The rich save more than the poor, and the more they have, they more they'll save. Money that's being saved isn't being spent, which means less business for everyone from the dry cleaner on the corner to the owner of a five-star hotel. In turn, that means less work for everybody and a lethargic economy.
To be sure, banks can invest the money that the wealthy save, which can stimulate the economy as well. Yet many observers... are worried that as a global society, we've accumulated too much in the way of savings already.
What i totally don't get from this chart, how can housing expenses be so high? It means about 1/3 if all spending spent on housing, which is about 4-5 trillion a year. Where all that money goes? Construction for example, employs less than 3% of U.S. workforce. Banking (profits from mortgages) make a significant part, but it's easy to calculate that don't get a terribly big chunk.
Also aren't many families living in paid out homes and don't spend anything on housing at all? 19.9% of all units in the USA are owner-occupied without a mortgage, and 12.4% are vacant. Meaning 22.71% of families are neither renting nor paying a mortgage (homeless aside). Which would imply that those who are spending anything on their housing, spend about 46%, if the average for all household is about 35% as the chart on your link suggests. Nearly half. Which is simply hard to believe. Was that the case, housing would have been the cornerstone of U.S. economy.
Total outstanding mortgage debt is 13.7 trillion, which is less than 1x total household income in the USA. So spending 35% of income on housing, all debt could be paid in 3 years even interest included. Because about 60% of people own their homes vs rent, even not counting that they pay typically more then renters, it could mean paying out all mortgages in 5 years, which certainly isn't the case.
Other way around, total value of all U.S. homes is 27.5 trillion, about 12.4% are unoccupied (if you are paying a mortgage on a second home you don't occupy, this isn't a housing expense, this is an investment). which leaves 24.1 trillion for occupied homes. If housing is 35% of all income of Americans, it means 5 years worth of all 'housing' expenses will pay for all homes in America - including those already paid out. And less than 4 years if you exclude those paid out.
Something is wrong here. I think these estimates are about 3x wrong.
this chart suggests average share of income Americans pay in mortgage are ca. 14% of their income. renters probably pay less, but even if not, 22.7% pay nothing because they own their homes outright. Which leaves 10-11% of income spent on housing, not 35%. Even less if you remember that interest on mortgage is tax-deductible, so definitely under 10%.
I'm late to this thread, but I will chime in. I started using a waterpik about 2 years ago. My dental hygienist suggested I try it, because the gaps between my gums and teeth were starting to get deeper, about 2-3 mm. When I came back to the hygienist after 6 months, she told me the gaps were mostly 1-2 mm. I can't recall if I told her before she did the measurements that I'd used the waterpik, so I'm not sure if I biased her. In any case, I'm pretty sure I can also see the improvement in the mirror - at least my gums used to look a little inflamed at the gumline, here and there, and they don't anymore. Also it seemed I was bleeding less at my last cleaning (they usually tell me that I bleed more than average).
One more thing: my hygienist said I didn't have to use the waterpik every day, that it's fine to use it just a few times a week. So I'm trying to use it every other day now. I don't know the pros and cons of using it every day. Are there any long term studies which show that the waterpik is in no way harmful? I don't think so.
PS I didn't floss as a kid, so unfortunately I have tons of dental fillings. I started flossing as an adult, and I'm sure it helped a lot. I still floss once a day.
"Dental insurance, for the most part, isn’t covered under ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act)...
"Even with cost assistance, when you reach the maximum,you typically pay 100% of the costs for dental work. This is the opposite of health insurance under the ACA where you pay 0% after your maximum.
"Dental works best for routine care, it is uncommon to find any insurance that covers major dental work past a certain dollar amount. ('The Dental Gap'?)
"When dentists told him it needed to be pulled, he decided to forgo the procedure, because he was unemployed and had no health insurance...
"When his face started swelling and his head began to ache, Willis went to the emergency room, where he received prescriptions for antibiotics and pain medications. Willis couldn't afford both, so he chose the pain medications.
