Are Boeing’s problems beyond fixable?

A new CEO promises a culture change as the aerospace titan is struggling hard.

See full article...

 

[runnerd00d]

359 innocent people died and Boing knew the MCAS could/would cause problems for pilots and they buried it. How someone isn't in prison for this shows you what kind of country we live in. (where big companies are basically untouchable) Disgusting.

 

[butcherg]

There's no crisis. Most investors in the stock market invest through broad-based mutual funds, often index funds with low fees. A lot of people have access to target date funds, which automatically adjust adjust bond/equity mix as the person ages. There is no crisis here.

If someone has even the slightest inkling of how investment works in the U.S., they would know that the stock market is not limited to the rich. It's such an incredibly inaccurate claim that just referring to it as that poster's "perspective" is in itself astonishing. As often pointed out, one is not entitled to one's own facts, and such a fundamental inaccuracy is not "casual metaphor". As mentioned above, almost 2/3 of Americans are invested in the stock market, and the minimum starting investment in something like Vanguard's target date funds is $1,000. Really, you have to be rich to participate in the stock market? Please...

I don't think we hang with similar crowds. Quite a few of my neighbors have no idea how to handle long-term investing in their retirement whatever, look at the stock market with a daily "I lost money" on the day-to-day fluctuations. They'll put their money in the index fund, but fret over it well before they have to. They just don't teach this stuff in K-12 schools. Should.

My dad was a conventional banker, made the bank decent money because he was a good judge of character and business plans for small-business loans. Stock market, not his thing, made his retirement work on CDs when they paid decent interest, a thing he understood. Like a lot of people, he thought if you weren't actively trading, you weren't doing it right.

That's part of the angst regarding the pension in the PNW machinists strike negotiations. They want someone else to handle the risk for them, even a 'terrible' company like Boeing.

 

[graylshaped]

Yup. Honestly the biggest issue with 401(k)s is the management fees are often ridiculously high. When I left my first employer I ended up rolling my 401(k) balance into an IRA to get the fees down to something reasonable.

My first wife's company's 401K was through a management company that went so far in hiding fees as to have funds that were solely invested in single, broadly held funds, but unitizing shares differently to mask the amount being extracted from her account on top of those cost. I didn't kick too much. She was literally employee # 13 for that company, and the fact she had a 401K at all was petty cool. Eventually she reached a position where she was able to influence a shift in providers. The cash-out reporting gave me enough information to figure out her account had been hit for close to triple the fees of the underlying accounts. Compound that over thirty-forty years...

Okay, I'll name names: that 401K was through John Hancock, and my observation was that their business approach fit in quite nicely with being named for the man who funded the US revolution because the Brits were interfering with his smuggling business.

 

[Chuckstar]

I don't think we hang with similar crowds. Quite a few of my neighbors have no idea how to handle long-term investing in their retirement whatever, look at the stock market with a daily "I lost money" on the day-to-day fluctuations. They'll put their money in the index fund, but fret over it well before they have to. They just don't teach this stuff in K-12 schools. Should.

My dad was a conventional banker, made the bank decent money because he was a good judge of character and business plans for small-business loans. Stock market, not his thing, made his retirement work on CDs when they paid decent interest, a thing he understood. Like a lot of people, he thought if you weren't actively trading, you weren't doing it right.

That's part of the angst regarding the pension in the PNW machinists strike negotiations. They want someone else to handle the risk for them, even a 'terrible' company like Boeing.

Why is fretting an issue? We were talking about the fact that (1) it is not only the rich that have access to investing in the stock market and (2) the stock market is not a lottery. I don't recall ever claiming no one worries about their investments.

 

[butcherg]

Almost everyone I know does, unless they're literally living paycheck to paycheck. Most people with 401(k) retirement funds will invest it in a stock market index fund, because most of the alternatives don't have a prayer of staying ahead of inflation. If you have a pension, your employer is investing in the stock market on your behalf.

I found out through my own stupidity that an actively managed fund can turn good results over a long term. When I was an Air Force Captain, I got roped into a front-end load mutual fund, where they kept half of my contribution for the first year. Had precisely the intended effect on me, couldn't consider pulling out with half my money already gone, so I pitched in for a few years. Got married, stopped contribution, and literally forgot about it. 30 years later, assembling the hodge-podge of stuff that makes up my retirement I dug out the unopened statements, found out the balance I left in it had increased 10x. Not an aggressive fund, but one that adjusted the portfolio annually or so.

