I have to agree. Looking at income mobility data and the industries and circumstances that are producing NEW millionaires makes the point crystal clear. For example, you don't need to benefit from an inheritance to realizes benefits from having a rich (or even richer-than-average) family.
Also, the distribution of those who tend to accumulate wealth is massively skewed. So while you MAY be one of the lucky ones to not have their entire portfolio dissolve when the next financial crises occurs, your path to being rich is still poor, by the standards of the truly wealthy.
Hi. Economist here. I didn't read TFA but any decent behavioral economist should be accounting for our human bias towards loss aversion (psychologically speaking losses weigh up to 5x as heavily on us as a proportional gain). Therefore, the $1000 "value" should be divided by 5, giving us an UPPER bound of $200 of value.
Agree with other posters here: a better alternative is to ask how much would someone pay? The answer is apparently not a lot, which is why have to use ads and steal our data. If I had to guess, $15/less, probably closer to =$5.
You are correct in that there would still be an annual deficit. Current projections for 2018 show a deficit of $810 billion. That would be mean cutting defense spending in half would account for a 38% reduction in our yearly deficit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by one third, that seems like a pretty good idea.
I like your logic, but I can do ya one better. Medicare and medicaid account for $1.2 trillion in spending. So if you cut healthcare spending in half you could save $600 billion per year, which would be a 74% reduction in the defecit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by two thirds, that seems like a pretty good idea.
The difference is: spending on healthcare directly improves people's lives and substantially contributes to economic growth and American prosperity.
Whereas, military spending has a much small economic multiplier effect and what growth it does generate is often corruptly distributed - and at the cost of destroyed lives, infrastructure, and resources abroad.
Cuts to medicare and medicaid would be obviously deleterious whereas cuts to our ludicrous military budget would be comparatively harmless and promote growth.
Why would you give sound, actionable, FREE advice to your shitty ex-employer. If anything you should have been focused on gas-lighting the exit interviewer
Exactly, wish I had mod points for your AC comment.
Pete is drinking the Koolaid. The money sits idle and is leveraged as collateral. This is modern capital management/MBA thinking 101.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree. Looking at income mobility data and the industries and circumstances that are producing NEW millionaires makes the point crystal clear. For example, you don't need to benefit from an inheritance to realizes benefits from having a rich (or even richer-than-average) family. Also, the distribution of those who tend to accumulate wealth is massively skewed. So while you MAY be one of the lucky ones to not have their entire portfolio dissolve when the next financial crises occurs, your path to being rich is still poor, by the standards of the truly wealthy.
Hi. Economist here. I didn't read TFA but any decent behavioral economist should be accounting for our human bias towards loss aversion (psychologically speaking losses weigh up to 5x as heavily on us as a proportional gain). Therefore, the $1000 "value" should be divided by 5, giving us an UPPER bound of $200 of value. Agree with other posters here: a better alternative is to ask how much would someone pay? The answer is apparently not a lot, which is why have to use ads and steal our data. If I had to guess, $15/less, probably closer to =$5.
You are correct in that there would still be an annual deficit. Current projections for 2018 show a deficit of $810 billion. That would be mean cutting defense spending in half would account for a 38% reduction in our yearly deficit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by one third, that seems like a pretty good idea.
I like your logic, but I can do ya one better. Medicare and medicaid account for $1.2 trillion in spending. So if you cut healthcare spending in half you could save $600 billion per year, which would be a 74% reduction in the defecit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by two thirds, that seems like a pretty good idea.
The difference is: spending on healthcare directly improves people's lives and substantially contributes to economic growth and American prosperity. Whereas, military spending has a much small economic multiplier effect and what growth it does generate is often corruptly distributed - and at the cost of destroyed lives, infrastructure, and resources abroad. Cuts to medicare and medicaid would be obviously deleterious whereas cuts to our ludicrous military budget would be comparatively harmless and promote growth.
Did you seriously just assert that we're in an "employee market"?
Why would you give sound, actionable, FREE advice to your shitty ex-employer. If anything you should have been focused on gas-lighting the exit interviewer
Exactly, wish I had mod points for your AC comment. Pete is drinking the Koolaid. The money sits idle and is leveraged as collateral. This is modern capital management/MBA thinking 101.
Cool ideas. Now pass the bong, please.
lol