sys

i'm not sure it makes sense to sell your (generally healthier, my bias is easier to enjoy) younger years on the presumption that you will need, want and be able to buy additional years at the end of your life with the money you made selling your time earlier in your life. at the very least one should do should try to make some realistic assumptions and do the math to see if it seems logical.

this is a decent reminder that it is easy to allow the narrative to outpace the results. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/

thanks for answering. and thanks for the information on some of the others posting in this thread. i knew there were a lot of canadians on the board, but for some reason i assumed that the regular participants in this thread were american.

cardboard, is it true that you are a canadian resident, and if so, why are you so invested in the american presidential election? i don't mean this as a criticism, i'm just curious.

the attack in benghazi occurred during the night in north africa. in the united states, it was the afternoon.

30 million, max.

leaving aside talk of salary regulation and taxation, i think the more interesting question is why the labor market does not itself correct this (real or perceived) imbalance. i think most would agree that there are many more individuals with the ability to be effective ceos than there are ceo positions. to me it seems like the reason must be that there is a perception among owners that switching costs exceed the accumulated losses due to overpaying executives.

it's at 6k now, which is actually a pretty good price. i couldn't buy a comparable vehicle locally for that.

it wasn't your argument to start with. you changed muscleman's argument (more an expression of concern, really). the new law does not change the ways in which a potential voter may satisfy the requirement of citizenship, but i agree with you that there is nothing to be gained by continuing our discussion.

mark, the point is that if california had passed a law that directly conflicts with federal law it would be a pretty big deal. you'd see coverage of it everywhere. of course you seem to realize this and have now switched to the idea that the law will enable fraud, rather than that it will allow immigrants to legally vote. i hope you at least realize that you are changing the argument? this conversation makes me wish the right to vote could be dramatically curtailed, to be honest.

to support that california is a state? i'm sure i could google it if you really want. if you are asking if i have support for the idea that ineligible voters aren't automatically registered to vote in california, i think you could probably assume that since: 1) about half the people in the us are outraged at the idea of possible voter fraud by immigrants, 2) california is a state with millions of people in it, 3) it's illegal for non-citizens to vote in the united states and 4) you're only hearing of the possibility of this massive and completely unconcealed illegal voting effort on conspiracy journalism websites and some random investing message board - it's probably not true. if you actually would find it more compelling than the use of logical induction, i can share that i live in california. i am a citizen, my wife is not. we both have state issued id, but only i am registered to vote.

no, it doesn't. california is a real state with real laws much like other states in the united states.

i think it is difficult to predict how the republicans might splinter if this election results disastrous for them. i would like it if the free-trade, fiscal conservatives (probably including foreign policy hawks, although that part i wouldn't necessarily like) joined with conservative democrats to constitute a centrist party in opposition to the trumpian nationalists and progressive democrats. i don't know if that is likely, however.

i've lost a lot of respect for ryan given the manner in which he has kowtowed to trump. on the other hand, i've gained a great deal of respect for graham. i don't agree with his extreme interventionist foreign policy ideas, but i very much respect how stood up to the pressure to fall in line behind his party's candidate, regardless of cost. the more so since i believe his seat in the senate is not terribly secure.

trump has a history of falsely claiming invitations. http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/last-week-tonight-donald-trump-john-oliver-1201631194/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/29/donald-trump-now-hates-michael-bloomberg-because-bloomberg-was-mean-to-him/

different emails.

this is true, but it seems like every time i see some story about the media attention paid to civilian deaths in x, y and z countries, they ignore the news value of the story. a group of people dying in an attack in a war zone or politically unstable country is dog bites man, the same in a politically stable country is man bites dog.

that's not quite accurate. multiple pulls for mortgage applications within some short time frame (1 month? something like that) are consolidated and treated as a single pull. unless you are searching over a very long time period, your score will not be significantly impacted.

i was talking about the house, although i'm sure the monthly payments are also cheaper. obviously the time comparison chosen matters quite a bit in this example. the price of the house has deflated significantly from 10 years ago, inflated significantly from 5 years ago.

fresno, ca. it makes sense to me to consider inflation in the cost of living and inflation in the cost of investable assets separately.

educational costs may be underweighted, i don't know. they don't feel like it to me, a childless adult, but a large family might think otherwise. what the proper weight would be for the mean consumer, i can't say. i'm not sure if i follow your argument regarding excluding the costs of purchasing housing causing the cpi to underestimate inflation. the house i live in is cheaper than it was 10 years ago. cheaper than it was 15 years ago. maybe going back 20 years there's been some inflation. not every market would show the same, but i think the general trend has been similar. at any rate, i agree that methodologically, it makes sense to differentiate between housing costs and excess spending on housing due to real estate being used as an investment.

what good or services are excluded from the cpi that you think would need to be included to capture the true cost of living?

not domestic. a bit of a loophole, to be sure.