I used to believe in company loyalty. Now in my 40s I realize how little employers care and the only real way to get pay increases will be via job hopping. Company loyalty is BS now days. They will toss you out the door at a whim so give them the same loyalty
Agreed, but its an illusion companies like to sell, so you will work harder and do more overtime. But when the chips are down, you are nothing but a statistic to them. Give them the best quality you can within the bounds of your contract, but never sacrifice your wellness or personal life for them, because they will not respond in kind.
Look, it is still possible for there to be company loyalty. Now, are you likely to find one that does have it? Probably not, and in the US, it gets upgraded to "absolutely not." This is because of that mentality that has been hammered into every business student's head that big payouts must go to company heads and that anything that is not the company head does not matter. You can thank/blame (I go with "blame") McKinsey & Company for having successfully pushed this for decades, and it is because of them that it is a guarantee that if the company has shares, then there will be no loyalty, company or not. Of course, getting rid of the practice of company shares is by no means going to solve the problem of no loyalty. Thanks to McKinsey, even without them, you will still have business heads screwing everyone else (that happened to me in my first full-time job). That said, there being no shares in a company will go a ways in bringing back the concept of company loyalty; there is still a lot after that to be done, but this would make for a decent start.
On the first one I can't agree. There's a difference between sustained inflation and price shocks. For many things, especially Staples like food, people were hoping this was a price shock instead of sustained inflation. Yes eggs went up to $5 a dozen, but they came back down to two after the emergencies were done.
Yeah story one was definitely painting with a broad brush. Inflation getting under control does allow for prices to drop. Especially when you can have legitimate competition. Most of the issues with higher priced good come directly from the price if gas
@@Tim85-y2q yes. That's my point exactly. Prices going down after a short-term shows that it was a shock, and it's not indicating any major negative. Long-term reduction of prices overall can be a sign of deflation. The point isn't wrong, but it is significantly ignoring a huge point
I'm surprised none of these stories said "not having a budget." Seriously, I know people who go around spending nearly all the money they make because they think that as long as they just don't spend more than they have, it's not a problem. It's a _huge_ problem, because it's not accounting (pun not intended) for saving money for emergencies and, hopefully someday, retirement. You really have to be spending less than you're earning, and not by some small margin either, or it's going to bite you in the ass in the long run.
Thinking any economic problem can easily be solved with just one "common sence" legislation. Economy is extremely complex, and simple changes in one place can reverberate who knows where. Look up Cobra effect/perverse incentives. Also, regulatory capture is a thing. Corporations will lobby for law that looks "common sense" enough on paper, but will actually benefit corporations more at the cost of everyone else, and lawmakers just take the handout.
I find that the government screwing with it makes it worse. They do something fixes that thing but breaks another 2. Think of the housing bubble in the 90s.
I have another: Proclaiming that certain political ideologies can save the world if we all agree to them. And this ideologies are not proven or outright inhumane.
@@leticiagraziele6428so communism is not related to the economy? Good to know politics don't impact the economy otherwise the USSR would be in big trouble!
All I'm going to say to that is the worst areas in the country with the most homeless are blue. The right may not be perfect but the right wasn't the people going around burning down buildings and smashing out windows last year
11:30 Ironically, it's the middle class with the nicest cars. Always having car payment is a sure fire way to never rise above the middle class. I'll refer back to the story about the couple that had payments for everything.
Something to remember with the first one is in a lot of cases unless you’re working for a company that is having profits in the 8 figures plus year over year range you’re not goin to get a lot of wage upward growth. They simpler can’t afford to pay more without going out of business themselves and you loosing your job anyway. This is how rapid inflation like we’ve seen in the last couple of years further hurts because it really destroys small business that are operating on small margins and now their costs go up no counting payroll and when payroll goes up they often can’t survive.
"Things don't change overnight and certainly not with in one presidential term" Winemark Germany, 1929 America, India and several african nations join the chat.
People supporting taxes on energy. Energy is the most fundamental input in every economy, so taxing energy adds friction to every aspect of the economy. In a closed system, this would cause everything to go up in price while wages remain flat. In an open system (a global economy), the added cost makes you uncompetitive, so the end result is widespread job loss.
I had a boss who said “Employees should do more work than what they are paid.” Imagine selling your product at less than what you paid for it? With that business model, you’d go under.
There's so much on here about going into a new tax bracket and how they think paying more tax will be a loss in benefits, but don't speak about those receiving government benefits from making too little and being below the poverty line. My mom had to refuse several raises because unless it was several dollars an hour over what she made, the loss of government benefits would greatly outweigh the $0.20/h more she would make. At one point she had to quit her job because of a raise otherwise she'd be out nearly $300/m due to loss of food stamps, and living in low income housing making rent more expensive by several hundred. In essence low income benefits are designed to keep people at low income jobs. That's when denying a raise makes sense.
