Actually, you did need the insurance by his definition, you misunderstood his definition by interpreting it too strictly. You had people depending on your income, you just hadn't met them yet. If you are considering dropping your life insurance, you need to be sure that you don't and won't need that income protection.
Term is the most common kind of life insurance, and it is generally regarded the best investment (that is, it is better to save on the cost of the policy, and invest that money, rather than pay more to get a cash-out at the end).
I think the examples involving cooperative clients who WANT to protect themselves but might make an error made a lot more sense. This technology makes a great deal more sense in that context.
Statistically, I'm right about those with money. Social mobility in this country is very low, look it up. Which is not to say that there aren't exceptions, just not many.
And no, investing your capital in the work of others isn't service.
True. I guess it really depends on whether we assume that the payout rate drops (which it might) as a result of this new medical breakthrough, really, and is somewhat independent of the age to which we live. The insurance really just covers the odd chance that we don't live long enough to raise our children. How much beyond that we live is irrelevant to the equation, but if our chance of dying in that period drops significantly, then the cost will go down.
But in a bad economy, that's horrible news for the young. Older workers will hold onto jobs to try to fund their new lifespan (and remember, can't fire them once they're over 40 without some serious lawsuit risk). Younger workers won't be able to compete with their experience (and older workers can take paycuts if that's what it takes to keep the young person frozen out).
Why? Most people only need life insurance until their children are out of college, and/or their homes are paid for. Once you achieve that, you drop your life insurance (maybe carrying it to term if the potential payoff seems worth it relative to the risk).
In contrast, for example, to being born to wealthy parents, and then leveraging your access to capital to exploit the work done of others and take their earnings as your own.
I dispute your premise. Show me the invention that hasn't had multiple people behind it. Every patent is a race to file. We have plenty of inventive people.
And frankly, if the case you described were real, I think I and others might be willing to make an exception. None of the wealthy today are worthy of that exception. Not one.
How about only until the top 1% controls no more than 10% of the wealth? They'd still have ten times as much as the next guy they want to look down on. But that guy they were spitting on would be so much better off.
Unfortunately, in step 2, your proposed psychopath was unable to resist murdering his opponent after the first ding. Poor impulse control in that population makes this kind of long term plan very unlikely to be useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you did need the insurance by his definition, you misunderstood his definition by interpreting it too strictly. You had people depending on your income, you just hadn't met them yet. If you are considering dropping your life insurance, you need to be sure that you don't and won't need that income protection.
Term is the most common kind of life insurance, and it is generally regarded the best investment (that is, it is better to save on the cost of the policy, and invest that money, rather than pay more to get a cash-out at the end).
I think the examples involving cooperative clients who WANT to protect themselves but might make an error made a lot more sense. This technology makes a great deal more sense in that context.
Statistically, I'm right about those with money. Social mobility in this country is very low, look it up. Which is not to say that there aren't exceptions, just not many.
And no, investing your capital in the work of others isn't service.
True. I guess it really depends on whether we assume that the payout rate drops (which it might) as a result of this new medical breakthrough, really, and is somewhat independent of the age to which we live. The insurance really just covers the odd chance that we don't live long enough to raise our children. How much beyond that we live is irrelevant to the equation, but if our chance of dying in that period drops significantly, then the cost will go down.
Nope, it makes you rational. Sunk costs are sunk costs, no matter how large and emotional.
The eggs running out is not what puts a boundary on female fertility (yet).
But in a bad economy, that's horrible news for the young. Older workers will hold onto jobs to try to fund their new lifespan (and remember, can't fire them once they're over 40 without some serious lawsuit risk). Younger workers won't be able to compete with their experience (and older workers can take paycuts if that's what it takes to keep the young person frozen out).
Why? Most people only need life insurance until their children are out of college, and/or their homes are paid for. Once you achieve that, you drop your life insurance (maybe carrying it to term if the potential payoff seems worth it relative to the risk).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earn
1a) to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered
In contrast, for example, to being born to wealthy parents, and then leveraging your access to capital to exploit the work done of others and take their earnings as your own.
Indeed, while they dress like frilly girls, in general it would take no more than 10 mounties to take on 1 swat.
I dispute your premise. Show me the invention that hasn't had multiple people behind it. Every patent is a race to file. We have plenty of inventive people.
And frankly, if the case you described were real, I think I and others might be willing to make an exception. None of the wealthy today are worthy of that exception. Not one.
Don't shoot the messenger!
How about only until the top 1% controls no more than 10% of the wealth? They'd still have ten times as much as the next guy they want to look down on. But that guy they were spitting on would be so much better off.
'Earn' doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The idea that someone could 'earn' a billion dollars is ... hilarious.
Well, that would be a net win in terms of loss of life. A horrendous number of people have to die to maintain that wealth.
As defined in abnormal psychology 101, it is rare.
Psychopathy. Otherwise it would be detectable in younger children who haven't mastered deception yet.
Trolling, or just stupid? The song is all about stalking.
In 20 years (at the latest) vending machines will be able to use magnetic fields to induce advertisements directly into your brain.
And computer 'science'. Don't get me started on those guys.
Psychopathy is rare. Any decent sized random sample of college students would suffice as a control.
Insult with no argument = troll.
Weak one, though.
Unfortunately, in step 2, your proposed psychopath was unable to resist murdering his opponent after the first ding. Poor impulse control in that population makes this kind of long term plan very unlikely to be useful.
I'd make a different assumption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Like_the_Wolf