Practical Tips, Etc. & Format

A costless way to improve your chances when faced with a problem, any problem : have friends close by.

Saving provides a margin of safety.

Saving has been compared to filling a bucket with water. If the bottom of the bucket is gone even a fire hose won't do much. Many small leaks can lose just as much, and are easier to find and fix.

The best way to start is to inventory your usual outgo. With a pen and a pocket notebook, keep track of everything for a week or so. Monthly and longer expenses, figure a ratio and enter that. Then look it over for possibilities.

Three ways to save are: Do without, find less expensive, or increase income. Often the last we can't control at all

When a kid, my parents emphasized saving. I didn't do it regularly. I graduated when it was hard to find work. I could have worked for Dad, but not get the work type wanted. Instead I learned to get by on little. My first adult saving was camping out instead of renting, during the summer. My first steady saving was buying sales. As the supply is used, set aside the amount it would have cost if not on sale. This gives a slow but sure improvement. It is easier to comparison shop by checking price/ounce. Eventually good work was located.

Info: " Living More with Less" by Doris Janzen Longacre,
http://www.livingwellspendingless.com/
http://www.fool.com/how-to-invest/perso ... nches.aspx

Quality improvement and cutting expense sometimes go together. Most breakfast cereals have worse nutrition than oatmeal, and cost more. It makes a good filler with other foods also, I like meatloaf! My dentist said a 50/50 mixture of salt and baking soda beats most toothpastes, but isn't advertised. My backyard garden, etc, etc.

worth reading

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... y-get.aspx

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... -ugly.aspx

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... nders.aspx

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... twice.aspx

Most of the population buys stuff they don't need, that they can't afford, to impress people they don't like.

I'm probably being a bit of a kill joy, and also advocating more government intervention that most here would like, but -.

Our western society is extravagantly spoilt with excess consumption. If the money that is wasted in designer clothes, take away foods, large urban SUVs, the latest trends, and such unnecessary fripperies; was put into practical matters we would all be better off.

A practical space program that puts solar power satellites into orbit, building flood proof bridges and roads, more scientific research (pure and applied), redundancy in electricity production and networks, large scale food storage, more water storage (dams), and such like would reduce the risk of significant catastrophes.

When pop stars and footballers get paid a hundred times more than scientists and engineers you know your society is in trouble.

Daryl wrote:I'm probably being a bit of a kill joy, and also advocating more government intervention that most here would like, but -.

Our western society is extravagantly spoilt with excess consumption. If the money that is wasted in designer clothes, take away foods, large urban SUVs, the latest trends, and such unnecessary fripperies; was put into practical matters we would all be better off.

A practical space program that puts solar power satellites into orbit, building flood proof bridges and roads, more scientific research (pure and applied), redundancy in electricity production and networks, large scale food storage, more water storage (dams), and such like would reduce the risk of significant catastrophes.

When pop stars and footballers get paid a hundred times more than scientists and engineers you know your society is in trouble.

I think a lot of people would resist that level of government intervention. That's dictatorial level intervention you're asking for. Not good by any means. The reason rock stars and sports players (not just football/soccer or American Football, but other sports too) are paid so much is because they are our entertainment. We're willing to pay exorbitant sums of money to be entertained and the ones that draw in the large crowds get well compensated. No large crowds and their pay would drop. But I think it would be taken very very badly to actually try and pout a cap on salaries. Any salary unless it's a government job.

Zakharra wrote:

Daryl wrote:I'm probably being a bit of a kill joy, and also advocating more government intervention that most here would like, but -.

Our western society is extravagantly spoilt with excess consumption. If the money that is wasted in designer clothes, take away foods, large urban SUVs, the latest trends, and such unnecessary fripperies; was put into practical matters we would all be better off.

A practical space program that puts solar power satellites into orbit, building flood proof bridges and roads, more scientific research (pure and applied), redundancy in electricity production and networks, large scale food storage, more water storage (dams), and such like would reduce the risk of significant catastrophes.

When pop stars and footballers get paid a hundred times more than scientists and engineers you know your society is in trouble.

I think a lot of people would resist that level of government intervention. That's dictatorial level intervention you're asking for. Not good by any means. The reason rock stars and sports players (not just football/soccer or American Football, but other sports too) are paid so much is because they are our entertainment. We're willing to pay exorbitant sums of money to be entertained and the ones that draw in the large crowds get well compensated. No large crowds and their pay would drop. But I think it would be taken very very badly to actually try and pout a cap on salaries. Any salary unless it's a government job.

It's also a function of the short term nature of human thought processes. Paying for entertainment serves an immediate "need" (yes I know it's a want but in the minds of people paying for exorbitant amounts for entertainment it's a need).