"The tooth infection spread, causing his brain to swell. He died Tuesday"
Here's a short quote from the article on Project Aristotle:
"Imagine you have been invited to join one of two groups. Team A is composed of people who are all exceptionally smart and successful.... This team is efficient. There is no idle chitchat or long debates... Team B is different. It’s evenly divided between successful executives and middle managers with few professional accomplishments... At the end of the meeting, the meeting doesn’t actually end: Everyone sits around to gossip and talk about their lives. Which group would you rather join?"
I knew I'd want to join Team A: smart, efficient people who get stuff done without idle chit-chat.
If you believe the article, Team B will be less effective because they are too individualistic, and walk over other people. They didn't actually say "self-centered", but it was implied.
I don't see how you can't be both efficient, smart, and empathetic; I don't see why there has to a choice. I've worked with my fair share of a-holes, and it's no fun. But it's also not fun working with schmoes who spend more time gossiping over the watercooler than getting stuff done.
I tested as 6x the average risk of developing DVT at 23andme (average risk is about 10%). I don't see pulmonary embolism listed in my report.
I'm "middle-aged" but so far haven't had this happen, despite some extra risk factors - I've been on the Pill for ~20 years and I do sit a lot (I'm a software developer). I'm not a frequent flyer, but I have flown many times and never had a problem. I naturally shift position pretty often when sitting, so I'm not sure if this helps. Or maybe whatever gene is responsible is just there, and hasn't turned on yet. How to stop it from turning on? I don't think anyone knows.
I was surprised to see that OP got a DVT when he walks 1-3 miles every day. That seems far better than what most people do (I try to walk about 2-3 mi per day). I don't see how switching to running could be more preventive.
The F5, F2, and ABO risk variants are for developing VTEs, a DVT is a type of VTE, and a PE is a DVT that makes it to the lungs. If you have one or more of the variants, it's already "on."
I'm not a physician and don't even play one on the internet, but if I were a mid-aged woman I would consider an IUD (with or without hormones) as an effective alternative to the pill. Even hormonal IUDs have vastly lower dosages than the pill.
Like the "sitting epidemic," VTEs care more about sustained periods of immobility, regardless of fitness levels. Paradoxically, even though obesity is its own risk factor, seriously atheletic types are highly vulnerable too: higher fitness -> lower heartrate -> slower circulation -> clotting. Sports teams are known to wear compression stockings on flights to combat the issue.
If you're 6x, I'd highly recommend reading about lifestyle changes. Best wishes!
but if I were a mid-aged woman I would consider an IUD (with or without hormones) as an effective alternative to the pill
I take the pill as a treatment for severe dysmenorrhea which did not respond to any other treatments. To my knowledge, regular IUDs do not help with that. When I saw the 23andme results years ago, I didn't know there were any options beside the Pill for dysmenorrhea. I had to make the choice between continuing to hold down a regular job, and accepting the risk. I probably would have been wise to bring up the test results with my doctors, but I have low expectations of them (revolving door treatment). So I just made the decision on my own.
I'm nearing the time when I should stop taking BCP, so I don't see the point in experimenting with other options, given I've survived till now (IUDs are usually planned to be used for 1+ years). I did find that I had to switch between a few different types of pills before I found one that had the best effect, and doing this for an IUD would be quite a production, if it even worked.
It's interesting to me that I've never had a doctor mention to me risks for DVT at all. Doctors ask for a family history (no history of blood clots in my family). Based on that, I guess they have assumed I do not have a high risk for blood clots.
Here's a relevant quote: https://bedsider.org/features/168-risky-business-2-migraines...
"Some types of genetic testing can reveal a predisposition for blood clots or stroke (though it’s not clear if a genetic test that shows this predisposition actually predicts that the condition will develop)."
Interestingly, Serena Williams was reported to have DVT (she had a PE although I haven't found a source that said it was definitely from DVT). She had recently had an injury to a foot which required surgery and 18 stitches, and also it happened on a flight...
