. This obviously doesn't take into account capital gains, but capital gains aren't supposed to be this irrational to where a stock can be pumped up into 70x PE ratio in the first place. It's a whole messed up web of confusion and irrationality and eventually something will catalyze a reaction. Imagine a market where everyone just agreed to pump up a single stock to infinity and everyone just rakes in shitloads of money. Would this work? Of course not. It's literally a pyramid scheme that relies on future generations to constantly inject capital--no real value is being created by this scheme. It requires constantly more future generations to continue adding money into the scheme and will crash once people stop pumping money into it. The same thing will happen here. Everyone ""agreed"" to pump up TSLA (in a sense) but eventually people will realize this is stupid as shit and the pyramid will come tumbling down because there is nothing they receive from this scheme other than the money from other people. It's essentially moving money around, making 0 use of it, until people stop pumping money into the system and everyone realizes that nothing of real value had been produced through the use of this money. Ultimately the only thing that creates real value is the money that is returned to shareholders from an outside party--the company you're invested in. Real value is not created when people exchange stock and money. So why do these transactions create higher values in equity? The basis of equity valuation states that dividends are the only way for companies to raise the price of their stock, going off the traditional Dividend Discount Model. And theoretically, that's the only logical explanation. Buying and trading stock does nothing for the company, minus T Stock they might own. Ultimately the only party creating real value is the underlying company. If they aren't creating real value, then their stock should not be increasing, period. The way they create value is by efficiently utilizing assets to generate returns on investment which can be returned to investors through dividends. Dividends can only be increased (while maintaining an equitable payout ratio) by generating more net income that can increase the actual pool of money that can be allocated back to investors. TSLA does not do this. TSLA regularly loses money and overpromises. There is no logical explanation for any of this except that everyone is irrational. Obviously theory is not the same as in practice but the theory is important here because it's really the basis for any investment at all. At the end of the day, a share of stock is the right to a share of the company's equity. People own equity in companies because companies generate money that it returns back to its owners. That's what a company does. That's what an owner does. If you own shares of a company, you're an owner. And if your company does not return more money back to you YoY, then why are you invested in them? Ultimately, you're riding a capital gains wave that will eventually subside once market irrationality succumbs to rationality. And it always does because the real value always catches up to the fake value that is caused by pumping and dumping stocks." |
|
3753 | You really need to back that up. If you are talking about graduate degrees it is a way different ballgame as math and science researchers generally pay similar tuition's after GA and TA stipends are given out. This takes cost out of the equation and higher prestige generally means accepting better students. Thus their success become difficult to separate between their ability and the education they got. As for undergrad degrees, the prestige doesn't matter. You'll actually find a lot of public universities on those lists right up next to their expensive cousins. Then there's this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703597204575483730506372718.html. |
|
3761 | I wish that /r/economy had Submission Statement requirements like /r/TrueReddit so that when someone posts an antagonistic title like this would be forced to at least state their stance on the topic. Of course he also posted this in /r/conspiracy so I'm not sure /u/klmd should be taken terribly seriously to begin with. |
|
3763 | Thanks to the online world, check ordering is much easier and less expensive.On our CheckOrdering.net website, we will show you the most effective way to check ordering. You’ll be able to order checks for personal or business use. you will not need to concern yourself with having someone else do this once arduous task. |
|
3764 | I think the only way to have an idea of whats going on is to take a sip of all the propaganda lies misinformation half-truths and of course the ever coveted granules of truth. Then sift through all the crap by overlaying all the stories on top of each other then fact checking what comes through as the actual story -the spin |
|
3768 | [Chevy Bolt](http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle) 238 miles range. You can buy it NOW, instead of waiting until next year. I would rather buy from GM than from Slick Muskie. Parking problem is syndrome of dysfunctional management. I don't trust a place that can't even fix their parking problem could build a good car. |
