Slashdot Mirror

I was about to call BS, my pea-sized brain immediately thought "there is now way that small wattage would make much of a difference." But this seems to indicate that 350 watts is enough to raise a well insulated 10'x10'x10' room 10 degrees. You definitely have a valid point.

Depends on what you call a "very good return on investment".

At 5% per year, $3,200 per year for 45 years comes to a bit under $550k

To end up with $1M after 45 years investing $3,200 per year, you need a return of under 7.1%

Compound interest makes a big difference...

It does. But at the moment, getting 5% or even 7% for a small time investor seems to be unlikely. And the compound interest effect is contributing less if, realistically, your income increases over time as you get experience and promotions - you're able to safe less in your early career, with lower pay and (often) higher expenses.

Depends on what you call a "very good return on investment".

At 5% per year, $3,200 per year for 45 years comes to a bit under $550k

To end up with $1M after 45 years investing $3,200 per year, you need a return of under 7.1%

Compound interest makes a big difference...

It does. But at the moment, getting 5% or even 7% for a small time investor seems to be unlikely. And the compound interest effect is contributing less if, realistically, your income increases over time as you get experience and promotions - you're able to safe less in your early career, with lower pay and (often) higher expenses.

Depends on what you call a "very good return on investment".

At 5% per year, $3,200 per year for 45 years comes to a bit under $550k

To end up with $1M after 45 years investing $3,200 per year, you need a return of under 7.1%

Compound interest makes a big difference...

Depends on what you call a "very good return on investment".

At 5% per year, $3,200 per year for 45 years comes to a bit under $550k

To end up with $1M after 45 years investing $3,200 per year, you need a return of under 7.1%

Compound interest makes a big difference...

My bad. BMR. No wonder google didn't help. Basal metabolic rate is the amount of calories you would consume if you were bedridden. We need a huge amount of calories simply for brain and organ function. Basic BMR calculators are a good way to start.

After a lot of effort I found that my BMR was within 10% of these basic calculators.
see: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/to...
see: http://www.calculator.net/bmr-...

Pick a weight you want to be at (say 225). Find the BMR for that weight and that's what you should eat for the day. Make sure you get enough protein so you may have cut your carbs.

http://www.calculator.net/btu-...

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/c...

57KW of cooling for a 50 F decrease

Air conditioners can get 2-3 times the amount put in.

20-30KW for cooling.

Heaters generally are 1 more.

15-20KW for heating.

You could power a stationary Boeing 747 on solar. You just could not move it in the air.

How do you get 200 years? Money in the stock market makes returns.

Use this calculator
http://www.calculator.net/futu...

Put in $5,000 payment
Nothing at start.
43 years (65 - 22), 6.3%
Do this in an IRA so there are no taxes involved.
You will have $1,018,527 at the end.

6.3% is reasonable. I have been averaging over 8% for last 20 years including the big meltdowns.

Federal tax receipts, historical. In 1957 tax receipts were basically $80 billion. In 2013, tax receipts were $2,775 billion.

Population of the US, historical. In 1957, there were about 172 million people. In 2013 there are about 317 million.

Inflation calculator. A 1957 dollar is worth about $8.46 in 2013

Tax receipts in 1957, per capita: $465. Correct for a 2013 dollar (multiply by $8.46) and you get about $3900 (the Federal Government also ran a real cash surplus and the national debt decreased).

Tax receipts in 2013, per capita: $8754. Or a bit more than double that 1957 per-capita after you adjust for inflation (deficit - pushing over $2000 per person).

Essentially, the Federal Government is taking about twice out of everybody's pocket as it did back in the "high tax" 50s. The difference is in the deductions allowed today versus then, so the actual, effective tax rate was dramatically different than what many suspect. And given that the overwhelming majority of tax receipts come from high income people (the top 10% pay more than 70% of all Federal income taxes, and when you include SSI/FICA - which they would all cap out - and capital gains, approximately 88% of individual, and 40% of ALL, Federal receipts comes from the income of these top 10%), we are witnessing a massive wealth redistribution at the hands of the Federal Government. The fact it's happening so poorly is not a reflection on the taxpayers, but the inefficiency and corrupt nature of the Federal Government.

Given that being in Congress makes one quite wealthy, perhaps a lot of that redistribution is strictly for the benefit of those IN Government. It's still a Federal Government by the people and of the people, but increasingly FOR Government, not for the people.

In addition to increasing prices there is also inflation which helps prop up the numbers. In fact between 1990 and 2012 American currency has nearly halved in purchasing power due to inflation. $16 in 1990 is $30 in 2012 dollars.

In the US they don't get a lot of things you get "free" e.g. healthcare. They have sales taxes too. They have federal, and often have state and city taxes. http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay-calculator.html
If you use California (since others have used it to compare it with Sweden): http://map.ais.ucla.edu/go/1002763 that's probably a state tax of about 10% and city tax of 0%.

Add expensive medical insurance (unless covered by employer). Add it all up and what's left might not be that much more compared to Sweden.

You'd be unlikely to get 100Mbps broadband for cheap. But cars and fuel are cheap. I suspect beer and food is cheaper too.

In my opinion the path Sweden has chosen seems better assuming technology improves and we get more automation - robots etc. After a while, you'd just have a growing percentage of people who are just not competitive compared to AIs and robots. What then do you do with them?

In Sweden you'd keep them fed, sheltered and entertained using some of the stuff (and profits) produced by the robots. It's easy enough to do given a socialist welfare state.

That doesn't work so well when you have a "winner takes all" society, there will be a lot of unhappy losers. They may have stupidly voted for that unhappy result, but that may not stop social unrest and other unpleasantness.