In the U.S., there are laws that protect both employees and employers. Ask for proof of overpayment, and time to respond. If you feel you have a case, consult a lawyer that specializes in wage disputes. Otherwise, let them have their money, out of your last check if necessary. You don't want to have to go to court if you really do owe them. If you tell them a lawyer has accepted your case based on evidence, they may choose to settle out of court to avoid public embarrassment and legal fees, since, if you win, they also have to pay your court fees and legal fees, plus possible punitive damages. Conversely, if you go to court, but you owe them, you'll be subject to pay back what you owe plus their legal fees, which will be far more than you intend to pay them, or even what you'd get if you won. Losing would cost you dearly. Nobody can tell you what the outcome of your specific case will be, but unless the sum is significant, I would recommend that you accept the losses and walk away. While I know this can be hard, as someone who also lives the middle class paycheck-to-paycheck life, you probably can't afford to lose, and your company has expensive lawyers. Losing a few thousand dollars is easier than losing tens of thousands (or more) in a court battle. You can always seek assistance, such as unemployment, welfare, utility assistance, and other government programs to get back on your feet. If you owe them more than you can actually repay, try to negotiate. You want to stay out of court if at all practical. Their lawyers run hundreds of dollars per hour, so if they choose to, they can bury you financially if they have a case.


"I realize I'm drudging up a somewhat old post here (apologies), but I've found myself in a similar situation recently and thought I would chime in. I was considering buying a car where the loan amount would be right around 25k. I tried justifying this by saying it's ridiculously fast (I'm young and stupid, this is appealing), has AWD (nice for Colorado), and a hatchback with plenty of room for snowboards and whatnot in back. This is in comparison to my Civic which has high mileage, can hardly make it up hills due to the high altitude, sucks in snow, and has little room for anything. You have your reasons, I have mine. The thing is, our reasons are just us trying to rationalize an unwise purchase - just admit it, you know it's true. Just so you can see I'm in a similar financial situation, I'm 22, just graduated, and started a job making well over 80k with salary and signing bonus, plus 20k in RSUs on the side. After budgeting I can still put away over 2k/month after I've factored in a car payment, insurance, rent, etc etc. Yes, I could ""afford"" this car... it's just dumb though dude. Don't do it. There are better things we can do with our money. And guess what, I've been drooling over this car since middle school too."


It's fine - if you are an employee, you will normally have all taxes deducted by the employer, and won't even need to complete a tax return. Even if you do, all the figures will be on the P60 you get at the end of the year. If that's your only income, it's pretty easy to do. Remember, your taxes and your girlfriends are totally separate. It also doesnt matter where the money goes - you could be paid in cash or into any account, it's the fact that you earn it makes it taxable.


This article is 100% incorrect. The governments main concern is to PREVENT depositors and tax payers from losing funds in the case of bank default.  How?  By having debt holders being forced to converted into equity to create a capital buffer to keep a bank solvent which will help protect depositors and prevent tax payers from having to bail the banks out.  Please ask me more questions on this as I have done a lot of work on this topic as of late.


I'm not a seller, but I see this as good for those who are selling bad items, but also a big opportunity for scammers. I wonder what is the limits on it, I hope they have an abuse system in place.


"If they really won't stop calling you, just waste their time. Usually the best thing I do to telemarketers (the ones that constantly call even through I've told them to stop) is to say ""oh yes, I'm interested I'll just get a pen"" - put them on hold and keep them on hold.  Do it every time they call and soon they'll get the idea that you're a waste of time."


I had a question about this but it apparently wasn’t formed in the right way as I got no explanations and only downvotes, so let me try again.  Given the massive amount of info you gave, I tried to go through and find the data I was asking for- data behind the projections of such a loss.  Perhaps since I’m not a professional economist, It was not immediately apparent to me how to find the data behind the projections.   Would you mind demonstrating how any of these sources provide the data behind how such projections are made?  Or do you have any other advice as to how I could find an answer?


GelomanIndianSpares is one of complete motorcycle spare parts resources for motorcycle enthusiasts. On our company website are available Indian motorcycle spare parts catalogs along with thousands of more parts. People who want to continue riding their Indian motorcycles should always try to buy the correct spare parts. You could also contact us anytime about all motorcycle spare parts and talk with our professional. We will very happy to help you with your queries.


"Actually there is no law that makes insider trading illegal, except for actual company insiders (people working at the company). Insider trading as you describe is just a court precedent set in the 80s (I think it was the 80s) and it's based on the concept of ""fraud"", whereby you are misappropriating information that you should not have.  So no, insider trading isn't ""illegal"" in that sense, and the jury is out as to whether it's even bad or not for the markets. That doesn't mean I would recommend doing it or really anything even closely resembling it, since they're pretty aggressive about pursuing those cases."


By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y.


Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are   then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee   now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would   be 10k * ($5 - $1). No. That's exactly what the SO is NQ for. Read more on the differences between ISO and NQSO here. Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are   then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee   now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would   be 10k * ($5 - $1). At this point you no longer have NQSO, you have RSU. If you filed 83(b) when  you exercised, then you pay capital gains tax when they vest. If you didn't - its ordinary income to you. NQSO is a red herring here since once exercised they no longer exist. If you didn't file 83(b), then when the stock vests the difference between the FMV at vest and the money you spent on it when exercising (if any) is considered wages and taxed as ordinary income (+FICA etc). From that point the RSU becomes a regular stock investment and the capital gains clock starts ticking.


"> I've been working with blockchain implementation since before you became an armchair investor.  Really what implementation? Let's see it! You have anything to show for the bullshit you're babbling? I've been involved with Bitcoin since 2011.What bitcoin implementation do you program from?  >bitcoin's incentive is the mother of all pyrimid schemes  Yet another person that doesn't even understand what a pyramid scheme is. Google a pyramid scheme.  > The security comes from the immutability of the chain that is generated which is what everyone subscribed to the chain gains  And you're proposing that this security is to be handled by some host of nodes on an internal network? Kinda like ..... a database with rolling backups ? lets walk through your example...  >a company has several partners who it coordinates exchange rates with  exchange rates for what? currency? They set the value and they want to share that with their partners? So like they're in a trading group and they're agreeing to sell shares at a specific rate? I don't really get this thus far.   Your partners trust each other not to trade at differing values right?   > no amount of hacking a centralized system could change the confirmed blocks,  Unless he hacked the central node which other nodes subscribe to and surreptitiously modified future values  > in the fact that bitcoin HAD no value except as a currency before people started hacking contracts and the like into it.  I LOVE how you use the term ""fact"" for something that is provably incorrect. Bitcoin had already hit a value of ~$250 before ""people started hacking contracts and the like into it"".... They're not even the same protocol.   can you give me an **ACTUAL** example of a functional permissioned/private ledger that *needs* a blockchain?"


I fully believe that in 10-15 years the trades will be making as much money as doctors and lawyers with the added benefit of not having student loans.  And a lot of people are going to be living with broken stuff until their turn on the waiting list.


">""Those measures all reflect a new way of measuring VaR though, one that switches the model from a four-year look to just one year, removing the rocky years of 2008 and 2009 from the current measure""  VAR is a measure of how much money can be lost in a given time period within certain constraints. For most banks it is the maximum that can be lost within day in a 99% confidence interval. So in layman terms on average only 1 in 100 days will more money be lost than the VAR.   VAR is calculated using historical data. It uses the historical data to build up a profile of scenarios and probability of occurrence. Armed with the knowledge of how much is lost in each of these scenarios and the probability of it occurring a VAR can be estimated. MS have essentially stopped including the last 4 years since they are far more volatile and are only including the last year since it has been relatively calm. It is essentially cheating. It is choosing the data to fit your needs and is statistical heresy."


The article reads like a piece from a lobbyist of the taxi industry. This article made me realize the opposite of what it was intended, that maybe most of the legislation that uber/lyft is defying is just bureaucracy (bloated laws to keep the taxi monopoly) this proven by its impending approval worldwide. What were the point of laws when every one that they are designed to protect stop following them?


"If you want to deposit checks or conduct business at a window, you should look at a local savings bank or credit union. Generally, you can find one that will offer ""free"" checking in exchange for direct deposit or a minimum balance. Some are totally free, but those banks pay zippo for interest. If you don't care about location, I would look at Charles Schwab Bank. I've been using them for a couple of years and have been really satisfied with them. They provide free checking, ATM fee reimbursement, free checks and pre-paid deposit envelopes. You also can easily move money between Schwab brokerage or savings accounts. Other brokers offer similar services as well."