Okay, Story 11 does not understand why 401k's replaced pensions. The idea that companies will screw you over just so they will not have to pay into a pension is a lot more recent than people think. It began with McKinsey & Company pushing this crap, all under their belief that the only person(s) who matter are the company heads and/or the major shareholders (company heads may or may not also be major shareholders, but it is always the major shareholders that get prioritized above all). The idea that the companies only invest in a pension after 20-30 years is another lie pushed by McKinsey. Are there companies that do this? Yeah, but again, blame McKinsey for making this the case. Historically, pensions started building from the beginning of employment. The rate of buildup could always change, but by and large, it would always be there. The flipside is that even if you were able to draw from it after leaving the company, the earlier you left, the less there was to draw from, hence people staying 20, 30, 40, 50, 60+ years. Pensions, like 401k's, get built up by both the company and the employee, so as far as costs go, they are the same, at least on paper. In practice, they are vastly different. While a pension could be lost/taken away by the company in question, those that do offer and maintain pensions usually have guardrails (e.g. unions) against any BS that could be pulled towards this. None of these safeties that exist for you, the employee, with pensions exist with 401k's. While the pension relies solely on employee and company contributions in order to grow, 401k's play the stock market. Yes, pensions rely on the company continuing to exist in order for them to continue to exist themselves, but otherwise, that is _your_ money. 401k's get invested in the stock market, and if there is any sort of downturn in the stock market, that "investment" gets wiped out. Worse, there is a chance that your 401k will be tied to a criminal organization. You hear those stories about retirement plans being tied to rather shady, if not outright criminal, businesses and dealings? Yup, 401k's. Companies love pushing 401k's because 1) they take a cut - and often a bigger one than yours - of any stock payouts your 401k gets, 2) any money they contribute to your 401k was money they were going to put into the stock market anyway, and 3) if anything goes wrong, they can just shift the blame away from them and onto someone/something else, usually the stock market. That's it. That's why 401k's replaced pensions: because they are "better" for major shareholders. It had absolutely nothing to do with helping you, the peon, the actual revenue generator. Can a 401k work? Yes. Can it work well? In some cases, sure. Are they all-around better than pensions? F^^^ no, they ain't.
@@marcopohl4875 The negligible amounts if invested instead add up to a substantial amount. A lottery ticket bought last month is still worth nothing. A stock purchase forr the same amount, rerely becomes worthless, and often becomes worth more, and sometimes pays dividends quarter after quarter. Put it into a spread sheet and track the amounts. My tickets invested are now paying me 1300 per month paid quarterly in dividends and are worth over 200,000K. How much do you spend on lottery tickets in a week? Lottery tickets are fixed price. The stock market has occasional fire sales. Example, bought pipeline stock in April 2020 for about 90% off. Paid $5.42 per share of WES. Price closed on Friday at 38.40. The stock now pays 3.50 annually, paid quarterly. What do your lottery tickets do you bought in 2020? Mine refund me the cost in under 2 years every year. People tell me "You can't win it if you're not in it". I tell them I don't get dividends on dollars lost in the lottery.
One thing about marginal tax rate is that depending where you live, it can really make it so working a bunch of overtime doesn't really make any sense. If your first dollar is taxed at 0%, but your last dollar is taxed near 50%, then working at time and a half you're making a lot less money and the state is getting a lot more money than you'd imagine.
The dumbest one I saw on "till debt do us part" was a couple who had five loans at around 25% each. They "did the math" and realized that they were paying 125% interest, so they got a consolidation loan at 30%. Shocked that this didn't work, they called Gail for help, and she asked if they were stupid.
The taxes one is only half correct. Most payroll systems, make your tax deductions based on 'estimated annual outcome'. what this means is, if you make 500$ on a paycheck, the payroll system will tax you based on your previous paychecks, and the current one, and predict your wages as staying at 500$ per check. So when your next check comes in, with 500$, plus 500$ in overtime, it will tax your check as if every paycheck from that point forward, will be 1,000$. What happens with this, is you end up over paying on your taxes, and then you have to get the IRS to agree that you were over taxed, and include that in your tax return. I make 120k year, working in pathology. My first year at this income range, my entire income was taxed at the 100k bracket level, and not in the tiers it should have been (it happens automatically, and the IRS dictates this to be the 'best' system). I've been fighting with the IRS since, to get my over paid taxes returned to me, because my entire income was taxed at 22%, for every pay week. While technically, yes, you are supposed to be taxed at a rate, until you hit the next tier, this rarely happens, which is why people can say "They took 50% of my pay in taxes" and not be lying, despite a lot of internet tax lawyers saying its just their own spending habits. For example, ill use my 2023 gross, and my 2023 tax withholdings. Gross: 123,789 Fed: 27,233 State: 23,519 This is not even including my SS and Medicare withholdings. This is what is on my W2 tax statement. Every year, i have to hire a tax lawyer, at about 18k per year, to fight for my full tax refund due to this glaring oversight in the current system.
