<p>I can’t kick the bucket til I get all my pictures sorted and labeled! And of all my fabric stash consumed! :D</p>
<p>Can I just say I am thankful every day that my DH has a steady job with a pension and good medical insurance. That has kept us from being “two paychecks away” – and believe me, we both grew up knowing what that was like. It would not have taken even two paychecks back then. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, the income growth of families whose kids do not receive college financial aid has also greatly outpace the rate of inflation and income growth overall. Perhaps the colleges know that raising the list prices can allow them to capture some of that concentrated income and wealth growth; those few that give good financial aid can then still maintain reasonable prices for the rest of the income range whose incomes have stagnated.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php”>http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php</a>
<a href=“http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/25/income-growth-of-top-1-over-30-years-outpaced-rest-of-u-s/”>http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/25/income-growth-of-top-1-over-30-years-outpaced-rest-of-u-s/</a></p>
<p>Meanwhile, for all of the resentment directed against those families whose kids are eligible to receive need-based financial aid for college (whose income levels have stagnated or declined), they are the ones whose college choices are increasingly constrained by cost limitations, due to the fact that most colleges do not give that good financial aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They can purchase politicians and lobbyists to enact special interest tax breaks for themselves. Of course, they prefer to do it as tax breaks rather than spending subsidies, even though the net effect on the government budget is the same, since it is much harder to repeal a tax break (“raising taxes”) than it is to repeal a spending subsidy (“cutting wasteful spending”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Me too! Well, I’ve been exercising regularly for over 30 years (with a few breaks in there for months or even a couple of years due to health issues), but lately I’ve been searching for that exercise that I enjoy so much that I will actually do it for the rest of my life that I’m able. Two months ago I took up the bike and have found it to be so much fun.</p>
<p>As a nurse, I’ve observed the older population very closely and with much interest. From what I’ve seen, and the research I’ve read, it is FITNESS above all which can determine one’s lifespan and the quality of that life within the lifespan. It’s not weight, or diet, or the usual things we look to. People who maintain their fitness levels are the ones who still have pep in their steps when they are elderly. They need fewer medications. They verbalize happiness and contentment with their lives. The elderly who have been sedentary are on unbelievable amounts of medications, they have chronic aches and pains, they have mobility issues, many are bedridden or wheelchair dependent. They aren’t living with vitality. They complain a lot. </p>
<p>Obviously, we all know the person who is a couch potato, drinks and smokes, lives on fast food, etc., who lives an amazing life until they are 100. Those are the outliers, though. And one can’t change his genetics or help it if a devastating or debilitating disease strikes, of course. But in general, activity is key. And being active and fit may not involve formal workouts…gardening, a life of walking the dog every day, etc., is still contributing to that person’s fitness and is very valuable health behavior.</p>
<p>Sorry to digress from the main thread content…</p>
<p>Nrdsb4, I hear you. As I started the other thread. I strongly believe that financial, health and social life are the three basic foundations for a good retirement. </p>
<p>My plan is to run one full and 2 ~ 3 half marathons a year from here on. </p>
<p>The sticker price of colleges has outpaced the rate of inflation but the average NET cost has NOT.</p>
<p>I’m not complaining, and the check is one that I write happily and with gratitude that I’m able to do so, but to anyone paying full freight, the fact that “the average net cost” has not outpaced inflation is small comfort. </p>
<p>IxnayBob, you did not answer my question.</p>
<p>Whoever knows can answer also…</p>
<p>What is the organizational structure of the larger hedge funds?</p>
<p>General partners…Manager of the fund…portfolio managers…traders that answer to the portfolio manager…analysts…</p>
<p>Asssistant trader…assistant analysts…</p>
<p>Is this correct? </p>
<p>Where my son works, the chairman is the owner. Then general partners (investment committee)…portfolio managers…senior analysts…analysts…traders.
Within my son’s group, there’s PM and 2 senior analysts and one trader. It’s a tight ship in the investment management side, very few junior or support staff. There are people in the IT side.