"Not true! The government is much more outraged about the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its head, Richard Cordray, ""interfering with freedom of trade"".  The CFPB fined various companies 12 Billion last year, for all kinds of shenanigans against consumers."


">  Honest question without entrapment. Do you really believe this ""anti science"" rhetoric? You must see that a good bit of that comes from a liberal media pushing an agenda. What has he actually done that is oppositional to science?  Yes.  I've seen it in action.  While there are lots of stories in the liberal media, the sources I'm following are the Science oriented news:  Science, Scientific American, Science News.  Simply look at the war on climate scientists via the NASA budget for its work on atmospheric science and the EPA budget (down 26%) for climate science for obvious examples [edit:  As well as the 16% cut in the NOAA budget].  And all of this for a misguided notion that one should try to protect coal  ... which is dying on its own (Nat Gas is cheaper and solar will be cheaper soon; both industries produce more jobs that coal ... and ""remember kids:  coal kills"").  >  NASA funding increased 800 million. NSF is up 100 million. Collectively agencies are up 14 million from 2015. Data here https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/fedfunds/2015/html/FFS2015_DST_003.html  You have your information completely messed up.  That said, the mainstream press also seems to be pretty incompetent at this too.   The Fiscal Year for both NASA and the NSF starts Oct 1.  The FY2017 budget was from Oct1, 2016 through Sept 30, 2017.   Specifically the FY 2017 budget request for the NSF was submitted **Feb 9, 2016**.  Any changes and funding of that budget under Trump's watch are minor.  The budget request formed under Trump is the FY2018 budget ... and this budget (the NSF) request was submitted on May 23, 2017 down $841m (11%).  [Here is the history of budget requests and actual expenditures for the NSF:  https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/ ]  Your NASA information was also bad.  However, the approved FY2018 budget was only down 0.8%  >  The National Aeronautic Space Administration budget for FY 2018 is $19.1 billion. That's a 0.8 percent decrease from current funding levels.  The situation for the NASA budget as a whole doesn't tell the whole story.  The reason it stayed relatively level was the push for Mars.   What one should note about the NASA budget are the severe cuts in regard to atmospheric research or anything related to climate change.  >  Ultimately you have to admit the rapid expansion of entitlements lobbied for by democrats will necessarily create budgetary pressure on non defense spending.   No I don't.  Why?  First ... I simply note that you are trying to restrict attention to ""non-defense spending"" when it needs to be included in the calculation too.  Second of all ... we should have the courage to call it what it is.  It's *military spending* and we shouldn't fool ourselves by calling it ""defense.""  So, in the context of large increases in military budgets/spending ...  the relatively minor expansion in entitlements is irrelevant.  Consider what the *single* Trump-ordered symbolic missile attack of Syria cost ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike  I say ""symbolic"" because we actually notified them of the incoming strike in advance! ).  Just the cost of the Tomahawk missiles was almost $100m.   $100m for a single 1 hour symbolic gesture.   That's 1/60th of the annual NSF budget.  I'm not even going to mention the fact that each trip to Mar-a-lago costs $3m (if you include Secret Service).    Here is a reminder of the relative sizes of the components of the budgets ( 2015 ):  https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ .   And for all of the campaigning about getting out of foreign wars, Trump seems to be doing the reverse.  If you look at the rise to power of the US in the 20th century, you'll realize that it was driven by science.  It's science that made America great.  If you really want to MAGA ... fund science."


I came to the comments feeling the same way, but a number of active sellers are saying this doesn't affect them that much. It may be a factor of threshing out casual sellers who generally provide a poor experience from professional sellers who are able to manage the policy change.   Mind you, that's a very broad brush - I'd love to have access to numbers and do some analysis on how sellers are really affected. It might be that very commercial sellers do okay, while casual (but professional & responsive) sellers are hurt. Or perhaps there are certain types of products that will be hurt worse than others.


Because the stock still has the same value as the money paid for it - you are just exchanging one asset for another (of course the stock value starts to change immediately, but for the accounting the fictional value is the buying price). For the accounting, it is similar to changing a 100$ bill in five 20$ bills - same value, still assets.


Nope, but if we don't point it out, *other people* won't ever realize how internally contradictory statism is. I mean, that's what got me off the horse, was realizing how self-contradictory the state is.  The only consistency you see from a statist is that they consistently endorse whatever benefits them.


"As I understand it, Implied Volatility represents the expected gyrations of an options contract over it's lifetime.  No, it represents that expected movement of the underlying stock, not the option itself.  Yes, the value of the option will move roughly in the same direction the value of the stock, but that's not what IV is measuring. I even tried staring at the math behind the Options pricing model to see if that could make more sense for me but that didn't help. That formula is correct for the Black-Scholes model - and it is not possible (or at least no one has done it yet) to solve for s to create a closed-form equation for implied volatility.  What most systems do to calculate implied volatility is plug in different values of s (standard deviation) until a value for the option is found that matches the quoted market value ($12.00 in this example).  That's why it's called ""implied"" volatility - the value is implied from market prices, not calculated directly. The thing that sticks out to me is that the ""last"" quoted price of $12 is outside of the bid-ask spread of $9.20 to $10.40, which tells me that the underlying stock has dropped significantly since the last actual trade.   If the Implied Vol is calculated based on the last executed trade, then whatever algorithm they used to solve for a volatility that match that price couldn't find a solution, which then choose to show as a 0% volatility.   In reality, the volatility is somewhere between the two neighbors of 56% and 97%, but with such a short time until expiry, there should be very little chance of the stock dropping below $27.50, and the value of the option should be somewhere around its intrinsic value (strike - stock price) of $9.18."


Oh, you mean converting your money to that of a country whose public debt is [103% of GDP, instead of the 108% of your own?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt)  That seems hardly an advancement, even more so considering that the public debt of the Eurozone as a whole is 82.5% of GDP.  Greece is just 2% of the European economy, its default would not mean the collapse of the Euro.


There is no matrix that is going to work for you because people value qualitative things differently.  For example, if I could afford a van Gogh painting, I'd only buy it if I could flip it for a profit.  It's worth very little to me intrinsically.  Another person might find it worth millions of dollars simply for aesthetic reasons. If you wish to try to quantify your desires, you have to do so yourself.  However, I would say it's being too analytical about life, which isn't a money-collecting game unless you make it one.  Can you afford your future?  Can you afford to lose your job for a time?  How much do you want to save?  Once you know those sorts of answers, you know how much you can spend on lifestyle choices.


Pfft, you guys have got it easy.  Here in good old New Zealand, we pay more for NZ milk and cheese etc. than you do for the same product in the USA and Australia.  Good old Fonterra, taking the country for a ride since ages ago.


It's not all roses, as I understand it, one effect of a tax inversion move is that existing stockholders will get hit with capital gains tax on the stock they hold as part of the conversion process.  Edit: going a bit further, often officers of the corporation are insulated from this tax as they have agreements that the company will pay their tax in the event of such a conversion. Seems like a potential for conflict of interest of officers vs shareholders to me.  It's unknown if this is the case with BK execs.


"the image of the warship was supposed to show something big that can change direction ""on a dime"" like companies can with Twitter on the desktop  will Twitter find its way onto business devices like laptops, desktops, ipads, and cell phones? absolutely, I make the argument (briefly) that business devices may be Twitter's biggest untapped market yet. for true, dynamic, news discovery - the only answer is Twitter. why not use it for ""Business News"" as well.  if any part of the vision, strategy, mission, plan, tactic, etc. changes - everyone who needs to know will know immediately with no excuses like ""i didn't read the email"".  let's take conversations ""back"" from emails into a land where a searchable history exists for anyone to reference or fact check."


Welcome to Get Local Clout, We are an independent news site that has a goal of creating a reliable content for all the business minded folks out there. If it happens that you finally realized that you want to achieve the financial freedom “status,” then visit our site often and try to absorb all the content that you read here, the last thing that you will know is that you are already a financially literate person. We provide an original content about business, money tips, and news. All written by a professional and person that know their stuff really well, and will surely help you and your business.