I’d say being obsessed with your credit score is almost as bad as not knowing what it is. If you’re constantly checking it and micromanaging how to increase it, you’re probably way too accustomed to taking on debt.
As well, people can intuitively feel that there's something wrong with government numbers on a lot of things. The unemployment rate claims to be at 50 year lows, but people know that doesn't feel right, because it isn't. The labor force participation rate peaked decades ago, and besides that the labor force participation rate for able-bodied men is about half what it was at its peak 50 years ago. Moreover, the character of employment is much different. 50% of GDP is government spending, where 100 years ago that number was 10%.
Spending $80,000 to $120,000 for a huge, overpowered battering ram (SUV or pickup). Financing after market add-ons, like spinning rims, sound systems, spoilers, engine mods, etc. Buying lots and lots and lots of "fast fashion" trash from TEMU or Shein which is good for wearing once and then all it is fit for is a landfill. Eating out for every meal, or almost every meal. Not understanding how marginal tax rates work, how banking works, how the stock market works.
Story 1: Even if deflation did happen, prices wouldn't go down because the companies producing the products want to make more money. All deflation would do to them is increase their profit margins on their $11 sandwich. That $11 sandwich is never going to be an $8 sandwich ever again. Wages need to match inflation. It really is the only way.
That’s only if things are so regulated that there is no competition. There’s a town near me with one grocery store and their prices are insane go one town over(15 minute drive) that exact chains prices at half as much as the first town. The only difference is there’s dozens of grocery stores both chains and local to compete with. The only reason town one has one store is the first selectman and won’t give permits for another grocer
With credit cards, always pay the statement balance by the due date. That way you avoid interest, but get all the points and rewards. My wife and I make about $200.00 a month following this very simple formula.
I know of someone who thinks that my neighbor is the richest person in the world and thinks that he could have of cured his dog who had a tumor in his dog maby for 5cents to $5 or maby it would be so easy to do it himself although someone else also seems to think that as well if you are working it is a lot easier to take your dog to the vet than to if you’re not working also my neighbor has one leg so it is not easy for him to hobble around anyway. They think they are a little miss know it all but they don’t know it all.
Cosmetic purchases that you can't afford it a big really worrying one. There are lots, but the dumber ones are not few in real life, and hurt more people's finances.
Why do people forget about the inflation/pay raise paradox. When inflation causes prices to jump up drastically:;paying more money for labor only increases costs, which increases prices and then labor and then prices and I think you get it.
The first one is only somewhat correct. Yes when inflation returns to normal levels it wont mean prices decrease. But certain product's can and will because individual segments of inflation can decrease or go into deflation. Easiest example of that is fuel/gas/petrol. The market is very volatile. But broadly using say cost of living in total, no the costs won't go back down. His example of a 4x2 is really bad because there is a good chance it will come back down if fuel comes down as its value is partly affected by transport, but legislation could also increase it. Certain areas almost certainly won't decrease, housing for example rarely if ever decreases and if it does it rarely is for long.
Financing, doesn't matter what you're Financing but paying nearly 3x the amount slowly over time for a single item is insanity and a scam. Businesses like rent a center and Aaron's prey on poverty level people with their weekly/monthly payment plans.
Yes it is. It causes people to not spend money, which results in less revenue for businesses, which results in downsizing, which results in increased unemployment. It may be nice to have the value of your savings account slightly increase, but the long-term effects will not be quite as nice.
the problem with the benefits cliff is people KNOW taking it anyways better in the long term, but that doesent matter if it means they stop being able to afford the stuff they need to live and work in the short term, which is why its so ridiculous some people dont want to fix it because their afraid of "welfare queens" making to much, when in reality those same people are preventing them from becoming self sufficient even when they actively want to
Well consistent results from studies show less than 5% of welfare people are cheating or abusing the system. Personally I am happy to carry those, if allows the other 95% to get through tough times, and get back on their feet.