The need for the other things is less well understood and not necessarily immediate. Scientific research for example is poorly understood by the general public. I swear that most of them think the scientific process is as follows: give the scientist money, the scientist goes into lab waves a magic wand over a beaker, the desired result is achieved. They don't understand that science build upon itself and that basic research leads to more basic research which eventually leads to applied research etc. Flood proof bridges always seem to get pushed into next year's budget because they are not needed immediately etc.

To avoid the dictatorial disaster mentioned by Zakharra what we really need are people with a very high EQ score, who can persuade millions to follow their lead. I haven't seen any who'd be interested in doing this lately though as the most talented in this arena seem only interested in using their EQ skills to get re-elected and re-elected again and again and again...

biochem wrote:

Zakharra wrote: I think a lot of people would resist that level of government intervention. That's dictatorial level intervention you're asking for. Not good by any means. The reason rock stars and sports players (not just football/soccer or American Football, but other sports too) are paid so much is because they are our entertainment. We're willing to pay exorbitant sums of money to be entertained and the ones that draw in the large crowds get well compensated. No large crowds and their pay would drop. But I think it would be taken very very badly to actually try and pout a cap on salaries. Any salary unless it's a government job.

It's also a function of the short term nature of human thought processes. Paying for entertainment serves an immediate "need" (yes I know it's a want but in the minds of people paying for exorbitant amounts for entertainment it's a need).

The need for the other things is less well understood and not necessarily immediate. Scientific research for example is poorly understood by the general public. I swear that most of them think the scientific process is as follows: give the scientist money, the scientist goes into lab waves a magic wand over a beaker, the desired result is achieved. They don't understand that science build upon itself and that basic research leads to more basic research which eventually leads to applied research etc. Flood proof bridges always seem to get pushed into next year's budget because they are not needed immediately etc.

To avoid the dictatorial disaster mentioned by Zakharra what we really need are people with a very high EQ score, who can persuade millions to follow their lead. I haven't seen any who'd be interested in doing this lately though as the most talented in this arena seem only interested in using their EQ skills to get re-elected and re-elected again and again and again...

Yeah,.. That won't necessarily work. People with a very high EQ score can still be manipulative evil bastards. At the risk of Godwinning the thread, Hitler was a very charismatic and likely had the ability to emphasize with the German population and get them to emphasize with him, and they followed him with frightening enthusiasm.

I do think though that there can be effort made to make science more acceptable and popular. It would just take some time and effort, but I don't think that it should come at the cost of limiting the pay of entertainers or people like that. People have always wanted to be entertained. All throughout history, including the Stone Ages, humans have liked entertainment and will seek it out.

Daryl wrote:I'm probably being a bit of a kill joy, and also advocating more government intervention that most here would like, but -.

Our western society is extravagantly spoilt with excess consumption. If the money that is wasted in designer clothes, take away foods, large urban SUVs, the latest trends, and such unnecessary fripperies; was put into practical matters we would all be better off.

A practical space program that puts solar power satellites into orbit, building flood proof bridges and roads, more scientific research (pure and applied), redundancy in electricity production and networks, large scale food storage, more water storage (dams), and such like would reduce the risk of significant catastrophes.

When pop stars and footballers get paid a hundred times more than scientists and engineers you know your society is in trouble.

Tsk tsk, Daryl, there you go having a functioning brain and using it. More and more I wonder if leaders of government and industry are given stupidity shots.

Alas, they are what they are... too often a bunch of short sighted and not very bright sociopaths.

It isn't that I am against the government doing some sensible things... I just am not holding my breath waiting for them to actually develop sufficient intelligence to do that sort of thing.

Ergo my doing for myself in my modest little ways.

I suspect in really serious long term trouble close knit small towns with still functioning rural neighbors, with breeding livestock and non gmo, non hybrid seed saving routines, will have the best shot at making it fairly intact and with the least casualties. By functioning rural I mean old fashioned diversified farms growing a variety of crops and keeping a variety of animals in self sustainable flocks and herds - must have sufficient numbers and must have fertile males. These would mostly be so called 'hobby farms' these days. Small scale homesteaders and the like who probably also have regular jobs of some sort to pay the bills.

Livestock seem to be often overlooked even by hard core prepper sorts. They'd become precious and of utmost value the moment the house of cards of 'just in time' broke down. But... there would be a heckuva problem keeping them safe from running wild pets and idiot humans. Eating the neighbor's laying hens is a really dumb thing to do but some will do it... or try.

Pets. Idiots who release their pets to go feral. This is the number one threat to domestic livestock now, let alone in deep trouble. "My dog Budzo wouldn't kill sheep or chickens or any of that". Yeah, right. Sure he would and does if he's let roam anywhere near livestock. Then these idiots get all huffy when the farmer shoots their darn dog. That's the dog she shot with one of her chickens dead in its mouth. Or found over the strewn about guts of her new lamb.

