vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I guess he's probably right when he says it's over 8 years since the last financial crash and that time has come to another crisis. It makes sense when you look at things through K-waves optic (in a short term sense).
"The graphing tools within Yahoo offer a decent level of adjustment. You can easily choose start and end years, and 2 or more symbols to compare.  I caution you. From Jan 1980 through Dec 2011, the S&P would have grown $1 to $29.02, (See Moneychimp) but, the index went up from 107.94 to 1257.60, growing a dollar to only $11.65. The index, and therefore the charts, do not include dividends. So long term analysis will yield false results if this isn't accounted for.  EDIT  - From the type of question this is, I'd suggest you might be interested in a book titled ""Stock Market Logic."" If memory serves me, it offered up patterns like you suggest, seasonal, relations to Presidential cycle, etc. I don't judge these approaches, I just recall this book exists from seeing it about 20 years back."
I will be messaging you on [**2021-09-15 15:26:20 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-09-15 15:26:20 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/708rox/alphabet_is_reportedly_considering_investing_1/dn1namt) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&amp;subject=Reminder&amp;message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/708rox/alphabet_is_reportedly_considering_investing_1/dn1namt]%0A%0ARemindMe! 4 years) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&amp;subject=Delete Comment&amp;message=Delete!
There are three numbers that matter in that calculation: 1) How much do you expect per month from in pension/social security/or other retirement programs? 2) At what age will each of you retire? 3) How long will each of you live? 4) What will your annual expenses be when you retire? Unfortunately #3 is the most important of the three and the hardest to know with any certainty.
"I can think of one major income source you didn't mention, dividends.  Rather than withdrawing from your pension pot, you can roll it over to a SIPP, invest it in quality dividend growth stocks, then (depending on your pension size) withdraw only the dividends to live on. The goal here is that you buy quality dividend growth stocks.   This will mean you rarely have to sell your investments, and can weather the ups and downs of the market in relative comfort, while using the dividends as your income to live off of.   The growth aspect comes into play when considering keeping up with inflation, or simply growing your income.   In effect, companies grow the size of their dividend payments and you use that to beat the effects of inflation. Meanwhile, you do get the benefit of principle growth in the companies you've invested in.   I don't know the history of the UK stock market, but the US market has averaged over 7% total return (including dividends) over the long term. A typical dividend payout is not much better than your annuity option though -- 3% to 4% is probably achievable.   Although, looking at the list of UK Dividend Champion list (companies that have grown their dividend for 25 years continuous), some of them have higher yields than that right now.   Though that might be a warning sign... BTW, given all the legal changes around buy-to-lets recently (increases stamp duty on purchase, reduction in mortgage interest deduction, increased paperwork burden due to ""right to rent"" laws, etc.) you want to check this carefully to make sure you're safe on forecasting your return."
If being gainfully employed while having my investments grow in value over the last five years makes me a fool then I'm glad to be one.  Thanks for sharing your opinion and contribution to reasonable discourse.
Somebody is getting really addicted to Dow highs and needs another hit. Damn it is going to hurt them when the Dow corrects like a motherfucker.  Invest in the value of a company, invest for the long haul. Don't chase a magical index value. The Dow can actually tank and smart investors can win *at the same time*.
It is a sad day indeed, for one of our own has decided to leave us. Let's honor threepeckeredgoat with a stroll down memory lane. The following links will lead you to /u/threepeckeredgoat's MVP moments in /r/economy.       __Top Commments__  + [Legal immigrants are fine for the countr...](/r/economy/comments/6rktvf/fewer_immigrants_mean_more_jobs_not_so_economists/dl66gfa) + [https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.28242645...](/r/economy/comments/6vaasl/donald_trump_national_debt_has_decreased_by_12/dm02dyy) + [Actually I do know what it takes. I watc...](/r/economy/comments/6rktvf/fewer_immigrants_mean_more_jobs_not_so_economists/dl6klkv) + [Yeah wtf... this does not seem like an e...](/r/economy/comments/6vksjl/us_stocks_fall_after_trump_threatens_government/dm1s5xu) + [You are correct, our founding fathers we...](/r/economy/comments/6vaasl/donald_trump_national_debt_has_decreased_by_12/dm1rbrh)   If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads
"tl;dr Gordon Ramsay is a Navy SEAL.   Honestly stupid article, Gordon Ramsay is successful because he is a TV celebrity and he parlayed his celebrity and access to millions of viewers worldwide into press for a chain of restaurant. Celebrity endorsement is a business strategy as old as consumerism. Nothing to do with what this blowhard lists on his blog.   I mean these are just absolute gems of insight.  &gt;""poor leadership is at the heart of every business problem"" &gt; &gt;""Passion is the fuel of excellence"" &gt; &gt;""Sugar-coating the truth is for suckers""  *slow clap* give this man an overpaid management consulting job pronto!"
