American Economics Thread

chgough34

Junior Member
Registered Member
How about you try to retire on 1.4M then let us know in a years how that goes. In 20 years, how far do you think 86k per year is going to get you?
I used 5% returns despite the S&P 500 returning 7-10% annually simply to measure a real return. Living on 86K in 2024 dollars into perpetuity.
Do you have any idea how high health care costs are for people aged over 60?
Healthcare costs are expenditures and thus are included in those consumption statistics.

In fact, even according to T. Rowe Price, a financial company with a vested interest in individuals saving more (so it can charge more asset management fees) - “Only 1 in 10 will likely spend more than $4,200 per year on out‑of‑pocket expenses.” -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Economies of scale apply to supply chains, industrial sectors, and market sizes, not individual firms. Why are Chinese electric cars so much cheaper than Teslas? Even cars produced by smaller Chinese firms?
Economies of scale apply to all of supply chains, individual sectors, and firms. Agglomeration effects and firm effects all matter - why else hasn’t there been another successful upstart competitor to UPS or Microsoft if they do not. Chinese EVs are cheaper in part due to EV economies of scale in China, in part due to labor costs, in part due to the U.S. preference for ICE cars
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
No. I actually stated that the report was thinly veiled lobbying and thus shouldn’t be given much credence, but since you seem to put an extraordinary amount of emphasis on one line of the report and cite it again and again and again, we might as well take the report as a whole (which is much more qualified than the headlines claimed)
It's not one line of the report at all; it's the entire summary highlight section. It's the basic information that the US has 0 4th gen reactors and is building 0 while China has the only 1 in the world and is building 27. This is an easy analysis for me to see that China is far far ahead. Saying it's lobbying is just hiding from that truth.
Yes - since capital stock lasts for a long time - capital formation involves both stock and flow measurements; and so even decades later, the Us
So the US has a lot of old shit. You don't look smarter by putting it that way LOL
Citing once again - “Where China has thrived, however, regarding nuclear power innovation more pertains to systemic and organizational innovation. This especially refers to the country’s coherent national strategy toward nuclear power—at both federal and provincial levels—which entails a range of supportive policies from low-interest financing, feed-in tariffs, and other subsidies that make nuclear power generation cost competitive to streamlined permitting and regulatory approval (i.e., of safety and environmental impact assessments), to coordinating supply chains in an effective fashion. Indeed, as industry analyst Kenneth Luongo commented, “They don’t have any secret sauce other than state financing, state supported supply chain, and a state commitment to build the technology.”
You don't have any technology until you make it. A 5 minute YouTube demo can turn into a 12 hour headache at Home Depot before calling the professionals. It makes no sense for anyone to say they can make something until they've done it. So just as I said, equally big dream, but China is the doer.
The report you cite does not support your highly bombastic conclusions.
Because you're illiterate. Everything supports China being way ahead:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"China intends to build 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035, with 27 currently under construction and the average construction timeline for each reactor about seven years, far faster than for most other nations.
China has commenced operation of the world’s first fourth-generation nuclear reactor, for which China asserts it developed some 90 percent of the technology.
China is leading in the development and launch of cost-competitive small modular reactors (SMRs).
Overall, analysts assess that China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its ability to deploy fourth-generation nuclear reactors at scale.
China’s innovation strengths in nuclear power pertain especially to organizational, systemic, and incremental innovation. Many fourth-generation nuclear technologies have been known for years, but China’s state-backed approach excels at fielding them.
Analysts assess America and China are likely at par when it comes to efforts to develop nuclear fusion technologies, but they warn that China’s demonstrated ability to deploy fission reactors at scale gives it an advantage for when fusion comes online.
Looking narrowly at scientific publications on nuclear energy, China ranks first in the H-index, a commonly used metric measuring the scholarly impact of journal publications.
From 2008 to 2023, China’s share of all nuclear patents increased from 1.3 percent to 13.4 percent, and the country leads in the number of nuclear fusion patent applications."
Congress is a legislature, not an energy corporate or a regulator so Congress passing laws is all they can do; that is where their power comes from. This is clearly not “just talk” since there’s an actual new law that’s now in force.
It's fine that they talk to each other. But I would keep it shut until they get results. You're here gloating like talking is as good as results LOL
If getting “beat” involves Cisco grossing $50bn a year, again, that proves the point lol. US firm competitive advantages are deep and entrenched and will persist no matter what happens in other countries
Yeah, it could involve grossing $50B; getting beaten means losing tech dominance, then losing market dominance, then being relegated. Once again, when you said that the American advantage would persist for decades, I was thinking 2050's at least. If you just meant 2030's, that's probably fine.
You don’t need to know anything about China as the comment below proves.
You don't need to know anything about what you're talking about? LOL How American.
2-3 decades is a working lifetime and if that’s the lower bound on your estimate - that proves the point about US competitive advantages persisting, regardless of what happens in the rest of the world.
First of all, how I estimate and define something will never prove anything about a supposed advantage into the future. Your big mouth is once again taking talking as action. Secondly, 203X as you said, is like 10 years away. That's about as far as I'm willing to give America the benefit of the doubt for its old rusting global crony tools holding on before Chinese technology ushers in the new era.