Here's something I like to think about... the amount of people who are pissed about taxes because THEIR taxes are paying for something they don't agree with (I don't want my taxes to pay for all the military, it's overfunded! Or Why should my taxes go to paying for unemployed people?) Okay... in that case... it's not. Look... your taxes are a relatively small amount going into a government budget of multiple billions. "Your" money doesn't have a specific direction. It's just a pool that's divided up. Would you feel better if you thought that "Your" money was going towards something you DID approve of? So fine then. YOUR taxes are going towards education, and your militant neighbor's is going to funding the military. Meanwhile your coworker who cares about what will happen when they retire has their taxes going into social security, and your political aunt's taxes are going into their politician's salary. Your taxes aren't going in to anything specific, and if you don't want it going to something... then it's not. Someone else's is, and yours is going to fund things YOU want.
I would agree with you, if the U.S. wasn't in 40 Trillion in debt. Why should my Tax dollars be paying for charity half way across the world when U.S. Military Veterans are dying in mass because the V.A. sucks ass. Sorry to say, your argument becomes invalid because of that, and that's just 1 Example. I could also talk about how the ATF committed a no-knock raid and killed a Father and Husband because he sold a firearm privately (not to mention their general unconstitutional rule changes they keep trying to make), or how the Dept. of Education is literally wasting money on schools that are not improving while also getting 5X-20X more funding than other, more successful, schools. My Taxes are currently being wasted, and if it wasn't for the literal threat of prison or death, I would stop them immediately.
@@acid360delta7 Once again. YOUR taxes aren't. YOUR taxes are coming out of the vast pool into whatever it is you want it to fund. It's the taxes of those who care about overseas that are being wasted in your eyes. The government decides how the pool is used, but if you think your money is being wasted, then I'm sorry but unless you're footing more than the entire government budget of the most expensive thing they're putting the money for or you don't want the government to have ANY money at ALL then it's probably not.
Listen, the prices going up by 400% isn't inflation. inflation accounts for maybe 200%, but the prices are still double what they should be not due to inflation, but corporate greed.
First one: prices will go down when consumers stop paying them. Products and services cost what they cost because it is what the market is willing to bear.
Oh no I don't expect prices to go down because inflation lowers I expect them to go down because the companies are clearly price gouging and making record profits with record profit margins. This is something that needs government interference
Yeah. I have a full body tattoo from my elbows to my knees, but it doesn't touch my neck or face. Besides, it hurt enough going over my collar bone, I can't imagine what one on my forehead would feel like...
I don't think you were old enough in 2001 to understand deflation does happen when bubble pops. We actually see it every decade or so roughly, a soft reset. Every 20-25 we seem to have a major economic correction. You are inaccurate in saying prices can't and won't go down.
Story 2 isn't about the poor job lawmakers have done to articulate how marginal taxes work. Marginal taxes have been around for generations. Corporation taxes were far higher under Regan. What's new is the (dis)information age of motivated anti-tax lobbyists.
You know what shows real economic ignorance? People who believe that min wage laws will help the poor. One of the most well known mechanisms of every economy is supply and demand. Yet people refuse to use basic understanding of supply and demand when a price is called a wage. Another big show of ignorance of economics is the laffer curve. It’s a fact that it exists but people still think that raising taxes will always bring in more money to the government and lowering taxes will cost the government revenue. It’s just a fact that tax revenue to the government increase with the Trump tax cuts. The fact that the deficit also increased when the government was raking in more money then expected is because the government is about the most insane way to spend money.
People who go around saying "it's basic economics!", as if there isn't more to economics. They tend to have contempt for intellectuals and colleges anyway.
"I can't lower my prices because I have to pay my employees a certain amount." Two seconds later... "If workers collectively demand to be paid more, wages will catch up with prices." I agree that prices will never go down, we have to wait for wages to go up, but that won't stop inflation, it will only continue the cycle, reducing the value of savings accounts as it does. The best way to stop inflation is lift unnecessary regulations and to stop excessive government spending.
I used to believe in company loyalty. Now in my 40s I realize how little employers care and the only real way to get pay increases will be via job hopping. Company loyalty is BS now days. They will toss you out the door at a whim so give them the same loyalty
Agreed, but its an illusion companies like to sell, so you will work harder and do more overtime. But when the chips are down, you are nothing but a statistic to them. Give them the best quality you can within the bounds of your contract, but never sacrifice your wellness or personal life for them, because they will not respond in kind.
@@KaiserAfini 100% ... workers need to see through the illusion. Embrace quit quiting lol.
Look, it is still possible for there to be company loyalty. Now, are you likely to find one that does have it? Probably not, and in the US, it gets upgraded to "absolutely not." This is because of that mentality that has been hammered into every business student's head that big payouts must go to company heads and that anything that is not the company head does not matter. You can thank/blame (I go with "blame") McKinsey & Company for having successfully pushed this for decades, and it is because of them that it is a guarantee that if the company has shares, then there will be no loyalty, company or not.
