harmegido

It's pretty interesting to contrast OP's experience with this recent /r/bestof that describes in detail why things might be the way you're describing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/rkru22/uloosesignif...

I'm cautiously curious about how you'd interpret this data: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/upshot/pandemic-economy-g...

It seems pretty straightforward to me that a massive pandemic is going to hurt the economy, regardless of government action. I'm sure there will be other data points to look at in the future for what the consequences of various responses were (e.g. Sweden vs neighbors/etc?).

I believe 1500/1600 is top 2%, so it's weird you'd consider that not "well" to me.

This is a very cool app, but one thing I'm noticing is that you aren't providing any numbers about expectations (expected earnings/share, etc). Stock prices are forward projections, so it's less about how much money made/lost and more about how much money made/lost beyond current expectations. And this is certainly information a real insider trader would have.

Perhaps that would improve players results?

So you're argument against renting is: "why rent when you can have your parents buy it for you?"

It sounds to me a lot like the "let them eat cake" mentality.

it's difficult to read while walking your dog, or making dinner, or doing the dishes, etc. That's the value add of an audio-only format for me.

I thought she put it well enough to understand, but here's another stab at it:

Fifty years ago, if the husband gets a job offer in a town of 10,000 people with one main employer, he'll take it and relocate the family there. It doesn't matter that there's no career prospects for the wife, because she isn't likely to be working in a career job.

Today, the husband (or wife) gets the same job offer, but the family doesn't take it because the other spouse works in public relations (or whatever) and there are no good jobs of that type in the small 1-industry town.

One feedback: It'd be nice to see the data through time. As it is, it looks like you can only view July. (I'm assuming you are keeping the data for past months)

Nobody says they don't take these things seriously, but an glance at the data will show you that many don't actually take them seriously.

At some point, the work becomes the hobby. If you had fyou money, what would you do? Presumably not sit and stare at a wall all day. You'd do something you enjoy I assume. And for some, running one of the world's most powerful entities is enjoyable.

It's about knowing that studying is even an option or that it's something that should be done. In certain circles, you'd be considered very odd for not studying, whereas in others, your peers would think you were a crazy high achiever for even buying a book.

This is the same concern I had, though it's important to point out that if you had money in Betterment/Wealthfront and they went under, it would just be an inconvenience as you'd retain your investments.

I don't think your last statement is true at all. Just look at what their share price did as a result of pokemon go and mario run. Nintendo is worth 50% more than it was just under a year ago, no switch required.

Well the saying is typically '9 to 5' which is 8 hours total. Everything varies of course, but I think that's the most common.

I would guess that the author read the study from which the report is based, and noted the section defining 'Child Income' :

"Our primary measure of child income is total pre-tax individual earnings. For single filers, individual earnings is defined as the sum of wage earnings and net self-employment income"

They go on to say how they also measured child income in the same manner as for parents (including investment income, etc) to see if that made a difference.

I would also like an answer to this. Most people that are opponents of these sorts of policies live in areas that are represented by senators/congresspeople that have a similar view.

For myself, these sorts of libertarian arguments seem very similar to the concepts presented in Econ 101. They are very logical, consistent, and compelling. They also rely on a ton of assumptions that do not hold up in the real world.

Gates, slim, Ellison, the Kochs, and the Waltons were all in the top eight from a quick search I did. None of those gained the majority of their wealth through investing.

Trump won by 2% in that category. Lots of info here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/el...

I'm very confused by this conversation. What taxes are you guys talking about? They don't exist as far as I'm aware. I am aware of some subsidies, but not taxes on specifically carbon/coal/etc.

Where are these carbon taxes? The only one I was aware of was in Australia, but that got repealed.

don't attempt sarcasm on this site. people take things literally.

The article does read a lot like the "Psychopath's Guide To Career-Hunting". Honestly, the tone reminded me a lot of some of my undergrad peers who were pursuing investment banking jobs, which I suppose makes sense considering his about section.

That all said, if your goal is to get the highest paying job possible, this seems like useful advice.

I'm not convinced by your argument. People freely give away this information and more to facebook, etc.

Yeah but it's just not really relevant for the vast majority of finance businesses. None of the big banks do HFT for example.

1) HFT is more than just US equities. Many exchanges are open 23 hours a day.

2) Many HFT firms do not specialize in 'news-reading'. That is, they will sit out periods when an expected announcement is coming. You can observe this by looking at the liquidity of a product just prior to an expected relevant news release - there will be very few orders.

3) There are more events than just news events that require speed.

Failed hard by selling a company for a couple hundred million?

Wow that's incredible. I'm sure you know this by now, but I don't think there's any fixing that situation. Good luck!

Android makes a ton of money for Google because for every Android phone, that's one more user they don't have to pay to have their default search engine be google.

Take a look at the Oracle case - Google pays billions of dollars a year to Apple to have their search on iPhones. And it's not a flat fee, it's a percentage of revenue.

Facebook doesn't have this problem because there is no other social network. Search engines don't really have network effects, facebook does.