|
3773 | I would classify Bitcoin as a hybrid. Currency : It is accepted by e-businesses as a form of payment Commodity : Chart illustrating the volatility and speculative nature of Bitcoin |
|
3778 | Why is the US still working with paper checks when Europe went digital about a decade ago? Tax filing is just another area in which the US is lagging. Modernizing it costs money, and the US is quite close to bankruptcy (as seen by the repeated government shutdowns). Also, the US tax code is quite complicated. For instance, I doubt there's anyone who has a full and complete list of all allowed deductions. Some comments wonder about multiple incomes. This doesn't require tax filing either. My local tax authority just sends me a combined statement with data from 2 employers and 2 banks, and asks me to confirm the resulting payment. This is possible because tax number usage is strictly regulated. SSN abuse in the US presumably makes this problematic. |
|
3789 | Based on the definitions I found on Investopedia, it depends on whether or not it is going against an asset or a liability. I am not sure what type of accounting you are performing, but I know in my personal day-to-day dealings credits are money coming into my account and debits are money going out of my account. Definition: Credit, Definition: Debit |
|
3793 | "> I have a bachelor's degree in management, but for the most part, we skimmed through several finance-related subjects like investments, project analysis. I wish I could flag the question of ""why do they do this to you kids"" for future discussion with those more knowledgable, because surely there are incentives shaping these programs. However, you asked for assistance, so I will share the limited knowledge that I have. From the other advice, it seems clear that you should absolutely pursue a stronger background in accounting and finance in order to accomplish your long-term goals. This work will need to extend past the point of this particular interview, whether you are hired by this company or not. So you should probably approach that as a concurrent educational goal, rather than tying it to your preparations for this interview per se. With regards to seeming smart, per se: don't sweat it too much. If you're qualified for the job without a certified educational background, then it's not a position where relative intelligence, short of frame-breaking brilliance, is going to be decisive. Past the point where your prospective competence is established, other factors will quickly overshadow it. Attempting to impress people with intelligence, rather than concrete achievements, should by rights serve as a red flag for prospective employers. Intelligence cultivates its own set of liabilities and deficiencies. The world is full of intelligent people who would rather be measured by what they *could* have achieved, rather than what they *did* achieve. If attempting to be hired for this job involves a fully transparent approach --- that is, the company would be interested in knowingly hiring someone with an incomplete background *in the work they will eventually be expected to perform* --- then your ability to prepare for the interview is a significant part of your resumé. Low-hanging fruit, nonetheless easily missed, are histories of the industry, the technology, and the particular company." |
|
3796 | This is a common occurrence when somebody has multiple jobs in one year. The employer can't know if you have reached the annual limit. They know to stop when you have hit the maximum for their company, but don't have information on the other jobs. In fact the IRS doesn't let them factor in the other jobs. They have to keep making their payment until you hit the max for their company. When you fill out the 1040 there will be a line that checks that the total social security amount for each person was not over the annual limit. The extra will be refunded when you file your taxes. In the future if this happens again you can adjust your withholding to minimize the overage. For the example given in the question to get the 4K extra sooner, increase the number of allowances on the W-4. You can under withhold federal income tax because you will over withhold social security tax. |
|
3805 | It's not clear exactly what you're after, but I'd echo /u/avarachen93 and say read the news. I'd focus on the WSJ, Financial Times, and Bloomberg. With the WSJ, read the business and finance section every day. Some articles will explain a topic quite well. Others will assume you already know the underpinnings. If you don't, go search for more on that until you do. Also, for a more focused look at the financial news you can read some news summaries such as Matt Levine's Money Stuff or NY Time's DealBook. |
|
3817 | This is a good reminder for investors to be skeptical of M&A with respect to shareholder value creation. > S&P Global Market Intelligence Quantamental Research, a research arm of the ratings agency, has updated a study on the impact of deals on the acquiring company’s share price. The study looked at M&A deals done by listed companies in America’s Russell 3000 index between January 2001 and August 2017; deals were only included if they cost more than 5% of the total enterprise value of the acquirer (5% of the equity value, for financial companies). The acquirers’ shares underperformed the market ([see chart](https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20171007_FNC817_1.png)) and those of rival firms in the same industry. |
