EVs - New Hampshire gets it right

[icecoast1]

Social Security is an insurance program, not a retirement/pension plan. If the funds were in the stock market they would be subject to sequencing issues. As an example, the SP 500 lost about 60% of its value from its peak in Oct, 2007, until it bottomed out Mar, 2009. The SS fund still paid out during this entire time. The fund would have been taken a huge hit that it would not have recovered from if it had been invested in the stock market while continuing to pay out to beneficiaries. The SS Fund cannot be subject to the risks of the stock market.

SS was created to reduce poverty of the elderly in the 1930s. Roughly 50% of the elderly lived below the poverty level in 1935. The number is now around 10%. This is a good thing. If SS did not exist, welfare would have been paying and that comes out of the US General Fund. The money would come from somewhere. Currently, SS is the largest portion of income for 60 percent of households age 65 and older.

Around 9% of SS payments are survivors benefits and around 13% are disability payments.

There are multiple reasons for the impending deficits. There are the ones we all hear about like not enough workers and people living longer. But there are some others that remain off the radar.
1. SS started paying out before it was funded. The initial group receiving benefits paid zero or very little into the fund while they were receiving benefits. This legacy debt has never been paid off.
2. When Reagan and the Congress raised the tax amount taken from wages for SS and made full retirement 67 in the early 1980s, the SS fund became loaded with $$$. Reagan and Congress proceeded to borrow the money to fund the US government while leaving IOUs in the fund. The IOUs have interest attached to them, but there is much debate about level. Other Presidents and Congresses have also used the SS fund.
3. Wage stagnation among lower-income workers over the past forty years means that the wage base subject to the payroll tax, the primary source of funding for Social Security, is not as large as it should be. Adding to the this, less people are getting overtime due to the misclassification of their jobs. The largest wage growth over the last 40 years happens to be above the SS wage cutoff ($160,200 this year).

Here is the article were most of this info comes from. It is an interesting read.

Social Security Is Essential. So Why Do Some Want to Cut It?

Members of Congress are once again discussing possible cuts to Social Security as they contemplate increases to the debt limit. Instead of viewing Social

tcf.org

The market recovered after the recession of 2008. If you weren't stupid enough to pull everything out or try to time the market, your savings didn't disappear. And you still would have much greater returns than SS.

As far as not being able to pay out, even if true, I'm sure the government would have been creative enough to print money or add to the deficit in some way so that people still got their money

 

[Smellytele]

Social Security is an insurance program, not a retirement/pension plan. If the funds were in the stock market they would be subject to sequencing issues. As an example, the SP 500 lost about 60% of its value from its peak in Oct, 2007, until it bottomed out Mar, 2009. The SS fund still paid out during this entire time. The fund would have been taken a huge hit that it would not have recovered from if it had been invested in the stock market while continuing to pay out to beneficiaries. The SS Fund cannot be subject to the risks of the stock market.

SS was created to reduce poverty of the elderly in the 1930s. Roughly 50% of the elderly lived below the poverty level in 1935. The number is now around 10%. This is a good thing. If SS did not exist, welfare would have been paying and that comes out of the US General Fund. The money would come from somewhere. Currently, SS is the largest portion of income for 60 percent of households age 65 and older.

Around 9% of SS payments are survivors benefits and around 13% are disability payments.

There are multiple reasons for the impending deficits. There are the ones we all hear about like not enough workers and people living longer. But there are some others that remain off the radar.
1. SS started paying out before it was funded. The initial group receiving benefits paid zero or very little into the fund while they were receiving benefits. This legacy debt has never been paid off.
2. When Reagan and the Congress raised the tax amount taken from wages for SS and made full retirement 67 in the early 1980s, the SS fund became loaded with $$$. Reagan and Congress proceeded to borrow the money to fund the US government while leaving IOUs in the fund. The IOUs have interest attached to them, but there is much debate about level. Other Presidents and Congresses have also used the SS fund.
3. Wage stagnation among lower-income workers over the past forty years means that the wage base subject to the payroll tax, the primary source of funding for Social Security, is not as large as it should be. Adding to the this, less people are getting overtime due to the misclassification of their jobs. The largest wage growth over the last 40 years happens to be above the SS wage cutoff ($160,200 this year).

