| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 28 2016 04:14 Plansix wrote: That is what the ACA is. And a few of the states are fighting it. Weirdly, these are the states that are also poor and have a lot of citizens that could use low cost insurance. Convincing people to vote against their best interest is a time honored tradition. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 28 2016 04:17 OuchyDathurts wrote: Convincing people to vote against their best interest is a time honored tradition. And people will rush to do if it you sell it hard enough. Look at the south and the civil war. Convince a bunch of poor white people to go fight so rich white people can keep owning black slaves. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
If this is true, were polls not nearly as reliable in 1980 as they (mostly) are now? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On October 28 2016 04:26 plasmidghost wrote: https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/791668508304310272 If this is true, were polls not nearly as reliable in 1980 as they (mostly) are now? If I remember right there was only 1 debate that year and it was a week before the election so the polls didn't get the numbers immediately. Polling was also sparser and less accurare, yes. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
cost saving will have to come from treatment and price control. insurance is pretty whatever. the va system delivers cost savings of 40-50% for high quality of care. should be part of the plans along with more doctors in training and improving preventive care. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 28 2016 04:26 plasmidghost wrote: https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/791668508304310272 If this is true, were polls not nearly as reliable in 1980 as they (mostly) are now? http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-there-any-precedent-for-a-trump-comeback/ Should read that article again about the potential for a Trump comeback. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15726 Posts
On October 28 2016 04:26 plasmidghost wrote: https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/791668508304310272 If this is true, were polls not nearly as reliable in 1980 as they (mostly) are now? I would argue it isn't even appropriate making comparisons to 2012. This election is remarkably unique. | ||
|
CobaltBlu
United States919 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 28 2016 03:40 KwarK wrote: Not even slightly. Firstly, these reports come out daily and they always say different things. It's the 43,200 stopped clocks approach, have one for every second of the day (well, of the 12 hours) and just point at a different one whenever anyone asks what time it is. Nobody fucking knows. Secondly, typical balanced portfolio of 60/40 is neither typical nor balanced, those depend entirely on the circumstances of the individual investor. Thirdly, they're cherry picking dates here. They're using a start date of September 2006 to argue their point, does that not seem a little strange to you? Fourthly, 6.6% compounding, or even 5% compounding in real terms, is still a shitton of money. Fifthly, just as a simple exercise in compounding I ran a basic calculation. If you work for 45 years and in the first year save $5,000, second year $6,000 and so forth (inflation adjusted) with 5% compounding growth then you end up with $3,092,503.90. You actually hit the inflation adjusted million dollar mark after just 30 years. Sorry, but not only am I not even slightly worried by your cherry picked stopped clock but it actually illustrates my point, not yours. Your worst case scenario puts someone saving just $5,000 a year (with small annual increases) at over $3 million dollars. just briefly: no it doesn't seem odd that they picked sept 2006, since that's a ten year run. they are comparing it to the next ten year run. the point of the article is that the simulation has 0% probability of achieving at least 5%. using 5% then, is already working outside the assumptions i am not getting 3mill. whats your max contribution? are you assuming median income and are you considering what total net income is after such contributions? let's consider the far more realistic but still ambitious working llife of 40 years with $5k contributions annually. at a 4% rate of return i'm looking at $700k before taxes. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23578 Posts
On October 28 2016 05:17 Mohdoo wrote: I would argue it isn't even appropriate making comparisons to 2012. This election is remarkably unique. I keep seeing the margins detailed, but not the raw totals. Has anyone seen how that compares to 12 or 08? | ||
KwarK
United States43458 Posts
| ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On October 28 2016 05:27 IgnE wrote: just briefly: no it doesn't seem odd that they picked sept 2006, since that's a ten year run. they are comparing it to the next ten year run. the point of the article is that the simulation has 0% probability of achieving at least 5%. using 5% then, is already working outside the assumptions i am not getting 3mill. whats your max contribution? are you assuming median income and are you considering what total net income is after such contributions? let's consider the far more realistic but still ambitious working llife of 40 years with $5k contributions annually. at a 4% rate of return i'm looking at $700k before taxes. Adjust your annual contributions by inflation and you will see that number change drastically. granted the inflation adjusted values of either your or Kwarks scenario in todays dollars will be significantly less, but you get the idea. BTW thank you Kwark for putting me on the path to dollar dollar bills y'all. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On October 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote: Igne, I don't know why you can't use Excel so I can't speak for your numbers, only my own. Your assumption of the same amount being saved in the first year of working (18?) and the year they retire (58, good for them, early retirement) is unrealistic. People typically experience an increase in earning potential with age. However 700k will produce a reliable median income to live on for our early retiree. As for taxes, with just 5k a year and having him be low income for life, that's ROTH IRA territory. No taxes to pay. Not that he's owe taxes on that kind of yield anyway, so the tax status isn't important. Your completely hypothetical and totally unrealistic retirement saver who saves less of his paycheck year on year and retires early, he's fine. Sorry bro. I took the 40 years more as a late starter to the savings game rather than an early retiree. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 28 2016 04:26 plasmidghost wrote: https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/791668508304310272 If this is true, were polls not nearly as reliable in 1980 as they (mostly) are now? Is no one going to point out that he's basically implying Clinton should win by a massive landslide the way that tweet is worded. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On October 28 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I keep seeing the margins detailed, but not the raw totals. Has anyone seen how that compares to 12 or 08? Are there numbers on the quantity of voters as well? I know that there were concerns of record low disenfranchisement and apathy towards the election but I also heard contradictory reports of record numbers of voter registrations. I would be really happy to see both a large voter turnout and a large margin against trump. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15726 Posts
On October 28 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I keep seeing the margins detailed, but not the raw totals. Has anyone seen how that compares to 12 or 08? yeah, fuck if I know. It's funny how with Clinton and Trump, we would expect turn out to be horribly low. And yet, because of Clinton and Trump, they are each encouraging turn out on the *other* side. So maybe this ends up being even higher turnout than 08? That'd be hilarious. At the end of the day, hatred and fear will always be the greatest motivators for human action. Hope, excitement and happiness can't compete. My shot in the dark prediction is that Clinton will have a wider lead than Obama from early voting, but her day-of voting will be worse. I think she'll end up winning, but not by the margin being predicted by the early voting. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 28 2016 05:43 KwarK wrote: Igne, I don't know why you can't use Excel so I can't speak for your numbers, only my own. Your assumption of the same amount being saved in the first year of working (18?) and the year they retire (58, good for them, early retirement) is unrealistic. People typically experience an increase in earning potential with age. However 700k will produce a reliable median income to live on for our early retiree. As for taxes, with just 5k a year and having him be low income for life, that's ROTH IRA territory. No taxes to pay. Not that he's owe taxes on that kind of yield anyway, so the tax status isn't important. Your completely hypothetical and totally unrealistic retirement saver who saves less of his paycheck year on year and retires early, he's fine. Sorry bro. you are basically assuming an upper middle class worker then. if the contributions go up over 5k maybe we should assume a young'n with a ~30k annual salary and no contributions till age 29. i assume you know what "median" means? do i need to pull up a graph of real wages vs time for the last three decades? you pretend like im ridiculous and wave your hands "its math, open an excel worksheet". yah ok. youve proved that kwarks everywhere can expect at least 700k. sadly not even millionaires. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
SKillous vs ArT
ArT vs Babymarine
NightMare vs TriGGeR
YoungYakov vs TBD
All Star Teams
INnoVation vs soO
Serral vs herO
Cure vs Solar
sOs vs Scarlett
Classic vs Clem
Reynor vs Maru
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
AI Arena Tournament
All Star Teams
MMA vs DongRaeGu
Rogue vs Oliveira
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