The proportion of people that go to 4 year colleges is not the same in each country, the denominators simply are not the same and so cannot directly be compared; the U.S. has effectively open enrollment 4yr universities; China has a gaokao limit - enrollment compositions (especially at U.S. regional universities will reflect that accordingly) - the lines I added were the Engineering and Science ones in China; the CIS/Eng./Math/Phys/Life. The graph also proves my point - 820K stem graduates in the U.S.; 3.57 million graduates in China, so there are 4.35x more stem graduates in China which is entirely consistent with a population differential - 1.4/.330 is 4.24.
So this factors in all the rural areas of China waiting to be developed and getting developed every year. Now if you see a developing nation with rising college attendance rates and a 41% STEM selection vs a developed nation with dropping college attendance rates and a 20% STEM selection, with the developing nation 4x larger and already above par per capita (all the poorest areas included) with the developed nation, what do you see about the STEM power of each country in the forseeable future?
The declines in college attendance have nearly entirely been concentrated in humanities enrollment - CS enrollments have increased substantially - see Table 6 -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Quote the line or graph that shows that the decline is concentrated in humanities. I searched "humanities" and the word did not come up.
People make trade offs between consumption today vs. consumption tomorrow. If people want to consume today and save less today; that’s a completely reasonable choice, but it is not evidence of financial distress. It’s evidence people are unhappy dealing with a budget constraint - something people have been unhappy about since the beginning of time.
It's a painful choice between leaving yourself financially vulnerable now or having nothing to retire on. That's the point of being financially stressed and living paycheck to paycheck. If you made enough to max out the 401K, cover your expenses and still have money in the bank, then you would be financially healthy.
If living “paycheck to paycheck” involves a savings component, it’s now a tautology since savings + consumption = income.
Not if the savings is inaccessible, leaving the person vulnerable to financial shock in the meantime.
You are risk-averse and like to save money.
No, that's if I were poor and had to pick this or that when financially healthy means you get all of it. I spend all I want (within reason, beyond that, such as buying Lamborghinis, I have no desire), max out my 401K and still have money in the bank. That's called financial stability and the opposite of paycheck to paycheck.
Others aren’t and like to spend money today. Different people have different circumstances and different considerations which result in different outcomes.
Others aren't finanically secure and have to choose between having nothing to retire on or having no money set aside for emergencies today and would get panic wrecked if they lost thier job. That's definitely a different circumstance.
Least surprising thing ever.
Your stupid responses are the least surprising thing ever.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
The focus on Olympiads is incredibly niche since those are thinly attended events that even in the college adcom world, come up infrequently so there very much may just be selection on the dependent variable here.
LOLOL Go or don't go. Don't send a team, lose, then say it doesn't count.
This whole thing is also unbelievably silly, ethnic Chinese students are ~1% of US school enrollment and unless you lead with an absolutely preposterous conclusion that only the top 1% of US students are academically competitive (for example, the ~1% of US birth cohorts that receive a PhD are ~10% Asian); this weird obnoxious ethnonationalism is seriously misplaced.
Competitive depends on who they're competing against. The 1% Chinese are the best; they score the highest on STEM classes. Are the rest competitive? With each other, of course! Be a proud top 20% guy... but you ain't Chinese level.
No: Olympiad students aren’t attending LAUSD, or NYC City Schools; they attend suburban schools in NJ, metro Dallas, etc. It’s a very positively selected cohort. Even the restaurant workers are not necessarily negatively selected - they like many immigrant groups, could be highly credentialed but those fail to transfer to the U.S. or lack English proficiency and/or cultural proficiency - immigrants that arrive in adulthood don’t see much labor market change even though they tend to be from higher income strata in their home countries (see, for example -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
Yeah Olympiad students are the top positively selected cohort of every country.... and they're all Chinese even though the population of those countries is like 99% not Chinese. You're too stupid to draw any conclusions from this data?
Doesn’t matter for the economic development analysis
You're right, but you're the one who brought it up. China's economy develops way faster than America's despite being wartorn just a few decades ago so I don't know what you're trying to brag about.
. Those wars were out of sight, out of mind for those resident in the U.S. There simply has been no war on US soil a since the civil war ended in 1865; a longer streak than any other country
REEEAAAALLLYYYY? Quite the history flunk, aren't you? You're absolutely sure that every other country has had a war on its soil more recently than 1865? When was the last time Sweden was at war?
Happens all the time, policy developments are newsworthy. Simple as that. Congress and the NPC share similar roles and so just like anything the NPC does is newsworthy, same with Congress. acts of Congress will of course be covered - whether it gets wall to wall tv coverage and A1 coverage or whether it gets bunkered to a side-column on the internet is an editorial choice

-
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Straight up facts with how the public should invest and expect money to flow. Nice and professional. When the US congress meets, it's an adverstised clownshow of who can talk the most nonsensical shit about China. Even when it's on tech, the meeting adjourns with some comment patting themselves on the back about how they came together and agreed instead of screaming at each other like chimps as if it's a miracle these baboons acted like human adults today. And then you brag about it like the tech came out and China was surpassed.