I am reasonably athletic, but my resting heart rate is about 80 bpm. Maybe that's something that's been helping me.
Aside from genetics, the risk factors for DVT are reportedly:
1) Smoking
2) Birth control pills
3) Hormone replacement therapy with estrogen and progesterone
4) Recent surgery, especially on the legs or belly
5) A long hospital stay involving bed rest
6) Some cancers
7) Pregnancy and childbirth, particularly with C-section
8) Age over 70
9) Obesity
http://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20110302/serena-williams-pulm...
Notice they don't even mention travel at webmd....
So if I get off the BCP, avoid surgery, and die before 70, maybe I'll be fine ;)
Was and still am a complete newbie. Over coffee a friend told me they got some new tooling (tool on the CNC table - vacuum holding it down) and they needed someone quickly to set it up. I just grabbed the opportunity not knowing what I was getting myself into. Read machine manual and went on to read about G-code. In 48 hours I was able to produce working G-code and off we went cutting. Shorty after I landed another simple gig and now the third is around the corner.
Mind you this is simple, practically 2D cutting process.
I just wanted to chime in and say that I have exactly the same problem. I'm working on my own software project, and don't want to go to work full-time. It's my dream to turn my project into a little business that will support me. I've worked on it for a couple of years and I still can't figure out how to make that happen.
Based on prior experience, I could devote a few months to interviewing (which we agree is no fun!) and find a full-time job with a good salary and benefits. That would also lock me in to working all the time, with a couple of weeks of vacation per year. If I pushed it, maybe I could get 1 month of vacation.
The salary associated with a full-time job is very attractive, but far more than I need at this point in life.
A few years ago, I found contract work using craigslist. I've been able to generate about $2K/year on that (Boston area is not good for craigslist tech gigs). Other than that, I've found it impossible to make the ~ $20K/year that I need for my living expenses.
I wish I could advise you. I've heard you can make a low-stress "lifestyle business" that requires moderate work, but I have yet to figure out one that works. For example, the "retire early extreme" guy reported that he spent 4 hours per week typesetting articles in LaTex - http://earlyretirementextreme.com/my-4-hour-work-week.html I could do this! But I've never seen work like this offered. I've looked for similar opportunities (mostly on craigslist) but never saw anything like that.
I've heard you can work on open-source projects and find nice contracts that way. I'm sure it happens, but does it happen reliably enough to just pick some OSS project, start working, and wait for clients to call? I don't have the time put a lot of work into a project, and then after months find it does not lead to contract work. If you have time to burn like this, you may want to try it.
There are people here at hacker news who sell ebooks and info services and seem to do very well. But for every one who is successful, I suspect there are tens or hundreds of others who did poorly. So, it's something you can try... but like OSS work, it seems to have a high risk of failure.
The usual response for getting contract work seems to be to "network". I have a very small network of people that I know and trust. This network has helped me find FT work in the past, but it has never generated contract work.
I'm in the Boston area, YMMV. I left my job in 2011. I did a few months of COBRA, which I found unreasonably expensive. I'm currently paying about $380/month on a BCBS individual plan with a $6K deductible (costs have risen about $5-$10/mo per year since I joined). I don't think my experience will help you much (single), but I'm putting this out there for others who might be interested. BTW I have never met the deductible and usually spend less than $1K/year on medical expenses. Knock on wood.
PS I haven't noticed much effect due to ACA, except that some services that used to require a co-pay became free. It will be nice not having to worry about pre-existing conditions, too.
This article gives some of the logic behind redistributing income this way: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/where...
The rich save more than the poor, and the more they have, they more they'll save. Money that's being saved isn't being spent, which means less business for everyone from the dry cleaner on the corner to the owner of a five-star hotel. In turn, that means less work for everybody and a lethargic economy.
To be sure, banks can invest the money that the wealthy save, which can stimulate the economy as well. Yet many observers... are worried that as a global society, we've accumulated too much in the way of savings already.