There is a difference between an owner and a signer. An owner is the legal owner of the funds. A signer has access to withdraw the funds. In most cases, when a new personal account is opened the name is added as an owner&signer. However, that is not always the case. A person could be an owner, but not a signer, in a custodial arrangement. For example, a minor child may be an owner only on their account with a custodial parent listed as a signer. The minor could not withdraw from the account. A person could be a signer, but not an owner, in a business or estate/trust account. The business or estate would be the owner with individuals listed as signers only. The business employees do not own the funds, they are only allowed to withdraw and disburse the funds on behalf of the company. The creditor can only garnish/withhold funds that are owned by the indebted. If the second person on the account is only a signer, those funds cannot be withheld as part of a judgment against the second person (they don't own those funds). However, simply titling the second person as a signer only is not sufficient. If you share access with the second person and allow them to spend the money for their own benefit, they are no longer just a signer. They have become an owner because you are sharing your funds with them. Think of the business relationship as an example. The employee is a signer so they can withdraw funds and pay business expenses, like the electric bill. If the employee withdrew funds and bought herself a new dress, she is stealing because she does not own those funds. If the second person on the account buys things for themselves, or transfers some of the money into their own account, they are demonstrating that more than a signer-only relationship exists. A true signer-only relationship is where the individual can only withdraw funds on the owner's behalf. For example, the owner is out of town and needs a bill paid, the signer can write a check and pay the bill for the owner. A limited power of attorney may be worth looking into. With a limited POA, the owner can define the scope and expiration of the power of attorney. With this arrangement, the second person becomes an executor of the owner under certain circumstances. For example, you could write a power of attorney that states something like: John Smith is hereby granted the limited power to withdraw funds from account 1234, on deposit at Anytown Bank, for the purpose of paying debts and obligations and otherwise maintain my estate in the event of my incapacitation or inability to attend to my own affairs. This Power of Attorney shall expire on it's fifth anniversary unless renewed. If the person you have granted the power of attorney abuses their access, you could sue them and you would only have to demonstrate that they overstepped the scope of their power.


Agreed. I tried to use it at a friends' house (I don't live in a cabled area, the one time that I did I didn't have a TV) and I really didn't get what was going on. I eventually managed to change channel and ended up playing with the thumbs up/down buttons.  I'm a technical person and most things come easily to me, but that didn't. Sky's solution may not have any bells and whistles but at least the buttons do what they say.


Quite often these fish bring with them sea lice that will affect smolts.   As well salmon do tend to eat each other's eggs during spawning.    This could be a bad thing if Atlantic salmon follow our wild species into their spawning grounds.     You can fish for pink spawns using pink wool.    The wool is to look like their egg sacs.     Plus the sea lice will have a direct affect on smolts.     Alexandra Morton has been warning us for over a decade.


You can use Skrill or any other service like paypal or SWIFT wire. There is no legal restriction to bring money into India. You need to pay taxes depending on how you earned the income, of course the assumption is you earned the money in a legal way.


>But when share repurchases replace a company’s research-and-development spending, that indicates its management is unable or unwilling to spend on innovation that could generate future earnings to shareholders.  I disagree. If we look at buybacks and r&d purely as investments, a shorter term investment is lower in risk and return, while a longer term one is higher in risk. Of course, the same goes for respective returns. Knowing that research-to-market time for a drug is 5-12 years, and that buybacks are almost immediate returns, the 11% difference over ten years seems generous, not greedy.  I've read the same being said about marketing budgets being more than r&d. Again, if the market doesn't have perfect flow of information, marketing become a need to survive. A smart CEO would never spend more on marketing than is necessary. It's the last cost a company bears on a product before booking a sale, and it's the last bite out of the profit.


"It's called leverage. Here's an example from real estate. The underlying appreciation on a house in certain parts of America is something like 7% a year. So if you bought the house ""all cash,"" your return would be something like 7% a year. (Actually, a little more, because of the rent you would be collecting, or saving, if you were the ""renter."") Suppose you buy the same house, 20% down, 80% mortgage. The rent pays for your mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc. like it is supposed to. The house goes up the same 7% each year. But now your rate of return is 35%, that is 7%/20% (your down payment). You get the whole appreciation but put up only 20% of the money. The bank (and your renter) did the rest."


Its' a smart thought to play out your own one of a kind research on which wooden ground surface companiesis the absolute best for you rather than just suspecting what others say to you. You can make a rundown of the considerable number of shops in your general vicinity and gather however much insights about each of them as could reasonably be expected. You can ask about the things they offer and their rates notwithstanding the administrations they give. You can truly look at posts like news items or magazine short articles about such shops close you. Not only that anyway you can in like manner look at stories on these shops from different clients.


As boomers retire there'll be a lot smaller workforce to go along with a potential smaller employment force. Also as far as having fewer jobs in any particular career path, ask yourself what you think is easier to do, completely change careers in your 20s or 30s or in your 40s or 50s?      Fact remains those with less working time left have a harder time adjusting to the new economy because they have less opportunity to change careers or make up their retirement losses.


In a way this is good because it encourages people to move out of these high cost areas to lower cost. Over time that will tend to even out the problem and move resources around the country. Anyone waiting for NYC to become cheap again is just plain stupid. It didn't even get cheap in the 2008 crash.


I did that.  What is allowed changes over time, though — leading up to the crisis, lenders would approve at the flimsiest evidence. In particular, my SO had only been in the country a couple years and was at a sweet spot where lack of history was no longer counting against her. Running the numbers, the mortgage was a fraction of a percent cheaper in her name than in mine.  Even though she used a “stated income” (self reported, not backed by job history) of the household, not just herself. The title was in her name, and would have cost money to have mine added later so we didn’t.  This was in Texas, which is a “community property” state so after marriage for sure everything is “ours”.


Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.


"You should seriously just stop talking. The term legacy employees refers to legacy cost structures. Costs that linger from a time when the competitive environment was different than it is today are referred to as legacy costs. It is not derogatory.   Take airlines, for example. Airlines used to have incredible legacy costs from unionized employees incurred at a time when the airline industry was regulated. Regulation kept new airlines from starting up, so airlines could very easily afford to pay for pensions, huge benefits, massive salaries, etc. The few airlines in existence then had control over the industry.  Then the airlines were deregulated and anyone could start one up. Suddenly, the airlines that could afford massive pensions in the days where they effectively controlled pricing could no longer afford these pensions and benefits when competitors did not offer the same benefits to their employees. Hence, every single ""legacy"" airline went bankrupt over the next few decades."


There is an interesting PBS Frontline short video about a Washingtom Post reporter who figured out that that the NSA was pibbybacking on a Google PREF cookie to track him. And Google is aware of it. And then tried to trash his reputation.   http://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-personal-hit-me/


I don't see any incentive for the agent to do this. I don't think it's a useful argument.


We provide the best lawn edging and curbing in the top quality and low maintenance. We handle all commercial and residential landscape projects in the USA. Our company is providing almost best quality products to our clients at reasonable market prices. We provide the different type of landscape services such as cement curbing, concrete landscape curbing, cement lawn edging and much more. For more information, you can visit our company website.


Of course. There are many reasons why we want Robots to do work currently done by humans: dangerous jobs, physically difficult jobs, undesirable jobs (e.g. cleaning), etc.  But also jobs that people like to do, but robots will be cheaper: painting walls, some yard work, loading/unloading freight, etc.  No matter how you look it, the SOLE purpose of robots is to replace humans and their jobs.  > I could argue that the new jobs being created--likely as equipment operators--is a higher skill job (than sorting shelves) and will likely pay more.  Do you think a robot cannot operate equipment?   And if less jobs are available for humans, so more unemployed, do you think they will get paid more?


Certainly. I'm afraid it was a bit of a rhetorical question. My point is that I personally don't care what a person is wearing so long as it covers the fleshy bits. I care more about the person's ideas when it comes to a leadership position.


I think the part where it mentions the 'Japanese method' is illustrative for the rest of the article: most of it has been made up in the head of the author based on hearsay or stereotypical assumptions without actually having worked in a Japanese company.


For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.


You will never get all the companies to agree. The whole point of this article is that the TV companies won't give up their old tried and true method. Something this radicle they won't understand. Netflix is going to try. I wish them luck.


If you tell the collector that the claim isn't valid, they're obliged to go back to the creditor to verify it. Sometimes that gets a real person, instead of their automatic billing system, to look at the claim, and if you're right, they'll drop it.


Sydney Document Shredding Service is a proud Australian owned and operated shredding company providing secure document destruction services, security bins and paper shredding services. We have years of hands on experience in the industry, visit us now if you are looking for security bins in Sydney.


I absolutely believe you when you said most of the orthodox community are good people. The problem is how do people outside of the orthodox community meet those good people if they don't interact?   Unfortunately, as it currently stands, negative news stories are becoming the only way for people outside of the orthodox community learning about orthodox community.


Yes but the employee losing that job can be devastating because as someone who works for minimum wage (in college and living at home right now so my cost of living is low) but without that I would have no savings.