The operations office is in Conn.</p>
<p>Ok. Thanks. Portfolio manager is pretty high up in the hierarchy.
Congrats to your son.</p>
<p>I have a kid who just started working on wall street but not a hedge fund. I am curious how things are set up in the hedge fund world.</p>
<p>@dstark, on the age continuum, I’m 63, so among my friends there’s a bifurcation. I am friendly (and with some, friends) with my kids’ friends. Being older, I don’t have that many friends who are the parents of my kids’ friends. My older cohort is either based on work friendships or neighbors. </p>
<p>My unscientific reason for my statement is that many children of CC posters are still young enough to be paying their dues. Many at my age have cashed in their chips and moved on to other careers – I know of at least two teachers at my kids’ school who do it for the enjoyment; I’m sure their portfolios throw off more income than their jobs pay. </p>
<p>For the non-hedge fund jobs, I think the hierarchy typically is Non-official, Associate, Assistant Vice President (AVP), VP, Director, and Managing Director (informally divided into junior and senior MDs). </p>
<p>There are PMs as well as traders who have been there a long time and they are also partners. They receive extra bonus. Each group has to pay a large share of own expenses and they share bonus. That explains why they don’t hire the inexperienced.</p>
<p>Congratulations to both cbreeze and dstark. There are up-sides and down-sides to Wall St. and hedge funds, but it is an accomplishment for your children to have gotten those jobs.</p>
<p>Cbreeze, thanks. I did not know about the expenses.</p>
<p>IxnayBob, thanks. It was very difficult for my son to get the job. </p>
<p>@ucb,
The reason the income growth of “families whose kids do not receive college financial aid” has greatly outpaced the rate of inflation and income growth overall, is that it averages the income of the 0.001% capitalist class billionaires with those families that earn $200k. You’re comparing the MEDIAN income of one group with AVERAGE income of another.</p>
<p>
I don’t resent families that receive need-based. But I do resent colleges being obscene spendthrifts, eliminating merit scholarships, and then on top of all of it going to a high tuition/ high aid model, treating the higher income families as if they all have the same “concentrated income and wealth” as Bill Gates.</p>
<p>Agree–some of the schools going to the 100% need met model are doing so at the expense of merit aid. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>good catch.</p>
<p>Ah we can’t let that get in the way of the narrative. Those people who make over 200K are all alike, whether they make 201K or 201 million. All complaining about how expensive tuition is and how they don’t feel rich. Hey if you make 200K (which is maybe 150k after taxes), if your kid goes to private school for 60k (which you should easily afford because you’re rich)–you should feel like you’re rolling in the dough with that 90k/yr. even if you live in NYC and pay for your own health care. Just because you make more than the majority of others, you should feel like you can buy those lavish diamonds, drive that fancy car, live in the mansion-- you’re rich, stop complaining that you don’t feel like it. Whiners!</p>
<p>Thought this article is relevant to this thread. </p>
<p>Happiness nose dives as you hit middle age - but only if you live in affluent Western countries, latest research suggests.</p>
<p>Read more:
<a href=“Happiness 'dips in midlife in the affluent West' - BBC News”>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29899769</a></p>
<p>Himom, love the link. </p>
<p>My mom is 80. I am 58. My mom told me a few years ago her favorite years were 50-70. </p>
<p>A couple of weeks ago, my mom said her favorite years were 25- 45. </p>
<p>I said, “Mom? What are you talking about? You said your favorite years were 50-70. Made me feel good. I have 12 fantastic years coming!” </p>
<p>My mom said, “No! I was wrong. 25-45 are the best. Health is good. We are young. Our kids were young. 25-45 is best”.</p>
<p>I looked at my mom and replied,“Yeah. I think I agree with you. 50-70 is when our parents fall apart. They become babies!”</p>
<p>My mom laughed. </p>
<hr>
<p>Did I write this already? I am 58. I am starting to repeat myself. :)</p>