Wed November 01, 2017 7:24 pm
Wed November 01, 2017 7:24 pm
4/5 wrote:tragabigzanda wrote:4/5 wrote:tragabigzanda wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:tragabigzanda wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Neither of those posts seem like ringing endorsements of globalization. In fact, the opposite.
I'm not endorsing it, just accepting it's the reality. What would Bannon have us do? Stop trading with other countries and making all of our widgets domestically? Or continue global trade, but push deals that create ever more deplorable working and environmental conditions wherever our widgets are made?
Given those two choices: the first one.
Oh, it'd be great if we could make it happen. But even if we could execute some modern New Deal situation that put every American to work in the manufacturing sector, how long would it take to implement? 20 years?
Why on earth would it be great to bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S.? The fact that those jobs are gone is a sign of progress. As a nation we are too skilled and too productive for those jobs at this point and that's a really good thing.
As a small business owner pursuing all manner of funding for development of a light manufacturing line in a rural area, I wholeheartedly disagree. There are people less than a hundred feet from where I'm sitting right now who would love a manufacturing job.
And if I'm not misunderstanding you, this would seem to suggest that you have a workforce sitting there waiting to get a manufacturing job from you. Presumably, you'll be manufacturing something that you can afford to pay American workers to make and still be competitive. This sounds like a good thing for both sides.
Wed November 01, 2017 9:37 pm
tragabigzanda wrote:I'd argue that many of these workers don't see themselves as "left behind," but rather that their ideal scenario is a manufacturing job in which they can repeat the same task every day in exchange for a good wage and benefits with minimal headaches brought on by personal interaction. "I just want to punch in at 9, punch out at 5, grab a beer, and enjoy my leisure activities on the weekends" is still the driving force for lots of people.
Wed November 01, 2017 9:49 pm
4/5 wrote:tragabigzanda wrote:I'd argue that many of these workers don't see themselves as "left behind," but rather that their ideal scenario is a manufacturing job in which they can repeat the same task every day in exchange for a good wage and benefits with minimal headaches brought on by personal interaction. "I just want to punch in at 9, punch out at 5, grab a beer, and enjoy my leisure activities on the weekends" is still the driving force for lots of people.
I don’t doubt that you’re right about that. As a nation, though, we just aren’t competitive in those sorts of low skill jobs/industries.
Thu November 02, 2017 12:32 am
Thu November 02, 2017 12:32 am
Thu November 02, 2017 12:44 pm
tragabigzanda wrote:Absolutely right, but I would counter that it has more to do with the lax regulations and lower living wages in other countries.
tragabigzanda wrote:We'll never be competitive because our labor force wants $15US/hr, a guaranteed 40-hour work week, and they don't want to get cancer as a by-product of their employment.
tragabigzanda wrote:Which is why Bannon's world view is so sickening to me. If we're able to command production all around the globe, shouldn't we be acting as stewards of those nations where regulations and working conditions are bad for the workers? Especially since, you know, water and air don't exactly adhere to international boundaries.
Fri November 03, 2017 4:48 pm
Fri November 03, 2017 11:14 pm
Sat November 04, 2017 3:54 am
tragabigzanda wrote:I'd argue that many of these workers don't see themselves as "left behind," but rather that their ideal scenario is a manufacturing job in which they can repeat the same task every day in exchange for a good wage and benefits with minimal headaches brought on by personal interaction. "I just want to punch in at 9, punch out at 5, grab a beer, and enjoy my leisure activities on the weekends" is still the driving force for lots of people.
Sun December 03, 2017 12:44 pm
Even a $1 million retirement nest egg isn't enough anymore
With more retirees responsible for their own financial security, even a $1 million nest egg isn't nearly enough.
Considering the looming retirement savings shortfall, experts say there are only two ways out: Earn more or spend less.
A cool $1 million has long been considered the gold standard of retirement savings. These days, it's only a fraction of what you will really need.
For instance, a 67-year-old baby boomer retiring now with $1 million in the bank will generate $40,000 a year to live on adjusted for inflation and assuming a sustainable withdrawal rate of 4 percent, said Mark Avallone, president of Potomac Wealth Advisors and author of "Countdown to Financial Freedom."
It's worse for a 42-year-old Gen Xer, whose $1 million at retirement will only generate an inflation-adjusted $19,000 a year when all is said and done. And a 32-year-old millennial planning to retire at 67 with $1 million would live below the poverty line.
That's what Avallone, a certified financial planner, calls "million-dollar poverty."
For most Americans, there's been a serious lack of proper investment income and planning, Avallone said. That, coupled with inflation, a looming pension crisis and longer life expectancy, is "a toxic formula for successful retirement," he said — one that will result in a dramatic drop-off in lifestyle for retirees.
"Today's generation of working people grew up in an era where their parents went to a mailbox, and a check appeared. But pensions are almost extinct," Avallone said. "People have to self-fund their retirement, and the enormity of that challenge is underestimated."