Crystal Research and Technology - International Journal for Experimental and   Industrial Crystallography.  Describe your business and encourage people to   click on your link, like: We offer the best in modern design. Contact us for   a free consultation.  401k investments, Investment Advisors near Boston, Mutual funds
Will strongly vouch for this. Ray Dalio gives you the macro view in that video, while Ackman gives more of the micro view. Would highly recommend watching them both in the same sitting, particularly for somebody who is just entering their study of finance
I'm not familiar with it. However you might be interested in [Lords of Finance](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lords-Finance-Great-Depression-Bankers/dp/009949308X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1323967392&amp;sr=8-1). That's a history book about the economics and the central bankers of the Great Depression. It wasn't written with the current crisis in mind, but it covers what happened last time a similar situation arose, and the consequences of the decisions the central banks made. My guess is that after reading that, you're going to be as well informed as most economists. Also it's a very good read!
Yeah well, Wilbur Ross has serious credentials. He's a multi-billionaire who spent 24 years working for the Rothschilds.  He served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fun. He was the chair of the New York Democratic Party. He's spent most of his life in the investments and commerce sector as well as raising money for liberal causes. He just happened to flip Trump this time around.  So it's one of those scenarios where Trump appointed someone with the kind of chops that most people can't even compete with... if a guy of this caliber gets the numbers wrong, it's an outlier.
Your text has remainded me of this quote:  “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”  Keynes (I dont usually cite Keynes, but when he is right he is right)
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/talkbusiness] [TPG Capital Hires Former Ford Motor CEO](https://np.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/789mzj/tpg_capital_hires_former_ford_motor_ceo/)  [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*  [](#bot)
"I knew before I clicked that this was going to refer to Saez. I don't mean to disparage his scholarship, but he's clearly a guy with an agenda. For example, the reason this number is so outrageous is because 2010 was a *terrific* year for the stock market, and a middling to bad year for employment and wage growth. Stocks tend to be a leading indicator, while job growth is a trailing one. In fact, Saez also tries to make hay by comparing the first two years of this ""recovery"" with the entirety of the (much longer) '90's and '00's booms. If you target your analysis at years when the market has recovered but jobs haven't, of course you'll see greater income gains for the investor class.  But by that same token, Saez could have been putting out press releases for studies in 2008 showing how the rich were getting absolutely screwed by losing the lion's share of their income as the market tanked, while ordinary folks were perhaps losing only a little because the full force of job losses hadn't hit yet. But he didn't, AFAIK."
Morningstar has that 10 history at http://financials.morningstar.com/ratios/r.html?t=JNJ&region=usa&culture=en-US
"Yeah, I saw a similar article back in 1976 (and several times since).  But then they used the correct word ""exponential"" to refer to growth.  Ironically the author may end up being correct by using ""parabolic"" -- which is the type of curve you see with ""bubbles"", as the slow towards the peak and then begin descending with increased rapidity on the other side.  And (alas) solar electric power generation placements are very likely to follow THAT curve -- as the investments fail to pay off, people begin to realize that (despite the claims) it is *not* a viable long-term base of power-generation, and so begin to not only reduce investment, but to abandon and even scrap projects as the long term costs mount."
