US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5787

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.

On October 28 2016 04:17 OuchyDathurts wrote:


Convincing people to vote against their best interest is a time honored tradition.

On October 28 2016 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:

If this is true, were polls not nearly as reliable in 1980 as they (mostly) are now?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.