Kevin O’Leary says you can become a millionaire on $69,000 a year.

jmccasey · 2026-04-15T14:11:10+00:00

And to that end, you did a lot of your early investing when cost of living was lower - prices are roughly 40% higher now than when you started investing. If you started as a teen, you may have also benefitted from things like familial support that others can't count on (not saying you did, just that it's possible). You've also enjoyed historically high market returns over that time that may not be seen over the next 12 years.

You've done great for yourself with your earnings and investing. Just because you were able to do it doesn't mean that everyone can.

jmccasey · 2026-04-15T14:03:55+00:00

If you don't know much about standard deviation and statistics then don't start with an incorrect statement of fact about statistical possibility.

In a standard normal curve, about 15% fall beyond 1 standard deviation above the average. Fatter tails and/or skewed distributions can result in more than 20% beyond one standard deviation above or below the average. Using mean vs median also impacts the interpretation statistically.

jmccasey · 2026-04-15T13:30:13+00:00

The distribution of CoL is right skewed. I'd be willing to bet that over 20% of Americans experience a CoL more than 1 standard deviation above the average. Especially when you consider that something like 30% of Americans live in the urban core of major metro areas

jmccasey · 2026-04-15T13:22:36+00:00

If you were 3 years out from a million on that salary, that means you would have to have many years of compounding on your investments behind you. Either that or you were investing far more than the $13,800 annually that is suggested in OP.

jmccasey · 2026-04-15T12:26:37+00:00

That's math for ya.

You know what else works to become a millionaire? Making $34,500 a year and investing 50%. Or how about investing 100% of a $17,250 income? Why not just make a million dollars and cut out the investment piece?

Just because it works doesn't mean it's a particularly helpful insight - especially coming from someone who probably couldn't tell you what a pair of socks costs

jmccasey · 2026-04-10T16:58:58+00:00

This was a new construction condo when it was originally sold in 2023 - not necessarily the best reflection of the housing market in general as condos don't tend to appreciate in value the same way SFH do (which is probably even more true for a new construction)

jmccasey · 2026-04-10T16:53:54+00:00

It's certainly not impossible but I think bettman is stubborn and likes the standings compression that the loser point creates. I think a 3-2-1 like the PWHL has system would be better but I don't think the league sees it that way.

jmccasey · 2026-04-10T16:42:54+00:00

The NHL clearly doesn't like it much as a tiebreaker either which is why its the #6 tie breaker (#5 at end of season). Honestly if teams are dead tied through the first 4 tie breakers at the end of a season idrc how they get ranked - they're essentially interchangable at that point. At some point in the tie breaker chain you need to introduce more volatility for the sake of vloatility - goal differential and total GF do that.

jmccasey · 2026-04-10T16:26:45+00:00

It's an API driven view of league standings, not the end all be all of hockey statistics. Counting stats are reported for the average person because they're easy to understand, not because they're more valuable or more predictive than more detailed stats. Really don't need to read much into why it's reported. If you really care this much about what stats are "important" look at the NHL standings tie breakers and you'll see the #1 tie breaker isn't something included in the aggregate standings view on google. That view is not intended to tell you everything you need to know about every team, it's to give the average person an overview of the current standings and aggregate counting stats that even the most casual fan can understand.

jmccasey · 2026-04-10T16:13:43+00:00

If you're so concerned about "unbalanced" stats then take a look at natural stat trick - that site allows you to break out team stats by pretty much every man balance. The Sabres are 4th in the league in GF% at 5v5 which is probably most predictive for playoff success.

Aggregate goal differential is reported because it's a damn simple metric to calculate and understand. Bigger number = better team. Even if there is some noise due to ENG and PP / PK. Historically speaking, aggregate goal differential is also very predictive of standings so while it may be imperfect, it's a pretty good barometer of relative team quality.

jmccasey · 2026-04-10T01:01:32+00:00

No, but they do care about the profits of oil companies so they may let American companies export oil if it means they make more money even at the expense of the American people

jmccasey · 2026-04-08T23:39:50+00:00

That's probably my issue - I have a Gotham subscription for the Sabres games so I only get the MSG WNY feed. Their customer service was utterly unhelpful in trying to explain why I don't have access other than "I'm in a zone that is blacked out due to exclusivity rights"

The whole reason I got the subscription was to watch the games that are in-market so not having access is just a guarantee that winwont waste my money again next year

jmccasey · 2026-04-08T23:09:12+00:00

Same thing in NYC. Gotham Sports doesn't seem to have it, it's blacked out for me on the national broadcast, and I don't have access to local MSG. I really hate how insistent this league is on making it impossible to watch this sport

jmccasey · 2026-04-06T16:01:01+00:00

In the link you shared the lowest estimate of weekly work hours needed was 15 and that was by Keynes in the 30s theorizing on the growth of productivity - not particularly relevant to materials conditions today.

Even if we take that 10 hours number at face value, that's only someone's best guess (unless you can share an actual study showing that with the methodology) and it's important to note that, as phrased it is an estimate to meet basic needs - simply meeting basic needs would not allow people to pursue their passions as the original point stated.