There is the iShares Jantzi Social Index Fund.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://voxeu.org/article/ideas-aren-t-running-out-they-are-getting-more-expensive-find) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; More than 20 times as many researchers are needed today to generate about the same amount of productivity growth as 80 years ago.  &gt; The input required to do this - the number of researchers required - is today more than 18 times larger than the number required in the early 1970s.  &gt; These days, pushing the frontier of knowledge out requires mastering an ever-larger body of knowledge, meaning that students have to stay longer in university, and researchers increasingly work in larger teams whose members are more specialised.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72exha/research_ideas_arent_running_out_but_they_are/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~216408 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **research**^#1 **growth**^#2 **productivity**^#3 **measure**^#4 **idea**^#5"
Something something old people retiring something something ignore the 18-25 205+ unemployment rate something something THE ECONOMY IS RECOVERING BLAH BLAH BLAH  *Decreasing participation rates can also be the result of perfectly natural phenomena such as people leaving the labor force so they can go to college/graduate school, raise small children at home or retire. Furman said these phenomena, particularly the boomers’ retirements, are responsible for participation rate’s dip more than anything else.*  This article is trying to piss on me and tell me it's raining: first, it was snow/weather hindering the economy. Now, it's all going according to plan since old people are retiring. If this jackass Googled unemployment rates for 18-26 he'd realize how ignorant or stupid he was. Just waitin for that Student Loan bubble to pop to watch this so called recovery come crashing down.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/09/the_macroeconom_1.html) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; It seems to me that even if Christiano is completely correct about the lessons of the Great Recession, his claim still represents a major indictment of the macroeconomic profession, particularly at its most elite levels.  &gt; We gradually learned that the original consensus view of the Great Depression was wrong.  &gt; New month I will attend a conference in DC, feature lots of members of the macroeconomic elite It will be very interesting to observe how their view of the current situation compares to the original standard view of the Great Depression.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72mh8j/the_macroeconomic_elite_is_definitely_wrong_about/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~216996 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Great**^#1 **depression**^#2 **Recession**^#3 **view**^#4 **macroeconomic**^#5"
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/top-1-of-households-in-uk-fully-recovered-from-financial-crisis) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; New research from the Resolution Foundation showed that households with incomes of &amp;pound;275,000 or more quickly recovered from the impact of the deep recession and have seen their share of national income return to the level seen before the global banking system froze up in the summer of 2007.  &gt; &amp;quot;Adam Corlett, senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said:&amp;quot;The incomes of the top 1% took a short, sharp hit following the financial crisis.  &gt; The share of national disposable income for the richest 1% of households rose steadily after Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979 and reached a peak of 8.5% on the eve of the financial crisis.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6njstj/top_1_of_households_in_uk_fully_recovered_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~167774 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **income**^#1 **year**^#2 **election**^#3 **Foundation**^#4 **standards**^#5"
Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-closing-of-the-jobs-gap-a-decade-of-recession-and-recovery/) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The average rate of recovery in the jobs gap after the trough of the Great Recession was 116 thousand jobs per month, and it took 89 months to close the gap.  &gt; The recessions of 1981 and 1990 involved smaller and briefer jobs gaps, with recovery to the demographically adjusted, pre-recession employment rate after 40 and 48 months, respectively.  &gt; The 2001 recession saw a more gradual decline in jobs, and a slower recovery; the jobs gap from the 2001 recession did not close before the Great Recession started.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6s3z53/the_jobs_gap_has_closed/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~185011 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **employment**^#1 **gap**^#2 **rate**^#3 **job**^#4 **Recession**^#5"
"I think the point is that if people took all the time they spent on parenting, and used that time instead to suck up to their boss and get promotions, then that's where the 900k figure comes from.  The whole article is about refuting the 300k number that the government came up with because it doesn't take ""forgone income"" into account.  *""USDA economist Mark Lino, chief author of the annual study, acknowledges the report excludes college and forgone income.""*  Seems to me like a sad attempt to justify this guy's lifestyle :  https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/disregard_females.jpg"
"Seriously. I've been in nonprofit for 8 years. I just reentered the market after two years of grad school and was shocked. Full time 40 hours a week program managers listed under ""Americore programs"" offering $1,000 a month as a stipend, with Masters degree to qualify. Those jobs were $30 -$50,000+ five years ago and that was on the low end. The level of job rebranding in this market is unbelievable. Employers should be ashamed.  The same with ""internships"". I really believe labor laws need to start regulating this practice."
