Jurgis

That's not true. You misunderstand PV calculations. Assuming stable growth and stable interest/discount rate, PV0 is not going to be equal to PV1. That's true even if you and every participant of the market have perfect knowledge and know g and r until eternity. Edit: PV0 won't be the same as PV1 even if growth ceases at some point in the future.

Assuming no inflation, you can value market as growing perpetuity ( http://www.pitt.edu/~schlinge/fall99/example_growth.htm ): PV0 = C0 / ( r - g ) Since C grows at rate g, your PV next year will be: PV1 = C1 / ( r - g ) == C0 * ( 1 + g ) / ( r - g ) Voila your market price just went up g%. Now, maybe you will argue that inflation should have gone up g% too, but that's not necessarily true IMO. I'll let my chauffeur address this issue ( https://natarajank.com/2014/06/27/joke-of-the-day-my-chauffeur-will-answer-your-question/ ).

Yeah, having spouse that supports you emotionally and financially as you go for second act is definitely a big plus.

I think what oddball says is that's it's easy(ier) to change career into something that doesn't pay bills if you are independently wealthy from the previous career (or drug deals 8) ). If you've done OK - let's say tech, let's say couple hundred K in savings but not big Ms - the switch is not that easy. Yeah, on one hand you have some foundation, you have experience, you have some network, you can try to switch to something "your dream" & risky & maybe won't pay bills. OTOH, if it doesn't work out, your retirement might be shot or at least way lower if you did not try to switch. I'm not saying switch or don't switch. I agree with Picasso that it's very much a personal choice and for some people switch makes great sense, for others it doesn't. For some people, it's do the dream in 20's and become programmer in 40's, for some other way around. I don't think there's much to talk about in abstract. If someone I knew was contemplating this, I'd see what I could advise.

Yeah, I realize. Just talking about second acts in general, in both directions, not just one direction you mentioned. (pun intended).

There's a lot of musicians who became programmers or other tech careers. My guess it's the difficulty of making it as a musician and the brains-and-a-bit-of-creativity + ez-money of programming/tech that makes this rather popular switch.

Money magazine (I know I know people here probably gonna snob it, but it has some good tips and it's free for miles) has an ongoing section about these covering concrete examples. Mostly professional people to entrepreneurs, i.e. starting your own business, but I think there were some articles about career to other career jumps too. I think it's not a new idea/phenomenon. I've seen tech people who go to teaching yoga or something like that. That's of course opposite of entrepreneurism: you use your tech nest egg to do something you like but which pays crap. Gotta run, maybe more later.

Thanks for the tip, guv'nor. I see some great reviews on http://www.bumwine.com/wildirishrose.html http://www.bumwine.com/md2020.html Gonna grab couple and chug them down while doing back alley prowl for Pokemons.

You must be a broker. If he's not, he's gonna be soon. ::) You nerds need to live a little. It's ok to have some drinks, even if Warren doesn't. :) Not a broker. Business owner. Original post was a joke, but since you care... :) I live just fine TYVM. :) Couple drinks per day is a way to alcoholism and other medical problems. It's your life though. We care and we wish you well, but it's your choice after all. ;) And yeah maybe you gonna be just fine. Have fun and good luck.

I can only drink sweet (desert) wines. Dry (or even semi) wines don't work for my digestion.

You must be a broker. If he's not, he's gonna be soon. ::)

I won't vote since poll is misleading IMO. :) I have beer once a week or so, but did not have one last week. I haven't done other drugs apart from caffeine. ;)

Not bad ideas.

I'll start with b) - how is this much different from current situation? Institutions vote "for" mostly anything on the slate and will continue to do so even if your proposal is adopted. The only improvement is the few "say on pay" proposals that got rejected would have real teeth. But will institutions be even more scared to vote against if rejecting proposal may mean that CEO says "screw it" and leaves? You did not mention it in b), but you could also enforce a yearly voting: some companies now have "say on pay" every 3 years only. a) is not bad, but unintended consequence is that CEOs will just double their salary so they take home the same amount of cash (and the rest goes into stock piggy bank). IMO it's very tough to design a system that works against adversarial opponent (in fact there are provably unsolvable situations against adversarial opponents in game theory IIRC). Ideally we should get to the level where CEO is not an adversarial opponent, but such cases are quite infrequent.

was he even born? Obviously he went back in time. He used the Tesla that comes with a flux capacitor. That is the model which has an incredible battery that can deliver 1.21 gigawatts to the flux capacitor for time travel. Manufactured in the gigafactory of course. It's model E. You can order it for 2025, it's gonna be made in 2030, and delivered to you in 2018.

was he even born? Obviously he went back in time.

Musk faked Moon landing in 1969. 8)

Right. It literally assaults various Dons. Even socialists like Kochs are talking about it. What is this world coming to! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/01/i-dont-like-the-idea-of-capitalism-charles-koch-unfiltered/ It's good to be the King! I'll just end up with a quote from Koch:

My yearly dose of Elon: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.

Our CEO is such a nice, upfront, no bs kind of guy. He pulled up to work with his sweet new car this morning and I complimented him on it. He replied, "Well, if you work hard, set goals, stay determined and put in long hours, I can get an even better one next year."

I believe you are conflating a lot of different things that should be taken apart and examined separately. It would be way easier to sit down with you and go together through this example rather than to try writing wall of text and numbers here. So, sorry, but I pass on writing. :) Maybe someone else will take the challenge. :) Edit: having a discussion based on market prices in abstract is meaningless. First of all, market may be wrong in valuing one or both companies. Second, market may be valuing things that you think are not important - but they might be. In short, of course you'd rather have a $1M that produces $100K per year rather than $1K per year. But how much would you pay for the first vs the second? Would you really pay $500K (5P/E) for first and $5K for second? This ignores earnings stability, future proof'ness, etc. It also ignores what $1M is (cash? securities? a mine? a contract? 100 old trucks?) and whether it is easy/possible to make the second $1M earn much more than $1K per year. Then you are introducing growth into the scenario and this complicates matters further, since you don't define what the growth is based on (earnings? sales? book value?) and what happens to the non-invested earnings/fcf. I'll stop there. :)

I am sorry to say this but this is got to be the worst joke here :) :) :) :) :) And I thought that jokes about German sausages are the wurst.

Longer term if automation goes ballistic, society may have to figure out how to compensate people who don't work. Short/medium term unless trends outlined by vox change, the situation likely will continue. Things might change if/when labor force decreases because of low population growth. Things may change if/when global income rises to developed country levels - but this is slow and doubtful. Personally, I want to live in society that doesn't have huge social inequality, since IMO this raises crime rate and risk of social disturbances. I doubt that I can influence the situation much though.

Yep.

If people aspire "to their highest level of success in whatever job they choose", for most of them they will not get paid as much as CEO and likely will get paid way lower. Even worse, the productivity gains by workers are likely not increase their salaries, but will rather increase the salary of the CEO, since any revenue and profit gains will be attributed to the great CEO "leadership". Do you really believe that someone who doesn't aspire to be a manager (CEO) and aspires to be a great line worker, will get a proportional benefit for their productivity gains? Mostly not. Regarding CEOs creating tremendous value - most CEOs don't. I've seen enough crappy struggling or going down organizations that pay enormous bucks to the CEOs. Of course, CEOs and boards can rationalize anything "oh, we are going down, but we'd be going down even faster if not for tremendous sacrifice of our CEO who earns multimegabucks for it". Most companies don't measure CEO productivity and contributions - not that this is easy to do for CEOs. Edit: and BTW most of the compensation plan formulas are not real measurements of CEO productivity or contributions.