Here is the article were most of this info comes from. It is an interesting read.

Social Security Is Essential. So Why Do Some Want to Cut It?

Members of Congress are once again discussing possible cuts to Social Security as they contemplate increases to the debt limit. Instead of viewing Social

tcf.org

1935 was in the middle of the depression and probably 50% of everyone were below the poverty line

 

[MadPadraic]

I would like you to expound upon this claim.

The batteries are heavy, and I'm given to understand that the dual motors are very good for AWD performance.

 

[deadheadskier]

The biggest issue I have with investing SS withholdings in the S&P 500 isn't the volatility of the market, it's the unfair competitive business environment such a maneuver would create.

I get what a sound strategy it is for the individual investor. I'm heavily invested in the S&P 500 personally.
However, does Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet etc. near the top of the S&P really need tens of billions more in investment all funded by government redistribution? If you were a publicly traded company outside of the 500, how would you feel seeing your competition getting all this government money while you get zilch? And that's only talking about publicly traded companies, which is less than 1% of businesses in the country. What about the 99% of firms that are privately held? Many of them are trying to compete against these publicly traded titans.

 

[BodeMiller1]

It cost from $10,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery on a Tesla. It seems like a lot of money because it is.

The days of following the rules for a 401K and expecting to retire comfortably on that and Social Secuiry are long gone.

DHS by 1% I believe you're talking about number of companies and not the market value or net asset value.

Market Value and Net Asset Value can be very different. especially in todays world.

The unmoved mover OUT

 

[zyk]

It cost from $10,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery on a Tesla. It seems like a lot of money because it is.

The days of following the rules for a 401K and expecting to retire comfortably on that and Social Secuiry are long gone.

DHS by 1% I believe you're talking about number of companies and not the market value or net asset value.

Market Value and Net Asset Value can be very different. especially in todays world.

The unmoved mover OUT

That's concerning for those of us that keep cars for a long time. Currently have a hybrid and believe the batteries last a long time but replacement cost is a concern. Also it is good in the snow but I think lacks a differential lock. Not sure how that works.

Having gotten beat back during the tech crash (yes I was young and dumb) I've been offsetting the wife's 401k with t bills, i bonds, precious metals, and hard assets.

 

[deadheadskier]

Yes Bode. Number of firms, not market value. Basically my stance is using the S&P 500 as the investment vehicle for SS offers a massive advantage to the Wall Street Titans over lesser companies. It's the government picking favorites

 

[Smellytele]

It cost from $10,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery on a Tesla. It seems like a lot of money because it is.

The days of following the rules for a 401K and expecting to retire comfortably on that and Social Secuiry are long gone.

DHS by 1% I believe you're talking about number of companies and not the market value or net asset value.

Market Value and Net Asset Value can be very different. especially in todays world.

The unmoved mover OUT

Scientists shed new light on critical issue facing battery components in EVs: ‘The whole field has been misled’

To help visualize the problem, the experts likened this process to a river eroding its banks.

www.yahoo.com

 

[kbroderick]

It cost from $10,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery on a Tesla. It seems like a lot of money because it is.

What's the time and mileage line expectation before it needs the battery replaced?

How does that compare to normal maintenance on a comparably priced ICE vehicle over the same timeframe?

 

[1dog]

What's the time and mileage line expectation before it needs the battery replaced?

How does that compare to normal maintenance on a comparably priced ICE vehicle over the same timeframe?

This is my main point, they WANT it because it's rightfully THEIR money, but that's conflating the issue with "liking" it. So the simple "like" question gets overexpressed faultily, which is why what I posted regarding people's expectations & belief in the program demonstrates their true feelings. Hell, I HATE Social Security and think it is literally the worst major program in our nation's history, and every I would "like" it to make me whole (even if I know it's a pipe dream).

Similar thread/narrative - New Jersey's teacher pension program is theoretically like finding a cache of gold bars. My wife is a teacher. It keeps people who would LOVE to leave New Jersey from doing to because they believe they would be forfeiting a king's ransom in 15 or 20 or 30 years. I am not a teacher, I am someone who has made his life doing financial, healthcare, and demographics modeling (it's actually even more boring than it sounds). I am 99.999999999999999999999999% certain that State of New Jersey will not be able to make people remotely whole, and this definitely factored into our willingness to recently flee the state. I have friends in similar situations who would love to leave, but wont because of their "State of New Jersey Guaranteed Pension". God be with you!