"The S&P 500 index from 1974 to present certainly looks exponential to me (1974 is the earliest data Google has).  If you read Jeremy Siegel's book there are 200 year stock graphs and the exponential nature of returns on stocks is even more evident.  This graph only shows the index value and does not include the dividends that the index has been paying all these years.  There is no doubt stocks have grown exponentially (aka have grown with compound interest) for the past several decades and compounded returns is definitely not a ""myth"".  The CAGR on the S&P 500 index from 1974 to present has been 7.54%: (1,783 / 97.27) ^ (1 / 40) - 1 Here is another way to think about compounded investment growth: when you use cash flow from investments (dividends, capital gains) to purchase more investments with a positive growth rate, the investment portfolio will grow exponentially.  If you own a $100 stock that pays 10% dividends per year and spend the dividends every year without reinvesting them, then the investment portfolio will still be worth $100 after 40 years.  If the dividends are reinvested, the investment portfolio will be worth $4,525 after 40 years from the many years of exponential growth: 100*(1 + 10%)^40"
I'd agree with you on the fed policy but ucla should definitely have professors making &gt;&gt; $200k.  Professors at those schools tend to be phds with several years experience and several post docs. They're literally worldwide experts there. Some of them should be worth millions to the university.
A few things, OP.  1.  Begging for expertise is self-limiting.   Oh, and you want sources?  Get bent.  2.  I've worked with Dell, in a vendor-based arrangement for the better part of a decade, on everything from workstation to datacenter projects.   My billing rate is $290/hour.    IM me if you're interested.  3.  Here are the buzzwords to drop for your class.  'Cloud-based infrastructure',  'IT as a commodity',  'Consumer-driven IT',  'Utility Computing', etc.  4.  Read the news lately?   Heard about any technology companies having problems.... maybe... something weather related?
The two do not imply that they are connected. The statement above states that there are plenty of people who graduated and are around 21-25. Then the next statement explains that people who graduated make 100k+ - it doesnt mean they are 21-25.....it just means they achieved two objectives at separate times.
That's not cheap in my book, either.  Haven't flown in awhile and wondered about prices.  Going back to Dec 2013, the returns on the stocks of United, Delta, and AA are in the [double-digits](http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&amp;chdd=1&amp;chds=1&amp;chdv=1&amp;chvs=maximized&amp;chdeh=0&amp;chfdeh=0&amp;chdet=1407799434687&amp;chddm=65688&amp;chls=IntervalBasedLine&amp;cmpto=NYSE:UAL;NYSE:DAL&amp;cmptdms=0;0&amp;q=NASDAQ:AAL&amp;ntsp=0&amp;ei=J1DpU7iZKcSyiAKN7IGoCA), so they're definitely not having a rough time on this basis.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/decades-pushing-bachelors-degrees-u-s-needs-tradespeople/) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; In California&amp;#039;s community colleges it&amp;#039;s dropped to 28 percent from 31 percent since 2000, contributing to a shortage of trained workers with more than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor&amp;#039;s degree.  &gt; If a region needs respiratory therapists, for example, community colleges will be able to avoid some of the red tape that previously hampered their flexibility to train new therapists.  &gt; Some on the industry side of the equation say that while colleges should have spent the past few decades building tighter bonds with local companies, those companies share the blame for vocational education&amp;#039;s tattered reputation.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6x97ep/after_decades_of_pushing_bachelors_degrees_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~202084 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **college**^#1 **education**^#2 **work**^#3 **vocational**^#4 **school**^#5"
[A level grades are less than 35% of the grading distribution at Princeton](https://odoc.princeton.edu/faculty-staff/grading-princeton). And, [0.4% of people attending college attend an Ivy league school](https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/09/06/20-surprising-higher-education-facts). We'll round that up to 1% to take into account schools like Stanford, Duke, etc. that are close to Ivy League level but aren't called Ivy League. So, 35% of 1% is 0.35%. Goldman is recruiting from literally the top 1%.   There's nothing special about making a 3.5. There *is* something special about being in the top third of a university that accepts the top 1% of applicants. To suggest otherwise is to bleed ignorance.