Of course, getting rid of the practice of company shares is by no means going to solve the problem of no loyalty. Thanks to McKinsey, even without them, you will still have business heads screwing everyone else (that happened to me in my first full-time job). That said, there being no shares in a company will go a ways in bringing back the concept of company loyalty; there is still a lot after that to be done, but this would make for a decent start.
On the first one I can't agree. There's a difference between sustained inflation and price shocks. For many things, especially Staples like food, people were hoping this was a price shock instead of sustained inflation. Yes eggs went up to $5 a dozen, but they came back down to two after the emergencies were done.
Yeah story one was definitely painting with a broad brush. Inflation getting under control does allow for prices to drop. Especially when you can have legitimate competition. Most of the issues with higher priced good come directly from the price if gas
Ours hit 9$ a dozen. I don't live in a city
Yes but that's conflating two separate issues.
@@Tim85-y2q yes. That's my point exactly. Prices going down after a short-term shows that it was a shock, and it's not indicating any major negative. Long-term reduction of prices overall can be a sign of deflation. The point isn't wrong, but it is significantly ignoring a huge point
Living in a 5k house trailer with a 60k coal roller in the drive...
Just a diesel enthusiast, maybe a bit of a menace to the environment..
We need more wage growth. But the owner class views paying employees as a mortal sin. They want us peasants to just show up and make them money.
I'm surprised none of these stories said "not having a budget." Seriously, I know people who go around spending nearly all the money they make because they think that as long as they just don't spend more than they have, it's not a problem. It's a _huge_ problem, because it's not accounting (pun not intended) for saving money for emergencies and, hopefully someday, retirement. You really have to be spending less than you're earning, and not by some small margin either, or it's going to bite you in the ass in the long run.
My family bough a cockatiel as a chick. That little guy lived to be 33.
Thinking any economic problem can easily be solved with just one "common sence" legislation. Economy is extremely complex, and simple changes in one place can reverberate who knows where. Look up Cobra effect/perverse incentives.
Also, regulatory capture is a thing. Corporations will lobby for law that looks "common sense" enough on paper, but will actually benefit corporations more at the cost of everyone else, and lawmakers just take the handout.
I find that the government screwing with it makes it worse.
They do something fixes that thing but breaks another 2.
Think of the housing bubble in the 90s.
Or just stop printing money
I have another: Proclaiming that certain political ideologies can save the world if we all agree to them. And this ideologies are not proven or outright inhumane.
This is not related to economy
@@leticiagraziele6428 Only two examples where politics intertwines with economics are Marxism and Facism.
@@leticiagraziele6428 yes. But some people think that politics and economy are the same thing.
@@leticiagraziele6428so communism is not related to the economy? Good to know politics don't impact the economy otherwise the USSR would be in big trouble!
All I'm going to say to that is the worst areas in the country with the most homeless are blue. The right may not be perfect but the right wasn't the people going around burning down buildings and smashing out windows last year
11:30 Ironically, it's the middle class with the nicest cars. Always having car payment is a sure fire way to never rise above the middle class. I'll refer back to the story about the couple that had payments for everything.
This is a great topic, helps provide some wakeup calls and misconceptions you could have.
Something to remember with the first one is in a lot of cases unless you’re working for a company that is having profits in the 8 figures plus year over year range you’re not goin to get a lot of wage upward growth. They simpler can’t afford to pay more without going out of business themselves and you loosing your job anyway. This is how rapid inflation like we’ve seen in the last couple of years further hurts because it really destroys small business that are operating on small margins and now their costs go up no counting payroll and when payroll goes up they often can’t survive.
"Things don't change overnight and certainly not with in one presidential term"
Winemark Germany, 1929 America, India and several african nations join the chat.
People supporting taxes on energy. Energy is the most fundamental input in every economy, so taxing energy adds friction to every aspect of the economy. In a closed system, this would cause everything to go up in price while wages remain flat. In an open system (a global economy), the added cost makes you uncompetitive, so the end result is widespread job loss.
I had a boss who said “Employees should do more work than what they are paid.” Imagine selling your product at less than what you paid for it? With that business model, you’d go under.
There's so much on here about going into a new tax bracket and how they think paying more tax will be a loss in benefits, but don't speak about those receiving government benefits from making too little and being below the poverty line.
My mom had to refuse several raises because unless it was several dollars an hour over what she made, the loss of government benefits would greatly outweigh the $0.20/h more she would make. At one point she had to quit her job because of a raise otherwise she'd be out nearly $300/m due to loss of food stamps, and living in low income housing making rent more expensive by several hundred. In essence low income benefits are designed to keep people at low income jobs. That's when denying a raise makes sense.