"Does the enhancement of human physical and intellectual capacities undermine virtue?  Hahaha, uh, it's going to be done anyway.  Any philosophical basis that says it is good is going to be the one put forth.  Enjoy your totalitarianis-- er, I mean, loving communitarianism.  This is not a system of ""enhancing"" human beings.  It is a system of controlling them."


Wealthsimple lists their prices as follows: Those are the fees you pay over and above what you pay for the underlying ETFs' management fees. But why not just invest in the ETFs yourself? The Canadian Couch Potato website shows some sample portfolios. The ETF option has an average Management Expense Ratio very similar to that of the ETFs used by Wealthsimple, but without the additional management fee. Rebalance once or twice a year and you cut your fees from approximately 0.57% (if investing mid-six-figures) to 0.17%, for very little work. Is it worth it to you? Well, that depends on how much you have to invest, and how much effort you are willing to put in. Wealthsimple isn't particularly unreasonable with their fees, but the fees do look a bit high once you are in to the six figures of investing. On the other hand, I often recommend Tangerine's mutual funds to my friends who are looking at investing for retirement. Those mutual funds, last time I checked, cost 1.09%. That's about twice what Wealthsimple is charging. But they are easy to understand and easy to invest in; a good choice for my friends looking to invest $1,000 - $50,000 in my opinion. So, and understanding this is just my personal opinion, I think Wealthsimple fits in a niche where Tangerine mutual funds carry too high a cost for you, but you don't want to do all the management yourself, even if this is just an hour or so of work, a couple of times a year. I wish they were cheaper, but their pricing makes sense for a lot of people in my opinion. Do they make sense for you? If you are looking at investing less than $10,000, I'd stick with an option like Tangerine, only because that's an easier option. If investing more than $100,000 or $200,000, I think you are paying a bit much for what they offer. But, many people pay much, much, much more for their investments.


We have a lot more immigrants that come here for an education.  Something like 70% of grad students in stem fields are foreign born.  Those people are being turned off by Trump.  That’s the problem.    H1Bs aren’t the people who Trump is turning off.  That’s not the problem.  The problem is these other people who come here because they’re brilliant and the us has opportunities for them.  Trump is turning them off.    They can go to grad school in Canada or Europe because the prospects when they finish will be much worse.


I would argue that we don’t have a shortage of STEM resources. Immigration policy hasn’t changed a lot either. What percentage of STEM students are from war torn Arab nations (the ones whose immigration policy has changed)  It can’t be more than 10%. As someone who works in the field, it’s largely India and China.  (That said, China is rapidly catching up so there is some truth to that aspect of it)


Yahoo Finance has this now, the ticker is CL=F.


the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street


I think the short term that is true but if you really look at the two big platform iPhone and Android, they are both very immature. Neither product has any real edge on the other.  MS could potentially bring in a more mature platform since it's based off their existing platform rather than a totally new OS. In doing that MS can also bring in a better development platform than Android or Apple have on their mobile devices.   In think we'll all realize Apple and Android effectively made a mistake by developing dumbed down operating systems for phones because phones are increasing in power so quickly the real need is where MS is going, a unified platform.   To me it seems a lot like their long term Xbox strategy which allows them the option to unify gaming platforms also. .NET also fits right in perfectly since you have a very powerful and high portable development platform, not just a single language or simple SDK.   So, I think Windows 8 phones stand a good chance in this market. MS can bring all the advantages of Android with a more standardize and well known interface. Androids biggest weakness is allow phone companies to tweak the interface, horrible idea. You want you OS to feel familiar and comfy, not different on every device.   MS will also address Apple's big flaw (the same one as ever) which is being far too proprietary. On top that MS has the money and connections to make it happen, but similar to Xbox they have to build up a use base before you are gong to see the product take off. The first generation of these new phones may not do that well, but personally I think they will do well enough and then continue to rise until they are right there with Apple and Google.   MS is also much closer to a unified platform for you TV. I think the last decade or so of work is coming to a pinnacle for MS and so far so good really. Windows 7 phones get decent reviews, they just lack exposure and a healthy app market, so did the first xbox and now MS fairly easily dominates the console market and will almost certainly beat Sony to the next generation of consoles while expanding their game selection faster.   While Apple sales won't get hurt as bad I think an MS phone will eventually give them trouble and when you own the PC and console markets already selling a phone platform shouldn't be that hard. People WANT a unified platform that is all made to work together and soon MS will finally be able to offer that and the new xbox will make it that much better.   Many of you may see MS as waning in recent years. I think they have been quietly putting the finishing touches on their Death Star trifecta - the unified PC, Mobile and Console market. Apple and Google have nothing close to that.


"Its because of the economic uncertainty in the world. They are the ""risk-free"" investment as it is an almost guaranteed return if you exclude inflation and US gov't defaulting. A lot of people are afraid to invest elsewhere given the current economic climate.  The yield on bonds is also low due to government intervention. Quantitative easing 1 and 2 and operation twist has forced yield this low, as that is what the government wants."


> I don't understand what all the fuss is about  a LOT of people are heavily vested in extracting American money, e.g. The Musker and taxpayer subsidies for his cars and solar.  Al Gore became super wealthy trading carbon and corporations that feed the frenzy like GE and their bird killing wind turbines


MrChrister's answer is just plain wrong. Your history of carrying debt or paying interest has nothing to do with your credit score. The biggest factors are payment history, debt to available credit ratio and length of credit history. If you have active credit accounts for 5 years, have 10-15k in limits on credit cards and put gas and groceries on a credit card that is paid in full each month, you'll have a top notch credit rating. There is no way to tell from a credit report whether you carry a balance for pay in full. Anyone who gets into debt to improve a credit score is ignorant of the process. If you have bad credit, here's how you improve it:


Hard to imagine people going to casinos in the first place.  That aside, Atlantic City was never going to be a good place for casinos.  Now that there are so many casinos to choose from at so many locations all around the country it only stands to reason that more and more casinos will go out of business (not enough people who do not understand basic arithmetic to go around) .  Also to factor in is that going to a casino is not the brightest thing to be doing with your money.  And if it should turn out that there is so much money to burn out there, then taxes are definitely not high enough!    Imagine going into a building and playing games, for money, where the odds are stacked against you.  The longer you play the worse your chances are!  Madness!


Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not.  Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts.  You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away.


"The formula you are looking for is pretty complicated. It's given here: http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3661.htm You might prefer to let somebody else do the grunt work for you. This page will calculate the probability for you: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/normal.aspx. In your case, you'd enter mean=.114, standard deviation=.132, and ""standard score""= ... oh, you didn't say what you're paying on your debt. Let's say it's 6%, i.e. .06. Note that this page will give you the probability that the actual number will be less than or equal to the ""standard score"". Enter all that and click the magic button and the probability that the investment will produce less than 6% is ... .34124, or 34%. The handy rule of thumb is that the probability is about 68% that the actual number will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% that it will be within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% that it will be within 3. Which isn't exactly what you want because you don't want ""within"" but ""less than"". But you could get that by just adding half the difference from 100% for each of the above, i.e. instead of 68-95-99.7 it would be 84-98-99.9. Oh, I missed that in a follow-up comment you say you are paying 4% on a mortgage which you are adjusting to 3% because of tax implications. Probability based on mean and SD you gave of getting less than 3% is 26%. I didn't read the article you cite. I assume the standard deviation given is for the rate of return for one year. If you stretch that over many years, the SD goes down, as many factors tend to even out. So while the probability that money in a given, say, mutual fund will grow by less than 3% in one year is fairly high -- the 25 - 35% we're talking here sounds plausible to me -- the probability that it will grow by an average of less than 3% over a period of 10 or 15 or 20 years is much less. Further Thought There is, of course, no provably-true formula for what makes a reasonable risk. Suppose I offered you an investment that had a 99% chance of showing a $5,000 profit and a 1% chance of a $495,000 loss. Would you take it? I wouldn't. Even though the chance of a loss is small, if it happened, I'd lose everything I have. Is it worth that risk for the modest potential profit? I'd say no. Of course to someone who has a billion dollars, this might be a very reasonable risk. If it fails, oh well, that could really cut in to what he can spend on lunch tomorrow."


