Economies of scale accrue to firms.
This hypothetical absolutely is enough to retire on. 10K a year from 22 to 65 at a 5% return results in an end balance of $1.465 million. Assuming a 4% dividend yield/interest rate, the 401K generates $58,600 of annual income, then add $25,000 on social security and the retiree now has $83,600 each year for life without touching principal.
Pretty common - the median net worth of a person nearing retirement is ~400K (). Of course, since they are near retirement, they can sell their home and move into a condo - their children have left. At a 4% yield with an annual $25K social security payment, this generates 400*.04 + 25 or $41.4K of annual income; for a husband-wife duo, you should add another $25K for another social security check for $66.4K of annual income. The average retired household spends ~$55K per year so even without touching principal, most households are secure for retirement. ()
How about you try to retire on 1.4M then let us know in a years how that goes. In 20 years, how far do you think 86k per year is going to get you? Do you have any idea how high health care costs are for people aged over 60?
Economies of scale apply to supply chains, industrial sectors, and market sizes, not individual firms. Why are Chinese electric cars so much cheaper than Teslas? Even cars produced by smaller Chinese firms?
Not necessarily. That's like saying if you agree with me on one thing you need to agree on everything. Stupid, right? But despite how stupid your rule is, you've still violated it saying that you agree with the one point saying that the US and China are likely at par on one thing, then saying that China is NOT 15 years ahead, which is against the conclusion of the article.
Can you even read? Every point gives China the heavy advantage and one time, it says that analysts say that China and the US are "likely at par." It's unsupported and then even if it's true, the rest of it means that although both guys are big dreamers, China's the bigger doer.
No, you can't read at all. The US has more nuclear power deployed because of what it had done in the decades before. China's tech is superior. The US has no 4th gen reactors or plans to build one while China's is operations. You're getting really stupid on a really basic level. You can't even distinguish the difference between numeric superiority and technological superiority.
No changes have been seen. They've talked about it. What's the result? Where's the tech that came out of it? Nothing, no changes, just talking about changes.
The pattern is all the same; American/Western companies totally dominant a decade or 2 ago, now, some of those fields, they have Chinese challengers and others, they have already been beaten like telecom, electric vehicles. Like I said, old lion's tools getting ground down by young lion's growth.
The point is that you actually know nothing about the state of China but hope that you can close your eyes and imagine that the future will resemble the past. The hallmark of a waning empire.
Your point is that it'll take 20 years or less from the time China challenges the US to when it overtakes in each field?
This is jumbled garbage. This mixes all types of majors with no emphasis on STEM. Nobody has any idea which lines you decided to add.
Which I'm showing above, not your made up shit.
We've done this so many times before. Chinese students beat American students everywhere. We beat you in America; we beat you at international competitons. There is no globally competitive math Olympiad team that is not predominantly ethnic Chinese. In America, Chinese kids whose parents are first gen immigrants working in restaurants beat American kids whose parents are top earners, causing white flight in schools with a high Asian population. Your excuse makes no sense at all.
Being at peace meaning not at war? Do you know how any wars America has fought? Do you know how many recessions America has seen since the 1860's? This is an ignorant stupid claim it's total nonsense.
In China
Very slowly AKA Western beaurocrat pace
That is the basic direction of the country, like the state of the union address. I think that needs to be covered or nothing would be covered. However, a meeting to address appropriate reaction or investment in tech are rarely if ever publicized. We prefer to hold closed door meetings with the relevent personell and the next time you hear about it, the results are achieved. This is opposite to American style, which is to publicize the meeting for political points, and then totally fail to achieve anything. China has the world's only 4th gen reactor with 27 in construction vs America's 0. What reaslitically do you think they can do to reverse China's lead?
I just listed all the main outlets, NY Times included.
You're the one saying they didn't cover enough to warrant big mouth shit; I'm saying they totally did.
Addressed above.
No, you are simply wrong. Transaction amounts are not emergencies; these are emergency unplanned expenses. You mistook this to mean that these people didn't spend $400 at all on anything?
No, I get it from the horses's mouth. Assets are not free; using many of them causes penalties; other assets need to be sold like your car and house to use them to get by, which obviously is not doable. Straight up having not enough money in the bank to cover $100/$400/$1K is what it says and what it means and it's financial frailty. It doesn't say that these individuals don't have that amount in their name if they sold everything they owned; that's some serious next level shit. Nobody is claiming that but you are arguing against it anyway.
No, you tend to overestimate your own competence telling other people that they can afford what they tell you they can't.
Answered above; available funds is not total asset worth and total asset worth is not what you can mobilize to truly absorb a shock. If you had to sell assets, for example, your car, to cover a $2K emergency, that's not absorbing the emergency; that's breaking down one wall to mend another.
So basically you're broke until 60. That's what I'm talking about when I say your assets are not free to use. That's definitely terrible and definitely paycheck to paycheck.
I make the max contribution to my 401K every year, own my house and my cars without payments and I have enough in the bank to cover any emergencies. If my kid goes to the hospital and I have to pay a 6 figure bill to save his life, AND I lose my job on the same day, I don't have to touch my 401K, sell any assets, nor would I have to make changes to the way I spend money. That is... NOT paycheck to paycheck. This is... financially solid.