Okay, Story 11 does not understand why 401k's replaced pensions. The idea that companies will screw you over just so they will not have to pay into a pension is a lot more recent than people think. It began with McKinsey & Company pushing this crap, all under their belief that the only person(s) who matter are the company heads and/or the major shareholders (company heads may or may not also be major shareholders, but it is always the major shareholders that get prioritized above all).
The idea that the companies only invest in a pension after 20-30 years is another lie pushed by McKinsey. Are there companies that do this? Yeah, but again, blame McKinsey for making this the case. Historically, pensions started building from the beginning of employment. The rate of buildup could always change, but by and large, it would always be there. The flipside is that even if you were able to draw from it after leaving the company, the earlier you left, the less there was to draw from, hence people staying 20, 30, 40, 50, 60+ years.
Pensions, like 401k's, get built up by both the company and the employee, so as far as costs go, they are the same, at least on paper. In practice, they are vastly different. While a pension could be lost/taken away by the company in question, those that do offer and maintain pensions usually have guardrails (e.g. unions) against any BS that could be pulled towards this. None of these safeties that exist for you, the employee, with pensions exist with 401k's.
While the pension relies solely on employee and company contributions in order to grow, 401k's play the stock market. Yes, pensions rely on the company continuing to exist in order for them to continue to exist themselves, but otherwise, that is _your_ money. 401k's get invested in the stock market, and if there is any sort of downturn in the stock market, that "investment" gets wiped out. Worse, there is a chance that your 401k will be tied to a criminal organization. You hear those stories about retirement plans being tied to rather shady, if not outright criminal, businesses and dealings? Yup, 401k's. Companies love pushing 401k's because 1) they take a cut - and often a bigger one than yours - of any stock payouts your 401k gets, 2) any money they contribute to your 401k was money they were going to put into the stock market anyway, and 3) if anything goes wrong, they can just shift the blame away from them and onto someone/something else, usually the stock market.
That's it. That's why 401k's replaced pensions: because they are "better" for major shareholders. It had absolutely nothing to do with helping you, the peon, the actual revenue generator.
Can a 401k work? Yes. Can it work well? In some cases, sure. Are they all-around better than pensions? F^^^ no, they ain't.
Watching people by lottery tickets.
Could you elaborate on that? Lottery tickets don't cost much, so as long as you don't get addicted, the loss should be neglegable.
@@marcopohl4875 The negligible amounts if invested instead add up to a substantial amount. A lottery ticket bought last month is still worth nothing. A stock purchase forr the same amount, rerely becomes worthless, and often becomes worth more, and sometimes pays dividends quarter after quarter. Put it into a spread sheet and track the amounts. My tickets invested are now paying me 1300 per month paid quarterly in dividends and are worth over 200,000K. How much do you spend on lottery tickets in a week? Lottery tickets are fixed price. The stock market has occasional fire sales. Example, bought pipeline stock in April 2020 for about 90% off. Paid $5.42 per share of WES. Price closed on Friday at 38.40. The stock now pays 3.50 annually, paid quarterly. What do your lottery tickets do you bought in 2020? Mine refund me the cost in under 2 years every year.
People tell me "You can't win it if you're not in it". I tell them I don't get dividends on dollars lost in the lottery.
One thing about marginal tax rate is that depending where you live, it can really make it so working a bunch of overtime doesn't really make any sense. If your first dollar is taxed at 0%, but your last dollar is taxed near 50%, then working at time and a half you're making a lot less money and the state is getting a lot more money than you'd imagine.
Explaining marginal taxes to people is just horrible. People do NOT understand it.
The dumbest one I saw on "till debt do us part" was a couple who had five loans at around 25% each. They "did the math" and realized that they were paying 125% interest, so they got a consolidation loan at 30%. Shocked that this didn't work, they called Gail for help, and she asked if they were stupid.
The taxes one is only half correct. Most payroll systems, make your tax deductions based on 'estimated annual outcome'.
what this means is, if you make 500$ on a paycheck, the payroll system will tax you based on your previous paychecks, and the current one, and predict your wages as staying at 500$ per check.
So when your next check comes in, with 500$, plus 500$ in overtime, it will tax your check as if every paycheck from that point forward, will be 1,000$.
What happens with this, is you end up over paying on your taxes, and then you have to get the IRS to agree that you were over taxed, and include that in your tax return.