"tl;dr It's a difference between cash and cash equivalents and net cash and cash equivalents.  Download the 2016 annual report from http://www.diageo.com/en-us/investor/Pages/financialreports.aspx On page 99 is the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows at the bottom is a section ""Net cash and cash equivalents consist of:""   Net cash and cash equivalents consist of: 2016-06-30   2015-06-30 Cash and cash equivalents                      1,089          472 Bank overdrafts                                 (280)         (90)                                                  809          382  The difference between net cash of 809 million and 382 million is 427 million, matching the ""Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents"" from Yahoo. I do not know that bank overdrafts mean in this situation, but appears to cause cash to show up on balance sheet without being reflected in the net cash portions of the cash flow statement. And the numbers seem like balances, not year of year changes like the rest of the statement of cash flows.  2015 net CCE              382 2016 cash flow          + 427                          ---- 2016 net CCE              809 Cash from overdrafts    + 280                           ---- 2015 balance sheet cash 1,089"


I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong.  Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it.  For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds.  If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope.


The short answer is that it depends on the taxation laws in your country. The long answer is that there are usually tax avoidance mechanisms that you can use which may make it more economically feasible for you to go one way or the other. Consider the following: The long term average growth rate of the stock market in Australia is around 7%.  The average interest on a mortgage is 4.75%.  Assuming you have money left over from a 20% deposit, you have a few options.  You could: 1) Put that money into an index fund for the long term, understanding that the market may not move for a decade, or even move downwards; 2) Dump that money straight into the mortgage; 3) Put that money in an offset account Option 1 will get you (over the course of 30-40 years) around 7% return.  If and when that profit is realised it will be taxed at a minimum of half your marginal tax rate (probably around 20%, netting you around 5.25%) Option 2 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free Option 3 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free with the added bonus that the money is ready for you to draw upon on short notice. Of the three options, until you have a good 3+ months of living expenses covered, I'd go with the offset account every single time. Once you have a few months worth of living expenses covered, I would the adopt a policy of spreading your risk.  In Australia, that would mean extra contributions to my Super (401k in the US) and possibly purchasing an investment property as well (once I had the capital to positively gear it). Of course, you should find out more about the tax laws in your country and do your own maths.


It may be the case that the Russian government puts higher priority on repudiating other nations, and demonstrating strength and self-sufficiency, than on ensuring a food supply for the Russian people. It's a gross understatement to say that, historically, it wouldn't be the first time.


Gladwell is not a scientist, so you shouldn't expect him to do a study correctly. He has said frequently in interviews that readers want good stories, not the truth, and that is what he provides. Also he is an extremely talented writer, so any argument he makes will be persuasive even if it is wrong.


"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide ""rewards"" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty.  But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, ""Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly."" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine."


Explain the situation to a landlord and offer to prepay a few months of rent in advance as a guarantee.  This may or may not work, but being honest and committed may just be the answer.


Hemp is already pretty easily grown by farmers here.  Canada had 50,000 acres of legal hemp in 2006, but it's been in decline the last 3 years due to the cost, lack of demand, and the high values of some other crops.  It's also difficult to harvest due to its size. It's possible that the demand for hemp products will increase, but given that many Asian countries (Russia, China and Korea, for example) never banned it in the first place, there's a pretty ready supply already in place.  In Canada, the big reason to grow it is as an alternative crop for use in rotation that has some commercial demand, but it's certainly not as valuable as crops like canola, oats or soy beans.


"George Washington doesn't support your right to brew whiskey in your own still.   Washington raised a militia, and personally led the army to steal money from hard-working American farmers.  He says, ""You didn't brew that...The Continental Army fought for your independence  and now you have to pay it back.""  George Washington.  Tax and spend liberalism at its worst.   [This message paid for by Americans for a Democratic Republic.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)"


illegal? no. free speech issue? no.  Free Speech is a contract between citizens and the government.  Between citizens, if you say something stupid, like 'the earth is flat', or 'vaccines cause autism' or 'build a wall MEGA'  I'm allowed to laugh at you and hold my own opinion that you're a dumb ass and you don't know what you're talking about.  You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to go to the bar and buy you a beer, and the government can't arrest you.  You can't however express your opinion then tell me what my opinion of it should be.  It's just like your opinion man.  And I'm allowed to make free choices as to how I interact with you as well.  We are all playing by the same rules here.


Late to the party, but my finance professor put it in simplest terms:  An example of a derivative is a credit default swap. An example of a credit default swap is that if you and your buddy bet on a football game that happens every year, and if the team you picked wins, you get paid by your friend, but you pay him if his team wins.   The credit default swaps were a huge topic during 2008-2009 because people could bet on companies tanking, and also short their stock to help further the bad vibes.


"There is a difference between losing money in the market, and not knowing where the money is. Let's say he invested 2 billion into 1 stock, then that stock drops from $100 per share to $50 per share. Well that is documentable. Corzine claims he doesn't know what happened.   Haven't you ever seen ""It's A Wonderful Life""?"


Many of the major indices retreated   today because of this news. Why? How   do the rising budget deficits and debt   relate to the stock markets? It does seem strange that there is a correlation between government debt and the stock market.  But I could see many reasons for the reaction.  The downgrade by S&P may make it more expensive for the government to borrow money (i.e. higher interest rates).  This means it becomes more expensive for the government to borrow money and the government will probably need to raise taxes to cover the cost of borrowing.  Rising taxes are not good for business.  Also, many banks in the US hold US government debt.  Rising yields will push down the value of their holdings which in turn will reduce the value of US debt on the businesses' balance sheets.  This weakens the banks' balance sheets.  They may even start to unload US bonds. Why is there such a large emphasis on   the S&P rating? I don't know.  I think they have proven they are practically useless.  That's just my opinion.  Many, though, still think they are a credible ratings agency. What happens when the debt ceiling is   reached? Theoretically the government has to stop borrowing money once the debt ceiling is reached.  If this occurs and the government does not raise the debt ceiling then the government faces three choices:


"In terms of how to make your decision, here are some considerations. Comprehensive insurance often covers other perils besides collision, including fire, theft, hail or other weather damage, additional liability coverage etc. It may be worth looking at your specific policy to see what is covered. No matter what you do, make sure you have some form of personal liability coverage in case you are sued (doesn't necessarily need to be through the auto policy). While it can make financial sense to drop comprehensive coverage once you can afford to self-insure against collision, this will only be the case if you are certain that you can set aside dedicated savings that you would only need to dip in to in the case of a collision or other major loss. For example, if you only have $5-$10,000 in the bank, and you happen to lose your job, and then the next month you happen to be hit in an accident and the car is totaled, could you afford to replace the car out of pocket? I would recommend looking at dropping comprehensive insurance as similar to a ""DNR"" (do not resuscitate) order for your car, i.e. under no circumstances would you choose repair the car were it totaled or damaged. For example, if your car's exterior were badly damaged in a hail storm (but still ran fine), would you pay $500 or more to repair it, or would you simply get a new car? Ultimately, this is going to be a judgement call based on how much financial risk you want to take on. Personally, I would continue to pay the extra $300 per year for now in order to insure a $6-8,000 asset (5% of the asset value) However, in the next few years the resale value of your car will continue to decline. If in a few years the car were worth $1,500, I would probably not pay the same $300 a year (or 20% of the asset's value). When you should make that choice depends on how many more years of service you expect to get from the car, which is a very localized question. Hope that helps!"


Umm no.  2.14 B Shares outstanding...  First day had a peak to low of (41.68-38.27) of 3.41. Unless UBS got over 100M shares and roundtriped them 200m of volume. This number is not possible as FB had 580,587,742 of total volume.  It's highly unrealistic that UBS accounted for about 35% of volume in one day.  UBS would have to have longed a large holding in FB for some time to have lost this much.


You only pay VAT if you buy from a VAT-registered company; if they are not registered, you don't pay. So, thinking about your supplier, if they are VAT-registered they will charge you VAT, if they are not they won't. The buyer's status makes no difference, the seller doesn't get involved in whether the buyer is able to reclaim or not (based on their VAT-registered status).


