Isn’t it though? If my choice is to pay 200% of the value of the property annually or to not have insurance, why would I opt to have insurance? The best they could do is pay out less than I paid them.

If you don’t cap prices on something the insurer is expecting to be destroyed, wouldn’t they just set the price of the policy to be the price of the thing it insures, effectively making it worthless?

You’d pay about $12 on mass transit ($2.90 PATH and $2.90 MTA in each direction), and the reasons for the government to incentivize one versus the other are numerous, not the least of which are safety, noise, air quality, and efficiency.

It only takes one asshole in a crowded subway car to ruin it for everyone. I like to read on the subway, but they’re basically telling me that if I want to drown out their tiktok videos, I need to bring something with me with my own audio to listen to over headphones, just to not hear them.

It’s quite useful in the one part of the country where the service is good: the Northeast Corridor. It makes traveling by plane downright stupid in a lot of cases. If only more of country’s rail were even that good, which isn’t even a high bar to clear.

He’s asked all sorts of people to do all sorts of terrible things, and though some stood in his way, usually tendering their resignation in doing so, I think that’s reason enough to take it very seriously. There are supporters of his who absolutely seriously suggest instating him as president permanently, and with control of every branch of government, there’s opportunity to do so.

This community only believes the news when it’s bad.

What you might call a memo, I’d call a poor explanation to confirm your biases. Do some reading on how economists came to their conclusions, and you’ll see why we arrived at an ideal environment of some low inflation. If economics reporters were only serving at the behest of billionaires, we’re in an age of unprecedented access to information, and economics is almost entirely math. If someone wanted to be a whistleblower and show the math to back it up, it would have gone viral by now, and that still would have to contradict a working model of reality that makes sense for what we all understand about inflation. There will always be some percentage of people who don’t thrive in whatever our economic conditions are, and that sucks, but I don’t think anyone’s been able to show a system where we can save literally everyone, because as human beings, our flaws tend to get in the way of that. Still, that low amount of inflation tends to be the best we can do.

We have history that we can learn from where we’ve had deflation and could observe the effects. The wealthy are the ones not buying products in deflationary environments, or otherwise big ticket purchases for the rest of us. Those big purchases involve a lot of money changing hands, but above and beyond that, there’s also a lack of capital investment, because the investor has no incentive to do anything except to put their money under their mattress, once again not circulating it. If there’s constant low inflation, the investor is guaranteed to lose money keeping it under their mattress but has a good chance at making more money by investing it into companies who use it to hire people and produce things that people want to spend money on.

Do you think that every article written about inflation just happens to forget that prices are still rising? Or do you think there’s a reason there are basically no economists anywhere arguing that deflation is what we should have instead?

They’re not missing it at all. In normal circumstances, we’ve always got some low amount of inflation. If prices fell, we’d have an entirely different and much worse set of issues.

If you put your money in index funds, you can expect it to beat inflation by about 7-8% on average, especially over the course of a decades-long working career. It’s usually not worth it to ever look at the non-adjusted projected value.

I feel like if he were a user, he’d have been caught by now, and losing a brother (iirc) to addiction is a solid enough reason to expect sobriety of him.

Everything I’ve heard about Trump is that he’s straight edged. No drugs or alcohol.

Cable companies still did the same practice too though, and even the ones that weren’t cable providers still negotiated with the providers that if you got channel A in this tier of service, you must also get channel B, and then Disney brings in a certain amount of money per channel in a given bundle every month. No matter how you slice it, even with the problems above, what we’ve got now is better.

It just makes economic sense.

The data suggests a sharp shift in consumer behavior — far from the cable era, when viewers largely stuck with a single provider, as well as the early days of the so-called streaming wars, when people kept adding services without culling or jumping around.

Yeah, turns out when the monopolies are eliminated, people get more competition and a better deal on the consumer end. It’s why I’ll never understand people who say streaming services became as bad as cable.

One option for slowing the churn, executives think, is to bring back some element of the cable bundle by selling streaming services together. Executives believe consumers would be less inclined to cancel a package that offered services from multiple companies.

No, I’m less likely to cancel a service that’s worth what you charge for it. Be happy you got one month out of me, and if you want more, offer me more value. Putting serialized shows out week by week doesn’t do it for me either, because I’m just going to wait until the season is done to start watching it anyway.

Price sensitivity is also a factor. Americans with a streaming subscription are spending an average of $61 a month for four services, an increase from $48 a year ago, according to a new study by Deloitte. The increase was due to higher prices, not additional services. Nearly half the people surveyed said they would cancel their favorite streaming service if monthly prices went up another $5, the study said.

Mystery solved.

At least it’ll take tons of cars off the road for those common use cases.

Garnish your wages, tank your credit (which usually only matters when you decide to borrow more money, but it also comes up whenever you apply to rent a new apartment, for instance), continue to make 3% of every transaction you make even with a debit card.

So I suppose maybe if I denied myself and my child every pleasure in life, sure, I could put money in a 401(k).

But that’s unproductive hyperbole. Not every pleasure in life costs money, and lots of things you spend money on can be optimized. And even after doing that, if you still feel too squeezed, it might be worth considering a career change and a plan for how to get there.

I’m a programmer.

I’ve worked from home for the past 10 years as well, and the face to face meetings don’t do anything for me, personally. With a job done entirely on a computer, I can’t think of anything that works better in person.