I make 120k year, working in pathology. My first year at this income range, my entire income was taxed at the 100k bracket level, and not in the tiers it should have been (it happens automatically, and the IRS dictates this to be the 'best' system). I've been fighting with the IRS since, to get my over paid taxes returned to me, because my entire income was taxed at 22%, for every pay week.
While technically, yes, you are supposed to be taxed at a rate, until you hit the next tier, this rarely happens, which is why people can say "They took 50% of my pay in taxes" and not be lying, despite a lot of internet tax lawyers saying its just their own spending habits.
For example, ill use my 2023 gross, and my 2023 tax withholdings.
Gross: 123,789
Fed: 27,233
State: 23,519
This is not even including my SS and Medicare withholdings. This is what is on my W2 tax statement. Every year, i have to hire a tax lawyer, at about 18k per year, to fight for my full tax refund due to this glaring oversight in the current system.
Not knowing what a credit score is a sign.
Living paycheck to paycheck is a sign as well.
I’d say being obsessed with your credit score is almost as bad as not knowing what it is. If you’re constantly checking it and micromanaging how to increase it, you’re probably way too accustomed to taking on debt.
As well, people can intuitively feel that there's something wrong with government numbers on a lot of things. The unemployment rate claims to be at 50 year lows, but people know that doesn't feel right, because it isn't. The labor force participation rate peaked decades ago, and besides that the labor force participation rate for able-bodied men is about half what it was at its peak 50 years ago. Moreover, the character of employment is much different. 50% of GDP is government spending, where 100 years ago that number was 10%.
Spending $80,000 to $120,000 for a huge, overpowered battering ram (SUV or pickup). Financing after market add-ons, like spinning rims, sound systems, spoilers, engine mods, etc. Buying lots and lots and lots of "fast fashion" trash from TEMU or Shein which is good for wearing once and then all it is fit for is a landfill. Eating out for every meal, or almost every meal. Not understanding how marginal tax rates work, how banking works, how the stock market works.
Story 1: Even if deflation did happen, prices wouldn't go down because the companies producing the products want to make more money. All deflation would do to them is increase their profit margins on their $11 sandwich.
That $11 sandwich is never going to be an $8 sandwich ever again.
Wages need to match inflation. It really is the only way.
That’s only if things are so regulated that there is no competition. There’s a town near me with one grocery store and their prices are insane go one town over(15 minute drive) that exact chains prices at half as much as the first town. The only difference is there’s dozens of grocery stores both chains and local to compete with. The only reason town one has one store is the first selectman and won’t give permits for another grocer
With credit cards, always pay the statement balance by the due date. That way you avoid interest, but get all the points and rewards. My wife and I make about $200.00 a month following this very simple formula.
I know of someone who thinks that my neighbor is the richest person in the world and thinks that he could have of cured his dog who had a tumor in his dog maby for 5cents to $5 or maby it would be so easy to do it himself although someone else also seems to think that as well if you are working it is a lot easier to take your dog to the vet than to if you’re not working also my neighbor has one leg so it is not easy for him to hobble around anyway. They think they are a little miss know it all but they don’t know it all.
Cosmetic purchases that you can't afford it a big really worrying one. There are lots, but the dumber ones are not few in real life, and hurt more people's finances.
Thank you so much for your video.
Why do people forget about the inflation/pay raise paradox.
When inflation causes prices to jump up drastically:;paying more money for labor only increases costs, which increases prices and then labor and then prices and I think you get it.
The first one is only somewhat correct.
Yes when inflation returns to normal levels it wont mean prices decrease. But certain product's can and will because individual segments of inflation can decrease or go into deflation. Easiest example of that is fuel/gas/petrol. The market is very volatile.
But broadly using say cost of living in total, no the costs won't go back down.
His example of a 4x2 is really bad because there is a good chance it will come back down if fuel comes down as its value is partly affected by transport, but legislation could also increase it.
Certain areas almost certainly won't decrease, housing for example rarely if ever decreases and if it does it rarely is for long.
Financing, doesn't matter what you're Financing but paying nearly 3x the amount slowly over time for a single item is insanity and a scam.
Businesses like rent a center and Aaron's prey on poverty level people with their weekly/monthly payment plans.
Deflation is not bad, this is a stupid argument
Yes it is. It causes people to not spend money, which results in less revenue for businesses, which results in downsizing, which results in increased unemployment. It may be nice to have the value of your savings account slightly increase, but the long-term effects will not be quite as nice.
First guy doesn't understand economy.
The inflation one is spot on. I've had that exact same conversation with so many people and so.many just don't understand it.