The important thing is to ride out a few business cycles. And, stop looking at the daily market price...

 

[butcherg]

Why is fretting an issue? We were talking about the fact that (1) it is not only the rich that have access to investing in the stock market and (2) the stock market is not a lottery. I don't recall ever claiming no one worries about their investments.

Oh, I'm not talking about worry, I'm talking about ignorance of the dynamic.

 

[42Kodiak42]

359 innocent people died and Boing knew the MCAS could/would cause problems for pilots and they buried it. How someone isn't in prison for this shows you what kind of country we live in. (where big companies are basically untouchable) Disgusting.

While it's easy to say "This decision was pivotal in the disaster that occurred." It's harder to say "This person/These people are responsible for this decision." It's nearly impossible to say "These people should've known that this decision would lead to people dying" especially in the whacky world of software development.

Though, more relevant, is that long before corporate makes a cut that kills someone, they've often cut out the very eyes that let them see their mistakes.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Almost everyone I know does, unless they're literally living paycheck to paycheck. Most people with 401(k) retirement funds will invest it in a stock market index fund, because most of the alternatives don't have a prayer of staying ahead of inflation. If you have a pension, your employer is investing in the stock market on your behalf.

Well there you go, paycheck to paycheck over here, with a modest savings whenever I can manage for emergencies like car issues that would otherwise ruin me. I don't know anyone that isn't living like that, at least in real life.

 

[no_great_name]

Well there you go, paycheck to paycheck over here, with a modest savings whenever I can manage for emergencies like car issues that would otherwise ruin me. I don't know anyone that isn't living like that, at least in real life.

Having an emergency fund is definitely a higher priority than investing.

I think the problem here is the lack of specificity of “rich”. We all have our own notion of what that looks like. When I hear that word, I think “fancy house and car” not “has an emergency fund”.

So to be more accurate, investing is for those who have “enough” saved to cover likely emergencies and want to use any additional savings to help themselves out in the long term.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Having an emergency fund is definitely a higher priority than investing.

I think the problem here is the lack of specificity of “rich”. We all have our own notion of what that looks like. When I hear that word, I think “fancy house and car” not “has an emergency fund”.

So to be more accurate, investing is for those who have “enough” saved to cover likely emergencies and want to use any additional savings to help themselves out in the long term.

Demarcations of wealth are always judged by the median. The US is more than a bit bizarre in this regard, however, because it has 18 million millionaires and yet 40% of american households could not survive an unplanned $400 expense.
Something I, living in that "socialist hellhole" of Sweden, find utterly unbelievable.
People who can't survive a one-time payment of $400 is, over here, the sort of people we see in reality shows as rare warning example of blundering stupidity. In the US that's just the average breadwinner with a house and family.

In the US, "being wealthy" can vary wildly between some areas of Virginia and Tennessee where "Eating every day" can be the divider between the haves and have-nots, and other areas where "having a second SUV" might be the accepted divider.

It's more clear-cut in europe where this gaussian curve of household revenue is still a whole lot flatter.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Demarcations of wealth are always judged by the median. The US is more than a bit bizarre in this regard, however, because it has 18 million millionaires and yet 40% of american households could not survive an unplanned $400 expense.
Something I, living in that socialist hellhole of Sweden, find utterly unbelievable.
People who can't survive a one-time payment of $400 is, over here, the sort of people we see in reality shows as rare warning example of blundering stupidity. In the US that's just the average breadwinner with a house and family.

In the US, "being wealthy" can vary wildly between some areas of Virginia and Tennessee where "Eating every day" can be the divider between the haves and have-nots, and other areas where "having a second SUV" might be the accepted divider.

It's more clear-cut in europe where this gaussian curve of household revenue is still a whole lot flatter.

I don't even consider myself "poor", I'm middle class, but definitely not "upper middle class". I can survive a $400 fee, but a $1000 fee? That gives me pause. Health insurance is a blessing that allows me to survive other unplanned for incidents.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

I don't even consider myself "poor", I'm middle class, but definitely not "upper middle class". I can survive a $400 fee, but a $1000 fee? That gives me pause. Health insurance is a blessing that allows me to survive other unplanned for incidents.

