Thanks for sharing that info. Definitely sounds like it might have been a good idea in the past but now overdo for a change. Sad that the current PM wants to continue destruction to get votes.
Seems like a good example of how policies need to be implemented with a forward-thinking mentality. Can’t rely on future changes.
The cost of solar and wind is becoming so attractive, it’s hard to see why anyone would do otherwise.
The elephant in the room (at least for the US; I’m not as familiar with UK policies) are the subsidies. It sparks new investments because many of the incentives are specifically related to new projects. Other ones mess with the valuation of the equipment, making long term tax burden much lower. It’s not the only energy industry to receive subsidies. But it’s pretty asinine to continue to support the one that’s destroying our world.
“In one case, it’s going to profit, amplifying the incumbent status of the oil and gas industry. In another, under more aggressive decarbonization policy and low oil and gas prices, it’s actively working against the climate goal by spurring additional production.”
For sure. The US was once a leader with its public infrastructure and programs, from education to the highway system. Paying BIG money to provide these incredible public services.
Now it seems like a lot of people in the US want to live in a place with zero public projects, crumbling roads, and unregulated utilities. Even wealthy people who waste money on the dumbest stuff don’t want to pay for top-notch public services. I truly don’t understand how you’d want to be so wealthy but live in a place that’s not well cared for. Drive your insanely expensive car on a road filled with potholes. But selfishness and greed are definitely part of the picture.
Creating new public infrastructure in the US can be extremely expensive, but it’s definitely still worth pursuing.
Nearly every in-depth study shows that for every $1 invested, the economic return is somewhere around $4-$5. And on top of that, failing to have adequate public infrastructure can cause serious economic consequences, which are compounded in areas with a lack of affordable housing.
Even though this article is a little old and sponsored by a party with a vested interest on the topic, I think it’s worth a read:
https://www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2018/06/when-public-transit
In my opinion, the problem for the US is convincing people/businesses that it’s worth it. Shifting away from cars and increasing investments in public infrastructure are two fairly unpopular measures right now, despite the actual economic evidence being overwhelming positive.
To me, it’s a solid example of where great leaders are needed to do something temporarily unpopular for the long term benefit of the constituents.
Just writing from the heart. I take that as a major compliment though! Thanks! Might help you to know that I write for a living.
Of course. I’ll just speak generally instead of specific stories.
Judging people based on their charisma alone is a terrible approach. Many likable people are great, but others just say what they know other people want to hear. People pleasers that will always choose the popular option, not the “right” one… And some people can be very talented at using manipulative tactics to gain support even though they spread a lot of pain. The classic popular bully.
The reverse can also be true. Some extremely uncharismatic/unpopular people are amazing at heart. And can be trusted to do what’s right even if it’s unpopular.
That’s why it’s best to not make knee-jerk or immediate judgements. Listen to your gut, pay attention to details, and try not to let the opinion of others influence your opinions or decisions too much.
It’s rare for criminal action of corporate leaders to be charged, period.
I think a better starting place would be to change this. Be much more willing to hold malicious corporate leaders accountable for their crimes. They far too often fall behind the security of a corporate veil, which if investigated, usually ends up with a fine, a slap on the wrist.
Prosecutors are allowed to pierce the corporate veil for criminal actions, but they rarely do so.
The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share and that is something that needs to be corrected. The arguments in favor of progressive tax systems are countless.
It’s important to note that taxing wealth isn’t the same as taxing income. But you can do both and the US has a very well established system for doing so: income when earned and wealth when transferred to the next generation. Unfortunately, both of these systems have been gutted.
I’d love to see these both get their teeth back. Pretty simple really: (1) make progressive income tax rates apply to all income sources and decrease income exclusions/deductions and (2) lower the wealth tax exemptions and clamp down on tactics used to skirt around the exclusion amount (primarily family partnerships). This is basically just returning to policies the US had from about 1950 to 1970, which also was a time of exceptional middle class growth. It’s really not breaking new ground and it’s a proven, sound way to generate widespread economic success while also battling greed and inequality.
We could go a step beyond and do a value-added tax system too, which effectively taxes consumption, but that’s another topic entirely.
Yes, one quarter of decreased profits. Sales for the same quarter are only down 20%.
Another article says “The company still expects full-year net sales in a range between 23.2 billion euros and 24.6 billion euros, sticking to its forecast.”