>  How is a loan an asset?   To use your example, our starting books are $100 in cash (asset), which corresponds to $100 in equity. We then loan out $20 with a future return of $25, so our books have changed to $80 cash, $25 in collectable loans (assets), $20 in loan liabilities, and $80 in equity + $5 in interest revenue.   > I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I?  Not really, and lending banks are regulated very tightly by having both required minimum capital adequacy ratios (basically how many loans you can have out for a given amount of equity) and annual stress testing by the Fed (CCAR).  > Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? Is the risk of default accounted for?   No and yes. Lending banks weren't really responsible for the crash and it certainly wasn't because of over-lending. The problem was that the mortgage backed securities that banks were trading were (at the time) not properly valued to account for their risk, and the resulting insurance contracts (Credit Default Obligations, or CDOs) were improperly priced *and* leveraged. The CDOs were overly complicated, and made some strong statistical assumptions about the underlying assets (the MBSs and the individual mortgages within them) that lead to a systemic underestimation of risk (autocorrelation in default probabilities, esp.) Banks since then have dramatically increased the size of their risk management departments, and I think it's fairly unlikely we see another systemic mispricing like that for some time.  > default risk is not transferred with the asset  I don't agree with this in the basic cases. If I sell you the rights to collect a loan that I wrote, then absent of any other contract you will bear the full risk of the borrower defaulting.  >  how can it possibly be sold in such a way that the risk of default is detached  Credit default swaps and other forms of insurance contracts. I could sell you the loan as above, but then you could buy an insurance contract on the loan that pays out if the borrower defaults. In other words, either the loan stays alive and you collect interest as normal, or it defaults and you receive some payout from the insurance contract which limits your downside risk. Just about every large financial institution will have themselves hedged like this to some extent, though perhaps by other means.   Regarding your overall question about student loan defaults, I'm in the camp that believes they're an overstated direct* risk. It's currently not possible to default on a student loan, and if the law allowing student loan bankruptcy came in to effect, I think we'd see a large adjustment of interest rates on student loans (and probably consumer loans, etc. as well) to compensate for the increased risk of holding these loans.  *Direct risk referring to the risk to the loan holder. I think there is a risk that consumer spending becomes weighed down by the burden of large loans. However, I also don't think this would appear as a sudden market shock, and would likely manifest over an extended period of time.  Just my thoughts, I'm sure there are some people who'll disagree with me on this.


Probably my biggest cost saving is to make my own sandwiches for lunch. I take this one step further by buying joints of meat to roast and slice for the filling. This not only tastes better but is quite a bit cheaper. For example today I roasted a 5 kg ham (about 11 lbs), it cost me £16 to buy (around $25), but I've sliced it, wrapped the slices in foil and frozen them. I've made around 20 packs, each pack has enough ham for sandwiches for me and my wife for a day. I also do this with beef, chicken and turkey and just get a pack of whatever we fancy out of the freezer the night before so it's defrosted enough to make sandwiches in the morning.


> Which of course explains why Biloxi is an economic powerhouse and no one has ever heard of New York City or San Francisco.  Lower taxes states like Texas are faring better economically compared to other states with high taxes.  > **[No-Tax Texas Out-Competes High-Tax Arkansas](http://www.cato.org/blog/no-tax-texas-out-competes-high-tax-arkansas)**  > By Daniel J. Mitchell  > Writing in National Review, **Greg Kaza discusses how Texas has been growing faster and creating more jobs than Arkansas. Much of the credit, he writes, is due to the fact that Texas has no state income tax while Arkansas penalizes workers with a  tax rate of 7 percent:**  > Employment growth in Texas has been significantly higher than in Arkansas during periods of economic expansion. The population in Dallas has nearly tripled in the post-WWII period, while the population in Little Rock has barely doubled in size. Per capita personal income in Texas is 94 percent of the U.S total. In Arkansas it’s 77 percent of the nation’s total, a level that has hardly budged since the 1970s.  > The list of statistical disparities is long, and there’s a good reason why: While Arkansas and Texas share a common border, each taxes income and capital in radically different ways. **Arkansas has a top income-tax rate of 7 percent, the highest among the bordering states. Texas, however, does not impose an income tax. The imbalance is the same for capital gains: Arkansas taxes them. Texas does not. As a result, we can see a very basic economic principle at work: Talent and capital always will flow toward higher returns.**


> apps that listen to you speak and then you see ads  FYI, this has never been verified by anyone.   Here's an article: http://www.webpronews.com/facebook-listens-2015-02/  The rumor got started on reddit, what many of these people probably didn't realize is that they were simply the victim of high-end marketing.   The capability technically exists, but it wouldn't make any sense to run advertising based upon someone's conversation. You'd need some context to run that advertising. Plus, voice recognition isn't great for things like brand names.


I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return.  The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time.  TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!


I don't actually think it's cheating.  I'm just pointing out that his own logic is internally inconsistent.  He's calling Lance a cheater for allegedly taking outside substances, and then doing the same thing himself.  Maybe he'll have a little empathy?


It's slightly more complicated than that. Usually a country that was in Greece's situation would be able to use inflation to devalue their currency which would have the effect of lowering the value of the government's debts and also of making Greek prices more competitive in the international market. Or they could use quantitative easing to inject cheap cash into the economy to help stimulate it. Because Greece is on the Euro, however, they have no control over their own currency and their options are highly limited. Additionally, when you join the EU, especially the Eurozone, that's supposed to come with additional internal responsibilities, but it's also supposed to come with additional external ones as well. Greece has a responsibility to get its shit together, but the whole point is that more financially stable countries have a responsibility to help them. Right now that means Germany; they're the ones with the greatest control over the Euro and they're shying away from their duties. If the rest of Europe didn't want to risk ending up in this position they shouldn't have let Greece into the Eurozone.


Yes, I'm from NJ, and know people who attended Curtis as well as Julliard.  Julliard students are elite, I get it.  My point really was that I don't eliminate someone from consideration based on a degree, or even the school they attended (baseline being an accredited school in a recognized major).  In fact, for a C-level position, I would be interested in them having business/legal chops *and* deep understanding of technologies critical to the line of business.    Regarding UGA... I'm a Georgia Tech guy and my daughter is a graduate, so in this case she would have to overcome the stigma of attending UGA.


"You'll need to read carefully the German laws on tax residency, in many European (and other) tax laws the loss of residency due to absence is conditioned on acquiring residency elsewhere. But in general, it is possible to use treaties and statuses so that you end up not being resident anywhere, but it doesn't mean that the income is no longer taxed. Generally every country taxes income sourced to it unless an exclusion applies, so if you can no longer apply the treaty due to not being a resident - you'll need to look for general exclusions in the tax law. I don't know how Germany taxes scholarships under the general rules, you'll have to check it. It is possible that they're not taxed. Many people try to raise the argument of ""I'm not a resident"" to avoid income taxes altogether on earnings on their work - this would not work. But with a special kind of income like scholarship, which may be exempt under the law, it may. Keep in mind, that the treaty has ""who is or was immediately before visiting a Contracting State a resident of the other Contracting State"" language in some relevant cases, so you may still apply it in the US even if no longer resident in Germany."


Humans are born to be naturally communicative. We love our friends who will chat with us. When we join dating websites. Our website is 100% free dating websites can be a lot of fun. Even if you are looking for a serious relationship and housewife sex. It doesn't mean you are desperate about finding the love of your life. Notwithstanding it may be the main purpose of others. People you meet from free dating sites can truly be your companion or friends.


"More perspective on whether buying the stock (""going long"") or options are better. My other answer gave tantalizing results for the option route, even though I made up the numbers; but indeed, if you know EXACTLY when a move is going to happen, assuming a ""non-thin"" and orderly option market on a stock, then a call (or put) will almost of necessity produce exaggerated returns. There are still many, many catches (e.g. what if the move happens 2 days from now and the option expires in 1) so a universal pronouncement cannot be made of which is better. Consider this, though - reputedly, a huge number of airline stock options were traded in the week before 9/11/2001. Perversely, the ""investors"" (presumably with the foreknowledge of the events that would happen in the next couple of days) could score tremendous profits because they knew EXACTLY when a big stock price movement would happen, and knew with some certainty just what direction it would go :( It's probably going to be very rare that you know exactly when a security will move a substantial amount (3% is substantial) and exactly when it will happen, unless you trade on inside knowledge (which might lead to a prison sentence). AAR, I hope this provides some perspective on the magnitude of results above, and recognizing that such a fantastic outcome is rather unlikely :) Then consider Jack's answer above (his and all of them are good). In the LONG run - unless one has a price prediction gift smarter than the market at large, or has special knowledge - his insurance remark is apt."


All Climate Solutions Provides ducted heating repairs and services in Melbourne. We have the fully-qualified team to conduct accurate and personalised repairs and servicing on a wide range of unique heating systems. We also deliver a lasting aftercare experience for our customers.


An article came out today saying Amazon asked those four for a level 2 proposal. I don't know how accurate it is or not.  I'd also assume somewhere in California would work too but there are a few negatives for that area like taxes.  That being said they already have a large presence in all of these places. DC would make sense for the Eastern tri state area and the federal government.  Nexus to customers is another biggie but they're mostly covered there. Then you have appetite and capacity for new tech for drones, space and driverless vehicles among others. Employees and customers in this context are interchangeable. Their top customers would be their best employees and vice versa.   Amazon will need to continue to shift the paradigm if they want to maintain momentum.  They're not really limited in where else they can build so as I think about it HQ2 needs to be somewhere that has something nowhere else has.