Myeah, the thing is, in the US statistically the middle class is a very slim slice of the socioeconomic diagram. The treasury report asserting that 40% number I hold to be credible, which means that you are, in fact, in the upper middle class.

But that is, of course, statistics. I don't know where you live but if everyone around you seems about as well off or better then you make your demarcation accordingly.
Meanwhile if you were in the poorer parts of Tennessee or Virginia you'd come off as King Croesus in comparison to your surroundings.

The sheer size of the US and the vast gap between the 1% and the rest - or the 5% and the rest, for that matter - makes it clear that the wealth disparity is wild compared to the more sedate curve in nations where the vast majority of the citizenry are what would count as a middle class.

 

[butcherg]

Myeah, the thing is, in the US statistically the middle class is a very slim slice of the socioeconomic diagram. The treasury report asserting that 40% number I hold to be credible, which means that you are, in fact, in the upper middle class.

But that is, of course, statistics. I don't know where you live but if everyone around you seems about as well off or better then you make your demarcation accordingly.
Meanwhile if you were in the poorer parts of Tennessee or Virginia you'd come off as King Croesus in comparison to your surroundings.

The sheer size of the US and the vast gap between the 1% and the rest - or the 5% and the rest, for that matter - makes it clear that the wealth disparity is wild compared to the more sedate curve in nations where the vast majority of the citizenry are what would count as a middle class.

Good perspective. What I'll add that really applies anywhere is that individuals' priorities add to the dynamic. I recall some years ago perusing a thread on another forum where quite a few of the posters were questioning how a person the subject of a news article who lived in a mobile home could afford to own and operate an airplane. Our individual notions of wealth can be sorely misguided by our own expectations.

 

[si1vergecko]

the company suffered for decades from “a cultural challenge, where they focused on short-term profitability and the short-term stock price at the expense of what made Boeing great, which is building great products.”

Sadly, not just a Boeing problem.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Myeah, the thing is, in the US statistically the middle class is a very slim slice of the socioeconomic diagram. The treasury report asserting that 40% number I hold to be credible, which means that you are, in fact, in the upper middle class.

But that is, of course, statistics. I don't know where you live but if everyone around you seems about as well off or better then you make your demarcation accordingly.
Meanwhile if you were in the poorer parts of Tennessee or Virginia you'd come off as King Croesus in comparison to your surroundings.

The sheer size of the US and the vast gap between the 1% and the rest - or the 5% and the rest, for that matter - makes it clear that the wealth disparity is wild compared to the more sedate curve in nations where the vast majority of the citizenry are what would count as a middle class.

I can't argue with that, but yes the thing is whatever the national definition is, I have to define things based on my surroundings and experience. Funny thing is I once lived in a neighborhood that shifted socioeconomic classes like it was a School House Rock diagram, with a trailer part on one end, scaling up and up until there were McMansions on properties that took up a whole block on the other end. I didn't live in the trailer park, definitely didn't live in one of those McMansions, but somewhere in between.

 

[butcherg]

I can't argue with that, but yes the thing is whatever the national definition is, I have to define things based on my surroundings and experience. Funny thing is I once lived in a neighborhood that shifted socioeconomic classes like it was a School House Rock diagram, with a trailer part on one end, scaling up and up until there were McMansions on properties that took up a whole block on the other end. I didn't live in the trailer park, definitely didn't live in one of those McMansions, but somewhere in between.

Yep, also depends on where you live. Spent two years at Kwajalein working on a missile program. When they concluded testing there, they told the missile folk they'd have to choose between Vandenburg AFB (Lompoc, CA), or Huntsville AL for follow-on jobs. I was in their area one day, someone had posted a couple of pictures on their cubicle wall, titled them "what you can get for $190K". One was a double-wide mobile home in Lompoc, the other was a 3-bedroom 2-bath brick house, two-car garage on 1/3 acre.

This was back in the mid 2000s; I hear that's not the case in Huntsville anymore.