What I've learned over the years is that most people do not understand what the true mechanics are underlying a Ponzi Scheme, and so they misuse that term for all sorts of financial crimes which are indeed crimes, but not Ponzi Schemes. Social Security, however, is the rare example which is literally a textbook Ponzi Scheme, but legal since it has government approval.

If governments -fed in particular-followed GAAP rules they’d be shut down- everyone knows it- yet SEC FINRA and everyone else holds private industry to these principles.



Last I checked Illinois has the largest per capita debt for public pensions- digging deeper daily.

On a strange EV note ( where the hell does this fit in this string?)
Was listening to last weeks interview w Elon on Rogans show.

He stated emphatically that 100 square miles of solar would electrify the US.

Now I like a lot of things he’s done lately- free speech and Star Link the main ones-but that can’t possibly be true.
If it was, why wouldn’t the worlds richest purchase a square or two and load it up?

Now I’m sure they were smoking a bong- but still.

 

[cdskier]

On a strange EV note ( where the hell does this fit in this string?)
Was listening to last weeks interview w Elon on Rogans show.

He stated emphatically that 100 square miles of solar would electrify the US.

Now I like a lot of things he’s done lately- free speech and Star Link the main ones-but that can’t possibly be true.
If it was, why wouldn’t the worlds richest purchase a square or two and load it up?

Now I’m sure they were smoking a bong- but still.

Elon first made that claim almost a decade ago at this point. He's not necessarily wrong either, although he also wasn't actually advocating building a single large solar farm. He was merely illustrating that overall solar wouldn't necessarily need as much space as people think it does. Building a single solar farm would be incredibly inefficient from a logistics, storage, and distribution perspective.

There's a lot of variables and different experts have come up with different numbers. Some support his claim (like this one: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015...s-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/) while others state the numbers are off a bit (because it doesn't account for components required in the system beyond the panels themselves or because efficiency numbers vary, etc). Here's another article that delves more deeply into the topic - https://www.inverse.com/innovation/...ted-states-entirely-on-solar-has-one-key-flaw

And the conclusion of that 2nd article raises a key point. There's no "need" to go to 100% solar anyway. There are many other renewable options that can be utilized together.

 

[ss20]

Yes Bode. Number of firms, not market value. Basically my stance is using the S&P 500 as the investment vehicle for SS offers a massive advantage to the Wall Street Titans over lesser companies. It's the government picking favorites

No no no no. Dump it all in Ford stock. 100%. You'll become a millionaire like Bode

 

[BenedictGomez]

The biggest issue I have with investing SS withholdings in the S&P 500 isn't the volatility of the market, it's the unfair competitive business environment such a maneuver would create.

I get what a sound strategy it is for the individual investor. I'm heavily invested in the S&P 500 personally.
However, does Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet etc. near the top of the S&P really need tens of billions more in investment all funded by government redistribution? If you were a publicly traded company outside of the 500, how would you feel seeing your competition getting all this government money while you get zilch? And that's only talking about publicly traded companies, which is less than 1% of businesses in the country. What about the 99% of firms that are privately held? Many of them are trying to compete against these publicly traded titans.

When you purchase a share of MSFT, AAPL, AMZN or GOOG, the company isn't "getting" the money, so if SS dollars were put into stocks the businesses wouldn't be "getting all this government money" while those outside the S&P500 and/or private companies get "zilch".

The only time a publicly traded company gets money from the purchase of stock is on the IPO day (or during a follow-on offering, but that's getting into the weeds).

 

[1dog]

Elon first made that claim almost a decade ago at this point. He's not necessarily wrong either, although he also wasn't actually advocating building a single large solar farm. He was merely illustrating that overall solar wouldn't necessarily need as much space as people think it does. Building a single solar farm would be incredibly inefficient from a logistics, storage, and distribution perspective.

There's a lot of variables and different experts have come up with different numbers. Some support his claim (like this one: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015...s-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/) while others state the numbers are off a bit (because it doesn't account for components required in the system beyond the panels themselves or because efficiency numbers vary, etc). Here's another article that delves more deeply into the topic - https://www.inverse.com/innovation/...ted-states-entirely-on-solar-has-one-key-flaw

And the conclusion of that 2nd article raises a key point. There's no "need" to go to 100% solar anyway. There are many other renewable options that can be utilized together.