"I have seen the notation KTB written on documents in the place where you put an identifying number of some kind. It stands for Known to Branch and means the tellers recognize you. It's been written on documents of mine when I was depositing cheques large enough that someone else had to come and initial the transaction, and I presume that some people might have also had to show extra ID, but I didn't.  Just a month or so ago I was in line behind an old man at a branch where everyone has to put their card in and enter a pin to do transactions. I heard him tell the teller ""I don't have a card. Never did. Don't hold with that."" Another teller came by and said something quietly to the teller (I presume it was ""that's old Mr Smith, we all know him"") and the transaction appears to have taken place without any ID being passed across the counter.  So yes, at least in Canada, if the tellers recognize you, the requirements for ID are less than you might think. It's a bit of a long con to spend 25 years going into a branch and conducting all your business under a particular name, just so you can do a transaction or two without ID, though :-)"


">What? I can literally look at a list of individual salaries (I know they are self reported but nobody has a reason to lie about this) that is broken down on a year-by-year basis. The school literally gives you all of the information. How is it naive to believe its true? I'm sure this is the case at most state schools.   **ALL** the information?  My foot.  Do you know what ""confirmation bias"" (or even more appropriately [""selection bias""](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias) and [""survivor bias""](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)) implies? How about ""cherry picking"" of data?  What about all of the graduates with X degree who are NOT working in that field?  Unless you have a FULL listing of ALL previous graduates and what they ALL went on to do (and whether they succeeded or failed, an ""initial"" job is meaningless if they could not sustain a career in the field) -- or absent a full listing, at least an objective and independently derived *true* random representative sample (IOW, not just ""selection bias self-reports"") then you are getting a list of only the ""successes""... and virtually ANY school can give you that. (Even the worst schools have an occasional graduate {or a few dozen} that go on to some significant success, even if just a few % of the alumni.)"


All they care about right now is market share. The profit will come later (see Facebook for example).   Or better yet, read about the marshmallow experiment (wiki:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment).  The same rationale is why Uber, Lyft, Tesla and all of these other tech companies are valued so high.   That being said, I do not know that Snap, Inc. will be a success. I'm just saying that it's naive to say that Evan is a fool. For all we know, he's creating the next AR (insert buzzword) technology. We don't know.


"I mean, I guess you could technically call it that, but that's pretty stretching it I would say, considering we're in the comments section for the article.   Under such a definition, calling someone else out on ""moving the goal posts"" with the intention to return to the original goal posts is itself ""moving the goal posts"", which just gets a little silly, plenty pedantic. And in the end, misses the point, which is to have a discussion about the article."


I work for a private equity firm and recently graduated with a Master's of Finance from a top 20 B School. With that being said, I would not recommend the Master's as a path to PE or CF. You would be better suited to invest in a MBA from a target school. IB is very tough to get into with a MFin depending on the part/product of the bank you are targeting. Happy to answer more specific questions.


Don't confuse fiscal conservatism with social conservatism. I like conservative monetary and business policy, but fully support letting individuals decide whether they want to get high, have a gay marriage, etc.  Now that I type this out, I guess I fit more into the libertarian category.


If you download the historical data from Yahoo, you will see two different close prices. The one labeled 'Close' is simply the price that was quoted on that particular day. The one labeled 'Adj Close' is the close price that has been adjusted for any splits and dividends that have occurred after that date.  For example, if a stock splits 10:1 on a particular date, then the adjusted close for all dates prior to that split will have been divided by 10. If a dividend is paid, then all dates prior will have that amount subtracted from their adjusted quote. Using the adjusted close allows you to compare any two dates and see the true relative return.


"You manage this account just as any other account. ""Petty cash"" refers to accounts where the cash money is intended for ad-hoc purchases, where you store an amount of cash in your drawer and take it out as needed. However, other than naming it ""petty cash"", there's nothing petty about it - it's an account just as any other. Many choose to just ""deduct"" the amount transferred to ""Petty Cash"" account and not manage it at all. Here the amount matters - some smaller amounts can fall under ""de minimis"" rules of the appropriate regulatory authority. Since you told nothing about where you are and what your business is - we can't tell you what the rules are in your case. If you track the usage of this account (and from your description it sounds like you are) - then the name ""Petty Cash"" is meaningless. It's an account just like any other. Since you have an employee dealing with this cash you should establish some internal audit procedures to ensure that there's no embezzlement and everything is accounted for. You will probably want to reconcile this account more often than others and check more thoroughly on what's going on with it. Since its a ""personal finance"" forum, I'm assuming you're a sole proprietor or a very small business, and SEC/SOX rules don't apply to you. If they do - you should have a licensed accountant (CPA or whatever public accountancy designation is regulated in your area) to help you with this."


Simply put, for a mortgage, interest is charged only on the balance as well. Think of it this way - on a $100K 6% loan, on day one, 1/2% is $500, and the payment is just under $600, so barely $100 goes to principal. But the last payment of $600 is nearly all principal.  By the way, you are welcome to make extra principal payments along with the payment due each month. An extra $244 in this example, paid each and every month, will drop the term to just 15 years. Think about that, 40% higher payment, all attacking the principal, and you cut the term by 1/2 the time.


If this isn't a case where you would be willing to forgive the debt if they can't pay, it's a business transaction, not a friend transaction. Establish exactly what the interest rate will be, what the term of the loan is, whether periodic payments are required, how much is covered by those payments vs. being due at the end of the term as a balloon payment, whether they can make additional payments to reduce the principal early... Get it all in writing and signed by all concerned before any money changes hands. Consider having a lawyer review the language before signing. If the loan is large enough that it might incur gift taxes, then you may want to go the extra distance to make it a real, properly documented, intra-family loan. To do this you must charge (of at least pay taxes on) at least a certain minimal interest rate, and they have to make regular payments (or you can gift them the payments but you still won't up paying tax on the interest income). In this case you definitely want a lawyer to draw up the papers, I think. There are services on the web Antioch specialize in helping to set this up properly, and which offer services such as bookkeeping and monthly billing (aT extra cost) to make it less hassle for the lender. If the loan will be structured as a mortgage on the borrower's house -- making the interest deductible for the borrower in the US -- there are additional forms that need to be filled. The services can help with that too, for appropriate fees. Again, this probably wants experts writing the agreement, to make sure it's properly written for where you and the borrower live. Caveat: all the above is assuming USA. Rules may be very different elsewhere. I've done a formal intractability mortgage -- mostly to avoid gift tax -- and it wasn't too awful a hassle. Your mileage will vary.


I disagree.  Employee pay has always been a budgetary line item to large business owners.  That's just the way it is.  Much of the reason for the decrease in the percent of revenue going to employees is because companies, nowadays, don't need to hire as many people.  Technology has reduced the number of employees most industries require while still maintaining or boosting productivity.  I think a more fair way of looking at these figures would be to look at the sum of both employee pay and capital expenses as a percent of revenue.


It's a major problem in Chicago and it's not going away.  Part of the issue is that any meaningful change would be wildly unpopular for one side.  Many people & families desperately rely on their pension payments.  There's no easy fix to such a huge gap in funding/structure.  Plus why have a hard conversation when you can talk about who's standing or kneeling during the national anthem?