 

[no_great_name]

Demarcations of wealth are always judged by the median. The US is more than a bit bizarre in this regard, however, because it has 18 million millionaires and yet 40% of american households could not survive an unplanned $400 expense.
Something I, living in that "socialist hellhole" of Sweden, find utterly unbelievable.
People who can't survive a one-time payment of $400 is, over here, the sort of people we see in reality shows as rare warning example of blundering stupidity. In the US that's just the average breadwinner with a house and family.

In the US, "being wealthy" can vary wildly between some areas of Virginia and Tennessee where "Eating every day" can be the divider between the haves and have-nots, and other areas where "having a second SUV" might be the accepted divider.

It's more clear-cut in europe where this gaussian curve of household revenue is still a whole lot flatter.

I think that makes sense in an academic context (though they usually are more explicit and just say Nth percentile right?). But that does not strike me as correct for everyday usage. People generally seem to base their definitions of wealth off their own experience/feelings with where they think they fit in the socio-economic hierarchy as an anchoring point.

“I think I’m middle class. This person has way more than me, so they’re rich. This person seems to have a little less, so they are lower-middle class.” Etc.

And they are almost certainly calibrating their perception of where they fit based on an approximate view of their own finances along with a stew of feelings and identity. Not referencing a wealth distribution curve published by a government agency.

edit: definitely agree about the insanity of the wealth distribution in the states though. It is both objectively and subjectively terrible.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I think that makes sense in an academic context (though they usually are more explicit and just say Nth percentile right?). But that does not strike me as correct for everyday usage. People generally seem to base their definitions of wealth off their own experience/feelings with where they think they fit in the socio-economic hierarchy as an anchoring point.

“I think I’m middle class. This person has way more than me, so they’re rich. This person seems to have a little less, so they are lower-middle class.” Etc.

And they are almost certainly calibrating their perception of where they fit based on an approximate view of their own finances along with a stew of feelings and identity. Not referencing a wealth distribution curve published by a government agency.

That's about the long and short of it.

 

[Cthel]

That's about the long and short of it.

A problem that the writers of The Simpsons have to contend with - the Simpsons were originally written to be explicitly lower-middle class (the family cars are clunkers with unrepaired damage, Marge buys second-hand clothes or makes her own). Most self-identifying middle-class people would say that they were better off than the Simpsons.

By contemporary standards? The Simpsons own their own house, have 2 cars, pay for Lisa's extracurricular music lessons, can afford an annual holiday - all on the paycheck of one person. Many middle-class-identifying people today would consider that an aspirational situation.

Spoiler: Simpsons writers acknowledging the elephant in the room

View: https://youtu.be/z6RbdZKn3Rc?t=20

 

[OrvGull]

A problem that the writers of The Simpsons have to contend with - the Simpsons were originally written to be explicitly lower-middle class (the family cars are clunkers with unrepaired damage, Marge buys second-hand clothes or makes her own). Most self-identifying middle-class people would say that they were better off than the Simpsons.

By contemporary standards? The Simpsons own their own house, have 2 cars, pay for Lisa's extracurricular music lessons, can afford an annual holiday - all on the paycheck of one person. Many middle-class-identifying people today would consider that an aspirational situation.

Spoiler: Simpsons writers acknowledging the elephant in the room

View: https://youtu.be/z6RbdZKn3Rc?t=20

Eh, it's only an issue because our idea of these things is based on expensive coastal cities that are growing.

They can afford a house, but it's in a run-down town that was designated "America's crud bucket."

Many towns in the Midwest have been slowly shrinking for over 40 years now and are hanging on by a thread. If you manage to find a job at the one remaining employer who pays decent wages in those towns, you can afford a house.

This is also why Burns has so much power. The town literally lives or dies based on whether his plant stays open.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

A problem that the writers of The Simpsons have to contend with - the Simpsons were originally written to be explicitly lower-middle class (the family cars are clunkers with unrepaired damage, Marge buys second-hand clothes or makes her own). Most self-identifying middle-class people would say that they were better off than the Simpsons.

By contemporary standards? The Simpsons own their own house, have 2 cars, pay for Lisa's extracurricular music lessons, can afford an annual holiday - all on the paycheck of one person. Many middle-class-identifying people today would consider that an aspirational situation.