I understand that it’s sometimes necessary for companies to trim the fat. But with annual net sales still on track and the company making healthy profits for many quarters running, it sure sucks for those 14,000 people that one bad quarter is being used as the reason that they’ll no longer be able to pay their bills.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/nokia-to-cut-up-to-14000-jobs-after-profit-plunges-.html
Yeah, and I have no idea where you are, but this goes far beyond the suspect cities like San Francisco. Not only are many of these workers spread out in tons of cities across the US (and world), it will also hurt wherever their funds were flowing to and the supply chains associated with them. Travel, electronics, food/dining, home furnishings, hobbies of all sorts, etc.
Another big difference is that a lot of these are “new money” people. And I’m not using that in a derogatory sense. It just means that their spending is likely to be much higher than “old money” individuals hitting the same payday.
If you’ve always had $10 million, you don’t go out and start buying shit like crazy even if you make another $2 m. But if it’s your first $2 m, you’re likely to go spend A LOT of it.
And that’s real economic growth. It’s the opposite of trickle-down economics (which just causes more hoarding of wealth and slowing of money exchanging hands).
As much as I feel for the people hit hard right now, I think this is an economic indicator that‘s going to cause many downstream consequences if it continues.
On top of the downward trends by the tech titans, venture capital funding is plummeting. That’s because the VC investors can see that the likelihood of a big successful buyout is decreasing, mostly because the big fish are tightening their belts and facing higher borrowing costs (interest rates).
Many big companies have effectively outsourced R&D, waiting until a startup creates something worth buying instead. Then the VC employees either got a nice payout or employment with the big company (or both).
These often massive transactions were the source of serious economic growth. Those people had stability to spend in a way that many others wish. In the face of crappy outlooks and flat wages in tons of other fields, tech has long been the outlier making plenty of middle income people shoot up in wealth. And it did bring along others for the ride.
That growth drying up is not good for anyone. Well, unless you’re waiting on a market crash.
Without knowing the costs, it sounds like you’re good candidates for the supplemental life or even an additional life policy. A year of salary can go quite quickly, as can the time and the costs of taking it off work. Term can be fine to start with, then later in life as it becomes a larger concern (especially with kids) you may consider whole life. But if you have substantial liquid savings, then you might just be fine with the 1-1.5x coverage for now. Once again, just all about your risk tolerance and savings.
Disability is very difficult to plan for and make a purely rational decision about. There are so many moving factors with the medical costs and length of the problem. For people who want total security, that $700 can be well worth it to sleep soundly. For others with more savings and a little room in their finances to cut back expenses, it might not be worthwhile. The more savings and the more you can rely on your partner for income, the less important it is.
But tackling it from a quantitative perspective may help. For $700, you’re getting 20% of your income. It’s a low-cost premium because the risk is usually low (unless you have reason to believe you’re likely to become disabled). You can also shop for separate plans to see how the premium lines up against competitors. It’s also important to understand the elimination period (how long you have to wait before you can claim benefits) and if it will pay out if you can perform ANY job vs your actual profession.
This is a pretty decent article on an approach to disability coverage: https://www.usbank.com/financialiq/plan-your-future/health-and-wellness/is-your-employer-long-term-disability-insurance-enough.html
Wayyyy too long of an answer. But I have some experience and might as well not let it go to waste. Definitely doesn’t hurt to talk with a financial advisor about it.
Always a good idea to check out market rates but your employer provided one likely has better premium rates as part of the group and with part of the payment possibly covered by your employer.
Deciding how much life insurance you should get is dependent on your personal situation, your desired coverage, and your risk tolerance.
But it’s likely that both of you having spousal coverage is a little toward overkill. I’d be more concerned about your disability coverage or the coverage of the highest-earning partner, especially if there’s a large disparity in earnings.
The main reason many people get life insurance is to make sure a non-working surviving spouse has the resources they need to get by with the same lifestyle and hopefully in the same house. So when you or your partner is not working, it’s usually the working partner that you want to have the most coverage (perhaps aligned with what would be needed to comfortably “retire” which really means just live the same lifestyle but only off investment income).
The second reason people get life insurance is to help with the short term consequences and expenses. Funerals are expensive. Debt can pile up with end of life care. Taking time off work can cause income drops. Daycare costs might need to be incurred. This is usually where the spousal coverage comes into play. Typically much lower coverage to give the working, surviving spouse a temporary boost due to death-related expensive, but not retire. Child policies are similar.
The more savings or investments you have, the lower your true need for this insurance is. If you can already comfortably retire, then it’s not a huge deal if either one passes (financially). And you have the cash to pay for short term death-related expenses.