It's impossible and so expensive, damaging to the environment, the poorest people of the world would be unable to afford power. This:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...d-solar-get-any-cheaper-well-all-go-broke.php
And this:
Cliffs:

…analysis shows the cost of the required battery storage still nearly equals the $23 trillion annual American GDP. The likely cost would be many times GDP. Clearly this is economically impossible.

Love to be wrong. Paid $3.11 for gas this weekend.

 

[deadheadskier]

When you purchase a share of MSFT, AAPL, AMZN or GOOG, the company isn't "getting" the money, so if SS dollars were put into stocks the businesses wouldn't be "getting all this government money" while those outside the S&P500 and/or private companies get "zilch".

The only time a publicly traded company gets money from the purchase of stock is on the IPO day (or during a follow-on offering, but that's getting into the weeds).

I mean sure, but there would still be a major advantage to these companies that those on the outside looking in would not receive. The market cap of the 500 would all skyrocket with THAT much (free) money invested in their shares every year. Investment would still continue to occur year after year no matter if the market is down. Where as a consumer making transactional purchases of these index funds might stay on the sidelines. Not uncle Sam though. He simply continues to collect SS taxes every year and keep on plowing the money into the market making the big companies even bigger.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure how this idea passes anti-trust laws.

 

[cdskier]

It's impossible and so expensive, damaging to the environment, the poorest people of the world would be unable to afford power. This:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...d-solar-get-any-cheaper-well-all-go-broke.php
And this:
Cliffs:

Love to be wrong. Paid $3.11 for gas this weekend.

So you ask a question whether what Musk stated was true...then after being provided an answer showing it is possible, you come back stating it is impossible anyway due to costs. Why bother asking your question in the first place?

Also saying something is "impossible" due to cost is a weak argument. There was a time when there were people that claimed having a computer at home would be "impossible" due to the size and cost. Yet now people have them in the palm of their hand (and they're substantially more powerful than the ones around when people first made those comments). Technology and cost changes over time.

Also you really need to stop using that powerlineblog site and try to find someone that at least tries to be unbiased. Powerlineblog is notoriously biased...

 

[tumbler]

Why do EV's have more exterior lights? The entire front is lit up with shitty looking light bars and the rear has some extra light bars too. Obvious answer is so everyone knows you're driving an EV and saving the world. Isn't the point to use less electricity while driving?

 

[Domeskier]

I mean sure, but there would still be a major advantage to these companies that those on the outside looking in would not receive. The market cap of the 500 would all skyrocket with THAT much (free) money invested in their shares every year. Investment would still continue to occur year after year no matter if the market is down. Where as a consumer making transactional purchases of these index funds might stay on the sidelines. Not uncle Sam though. He simply continues to collect SS taxes every year and keep on plowing the money into the market making the big companies even bigger.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure how this idea passes anti-trust laws.

Right? The Federal government owning huge stakes in publicly traded companies sounds like a great idea. Future presidential candidates can campaign on which cronies they'll appoint to the boards of directors for the next four years. That should go over well with the privatization folks.

 

[Hawk]

Why do EV's have more exterior lights? The entire front is lit up with shitty looking light bars and the rear has some extra light bars too. Obvious answer is so everyone knows you're driving an EV and saving the world. Isn't the point to use less electricity while driving?

I would assume that since they are LED they don't use much power at all. I also doubt that the engineers created the light bars for a look at me kind of philosophy. I bet they did some research that showed that the light bar throws a better light pattern across the road for better night vision. I guess I'm not that cynical.

 

[Hawk]

Right? The Federal government owning huge stakes in publicly traded companies sounds like a great idea. Future presidential candidates can campaign on which cronies they'll appoint to the boards of directors for the next four years. That should go over well with the privatization folks.

What... this kind of thing hasn't happened in politics over the entire history of our county? it doesn't matter what your political affiliation is, Power is Power and influence is the endgame for most of these people. At this point if you think any political person has goals to make your life better you are jadded. They want to make thier life better. That how I feel now.