Spoiler: Simpsons writers acknowledging the elephant in the room

View: https://youtu.be/z6RbdZKn3Rc?t=20

You're not wrong. Heck, if you watch those old episodes, there's an air of well... despair to them. Just watching an episode from the first season just feels... sad, the whole way through.

And yes, the thought of actually owning a house is way beyond my means at this point. Indeed, I'm starting to realize where a lot of differences between me and other posters over the past few years have come from. From explaining that I can't just buy a new car whenever, but if a used electric becomes available that's my intended next upgrade but only after I've driven my current car to death (which I thought was an odd sentiment to downvote at the time), to explaining that the lesson I learned from my last generation of family is "don't buy things I can't afford" which resulted in a weirdly misplaced notion that I needed to be "gotcha'd", as if cases where I DID in fact have to take out a loan somehow proved my general rule "wrong" or something, well it all makes sense if I realize that there's just a sort of class divide going on there, which I hadn't suspected mainly because I, as I said, consider myself middle class by the standards of those around me.

In the same sentiment, when financial emergencies pop up with family members, it's a scramble across the whole extended family to somehow wrangle enough money together, along with essentially begging landlords and lenders to reconsider, that gets them back on their feet. My mom in fact is dealing with such a crisis as we speak.

 

[OrvGull]

In the same sentiment, when financial emergencies pop up with family members, it's a scramble across the whole extended family to somehow wrangle enough money together, along with essentially begging landlords and lenders to reconsider, that gets them back on their feet. My mom in fact is dealing with such a crisis as we speak.

For that matter, they bought their house with money they got when Grandpa sold his house.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Good perspective. What I'll add that really applies anywhere is that individuals' priorities add to the dynamic. I recall some years ago perusing a thread on another forum where quite a few of the posters were questioning how a person the subject of a news article who lived in a mobile home could afford to own and operate an airplane. Our individual notions of wealth can be sorely misguided by our own expectations.

Yeah, that's an unavoidable part of it. Depending on what the infrastructure in your society looks like the demarcation between the impoverished with little to no chance of improving their situation and someone merely strapped for cash but still able to obtain and hold a job and affordable housing will vary greatly.

In the US having a car is a must almost no matter where you live - and that presents an additional barrier of entry to even the poorest part of the middle class. In most parts of europe and certainly every major city a car is in comparison a convenience, not an absolute necessity.

Similarly there is no conceivable way that I will ever be in a situation so dire I couldn't afford the administrative fee of health care, no matter how extensive the potential treatment would be. In the US not having at least decent medical coverage means good odds that you will eventually end up with crippling medical debt.

Both societal and individual priorities will heavily affect where the local demarcations between poor, middle class, and wealthy are drawn.

[EDIT]

I'd add that because of such disparity as mentioned between Europe and the US when it comes to the entry level requirements of a sustainable life, this adds problems when it comes to poor people being able to improve their situation. In europe what you need is housing, food, a phone and a bus or subway card.
In the US you also need in most situations, health care coverage and a car (which brings repair and gas expenses). This adds not just cost but more effort to your situation, meaning that you need a lot more assistance to get out of the pit you're in.

Thus not only does the wealth demarcation vary depending on the local situation, the barriers of shifting between such classes rise and fall accordingly as well.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Eh, it's only an issue because our idea of these things is based on expensive coastal cities that are growing.

They can afford a house, but it's in a run-down town that was designated "America's crud bucket."

Many towns in the Midwest have been slowly shrinking for over 40 years now and are hanging on by a thread. If you manage to find a job at the one remaining employer who pays decent wages in those towns, you can afford a house.

This is also why Burns has so much power. The town literally lives or dies based on whether his plant stays open.

Myeah. It's an old story of the "company town" best described by this most excellent rendition of an old classic;


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzlT80jQ3lo


I.e. that employer, with Burns being an excellent rendition of people like Bob Murray, only ever has to offer conditions above which the workforce isn't tempted to uproot themselves and go elsewhere. Of course, that becomes a trap for the employee; the land dropping in value means they can't sell their house for enough to cover the cost of living elsewhere, the mortgage they still have on it, or both. To compensate, some costs of living and especially housing do drop as the place really isn't desirable real estate any longer.

