Comment by deanak | Hacker News Reader

Comment by deanak | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So far it's a lot of words and graphs with a tenuous grip on reality in a few places:

> There are, however, some groups in lower income brackets that do poorly in inflationary environments. If someone doesn’t have a lot of money and lives on a fixed income in retirement, they have a lot of vulnerability to inflation. Those sorts of folks should consider owning inflation hedges to protect their lifestyle, if they expect that high levels of inflation have a reasonable probability of occurring.

If you think someone in a low tax bracket on fixed income has the spare money to invest in anything, you're not understanding the words "low income" or "fixed."

> Capital had political control from the late 1800s through the 1920s. Labor had political control from the 1930s through the 1970s. Capital again had political control from the 1980s through the 2010s. I’m not sure what’s next but signs are increasingly pointing towards labor regaining some influence, and it’s a topic I continue to monitor.

What?

> If you think someone in a low tax bracket on fixed income has the spare money to invest in anything, you're not understanding the words "low income" or "fixed."

The low fixed income often comes from investment. For example, you save money in 401k, then as you near retirement, you shift investments into safer instruments ie. bonds. The result is exactly low fixed income and vulnerability to inflation.

https://www.epi.org/publication/retirement-in-america/

> Nearly half of families have no retirement account savings at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-in...

> Families grouped by percentiles of net worth:

> Bottom 50: 50% of Families | 1% of Equities | 0% of Stock

I'm not sure why you think the poor have investment portfolios. They don't.

> I'm not sure why you think the poor have investment portfolios. They don't.

I never said or implied anything of the sort. I recommend reading carefully what I actually said, and then addressing that instead.

This is culture war baiting.

The whole appeal of someone like Alden is that she isn't playing for either team, shes just trying to step back and analyze. And it is a much more useful an interesting perspective on the world than turning every single discussion into team sports politics.

The fact that the parent is one of the more upvoted comments I've ever written seems to indicate that I'm not alone.

A final point is that her publicly listed example portfolio performance seems to indicate the she has an exceptionally solid grasp on reality.

> shes just trying to step back and analyze... And it is a much more useful an interesting perspective on the world than turning every single discussion into team sports politics.

When is the last time you read a serious financial analysis that divided up 150 years of world history in such a way? Or tried to relate it to investment?

> The fact that the parent is one of the more upvoted comments I've ever written seems to indicate that I'm not alone.

Does that mean you're correct?

> A final point is that her publicly listed example portfolio performance seems to indicate the she has an exceptionally solid grasp on reality.

I read through her website, and it's pretty much the same thing you'll get on other pitch sites ultimately selling a newsletter. It's not bad advice in general, but wealth managers and other investors don't post example portfolios. They post their track record with real money.

> When is the last time you read a serious financial analysis that divided up 150 years of world history in such a way? Or tried to relate it to investment?

Ray Dalio, the founder of the world's biggest hedge fund does primarily this in his public communication.

Anyway suit yourself, the whole point of it not being team politics is that it really doesn't matter at all if people disagree. I factor her advice heavily in my own portfolio and it has benefitted me. If you think she's wrong ignore her. And I guess complain loudly that other people find it useful.

A second point

> Does that mean you're correct?

Yes it does. Because I'm not playing team politics, it is not competitive, in the sense that there are two sides where one wins.

I'm stating that people find this take useful. The fact that it is getting updated indicates that people indeed do find it useful. In that case it is tautologically correct.

As mentioned before, the awesome thing about playing my game instead of your game is that the fact that you disagree is totally meaningless to me, as I mentioned I'm not on a team, I have no opponent. Unless you have a way to stop me from using Lyn Alden's advice, I simply place zero value on your opinion and move on. (except in the sense that it is fun to point out the fallacies for sport in the context of a message board).

The idea that workers were lording it over the rich from the 1930s through to the 1970s is preposterous. Unless the words political and control have been twisted to mean their polar opposites.

To quote a recent Scott Alexander blog post:

The post-WWII-but-pre-1970 economic world - the world of “embedded liberalism” - was a pleasant place. There were corporations, but they didn't do anything garish like compete with each other. Executive pay was taxed so heavily that nobody had much incentive to try to increase their profit margin; workforces were so heavily unionized that companies were nervous about any changes that might upset employees. As long as companies followed the script, the government embraced and protected them. Starting a new business was considered some bizarre act of alchemy, like discovering a new form of matter; normal people worked for the same giant company their whole life and got a nice gold watch as a reward when they retired. The government wasn't exactly socialist per se, but it kept starting and expanding programs like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, and every night you went to sleep knowing there would be probably be another uncontroversial, mostly-successful government welfare program tomorrow.

was it really so pleasant? inflation was very high, medical treatments were not so great, entertainment was expensive, most jobs still did not pay much, hours were long. Someone with a tech job probably earns more money on an inflation-adjusted basis and has a much nicer standard of living compared to someone living in the 60s

Inflation was not high in 1945-1970. It was high after 1970.

If you're discussing tech jobs you're already looking at the top 10 percent or so though

Some of the assertions are questionable. college and healthcare have gone up but the amount people actually pay relative to sticker price is small . There is tons of financial aids and other deference and forbearance programs, so college is quite affordable if you finish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com