No. I actually stated that the report was thinly veiled lobbying and thus shouldn’t be given much credence, but since you seem to put an extraordinary amount of emphasis on one line of the report and cite it again and again and again, we might as well take the report as a whole (which is much more qualified than the headlines claimed)
Yes - since capital stock lasts for a long time - capital formation involves both stock and flow measurements; and so even decades later, the Us
Citing once again - “Where China has thrived, however, regarding nuclear power innovation more pertains to systemic and organizational innovation. This especially refers to the country’s coherent national strategy toward nuclear power—at both federal and provincial levels—which entails a range of supportive policies from low-interest financing, feed-in tariffs, and other subsidies that make nuclear power generation cost competitive to streamlined permitting and regulatory approval (i.e., of safety and environmental impact assessments), to coordinating supply chains in an effective fashion. Indeed, as industry analyst Kenneth Luongo commented, “They don’t have any secret sauce other than state financing, state supported supply chain, and a state commitment to build the technology.”
Congress is a legislature, not an energy corporate or a regulator so Congress passing laws is all they can do; that is where their power comes from. This is clearly not “just talk” since there’s an actual new law that’s now in force.
If getting “beat” involves Cisco grossing $50bn a year, again, that proves the point lol. US firm competitive advantages are deep and entrenched and will persist no matter what happens in other countries
You don’t need to know anything about China as the comment below proves.
2-3 decades is a working lifetime and if that’s the lower bound on your estimate - that proves the point about US competitive advantages persisting, regardless of what happens in the rest of the world.
The proportion of people that go to 4 year colleges is not the same in each country, the denominators simply are not the same and so cannot directly be compared; the U.S. has effectively open enrollment 4yr universities; China has a gaokao limit - enrollment compositions (especially at U.S. regional universities will reflect that accordingly) - the lines I added were the Engineering and Science ones in China; the CIS/Eng./Math/Phys/Life. The graph also proves my point - 820K stem graduates in the U.S.; 3.57 million graduates in China, so there are 4.35x more stem graduates in China which is entirely consistent with a population differential - 1.4/.330 is 4.24.STEM graduates per capita direct data:
Figure 3 shows that 41% of Chinese students choose STEM while ony 20% of American students choose STEM.
The declines in college attendance have nearly entirely been concentrated in humanities enrollment - CS enrollments have increased substantially - see Table 6 -
People make trade offs between consumption today vs. consumption tomorrow. If people want to consume today and save less today; that’s a completely reasonable choice, but it is not evidence of financial distress. It’s evidence people are unhappy dealing with a budget constraint - something people have been unhappy about since the beginning of time.
If living “paycheck to paycheck” involves a savings component, it’s now a tautology since savings + consumption = income.
You are risk-averse and like to save money. Others aren’t and like to spend money today. Different people have different circumstances and different considerations which result in different outcomes. Least surprising thing ever.
The focus on Olympiads is incredibly niche since those are thinly attended events that even in the college adcom world, come up infrequently so there very much may just be selection on the dependent variable here. This whole thing is also unbelievably silly, ethnic Chinese students are ~1% of US school enrollment and unless you lead with an absolutely preposterous conclusion that only the top 1% of US students are academically competitive (for example, the ~1% of US birth cohorts that receive a PhD are ~10% Asian); this weird obnoxious ethnonationalism is seriously misplaced.
No: Olympiad students aren’t attending LAUSD, or NYC City Schools; they attend suburban schools in NJ, metro Dallas, etc. It’s a very positively selected cohort. Even the restaurant workers are not necessarily negatively selected - they like many immigrant groups, could be highly credentialed but those fail to transfer to the U.S. or lack English proficiency and/or cultural proficiency - immigrants that arrive in adulthood don’t see much labor market change even though they tend to be from higher income strata in their home countries (see, for example - )
Doesn’t matter for the economic development analysis. Those wars were out of sight, out of mind for those resident in the U.S. There simply has been no war on US soil a since the civil war ended in 1865; a longer streak than any other country
Happens all the time, policy developments are newsworthy. Simple as that. Congress and the NPC share similar roles and so just like anything the NPC does is newsworthy, same with Congress. acts of Congress will of course be covered - whether it gets wall to wall tv coverage and A1 coverage or whether it gets bunkered to a side-column on the internet is an editorial choice
If the median household has $8K in transaction accounts and has an average monthly expenditure of ~$6K () they can afford an emergency $400 emergency, especially if they are continuing to work. Transaction accounts are immediately liquid but are by no means the only source of liquidity for households; if even the first line on their balance sheet is able to cover needed outcomes, the inquiry stops there.
These are solely financial assets so selling them might increase tax burdens, result in actualized losses, or result in less accrued interest; but none of those 3 “penalties” matter for the solvency analysis
Nah. This is done all the time with credit risk analysis and bank/insurer solvency evaluation - if household net worth is positive and their quick ratio is very high, they simply are solvent, regardless of the perpetual pessimism of households talking about their finances.
Those were solely financial assets
You by definition sell assets to cover a $2K, since even using bank accounts means you sell your money you’ve loaned to a bank to cover a transaction. Paying for anything in any form involves selling assets.