Companies built around predatory housing investment have been having a lot of fun with this to the detriment of literally fucking everyone.

As a footnote, I heartily advice anyone wanting a closer look at this type of shenanigans to go youtube a few of Robert Reich's videos.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

You're not wrong. Heck, if you watch those old episodes, there's an air of well... despair to them. Just watching an episode from the first season just feels... sad, the whole way through.

And yes, the thought of actually owning a house is way beyond my means at this point. Indeed, I'm starting to realize where a lot of differences between me and other posters over the past few years have come from. From explaining that I can't just buy a new car whenever, but if a used electric becomes available that's my intended next upgrade but only after I've driven my current car to death (which I thought was an odd sentiment to downvote at the time), to explaining that the lesson I learned from my last generation of family is "don't buy things I can't afford" which resulted in a weirdly misplaced notion that I needed to be "gotcha'd", as if cases where I DID in fact have to take out a loan somehow proved my general rule "wrong" or something, well it all makes sense if I realize that there's just a sort of class divide going on there, which I hadn't suspected mainly because I, as I said, consider myself middle class by the standards of those around me.

In the same sentiment, when financial emergencies pop up with family members, it's a scramble across the whole extended family to somehow wrangle enough money together, along with essentially begging landlords and lenders to reconsider, that gets them back on their feet. My mom in fact is dealing with such a crisis as we speak.

From a US perspective your tale is pretty normal. This is what is so scary - because you describe a situation which in the 60's would have been the problem only of the impoverished drunk living in the seedier part of town. Yet today? It's the middle class, only because you don't live in a trailer park or a cardboard box.

 

[butcherg]

In the US having a car is a must almost no matter where you live - and that presents an additional barrier of entry to even the poorest part of the middle class. In most parts of europe and certainly every major city a car is in comparison a convenience, not an absolute necessity.

In the major cities it's more like Europe - municipal transport with coverage sufficient to service both residential and commercial areas, which also might be closer in proximity. Although, there are still long commutes in some places; look at NYC, where it's becoming harder to both live and work on Manhattan without some multi-six-figure income. Really have to inspect the specific situation.

And, it's not just recent. I recall meeting a fellow in Air Force basic training in 1975 from NYC, had never driven a car, didn't hold a license. He said, "just didn't need to, the subway runs where I need". Funny, the job specialty he got out of basic was Motor Pool Operator...

Similarly there is no conceivable way that I will ever be in a situation so dire I couldn't afford the administrative fee of health care, no matter how extensive the potential treatment would be. In the US not having at least decent medical coverage means good odds that you will eventually end up with crippling medical debt.

Had that well-described by a table-mate at evening dining on a cruise we took a few years ago. He was from IIRC Liverpool UK, a 'decorator', or what we'd call a house painter in the US. We got to talking about nationalized medical, given that the Obamacare proposal was wending its way through the hoops at the time, and he took on describing the nationalized UK alternative in increasingly audible terms. "If I'm creamed in a car accident, I get right in to the care I need to save my ass. HOWEVER, If I Get A Boil On My Butt, I By the Time I Get To My Appointment SIX MONTH LATER The Bloody Thing's GONE!" We'd sailed out of Southampton, so a lot of Brits on board; most of the folk at adjacent tables (and further) had turned to look, and were nodding in agreement...

 

[butcherg]

From a US perspective your tale is pretty normal. This is what is so scary - because you describe a situation which in the 60's would have been the problem only of the impoverished drunk living in the seedier part of town. Yet today? It's the middle class, only because you don't live in a trailer park or a cardboard box.

Oh come on, there's some pretty respectable trailer parks in the US. And, some time ago they did something to codify construction standards, so the quality isn't as shit as it used to be. Still, not a dwelling that tolerates tornadoes too well....

Also, ditching the stationary dwelling for a RV, usually a motorhome, is more of a thing with even upper middle-class. Used to watch that parade from my desk, Interstate 25 ran by with all of that traffic on display. I'd see all manner of six-figure motorhome behemoths cruise by towing some combination of vehicle and/or utility trailer. Once saw a large motorhome towing a smaller motorhome; makes one wonder about that backstory...