Far as I am concerned, loose dogs and cats should be shot on sight and the owner, if found, given a very very large fine.

All of you, control your pets. All the time. No excuses. No letting them loose on the local wildlife and domestic livestock. Quit with the fairy tales about how harmless your pets are. They are predators. Control them.

In a break down loose pets would become a major danger to everyone. To humans, dogs would become a terrible threat. Unlike a wolf pack a dog pack will attack and kill humans. Dogs gone feral become dog packs, quick. That's just reality. I like dogs, but I do not fool myself about their predatory nature.

I wasn't seriously suggesting that government dictate salary caps, in that while I deplore the social injustice of people who don't really contribute anything useful (light entertainment for the masses isn't high on my preferences), the cure would be worse than the disease. Possibly what has been suggested in France of having a very high tax rate that cuts in at say $5M a year would do it, and have the benefit of preventing CEOs making short term decisions to maximise their bonus.

I'm curious as to why government jobs would alone benefit from a salary cap? Many bureaucrats work very hard and do good things for the community, do you want second raters in those positions?

Zakharra wrote:

Daryl wrote:I'm probably being a bit of a kill joy, and also advocating more government intervention that most here would like, but -.

Our western society is extravagantly spoilt with excess consumption. If the money that is wasted in designer clothes, take away foods, large urban SUVs, the latest trends, and such unnecessary fripperies; was put into practical matters we would all be better off.

A practical space program that puts solar power satellites into orbit, building flood proof bridges and roads, more scientific research (pure and applied), redundancy in electricity production and networks, large scale food storage, more water storage (dams), and such like would reduce the risk of significant catastrophes.

When pop stars and footballers get paid a hundred times more than scientists and engineers you know your society is in trouble.

I think a lot of people would resist that level of government intervention. That's dictatorial level intervention you're asking for. Not good by any means. The reason rock stars and sports players (not just football/soccer or American Football, but other sports too) are paid so much is because they are our entertainment. We're willing to pay exorbitant sums of money to be entertained and the ones that draw in the large crowds get well compensated. No large crowds and their pay would drop. But I think it would be taken very very badly to actually try and pout a cap on salaries. Any salary unless it's a government job.

[quote=several]Our western society is extravagantly spoilt with excess consumption. If the money that is wasted in designer clothes, take away foods, large urban SUVs, the latest trends, and such unnecessary fripperies; was put into practical matters we would all be better off.

I think a lot of people would resist that level of government intervention. That's dictatorial level intervention you're asking for.

The need for the other things is less well understood and not necessarily immediate.[/quote]

Complexity theory seems to say there are two ways to stabilize a complex system: rigidity at the cost of change; or looser interconnections between the agents. In societies, history shows the first as the most common. The second is called freedom, which only works with enough responsible people.

Because of grandparents on both sides, our family has mostly learned to use spare time. When I was a kid, after his work, Dad learned how to be a real estate agent. The first house we owned, he bought a small house on a large lot, and called on his brothers to help add on to it. He worked with the neighbors to improve the area by buying a few lots and making a simple playground for kids. After my work of learning at school and doing homework, there was always something useful to do. Our parents supplied needs. If we wanted more and they agreed with us (BB gun, roller skates, bicycle, etc.) they would supply half and make sure we could earn the other half. I remember once, when a blizzard made my paper route (several miles) hard, Mom dressed me in really good outdoor clothes, and took me in the car. Dad, while doing real estate work, would note where fruit trees were. In season, he would find owners willing to let us pick the fruit for half. Boxes from the grocery store, some ladders and small bags, and spare time work.

My best childhood friend (Tom) had a mother with a hobby of sewing. After widowhood she improved her income by sewing for others. Tom enjoyed putting things together. Last I heard he had a business of modifying to make special motorcycles and such.

After graduation, there was a choice of going home and working there, or pursuing my dream of technical work, with sacrifices. The routine was: Early morning at the day work center, later morning at the job center, afternoon at the library studying. Etc. also, even though DW wasn't around yet.

Suggested reading: anything from the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" series by Robert Kiyosaki. He covers in easy to read manner personal finance basics that are NOT covered in school. Name the three basic spending patterns! Name the four basic earning patterns! What are their effects What people do in their spare time makes the outcome of their lives. The unemployment rate gives many much spare time. USE IT

Someone I know haunts the library - and spends all of his time playing games on the computers!

With only a semester of electronics; control theory, more electronics, programming, etc. were learned - in my spare time. Most of my employed work used these, not my formal mechanical engineering schooling.

Now officially retired, our spare time is often spent working for ourselves: gardening, preserving, house improvement, consulting work, minor jobs that most don't want to do, etc. Better than being a couch potato, although I do spend more time than I should reading DW's books