WalletHub conducted a study this year to determine how long a nest egg of $1 million would really last. The personal finance site compared average expenses for people age 65 and older, including groceries, housing, utilities, transportation and health care.
Naturally, depending on where in the U.S. you live, the longevity of a $1 million nest egg varies. Those dollars stretched furthest in states like Mississippi, Arkansas and Tennessee, where retirees could live a life of leisure for at least a quarter of a century.
However, in Hawaii, where residents pay roughly 30 percent more for household items across the board, that same amount will only get you just shy of a dozen years — largely because of that higher cost of living and pricey real estate.
Considering that many families spend more than 100 percent of their income after taxes on monthly expenses alone, there are only two ways to overcome million-dollar poverty, Avallone said: Earn more or spend less.
For those nearing retirement, Avallone suggests getting a side gig, or "hobby job," and then saving 100 percent of that income.
"The key is to automatically deposit that money in a savings or investment account," he said.
Alternatively, take a hard look at your expenses and differentiate between what's necessary and what's discretionary. Then identify expenditures that can be cut back — which involves making some very tough decisions.
"Some are small, like lunches, but they add up," he said. "Others are big, like private school."
Sun December 03, 2017 1:02 pm
Sun December 03, 2017 7:37 pm
Sun December 03, 2017 11:48 pm
Sun December 03, 2017 11:56 pm
Mon December 04, 2017 12:44 pm
4/5 wrote:Why would a 67 year old want all their money in a bank instead of having any of it invested?
" For years, many retirees followed the 4% rule -- that is, they withdrew 4% of their savings the first year retirement and then increased that initial dollar draw by the inflation rate to maintain spending power. So assuming annual inflation of, say, 2%, someone with a $1 million nest egg following that rule of thumb would draw $40,000 ($3,333 a month) the first year of retirement, and then increase that amount by 2% to $40,800 ($3,400 a month) the second year of retirement, $41,600 ($3,470 a month) the third, and so on. Historically, if you followed this regimen, you had a high likelihood -- roughly a 90% chance -- that your money would last at least 30 years, long enough to carry most people through retirement.
But with many market watchers forecasting lower investment returns in the years ahead, a number of retirement-income experts have suggested that retirees who want a 90% or so probability of their savings lasting 30 or more years ought to scale back to an initial withdrawal rate of 3% or so. That would reduce the initial withdrawal on a $1 million nest egg by 25% from $40,000 a year to $30,000, or from $3,333 a month to $2,500. That's not to say you can't withdraw more -- 4%, 4.5%, 5% or whatever. It's just that as your withdrawal rate rises, the chances of your money lasting 30 or more years can decline sharply. "
Tue December 05, 2017 2:47 am
Bi_3 wrote:
Interesting times are ahead of us when $1m in total savings should just about cover food and shelter. for one person.
Wed December 06, 2017 3:15 am
Thu December 14, 2017 1:36 pm
Here is a full summary of what we know as of this moment is in the Republicans' final tax bill:
BUSINESSES
CORPORATE TAX RATE: Falls to 21 percent from 35 percent. The House and Senate bills, as well as Trump, had earlier proposed 20 percent. Going to 21 percent gave tax writers more federal revenue needed to make the tax cut immediate. U.S. corporations have been seeking a large tax cut like this for many years.
PASS-THROUGH BUSINESSES: Creates a 20 percent business income deduction for owners of pass-through businesses, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships. The House had proposed a 25 percent tax rate; the Senate, a 23 percent deduction.
CORPORATE MINIMUM: Repeals the corporate alternative minimum tax, which was set up to ensure profitable companies pay at least some federal tax.
INDIVIDUALS
TOP INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE: Falls to 37 percent from 39.6 percent. The House had proposed maintaining the 39.6 percent top rate and condensing the current seven tax brackets to four. The Senate had proposed cutting the top rate to 38.5 percent and maintaining the seven brackets.
PERMANENCE: The expectation is individual tax rates will snap back to current levels in less than 10 years. The individual tax rates in the House bill were permanent. The individual tax rates in the Senate bill would have expired after 10 years.
STATE AND LOCAL TAX (SALT): Both the House and Senate had proposed scaling back a popular individual deduction for state and local tax payments by limiting it to property-tax payments and capping it at $10,000. The compromise bill is expected to keep that cap, but also allow for continued deduction of state and local income tax payments.
MORTGAGE INTEREST: Caps the mortgage interest deduction at $750,000 in home loan value, down from the current $1 million. The House had proposed a $500,000 cap. The Senate bill left it at $1 million.
ESTATE TAX: Roughly doubles the exemption from the federal estate tax on inherited assets to about $11 million, but leaves the tax in place, mirroring the Senate proposal. The House bill had raised the deduction, but also entirely phased out the tax.
OTHER PROVISIONS:
OBAMACARE MANDATE: Repeals a federal fine imposed on Americans under Obamacare for not obtaining health insurance coverage. The House bill did not repeal the Obamacare individual mandate.
ANWR DRILLING: Allows oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The provision was sponsored by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Thu December 14, 2017 6:17 pm