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

In the major cities it's more like Europe - municipal transport with coverage sufficient to service both residential and commercial areas, which also might be closer in proximity. Although, there are still long commutes in some places; look at NYC, where it's becoming harder to both live and work on Manhattan without some multi-six-figure income. Really have to inspect the specific situation.

And, it's not just recent. I recall meeting a fellow in Air Force basic training in 1975 from NYC, had never driven a car, didn't hold a license. He said, "just didn't need to, the subway runs where I need". Funny, the job specialty he got out of basic was Motor Pool Operator...

Myeah, YMMV depending on location, literally. The people we're discussing, however, are unlikely to be within reach of the NYC subway.

Had that well-described by a table-mate at evening dining on a cruise we took a few years ago. He was from IIRC Liverpool UK, a 'decorator', or what we'd call a house painter in the US. We got to talking about nationalized medical, given that the Obamacare proposal was wending its way through the hoops at the time, and he took on describing the nationalized UK alternative in increasingly audible terms. "If I'm creamed in a car accident, I get right in to the care I need to save my ass. HOWEVER, If I Get A Boil On My Butt, I By the Time I Get To My Appointment SIX MONTH LATER The Bloody Thing's GONE!" We'd sailed out of Southampton, so a lot of Brits on board; most of the folk at adjacent tables (and further) had turned to look, and were nodding in agreement...

That is true. With nationalized health care, triage is applied. Life-saving surgery, medicine and rehabilitation are just about free but you'll be in a line when it comes to minor stuff like wart removal etc. This is the compromise when the governmental mandate is to ensure that every citizen has equal access to health services and the guy coming in with an open artery will always be prioritized over the guy with a bruise.

However, what your table-mate forgot to mention (or didn't consider) is that a paid tier does exist in conjunction with the NHS. If that boil on your ass is painful enough you can shell over the money to go private.

On the whole it's hard to make the call that for the vast majority of people they aren't better off with nationalized health care - in particular so when in the US medical costs are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.

And of course when it comes to the specific topic at hand - barriers of exiting poverty - health care requiring money you may not have is a fairly big one the same way it's too often the leading cause of being poor to begin with.

 

[OrvGull]

Had that well-described by a table-mate at evening dining on a cruise we took a few years ago. He was from IIRC Liverpool UK, a 'decorator', or what we'd call a house painter in the US. We got to talking about nationalized medical, given that the Obamacare proposal was wending its way through the hoops at the time, and he took on describing the nationalized UK alternative in increasingly audible terms. "If I'm creamed in a car accident, I get right in to the care I need to save my ass. HOWEVER, If I Get A Boil On My Butt, I By the Time I Get To My Appointment SIX MONTH LATER The Bloody Thing's GONE!" We'd sailed out of Southampton, so a lot of Brits on board; most of the folk at adjacent tables (and further) had turned to look, and were nodding in agreement...

Depending on where you live in the US, it can be worse. The area I currently live in has a massive doctor shortage, because doctor pay hasn't kept up with housing prices; basically doctors (and especially specialists) keep leaving for places where they can buy more house for their money. My wife was given a dermatology appointment 18 months out by the only network that took our insurance.

 

[butcherg]

Depending on where you live in the US, it can be worse. The area I currently live in has a massive doctor shortage, because doctor pay hasn't kept up with housing prices; basically doctors (and especially specialists) keep leaving for places where they can buy more house for their money. My wife was given a dermatology appointment 18 months out by the only network that took our insurance.

Rural areas in our state are feeling that pinch. It's always been that way, small communities struggling to get a 'town doctor', a lot worse now that there's all the specialty medicine and its associated facilities needed to extend our lifespans to outstrip our pensions... Oops, that rolled into a rant, sorry, kinda...

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Rural areas in our state are feeling that pinch. It's always been that way, small communities struggling to get a 'town doctor', a lot worse now that there's all the specialty medicine and its associated facilities needed to extend our lifespans to outstrip our pensions... Oops, that rolled into a rant, sorry, kinda...

Sweden is a very oblong country (plenty of our own comedians are fond of describing it as a hefty but slightly limp dick on the map) and once you go an hour's drive or so north of Stockholm civilization starts giving way to forest, more forest, and fairly long stretches of road lined with forest. At that point we start seeing what it might be like to live in some rural US states. As the largest country in northern europe but with only about 11 million citizens our population density is, well, Wyoming-style rather than Florida once you hit the northern two thirds of the country, let's just put it like that.