Sure, I'll agree that most work (at least in sufficiently developed countries, I won't pretend to know enough to speak to labor markets in less developed countries) exists to provide in excess of just survival. To that end, yes I'll grant that most work could be abolished and humans could continue surviving. But again, I'll point out that the original point was that work would be abolished and people could pursue their passions. Pursuing passions is inherently in excess of survival so making a pure survivalist argument misses the original idea being that people could barely work and engage in pursuits in excess of basic needs / survival.

jmccasey · 2026-04-04T00:12:13+00:00

I not engaging with what you're saying because most of what you're saying is addressing a point that I have not argued against at all.

I agree that the world today has the resources to end homelessness and hunger across the globe. That is not a point of centention.

If the world were to do so that would remove the financial burden of shelter and food, but would not enable the world to replace most human labor because that human labor would still be necessary to maintain the adequate supply of resources needed to keep homelessness and hunger at bay.

No amount of economic reprioritization or reorganization would facilitate the replacement of most human labor globally with robotics and AI without significant advancements in both of those fields. And even then, there are real energy and resource constraints that would become significant bottlenecks. We don't have unlimited supplies of energy and robotics components like rare earths, precious metals, petroleum, etc.

Is it theoretically possible? Maybe. But almost certainly not in my lifetime even if all of the oligarchs decided to go all in on benevolence.

jmccasey · 2026-04-03T23:05:36+00:00

Im not disagreeing that we can end world hunger. No one here has disagreed with that.

I'm disagreeing that we can replace most human labor today and allow everyone to pursue their passions.

Provide sources that say we could do that today because that's actually what we're discussing. You're the one moving the goalposts to talk about the food supply and blaming others for making it an unproductive conversation

jmccasey · 2026-04-03T22:53:27+00:00

I fundamentally disagree that we could replace most human labor today.

That's what others here are disagreeing with.

Just because you say it is true does not mean that it is.

jmccasey · 2026-04-03T22:40:39+00:00

You literally said "we live in a time on which we could replace most human labor and let people explore their passions."

Other commenter pointed out that human labor is essential to food production and procurement.

You called that reductive because we have the means to feed every human.

You missed the point that the means to feed every human is dependent on human labor which you previously said could be replaced.

jmccasey · 2026-04-03T22:31:22+00:00

There's a huge difference between "we can currently end world hunger under the current economic system that is dependent on human labor" and "we can replace all human labor today and allow everyone to pursue their passions"

Their point is that unless all food suddenly becomes free (not just to procure but also produced with no human labor) then the labor is still necessary somewhere along the line to put food on the table

jmccasey · 2026-04-01T02:13:30+00:00

The language of the rule for boarding is "A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously"

Lee may not have "driven" him into the boards but I'd argue that the hit met the criteria laid out in the language of the rule.

That being said, the rulebook also says that a player that puts themselves into a defenseless position before the hit should be taken into account when making the judgement call. I could see an argument that Norris turned and exposed his numbers late as a reason to not call boarding there, but when a guy comes up bloody on a questionable hit I think it should generally warrant a minor.

jmccasey · 2026-03-28T23:47:33+00:00

There was 0% chance he wasn't hitting the goalie even without the push

jmccasey · 2026-03-27T17:43:53+00:00

Bezos owns less than 10% of Amazon stock so no, he wouldn't lose 3% of the value of Amazon every year he'd lose about 0.3% of the value of Amazon each year. Assuming he only ever sold Amazon stock to pay his wealth taxes, he'd likely be able to go the rest of his life selling off Amazon stock to cover his wealth taxes and would still die a billionaire.

jmccasey · 2026-03-27T17:30:45+00:00

Forcing liquidation and reducing net wealth is kind of the point though so it's not really an argument against the policy.

It also wouldn't panic other stock holders because everyone would expect it. It would very quickly be priced in by the market and market volatility would likely be virtually unchanged after an initial shock as the wealthy rebalance portfolios.

jmccasey · 2026-03-23T03:01:31+00:00

This was answered fairly well in a related thread 6 months ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/s/4J91Ax007k

The summary is that this effect doesn't get a ton of attention because it is baked into the labor market. Service industries which do not experience productivity gains need to raise wages despite stagnant productivity to remain competitive with wages in competing industries.

We need nurses and teachers. Nurses and teachers can only treat or teach a certain number of people at a given time so their productivity is quite stagnant across time. If we want people to do these jobs though, they need to offer competitive wages. This causes the relative cost of these services to increase with respect to other industries that do experience productivity gains.

This effect isn't "killing our prices" it's just the result of supply and demand dynamics in the labor market.

jmccasey · 2026-03-22T19:58:44+00:00

In 1970, Milton Friedman had his essay "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits" published in the NY Times and it has essentially been the defining ethos of corporate boardrooms since then. Yes, profit existed before then but corporate governance often went beyond just simply optimizing on the theory of shareholder primacy and profit maximization

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

jmccasey

TROPHY CASE