For financial decisions you should think of yourself as a stock with a market price that reflects all your future earning and spending. This number is much more important that your current income or net worth, and yet everyone focuses on the latter because they're legible.
Let's say you're 25, can write a bit and do Excel and deal with corporate culture. This gives you a 80% chance of having a $50k+ job in a given year. If you plan to work for 25 years, this set of intangible assets is worth ~$1,000,000 to you. Your net worth is peanuts next to it.
This means that if you can go to a top MBA or coding camp and double your base salary, you should be willing to take $100k in debt to do it because it will increase your "market cap" by another million at least. You get 10x payoff, or at least 5x if you discount for uncertainty.
How about that $6 cappuccino you get every day at work? That's just $1,200 a year. If it makes your work life 2-3% more tolerable in the long run, it's worth it.
Advice like "avoid debt" and "skip the coffee" is too general. Imagine you own stock in your clone and ask yourself how getting this degree or developing this coffee habit will affect the share price. This gives you the benefit of the outside view and focuses on what's important.
If you think there's a 5% chance each year your degree will become useless or you'll hate it too much to do it you can just discount your future earnings by an extra 5% per year to account for it. That's what I meant by "accounting for risk".
You can do the same math for costs. E.g., if you choose to take a job in San Francisco (median 1 BR rent $2,600) vs San Diego ($1,800) that's a $100k difference in NPV if you discount by a 10% chance of moving cities each year. Could be worth it, but do the full NPV math.
One last thing: the NPV of a frugal, hard-working spouse and nerdy anti-consumerist friends who tell you about crypto instead of brands is easily in the millions. Way more important that what you pay in rent of your student loan APR or whatever transient number seems important.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm rereading @DouthatNYT's "The Decadent Society" and taking notes for a long review I want to write. In the meantime, you can follow this thread for random thoughts and hot takes as I go through it.
Decadence = Economic stagnation, institutional decay, cultural and intellectual exhaustion and repetition at a high level of material prosperity and technological development.
Doesn't necessarily lead to immediate collapse — Rome survived for 400 years after Nero.
Douthat is an American conservative, Catholic, NY Times columnist — ancient and lumbering institutions that are certainly decadent. So while his diagnosis it true for the world he lives in, that's not necessarily true for Westerners outside these institutions.
"Our culture is sex-positive, so how come sex is so bad/hard/impossible?"
The truth is that sex-positivity, in the sense of talking about the positive aspects of good sex, is incredibly rare. Modern culture(s) is overwhelmingly sex-negative.
Conservatives are sex negative. They talk about sex as something corrupting, dangerous, sinful. Just try to talk to someone who goes on about "family values" about the importance for marriage of good, hot sex, let alone kinky one.
Progressives are sex negative. They talk about sex as harassment, grooming, exploitation. They only distinction they care about is consensual/non-consensual, but "consent" isn't close to covering the entirety of ethics surrounding sex, let alone actual eroticism.
Imagine a classic fantasy setting. Warriors start out formidable but their ceiling is limited. Wizards spend years in a tower or academy just to catch up. But the strongest wizards are much stronger than any warrior, so the strongest wizards rule the land. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.…
Twist: it turns out that the wizard's magic depends on popular belief in their abilities. If everyone knows a wizard can cast a fireball, it explodes in a blaze. If too many people doubt it, it fizzles out in a puff of smoke. Suddenly, the people begin to doubt the wizards.
As magic begins to weaken, the wizards spend more and more years in the academies with fewer visible results. The more they fail the more people doubt. And so the mightiest wizards on the ruling council devise a strategy: they must eliminate the people's doubt to retain power.
So we mock and shame guys who say they WON'T defend women and now we've also decided to mock and shame guys who say they WILL defend women so... uh... I'm sure this Twitter meme is making women more safe in some complex way my limited guy brain can't comprehend yet.
So if I actually shared some stories of me and my friends stopping "our mates" from harassing girls I'll have a bunch of men telling me I'm a white knight simp and a bunch of women telling me I'm a lying keyboard-warrior hypocrite. So I won't. And my friends won't.
And then everyone wonders why it's not a common norm that men should be responsible for policing their fellows, when any men who says anything at all publicly on the subject get shit from all sides.
I got three smart friends on a call to try and make sense of the $GME situation. This thread is my current best model.
TL;DR: The longs are playing the short game, the shorts are playing the long game.
Who's long GME? Some combination of WSBers, FOMOists, and hedge funds. The WSBers have no fear and will sell at $0.01 or on the moon when the shorts are gone. FOMOists may panic if GME slides but they're probably a small fraction. Funds will try to get on top and may have hedges.
The interesting Q is who's short. Someone who's short for 50% of their bankroll is vulnerable to a squeeze, but at 2% they can hold on forever. Current borrowing fee is 31% APR, or 0.1% a day. It's not that bad. So if the shorts are distributed they can wait it out.