Ava

For those curious as to additional reading, the origin of the 4% rule comes from the Trinity Study, a finance research project from the late 90s.

Not to be confused with the Trinity Test, which occurred in the 40s and had very little to do with finance.

My recollection is that Voat took a turn into being fascist Reddit 2.0 pretty quickly itself.

I hate when these sorts of statistics point to “the top 10%” as the problem based on numbers like this. It’s simply much less broad than that. Of all wealth, the top 0.1% holds 14.5%. The next 0.9% holds 17.3%. The bottom 50% hold only 2.5%. The top 1% of households hold 12.72x as much wealth as the bottom 50%. And, notably, the bottom 10% of households have less than $1000 in net worth. The bottom 8% of people have $0 or less.

A household which is at the 90th percentile for Net Worth has a net worth of roughly $2,000,000, including equity in their home. You get to the 95th percentile before you double that to $4M. The 90th percentile has 1000x higher net worth than someone with $2,000 to their name, which seems obscenely unfair when described in that way. However, a net worth of $2,000,000 would provide a retiree a mostly-safe withdrawal rate (4% or $80,000) of around the median income of ~$84,000. (This doesn’t actually check out since it includes equity in the home, but as a simplification.) Retirees have access to social security and tax-advantaged accounts and the like, but someone who ends up with a net worth of $2M could live only a median lifestyle without working.

Is a net worth of $2,000,000 a very large number and a large chunk of wealth? Of course it is. But it’s not like, obscene wealth. If I gave a random American $2M it would change their lives profoundly, but the people who have a net worth of $2M aren’t the ones who are ruining our lives. They’re just not.

The top 0.1% hold 14.5% of the wealth. The top 1% hold 31.8%. The bottom 10% hold less than 0%. That’s the ball game.

Disclaimer: I have not rigorously cited my sources, nor verified all my figuring. However, most of this is pulled from the Fed data linked in the article. Other stuff is pulled from sources which cite the same, though I’ve not run a rigorous analysis of the maths. My work should not be cited as correct, it is intended to be illustrative. That said, I’ll happily remedy any errors that others might notice!

The article links the source data from the FED, which has data since 1989
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:144;series:Net worth;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7,9;units:levels

The Ten Commandments, famous for being identical and consistent across varying versions of religious scripture and sections within the same!

Pretty much. Leave sharing policies are usually set up such that in some sort of extraordinary medical circumstance, employees can transfer paid leave to one another.

The idea is sorta that if a loved one has a major medical emergency and needs a lot of care for 3 months, other employees can transfer paid leave to help cover gaps. This makes sense as a way to cover edge cases in extreme circumstances, but “is having a child” definitely isn’t such a case.

Trump probably just wants their advice for how to sell it to Christians.

FFXIV probably deserves a spot on the list, the initial launch was so bad they just remade the game.

I mean… in fairness to Google, wouldn’t this be an email address that has almost exclusively emailed a massive chunk of users all at once, without obvious connection, and with exactly identical content? The URL it’s sent from doesn’t resolve to a webpage, and isn’t on the same domain I found attached to other information/copies of the settlement.

That’s cool, but I do that too. So don’t think you’re special, ants!

that the review process “has been activated,” and that the graduate instructor was placed on administrative leave “to ensure fairness.”

In pursuit of fairness, I think it’s reasonable to label the Oklahoma University a bigot-friendly institution. Just while the investigation is ongoing, you understand. Certainly this shouldn’t be construed as punitive.

I feel like there was a missed opportunity to call it Androgynous or Androgynix.

None of what I said is disagreeing with your point. You’re reading into my response opposition that wasn’t offered.

If you have $1m, you can draw something like $30-40000 a year reasonably safely. That’s obviously a lot of money, but isn’t what most people in the mentioned countries think of as “living large” if it’s your whole income, especially for a couple/family. That puts you at about the median individual income for Japan and NZ, a bit above in Korea, and below for most of western Europe and Aus.

Obviously that’s without working, but that’s kinda the point. It’s wealth, but not enough that most people in those places would be comfortable not working if that’s how much they earned. Hell, in the US that wouldn’t even cover childcare for a few kids in many locales.