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/11/the-myth-of-technological-unem) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Isn&#039;t technological unemployment a real and serious problem? Non-economists of a quantitative bent fret about what we&#039;re going to do when all the jobs go away-when, say, autonomous vehicles replace America&#039;s 3.5 million truck drivers.  > The gross figure of 1 percent of jobs lost per month is the relevant one for worries about technological unemployment.  > One in which all jobs are protected, bureaucrats decide who gets subsidies and who doesn&#039;t, and the economy slides, as France has, into stagnation and high levels of youth unemployment? Or one in which labor laws are flexible, individual workers decide their own futures, and the economy lifts up the poorest among us?   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6mupwx/the_myth_of_technological_unemployment/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~165476 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **job**^#1 **worked**^#2 **know**^#3 **percent**^#4 **unemployment**^#5"


Theoretically, yes, you can only buy or sell whole shares (which is why you still have .16 shares in your account; you can't sell that fraction on the open market). This is especially true for voting stock; stock which gives you voting rights in company decisions makes each stock one vote, so effectively whomever controls the majority of one stock gets that vote. However, various stock management policies on the part of the shareholder, brokerage firm or the issuing company can result in you owning fractional shares. Perhaps the most common is a retirement account or other forward-planning account. In such situations, it's the dollar amount that counts; when you deposit money you expect the money to be invested in your chosen mix of mutual funds and other instruments. If the whole-shares rule were absolute, and you wanted to own, for instance, Berkshire Hathaway stock, and you were contributing a few hundred a month, it could take you your entire career of your contributions sitting in a money-market account (essentially earning nothing) before you could buy even one share. You are virtually guaranteed in such situations to end up owning fractions of shares in an investment account. In these situations, it's usually the fund manager's firm that actually holds title to the full share (part of a pool they maintain for exactly this situation), and your fractional ownership percentage is handled purely with accounting; they give you your percentage of the dividends when they're paid out, and marginal additional investments increase your actual holdings of the share until you own the whole thing. If you divest, the firm sells the share of which you owned a fraction (or just holds onto it for the next guy fractionally investing in the stock; no need to pay unnecessary broker fees) and pays you that fraction of the sale price.  Another is dividend reinvestment; the company may indicate that instead of paying a cash dividend, they will pay a stock dividend, or you yourself may indicate to the broker that you want your dividends given to you as shares of stock, which the broker will acquire from the market and place in your account. Other common situations include stock splits that aren't X-for-1. Companies often aren't looking to halve their stock price by offering a two-for-one split; they may think a smaller figure like 50% or even smaller is preferable, to fine tune their stock price (and thus P/E ratio and EPS figures) similar to industry competitors or to companies with similar market capitalization. In such situations they can offer a split that's X-for-Y with X>Y, like a 3-for-2, 5-for-3 or similar. These are relatively uncommon, but they do happen; Home Depot's first stock split, in 1987, was a 3-for-2. Other ratios are rare, and MSFT has only ever been split 2-for-1. So, it's most likely that you ended up with the extra sixth of a share through dividend reinvestment or a broker policy allowing fractional-share investment.


Manifestation Miracle is an eBook containing 159 pages that can be considered as a personal development course. It has been especially designed to help people reach their desired goals no matter what they are. It was created by Heather Matthews who is a reputed life and energy coach and also a transformational speaker.https://manifestinglovetips.com/


">When one says that ""corporations are people"", in a legal sense, they are saying that they have the ability to enter into binding legal agreements in a manner similar to people.   I would never use the words ""corporations are people"" to describe this. Corporations are legal structures given a legal status by government to facilitate the cooperation of labor, production and capital. By having this legal status provided by government, they can establish contracts and enforce them. In return, the corporation is subject to regulations and laws established by Government.   The simple fact of the matter is that if Government didn't have the authority to provide certain legal statuses to corporations, corporations wouldn't exist. As such, the relationship between corporations and government is symbiotic rather than adversarial (which the current Republican party seems to think - all we hear is how bad government is for business when businesses would not even exist without it). We the People control the government. If we wanted to, we could nationalize every corporation in this country and end capitalism as we know it. We basically did this in 2008 with the banks when capitalism was on it's death bed. Corporations can live or die by the hand of Government.    That doesn't sound like a process in which one concludes: ""corporations are people, my friends"".   >If they are using it in any sense other than the legal sense, it's either hyperbole, ignorance, or pandering.  Romney never clarified what he meant by that statement and given the state of his campaign - one has to wonder.   >Now, if you set yourself up as LettersFromTheSky, Inc  I have started my own business, I can confirm that my personal expenses (to keep me alive) such as food, car maintenance, rent, etc were not tax deductible but yet my day to day business expenses (to keep it alive) such as paper, wages, equipment, etc were.   Edit: Basically, I'm just trying to say that the tax code treats corporations and people totally different. As such, ""corporations are people, my friends"" is demonstrably false."


Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether.


This is part of the reason that job hunting can get so frustrating for me. I often do get the feeling my resume sat in the database, was scanned for keywords, and when none were found over the hiring period I received the standard rejection email after 60 or 90 days. I wouldn't even mind a rejection email as long as it looked like an actual person wrote it and wasn't a template.


I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account.  This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage.  The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything.  From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution.


> Why shouldn't everyone pay the exact same price for the same services?  Because a rich person receives more benefit from government services.  A rich person will drive on more roads, be in more hospitals, visit more parks, and use more of the rules and amenities the government provides.  A rich person is more likely to call the cops while a poor person is more likely to have the cops called on them.


If you are a Russian citizen a much easier and common solution would be a USD or EUR withdrawal from your Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. You will need to create a Webmoney account (www.webmoney.ru), get a primary certificate in your local Webmoney office in Russia (The list is available at the website), create WMZ (for USD) and WME (for EURO) accounts in Webmoney (done online). Then you can easily top up your Webmoney WMR (Rubles) account (created automatically) with Rubles, convert the sum into USD (According to the Webmoney rate, which is only slightly different from the official central bank rate) and then withdraw the money from your USD Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. The money will be transfered to your Cyprus bank account from UK Webmoney dealer. The transaction description would say that this sum is transfered according to the contract of sale of securities. This method prevents any Russian regulatory authorities from seeing your transactions. And the best thig in Webmoney is that they have stable exchange rates and they use classic currencies such as USD, RUR, EUR, etc. Webmoney also has WMG accounts (Gold) and WMX accounts (Bitcoin). Non-Russian residents can also open a Webmoney accounts. You can get one even in Cyprus, by the way:)


This can mean a few things to me.  Some of which has been mentioned already. It can mean one (or all) of the following to me: You take out a new credit card and transfer ALL other credit balances to it. (Only good if you destroy the others, this is a 0% offer, AND you plan on paying this card off furiously.) You do the loan thing mentioned earlier. You go to a credit consolidation service who will handle your paying your payments and you send them one payment each month.  (Highly discourage using them.  A majority of them are shady, and won't get do what they say they will do.  Check Better Business Bureau if you find yourself considering them as an option.) In the first two cases, you are just reducing the number of hands reaching into your bank account.  But keep in mind, doing this is not the same as paying off debt.  You can't borrow your way out.  You can do this as part of your plan, but do so CAREFULLY.


"For real. AAA treasury bonds are used a safe investment vehicle for the reason of ""its the US government, its safe"", which is pretty similar to the ""dude, who doesnt pay their mortgage?!"" line of thinking.      You got people dumping money into these derivatives and suddenly someone goes ""oh yeah you just bought a bunch of bad debt that should be rated 'junk'. Oops."""


Thousands of books and millions of hours of research result in different schools of economics with substantive disagreements about key tenets. That is prima facie evidence that economics is not hard science. The scientific economist does not take into account that what he is studying is the aggregate of billions of decisions made by sentient individuals.   Keynesians and monetarists all missed the dotcom bubble. They all missed the real estate collapse that triggered the great recession. Austrian economists predicted both.


In some cases, we when we see an opportunity to save our clients money, without risking valuable coverage or diminishing benefits, we make certain recommendations for more affordable life insurance. One of these strategies is laddering (or layering) term lengths, or term maturities. The strategy is simple. While most people who are considering longer terms, such as 20 or 30 year term, purchase a single policy to fit their needs, the laddering strategy has you purchase two policies totaling the same amount of coverage you currently need, but with a shorter length term mixed with the longer term. For example, instead of purchasing a 30 year term for $1 million dollars, you might purchase two policies for $500,000 each, one with a 15 year term, and the other with a 30 year term. The result is typically a savings of 15%-25% on your term life insurance. Just be aware that the plan going in is to let the first policy go (the one with the shorter term length) when its level term has expired. For example in a 15 year term, the premiums will be guaranteed to stay level the first 15 years, and then increase every year thereafter. There is typically a sizable jump in rates in that 16th year. Clients often see rates increase 8-10 times or more. Therefore, it’s important you understand that going in, and realize you will most likely let that first policy go when the premiums increase, leaving you with the second policy through the end of its (longer) level term. You can crunch some numbers with our laddering calculator: https://www.jrcinsurancegroup.com/term-life-insurance-laddering-calculator/


"I am a healthcare compliance consultant making good money. I understand the logic behind ROI and education. I was trying to raise the point that choosing what to study is more than what you make when you're done with college or what the ""value"" of your degree is. Can't we value education intrinsically? Why does it have to be tied to ROI? Maybe the business sub isnt the best place for this debate, but I think its important."


No economic model uses a 1 term game. They are pretty much either games until infinity or close enough, with only the final game having incentives for acting selfish.   The classic non cooperative behaviour is prisioners dilema and everybody is worse off because they tried to be selfish. The problem is fixed by cooperation.