|
3855 | You could try looking for a UK implementation of http://www.yodlee.com/ : Google tells me that http://www.lovemoney.com/ ( http://www.yodlee.com/2010_1_20.html ) is one such service. I use ANZ money manager - an Australian implementation of Yodlee and find it very useful. I wouldn't use Yodlee directly though (http://money-watch.co.uk/7197/uk-pfm-tool-review-yodlee-moneycenter) those T&Cs don't sound great. |
|
3893 | "Welcome to Money.SE, and thank you for your service. In general, buying a house is wise if (a) the overall cost of ownership is less than the ongoing cost to rent in the area, and (b) you plan to stay in that area for some time, usually 7+ years. The VA loan is a unique opportunity and I'd recommend you make the most of it. In my area, I've seen bank owned properties that had an ""owner occupied"" restriction. 3 family homes that were beautiful, and when the numbers were scrubbed, the owner would see enough rent on two units to pay the mortgage, taxes, and still have money for maintenance. Each situation is unique, but some ""too good to be true"" deals are still out there." |
|
3925 | That's the tragedy. No one in industry checks what coursework you took they just assume that the BS is more quantitative and impressive. There is certainly enough variation amongst programs such that some BAs have quant heavy work and some BSs do stand for bull shit. |
|
3926 | >I appreciate the detailed responses, truthfully however I feel like at least half of your points are either just argumentative for its sake alone, display a deep lack of understanding of unions, collective bargaining, and the histories of both, or ignore pragmatism and cling to an uncompromising and ultimately self-defeating ideology. I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. >The law forces the two parties to sit at a table. The law forces the two parties to discuss a few core things, like wages. The law should not force any party to sit at any table. That violates a party's contract liberty. >The idea is since these worker-employer disputes exist naturally, making them at least sit at a table together and talking is helpful in avoiding ego and testosterone fueled disruptions where no one benefits. That's nice that you think you know what's better for other people than they do for themselves, but that doesn't give you a right to force them to any table. A right to contract freedom means the right to dismiss any offer or refuse to even negotiate with a party. >If this you see this as a violation of one's liberty, I really don't know what to say to that. Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. >I'm not saying I don't believe you, but citation needed. Sorry I don't have time to dig up citations now. If I have time later, I'd be happy to do so. All I could find now is an inverse correlation between the state of a country's credit market and the rate of child labor: http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/Papers476-500/r486.pdf >>There is an abundance of indirect empirical evidence, discussed below, concerning the role of credit constraints and educational attainment. However, Dehejia and Gatti (2002) test the hypothesis directly. They estimate a basic model of child labor determination for a panel of 172 countries for the years 1950-60, 1970, 1980, and 1995. >>The credit-constraint variable is proxied by the share in GDP of private credit issued by 10 deposit-money banks. They find that a one standard deviation increase in the share of credit in GDP is associated with a 10 percent standard deviation decrease in child labor. They conclude that families with access to credit are considerably less likely to put children to work during a period of economic volatility than parents without access to credit. >Wouldn't educating children first lead to an increase in productivity? Also, what if the owners of the means of production, only a few in an given area, have incomes 100x greater than the workers? If there are efficient financial markets that allow parents to borrow money against the expected future increase in earnings from their children being educated, then yes. In less developed economies, these markets have not developed, and the choice is often between death and child labor. >They seem to be producing enough wealth to support themselves, only they're not the beneficiaries. Studies have shown that by and large, parents act altruistically towards their children, and only put them to work if it is in the children's best interest. e.g. page 32: http://www.econ.puc-rio.br/pdf/seminario/2003/manacorda.pdf >>Taking together the evidence so far presented, it appears that the data are consistent with a model where the returns from child labor do not accrue to the parents. Parents redistribute entirely these returns to their children in the form of lower labor supply and higher schooling (plus possibly increased consumption). 