Disability is a bigger deal to many people with substantial savings. It can mean a serious increase in expenses (to handle the disability) with a simultaneous decrease in earnings.
But some people also treat life insurance as an investment or a way to hedge specific risks. If you don’t want to work again if your spouse/partner passes, you can get increased coverage. Or if you simply like the security of getting a lump sum if one of your passes early, the premium cost might be worth it. Those are a personal decision and risk/reward calculation only you can make.
On the open market, you’ll find term and whole life. Term insurance is much lower cost because it only lasts a certain period (term). Whole life can be paid as a continuous premium until you file a claim (someone passes). People who are serious about life insurance get whole life policies and treat them as a wealth building investment. Many have cash values, where part of your premium goes into a savings-like account that builds at a certain interest rate. If you’re thinking of this, talk with a qualified advisor. And get at least 2 quotes from highly-rated and stable insurance companies.
Especially if you don’t give a flying fuck about using an established process or doing so legally
I can’t say for certain where it’s from either, but the longer version is now very popular in certain outdoor groups and at US National Parks:
“Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.”
Apparently one researcher was able to trace it back to a newspaper article from 1954 about Bandelier National Monument (an amazing spot in Utah).
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/05/30/footprints/
And I agree that it has many crucial implications today. We should doing more to live in harmony with nature. We are part of it, no matter how much our concrete jungles try to seem otherwise.
It’s extremely challenging for many right now due to insanely depressed wages. No doubt about that.
But for those lucky enough to have savings and their very basic needs covered, there are quite a few people deciding to live with less instead of constantly gunning for more. The FIRE movement is a pretty decent example. But even things like vanlife and rural homesteading are also along the same lines.
Others spend like crazy, barely staying within their means even when incomes skyrocket. Of course, this is what capitalism allows/causes/benefits from the most. And it’s easy to get sucked into. But it’s not the only way.
There are a lot of good, helpful people in the world that want to work together to create progress and a better society for all. And positive change is possible. Don’t get too caught up in the loud voices to the contrary.
It applies to anywhere. The problem isn’t one situation. It’s this same story, repeated thousands of times in every city across the globe.
Bobby wants to live in a house. Monthly rent prices are usually around $1,000 per month in his home town.
Joe wants to make money by renting out a house on AirBnb. Hotel prices are usually around $200 per night in the same location. If Joe rents out his house for just 10 nights a month, he can make $2,000. This easily covers Joe’s expenses and puts the extra cash in his bank account. If he rents it out for 25 nights, he’s putting away a lot of cash.
When houses are up for sale, Bobby can only spend a similar cost as his rent. Joe has been watching his bank account climb and is ready to spend a lot on another house to put on AirBnb. Joe can make a profit even if the house is double the price.
Bobby’s landlord sees housing prices rise. Decides to either (1) increase Bobby’s rent to $2,000 - which he can’t afford or (2) sell the house to someone like Joe for a major markup.
Bobby has to move in with roommates and will never be able to afford to buy a home when competing against all the Joes out there.
Huge. The short term rental housing boom is unlike almost anything we’ve seen before. Estimates put short term rentals as about 20% of the global real estate market.
If that demand drops rapidly, it will mark a major shift. Tons of buyers and capital will be wiped off the table.
I agree with the usual perspective that housing prices almost always rise over time. But this is an unprecedented event in scale, and if reversed, it will have unprecedented ramifications.
Getting your first job after getting your degree is arguably the hardest time in your career. Just remember that it only takes one. Keep applying. Get help with your resume. Practicing interviewing and always have an appropriate outfit ready to go. You can do it.
I’m not saying it’s easy nor that you should be overly selective. Your struggles are valid and job seeking blows. But just keep trying. If others have been able to get a job in the industry, that’s a good sign. I know it can be hard to see and compre yourself against, but it does not mean you won’t follow.
Earning a degree is a major accomplishment and one you should be proud of. Loans can seem overbearing and stressful, but if they’re federal student loans, you can get on an income-based repayment plan to alleviate a lot of pressure. If you’re not generating income, the payment is usually $0. Very normal for new graduates and some people stay on them for a much longer time. Do not neglect these payments. Make sure to apply for this well before your first payment’s due date (probably now if your due date is January).
Just keep on trucking on. One day at a time. Your family cares enough to help you out and you’re in a tough spot. Keep trying to improve and it’s likely to happen. Lean on all of your contacts, friends, and personal drive.