A relative's relative lived in a place about two solid hour's drive from the nearest city, in a log cabin built by their great grandfather in the middle of the woods in bumfuck nowhere, and came down with a medical emergency which necessitated the use of an ambulance helicopter to get them to the nearest ER.
The out-of-pocket cost of that transport alone would have utterly wrecked almost any american considering themselves "well off", to say nothing of the treatment very likely to be out of network. "OK, it's the heart, we need to go to hospital X, not the nearer Z, because that's where the specialists are". Hell, the premiums alone on an insurance covering that fully would likely be utterly outlandish.

In many ways much of the rural US is largely cut off from decent or even slightly quacky or "best effort" health care simply because without a cohesive effort to have coverage be national you may be completely SOL if you live in an area deemed "financially nonviable" by private health care.

 

[graylshaped]

I think that makes sense in an academic context (though they usually are more explicit and just say Nth percentile right?). But that does not strike me as correct for everyday usage. People generally seem to base their definitions of wealth off their own experience/feelings with where they think they fit in the socio-economic hierarchy as an anchoring point.

“I think I’m middle class. This person has way more than me, so they’re rich. This person seems to have a little less, so they are lower-middle class.” Etc.

And they are almost certainly calibrating their perception of where they fit based on an approximate view of their own finances along with a stew of feelings and identity. Not referencing a wealth distribution curve published by a government agency.

edit: definitely agree about the insanity of the wealth distribution in the states though. It is both objectively and subjectively terrible.

A predilection to focus on what one does NOT have vs what one does have is a fault shared by those across the entire curve of wealth distribution. Sadly the impact of not having certain things is far more painful for those at the lower end, and when acted upon by those at the upper end, tends to cause even more issues for the less fortunate.

 

[carrellk]

Honestly, the last two sentences (bolded by me) are the only good bit of advice in this post, IMO. Even for long-term investments, trying to pick stocks as an amateur is a mug's game, and very much is a gamble.

...tracking the broad market is the optimal play over the long run.

I invested about 75% of our money in market index ETFs, and the other 25% in individual stocks. The 25% is worth as much today as the 75%. And I'm an amateur, a "mug" by your definition.

It wasn't a gamble because by then I knew what I was doing, and I figured it out starting with the NAIC course back in the early 1990s. My non-unique approach?

Don't gamble. Pick 5-10 companies that have been out-performing their peers for several years, with stable leadership at the top, and with good fundamentals. I also throw in a bit of Peter Lynch (look him up on Wikipedia, then find one of his books and read it). Morningstar is a great place to start your research. After 5 years keep the top 20%, and sell the other 80%. You won't have lost money on the stocks you sell, just not made as much as one the ones you've kept. With the money from the sales, buy some different companies. Rinse and repeat.

One other thing - forget chasing IPO "unicorns". That's a "day-traders" game, and a losing proposition. Real unicorns can be unicorns for a very long time. I bought Apple when it was "overpriced" at $209/share around the end of 2009. It split many shares to one since then and is worth about $220/share at present. With DRIPs and the splits it is worth 34x what I paid over a 15 year period. Not every stock is an Apple, but every single one has outperformed the S&P500 over the period I've owned them. And the approach is nothing special, just what I outlined in the preceding paragraph.

The difference between me and professionals? I don't have to look for good "deals" every day to justify my fees and to find a home for the daily massive cash inflows cash (or for trhe daily redemptions). No professional can out-perform a reasonable private investor with a long-term horizon.

 

[TalkOptions]

TalkOptions - Option Ka Search Engine

Start searching & analyzing options with various tools and options strategies. We strive our best to provide the best available tools for options analysis. Simple & Easy-to-use platform for Traders and Learners Customised Strategy Builder with Fast Strategies The Strategy Builder allows you to create your strategies with multiple Future & Options positions. It also gives you some pre-built fast strategies to explore—Free Gateway to Options Analysis.

For more information regarding Option trading visit https://www.talkoptions.in/ https://web.talkoptions.in/