47 Laws against child labor therefore will generally do more harm than good. >What's the solution here? The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. >This is typical anti-union propaganda, and it's funny you pull it out since it ignores your own ideology. What interest would a union have in destroying the very industry it needs to exist? Answer: none. A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. >I have no idea how one could come to this conclusion. I can only assume it stems from the same old idea that employers are always paying out the most that they can afford. Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. >I happen to have first-hand knowledge that it's false however - when my workplace unionized recently, one of around a dozen locations nationally and the only one to organize, the company responded by increasing wages and benefits to all locations. Have any locations closed? No. Has anyone been laid off? No. Is the company still mad profitable? Yes. A general effect happens gradually over a course of decades, and happens in the aggregate, not in every case. It will not be apparent in the short-run, and will not be manifested in every case. In other words, that unionization did not result in immediate bankruptcy of your industry does not prove that unionization does not have a negative effect over the average long term performance of industries and average long term increase in wages. |
|
3929 | >But you go ahead and keep saying that bribery and dishonesty pay, and i'll just never do business with you. Being morally righteous isn't going to take you far in life more so going to cripple you in terms of what you can buy. You have a smartphone right? Look up who made what in it and your bound to see Samsung's name there. |
|
3932 | First, you are reading that document correctly, but it's not 78% of original mortgage. It is actually 78% of original home value. For example, if the home was valued at $100K when you bought it and you received a $90K loan, PMI must be removed when you owe $78K, not 78% of $90K. To make matters worse for the bank, they missed the required timing to drop PMI. I would print the document you referenced, cite the applicable portion, and tell them if they do not comply, you will report them for failure to comply. For example, I'm sure I am not the only one in this situation, and the FDIC will be eager to assess the huge fines they can collect from a bank that isn't operating within the law. Something like that. |
|
3939 | Hold on a moment - you were getting 5-7.5% commission on a product that only had a 40% gross margin? That's.... amazingly high. Really. Considering that you are saying that the cost of goods sold for a typical TV is 60% (which sounds close enough to be realistic - my business is typically about 56% COGS), and then add to that the overhead of base salary, utilities, leasehold and leasehold improvements, taxes, operating costs... Sears was probably making a final total of about 2% net margin on that TV sale, which isn't particular great. Getting paid a commission that high on commodity goods is really quite good. |
|
3940 | Nobody actually paid the ridiculous tax rates of the time. People exploited loopholes like they do now. Back then, there were more. So the actual tax rate is irrelevant, and the actual tax rate paid is important. I see this argument way too often. |
|
3957 | "People should borrow and spend less, and save more. Is this truly correct? Isn't the fundamental problem high supply and no demand? Shouldn't it be ""borrow less but spend more"" - which of course would mean getting higher wages. Am I wrong? Please to be educating." |
|
3971 | Yes but the trendy new term is plant-based diet, and I think the attraction for a vegan fast food would be to get a quick, healthy meal that is reminiscent of typical fast food. The way meat protein is consumed in the US and elsewhere is typically in conjunction with other processed ingredients. If someone figures out a good menu with relatively healthy vegan food, I definitely think they could be successful. Something like Jamba Juice where they have many locations inside or next to gyms seems like it could work. Smoothies don't always cut it and a quick, cheap, healthy snack would be fantastic after or before a work out. Honestly I never go to restaurants that serve meats and order something that is strictly vegan/vegetarian. If there was a place I could go to quickly that specializes in vegan food I would love to give it a try. |
|
