second this. if you stay out of leadership I think it's a lot easier to have a healthy relationship with work. you set your boundaries and stick to them. highly improbable anyone will know any different.
I quit a high pay/low cost of living job to move to a high pay high cost of living job when I was young. The skills, connections, experience I got were great but eventually it was clear I wasn't on a path for long term happiness in that city. I then quit that high pay/high cost of living job to move to a low cost of living area. I bought a house, which was unattainable in hcol area. I ended up getting promoted to comparable pay after a few years. I am now planning to go from leader to individual contributor role soon. I have saved enough in retirement accounts to still retire early, but I'm not in a hurry because my partner wants to work another decade or so and generally be stable while we raise kids.
you might Google and read up on the concept of "coast fire", which is essentially front loading retirement savings then working lower paying jobs while you let your savings compound.
Assuming the mythical black swan doesn't come in, drop returns 20% and stays that way for years, but yet, I'm too following this path. It's the best that can be done, black swans or not.
It doesn't really matter how you do it as much as how you talk about it. Like most aspects of a healthy relationship, communication is key.
State law is really important if the relationship fails and you need to split commingled assets. If that's something you're worried about you should speak to an attorney.
To directly answer your question, we both direct deposit into a joint checking account. We spend on cash back credit cards that are auto paid out of the joint checking account each month. Mortgage and car note are out of the joint account. We both maintain access to small spending personal accounts/cards on the side for gifts and misc. stuff we don't want to discuss.
When the checking account gets over our healthy buffer of ~2-3 months spending, we sweep the extra to a taxable brokerage account and invest it in index funds.
We "pay ourselves first" with prediscussed, significant, automatic contributions to retirement savings, college funds for kids, or any key milestones like down payments or big vacations. that way any money that stays in the checking account or misc accounts are relatively guilt free and discretionary.
Of all of the things that I mentioned, contributing to retirement and big milestones before we can "touch" the money has been the most important for our peace of mind. we don't fight over money because we've already aligned on the big stuff.
Paying the large, important items first is a great idea. I like the idea of having some discretionary money that can be spent guilt-free as the main things are covered.
I spent a week touring Rome and didn't see a single public bathroom.
Every society makes its choices and some of those seem weird when you look on the other side of the fence. The US is unique, sure, but so are other countries.
thanks! I sacrificed 2 years of most nights and weekends, with lots of ups and downs, and I'm appreciative of all the feedback from the HN community (both positive and negative) that helped shape the tool into what it is today.
That's a point of view that would change quickly if you were in one of those management positions.
You get to a point where it's impossible to do the work anymore. There's too much of it. You have to develop teams, processes, structure, etc. that delivers the outcomes you're accountable for with full knowledge that you cannot do them yourself. It's very different than doing the work and experience shows that fewer people are capable of doing it, especially with any repeatability. The working world yearns for effective managers.
I encourage you to compare the productivity of the modern multinational corporation to any commune in history. The people working in collectives are not stupid or lazy. It's not an effective structure.
> I encourage you to compare the productivity of the modern multinational corporation to any commune in history. The people working in collectives are not stupid or lazy. It's not an effective structure.
It’s a hard comparison to make when the goals of those two systems are vastly different.
I worked for a multinational software company and the amount of waste I saw was just staggering. If outside shareholders knew how little we actually produced on a day to day basis, they would probably be appalled. But because the company knew how to engage with market analysts, we looked good on paper. So much of the money made today involves just being the biggest player in a given market, regardless of how effective the product is (i.e. “nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft”)
But maximum efficiency does not scale linearly with organisational size/product complexity. So yes, lots of wastage, but still possibly the least wastage of other tried-and-tested organisational models.
Also, effectiveness of software relates to the attributes that align to the dimensions of "goodness" as defined by each user not the developer. The software does not have to be the best (among its peers) to be the most effective for me. The same software may be completely ineffective for you, if what you want out of it is different to what I want.
Productivity is not a universal good. Productivity on its own does not lead to better business outcomes. The problem with management that doesn’t do or know how to do the work is that they get detached from what should be done — they can be neither visionary nor maintainer. This can be overcome when management loses their ego and listens to those doing the work, merging their high level view with the data gotten from perspectives on the shop floor. I can count the number of people in management I’ve observed capable of doing that on one hand in a decade.