In first story, saying that saving money is bad for economy is economic illiteracy too.
the problem with the benefits cliff is people KNOW taking it anyways better in the long term, but that doesent matter if it means they stop being able to afford the stuff they need to live and work in the short term, which is why its so ridiculous some people dont want to fix it because their afraid of "welfare queens" making to much, when in reality those same people are preventing them from becoming self sufficient even when they actively want to
Well consistent results from studies show less than 5% of welfare people are cheating or abusing the system. Personally I am happy to carry those, if allows the other 95% to get through tough times, and get back on their feet.
Caleb hammer 😎😎😎 narrator
Here's something I like to think about... the amount of people who are pissed about taxes because THEIR taxes are paying for something they don't agree with (I don't want my taxes to pay for all the military, it's overfunded! Or Why should my taxes go to paying for unemployed people?)
Okay... in that case... it's not.
Look... your taxes are a relatively small amount going into a government budget of multiple billions. "Your" money doesn't have a specific direction. It's just a pool that's divided up. Would you feel better if you thought that "Your" money was going towards something you DID approve of?
So fine then. YOUR taxes are going towards education, and your militant neighbor's is going to funding the military. Meanwhile your coworker who cares about what will happen when they retire has their taxes going into social security, and your political aunt's taxes are going into their politician's salary.
Your taxes aren't going in to anything specific, and if you don't want it going to something... then it's not. Someone else's is, and yours is going to fund things YOU want.
I would agree with you, if the U.S. wasn't in 40 Trillion in debt. Why should my Tax dollars be paying for charity half way across the world when U.S. Military Veterans are dying in mass because the V.A. sucks ass. Sorry to say, your argument becomes invalid because of that, and that's just 1 Example. I could also talk about how the ATF committed a no-knock raid and killed a Father and Husband because he sold a firearm privately (not to mention their general unconstitutional rule changes they keep trying to make), or how the Dept. of Education is literally wasting money on schools that are not improving while also getting 5X-20X more funding than other, more successful, schools. My Taxes are currently being wasted, and if it wasn't for the literal threat of prison or death, I would stop them immediately.
@@acid360delta7 Once again. YOUR taxes aren't. YOUR taxes are coming out of the vast pool into whatever it is you want it to fund. It's the taxes of those who care about overseas that are being wasted in your eyes.
The government decides how the pool is used, but if you think your money is being wasted, then I'm sorry but unless you're footing more than the entire government budget of the most expensive thing they're putting the money for or you don't want the government to have ANY money at ALL then it's probably not.
Which is a problem
Listen, the prices going up by 400% isn't inflation. inflation accounts for maybe 200%, but the prices are still double what they should be not due to inflation, but corporate greed.
First one: prices will go down when consumers stop paying them. Products and services cost what they cost because it is what the market is willing to bear.
Cost and prices are different. You are talking about supply and demand. Yes if demand drops prices will drop.
Oh no I don't expect prices to go down because inflation lowers
I expect them to go down because the companies are clearly price gouging and making record profits with record profit margins. This is something that needs government interference
A neck or face tattoo
Yeah. I have a full body tattoo from my elbows to my knees, but it doesn't touch my neck or face. Besides, it hurt enough going over my collar bone, I can't imagine what one on my forehead would feel like...
I don't think you were old enough in 2001 to understand deflation does happen when bubble pops. We actually see it every decade or so roughly, a soft reset. Every 20-25 we seem to have a major economic correction.
You are inaccurate in saying prices can't and won't go down.
Going to Amscot....
Story 2 isn't about the poor job lawmakers have done to articulate how marginal taxes work. Marginal taxes have been around for generations. Corporation taxes were far higher under Regan. What's new is the (dis)information age of motivated anti-tax lobbyists.
You know what shows real economic ignorance? People who believe that min wage laws will help the poor. One of the most well known mechanisms of every economy is supply and demand. Yet people refuse to use basic understanding of supply and demand when a price is called a wage.
Another big show of ignorance of economics is the laffer curve. It’s a fact that it exists but people still think that raising taxes will always bring in more money to the government and lowering taxes will cost the government revenue. It’s just a fact that tax revenue to the government increase with the Trump tax cuts. The fact that the deficit also increased when the government was raking in more money then expected is because the government is about the most insane way to spend money.
People who go around saying "it's basic economics!", as if there isn't more to economics. They tend to have contempt for intellectuals and colleges anyway.
"I can't lower my prices because I have to pay my employees a certain amount."
Two seconds later...
"If workers collectively demand to be paid more, wages will catch up with prices."
I agree that prices will never go down, we have to wait for wages to go up, but that won't stop inflation, it will only continue the cycle, reducing the value of savings accounts as it does. The best way to stop inflation is lift unnecessary regulations and to stop excessive government spending.
You voted for trump.
Hello! Do you have a discord?