3984 | Well, the problem with putting a group of people in charge of something so substantial is that man is corruptible. The individuals in charge will change over time and eventually corrupt people will be in charge. It's inevitable. > If you were in charge, what action would you take? If I were in charge of the Fed or if I were in charge of designing a brand new monetary system? If I were in charge of the Fed, I would immediately stop the creation of this funny money, make all of the Fed's account books, publications, meeting minutes and all other info public information. I would invite a full audit of the entire organization. I would then hold the people accountable for any fraud that turns up. Then I would simply abolish the organization. I believe local banks can better set lending rates just as local store owners can set better prices than a single federal organization. Interest rates would reflect actual demand for loans, not reflect the secret personal agenda of some arrogant, elitist bureaucrat. If I were designing a new monetary system, I would combine the obvious benefits of a gold/silver standard with the openness and decentralized nature of a currency like bitcoin. I would create a published and predictable increase to the money supply that could not be changed, and would grow just enough to avoid constant deflation as economies expanded. Most importantly, I would advocate and encourage the creation of alternate currencies to allow honest competition. |
|
3998 | Being a lawyer in London comes with a higher level of prominence and responsibility, given the prominence of the place itself in various fields, including law and justice. This distinction has made the city a veritable battleground for counsels across several courts, with the Old Bailey as the most famous of all. |
|
4003 | "Oh, so you are a HR ""professional"". Everybody knows and its a source for a lot of jokes and essays that HR people are the enemy of employees, clueless about human relations and job requirements and the main cause of low moral in many companies. And you, as an HR ""Professional"" going to give me lessons on how to evaluate candidates for IT jobs and how much they should get paid? LOL!!!!!" |
|
4006 | "If you're ready to start a 529 account, it makes a big difference which state you choose (some states have excessive fees). It doesn't have to be your own state, but some states give you tax incentives to stay in-state. What you need to do is check out Clark Howard's 529 Guide and check to see if your state is in the ""good"" list. If not, then pick out a good state." |
|
4028 | "I always enjoy reading the comments on these articles talking about how great Europe is compared to US. And maybe for some portion of society it is better, but there has to be a reason why so many people immigrate here. The US healthcare system is a toilet, but you get high quality care if you have good insurance or can afford it otherwise. I think the ""positive"" of the US system is if you take advantage of all the opportunities it affords and you have a little luck you can be very successful. The sky is literally the limit. I have very little frame of reference but it seems a large number of Europeans I have met are content to make an income that allows them to live a very basic lifestyle." |
|
4031 | "Even if we accept these claims as being true, neither the fact that their clients are more confident, nor the fact that people who use an investment professional have a higher net worth tells you anything about the value of the service that such professionals provide. Judging a service provider is a complex matter where you take into account multiple variables but the main ones are the cost and quality of the service, the cost and quality of doing it yourself and the value you assign to your time and effort. I think it's highly likely that professional gardeners will on average maintain larger gardens than those who do their own garden work. And any professional will have more experience at his profession than an average member of the public. But to determine if hiring a professional is objectively ""better"" requires defining what that word means. Finance is a bit weird in that respect since we actually do have objective ways of measuring results by looking at performance over time. But since the quotes you give here don't address that at all, we can simply conclude that they do not make the case for anything related to financial performance." |
|
4038 | "Two reasons: Many people make lots of financial decisions (and other kinds of decisions) without actually running any numbers to see what is best (or even possible). They just go with their gut and buy things they feel like buying, without making a thoroughgoing attempt to assess the impact on their finances. I share your bafflement at this, but it is true. A sobering example that has stuck with me can be found in this Los Angeles Times story from a few years ago, which describes a family spending $1000 more than their income every month, while defaulting on their mortgage and dipping into their 7-year-old daughter's savings account to cover the bills --- but still spending $275 a month on ""beauty products and services"" and $200 a month on pet expenses. Even to the extent that people do take finances into account, finances are not the only thing they take into account. For many people, driving a car that is new, looks nice and fresh, has the latest features, etc., is something they are willing to pay money for. Your question ""why don't people view a car solely as a means of transportation"" is not a financial question but a psychological one. The answer to ""why do people buy new cars"" is ""because people do not view cars solely as a means of transportation"". I recently bought a used car, and while looking around at different ones I visited a car lot. When the dealer heard which car I was interested in, he said, ""So, I guess you're looking for a transportation car."" I thought to myself, ""Duh. Is there any other kind?"" But the fact that someone can say something like that indicates that there are many people who are looking for something other than a ""transportation car""." |