Nuanced but important distinction: these are ICD-10 diagnosis codes. They are only loosely related to what is billed and would not show up in the pricing data referenced by the OP.
You only get the net price after applying and submitting a FAFSA. The net price is only useful if you intend to go there. It's functionally useless for any other purpose. If the price says $100 then for most everyone it's $100.
College prices are about as real as hospital prices. Sure, some outliers literally pay that much, but the vast majority receive a discounted price for various reasons. When you factor in those discounts, the cost inflation is 2.5x instead of 17x as the article suggests. It's more than a forgettable idiosyncrasy. It's "how it works" and if the author of the article doesn't mention it, they're either so ignorant as to not be worth reading or they're being dishonest.
I thought it was important to give that context.
American higher Ed is often about prestige and branding. The pricing strategy is similar to luxury goods.
Let's hope the single payer isn't Medicare then, because you would have a lot fewer hospitals. Here's the money quote straight from the horse's mouth "In 2021, Medicare’s payments to hospitals continued to be below hospitals’ costs in aggregate" https://www.medpac.gov/document/march-2023-report-to-the-con...
Medicare and Medicaid are subsidized by a shadow tax on working people. Commercial insurance, like the majority of readers of this website get through their employers, pays roughly double the cost per procedure as Medicare and Medicaid. Your health premiums would be lower if we all paid the same price, but your taxes would be higher.
Extending the current medicare system to simply cover everyone would be a stupid thing to do. Anyone involved with the problem knows that more changes are needed than to simply open the floodgates, and assumes that it will take a lot of work. I don't know why you don't understand that.
>Medicare and Medicaid are subsidized by a shadow tax on working people.
Straight out of the GOP list of talking points. Are you upset that your "hard earned dollars" are going to people who don't deserve them?
>Medicare and Medicaid are subsidized by a shadow tax on working people
It's right there on the damn W2, how is that a "shadow" tax?
>Commercial insurance, ..., pays roughly double the cost per procedure as Medicare and Medicaid.
And also every other developed country! Why is "the average american or their health plan pays double everyone else" a good thing?
>Your health premiums would be lower if we all paid the same price, but your taxes would be higher.
Also laughable. Somehow our citizens pay way more than anyone else in the world, and largely don't have better life expediencies (women giving birth in america die shockingly often!). We pay more into private healthcare systems than the rest of the world pays into public systems.
If the costs are too high, you need a combination of cost controls and increased supply, not more funds to throw into the furnace. You also cut out as much of the admin as possible, as that is very low value spend vs delivering care.
I like taxes, with them I buy civilization. I want my taxes to go up, and my medical premiums to go away. Covering everyone is simply more economically efficient in aggregate vs the current Rube Goldberg system design, where the US spends more on healthcare than every other OECD country for worse outcomes.
Let's hope not, that would be a disaster. Inflation is far more pernicious than regional bank instability. The fed is acting appropriately in response to a spendthrift Congress, and in the process, stressing the system. There's not a good alternative, especially from the Fed's seat. I'm not trying to make it a political argument, but you're really pointing the finger in the wrong direction. The fed has two mandates when it comes to monetary policy - price and employment stability. That price stability is about market wide inflation, not bank stocks. Banks come and go. If you expect the Fed to prioritize something other than those two mandates, I do believe you're kidding yourself. Rate hikes will continue until the labor market or the inflation data indicate they should stop.
Employment is a lagging indicator. Waiting until bank failures cause employment to crater is too little, too late.
I agree that many of the bank stocks are probably over valued. They're not going to rebound quickly.
The Fed can't control inflation. They can try to influence demand of goods and services by controlling interest rates, QE, etc. They cannot make up for the commodities supply deficiencies cause my Russia/Ukraine conflict. (Reduced supply of grains, oil, metals, etc.) Reduced supply also increases inflation.
We just had a run on the deposits of several banks. Next is a run on the stocks for the banks. (Financial institutions make up 7% of GDP) There are many institutions and retail investors who just received a message from Yellen and Powell that their investments are not safe. Even the big banks are falling. Migrating deposits to large banks will not stop the run on financial equities. It is already having a cascading effect on the broader market.
Yes. Unemployment below natural level and inflation still high single digits. They will raise rates. They have no choice. It's literally their dual mandate to do it.