|
4044 | Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc. |
|
4063 | You only OWN a 217-foot yacht as an investment. If you want to yacht, ~~lease~~ rent. If you own one you're going to ~~lease~~ rent it out anyway unless you intend to use it as your home and I think you're likely to get tired of that pretty soon. Otherwise you're just tying up capital stupidly. |
|
4066 | Why do people buy them when they would be cheap to make for themselves? Convenience. While you could easily find some pictures and lay them out with a sentiment, buy some card stock, print in colour, trim it, and perhaps glue on some glitter or whatnot, and then find an envelope that fits it, it's likely to take you an hour or more to do so. And you'll invest far more than $6 on your printer and various inventories. I made cards for my kids- we had construction paper, glitter, coloured markers etc and there was no need for an envelope. But most people will find it quicker and simpler to buy one fully assembled. The cost of the online ones is weird I agree. Perhaps people are also not confident they can compose a good greeting? Why do stores stock $6 cards that they buy for $3 (retail markup is 50-100% and I'm sure it's closer to 100% for cards) when a different supplier might provide them for $2? Well, even if such a supplier existed, I'm sure the store would be happy to sell for $6 still (see: people buy them) so there would be no consumer impact. A store that sells cards for $5 isn't going to siphon customers from elsewhere because most of us just don't buy cards often enough for it to matter. Why does nobody become that supplier who will sell them cheaper? Selling stuff is more expensive than making stuff, and getting your product into retail stores is hard. Hard means time and time means money and all of that contributes more to the card price than the ink and paper do. That said, dollar stores sell cards, for a dollar typically, and people do buy them. I find they have less colours and the artwork is cruder. Perhaps you even get what you pay for when it comes to design, layout, printing etc. |
|
4091 | Okay bad decisions, time to move on: Then move on with your life and don't fall for this kind of thing again. In the end you can probably end this with a net profit, or at worst, a small loss. You are welcome to breathe a sigh of relief. |
|
4118 | I didn't say they didn't do anything wrong. I said that criminal fraud is both difficult to prove and expensive to prosecute and therefore jail time was never a real possibility. They could have other regulatory transgressions that the government his hitting them for. Or more likely, it is just a shake down where the regulators promise more harsh sanctions or bad publicity that would actually cost BoA more than $16 billion in the future. The fine is a way for both parties to save face. |
|
4127 | Such inequalities only exist for very short periods of time, precisely because people make money exploiting them. Read up on arbitrage. |
|
4149 | Android is kinda behind as well honestly. If you really want to be up-to-date with your phone, rooting and installing third-party utility and apps is the way to do it. But yeah, it's pretty funny to have a standard android phone that makes the current flagship iPhone look outdated. |
|
4153 | Congratulations on being in such good financial state. You have a few investment choices. If you want very low risk, you are talking bonds or CDs. With the prime rate so low, nobody is paying anything useful for very low risk investments. However, my opinion is that given your finances, you should consider taking on a little more risk. A good step is a index fund, which is designed to mirror the performance of a stock index such as the S&P 500. That may be volatile in the short-term, but is likely to be a good investment in the longer term. I am not a fan of non-index mutual funds; in general the management charge makes them a less attractive investment. The next step up is investing in individual stocks, which can provide very big gains or very big losses. The Motley fool site (www.fool.com) has a lot of information about investing overall. |
|
4162 | Put bluntly, if you do a couple extra lines of code, the company isn't going to notice a difference in revenue. If a salesman sells a few more RGU's, the company makes a bit more money. They are more valuable than you are. It's just that simple. |
|
4163 | "As long as it's optional and the drivers are paid as part of the fair I don't think a tip option is a big deal. Again, it has to be optional as a reward for extraordinary service not the ""tip"" in a restaurant which is actually payment for services rendered because the cost of food doesn't cover labor for waitstaff. Any service oriented job should have the ability to accept a tip for exceptional service in the same form of currency as the primary form of payment. Ideally, no one would need to live off of tips." |