But I'm gonna have to give this to you. Both America and China announce their policies. But Americans are bigmouths because over every issue, they have 20 meetings and shouting matches, ultimately pulling China into a completely irrelevant debate and then passing a bill that often drags on for decades and is ultimately never implemented as planned. On the other hand, Chinese announcments are professional, informational and carried out as planned the vast majority of times. So I guess you're right in that both countries announce these things, but when China talks it sounds like a serious person talking while when the US talks, the clown music kicks in. That's why I'm always nodding to the former and rolling my eyes at the latter.
If the median household has $8K in transaction accounts and has an average monthly expenditure of ~$6K (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) they can afford an emergency $400 emergency, especially if they are continuing to work. Transaction accounts are immediately liquid but are by no means the only source of liquidity for households; if even the first line on their balance sheet is able to cover needed outcomes, the inquiry stops there.
OK so they say they can't but you, being their imaginary online banker, insist that they can because you need them to be able to in order to save you from a debate, right? LOL
These are solely financial assets so selling them might increase tax burdens, result in actualized losses, or result in less accrued interest; but none of those 3 “penalties” matter for the solvency analysis
Like I said, break one wall to mend another one. That's not being truely prepared as I showed you a financially healthy person would be.
Nah. This is done all the time with credit risk analysis and bank/insurer solvency evaluation - if household net worth is positive and their quick ratio is very high, they simply are solvent, regardless of the perpetual pessimism of households talking about their finances.
Nah, I'm gonna go with people speak for themselves rather than you speak for everybody.
Those were solely financial assets
Liquid ones you can call upon whenever.
You by definition sell assets to cover a $2K, since even using bank accounts means you sell your money you’ve loaned to a bank to cover a transaction. Paying for anything in any form involves selling assets.
Wowwww that is some snake ass shit way to say that even though the dude sold his car and means to get to work to cover $2K, you're gonna pretend it's all good and just like a guy who drew out $2K from a bank account of $400K like he's having brunch. Same thing.
 
Last edited:

chgough34

Junior Member
Registered Member
LOLOL Go or don't go. Don't send a team, lose, then say it doesn't count.
No. Your potentially selecting on the dependent variable where cohorts who could do Olympiads don’t for reasons unrelated to academic ability (there are only 24 hours in a day - people chose what they want and don’t want to spend limited time on). Especially since this is high school and extracurricular activities are chosen by parents (a massive factor for why outcomes are going to be different). Quick test on whether say, math abilities are even that different - actuarial work is entirely math - do insurers in China either have extraordinarily low loss ratios or unusually high profitability? No. They don’t. They have bog normal loss ratios and profitability comparable to US insurers (including from smaller insurers in supermajority white jurisdictions that have never never sponsored a visa - can’t attribute it all to immigrants there).
Competitive depends on who they're competing against. The 1% Chinese are the best; they score the highest on STEM classes. Are the rest competitive? With each other, of course! Be a proud top 20% guy... but you ain't Chinese level.
US-both PhD cohorts are ~10% Asian (which includes, inter alia, Asian Indians) so even if you assume PhD holding is a perfect ability proxy (lol no), it simply lacks empirical support among broader population statistics. It’s a positively selected cohort, but it’s not an extraordinarily selected cohort
You're right, but you're the one who brought it up. China's economy develops way faster than America's despite being wartorn just a few decades ago so I don't know what you're trying to brag about.
Countries with a lower GDPPC grow faster. . Question was about the sources of US competitive advantages.
REEEAAAALLLYYYY? Quite the history flunk, aren't you? You're absolutely sure that every other country has had a war on its soil more recently than 1865? When was the last time Sweden was at war?
The Åland Island invasion and various WWI stuff with Germany
Straight up facts with how the public should invest and expect money to flow. Nice and professional. When the US congress meets, it's an adverstised clownshow of who can talk the most nonsensical shit about China. Even when it's on tech, the meeting adjourns with some comment patting themselves on the back about how they came together and agreed instead of screaming at each other like chimps as if it's a miracle these baboons acted like human adults today. And then you brag about it like the tech came out and China was surpassed.
Congress discussed the issues facing nuclear energy development, wrote up a bill, on how they were going to fix it, voted to turn it into law. Congress passing laws is clearly contradictory to them solely talking and patting themselves on the back. I’m not sure what your caricature is supposed to mean - Congress is a legislature, their entire power comes from their ability to write laws, and so…them writing laws is just “patting themselves on the back”? Follow through, program administration, and program evaluation is tossed to bureaucrats and analysts of various sorts working in office basements in DC - far outside of the public spotlight with the media only caring to report on program failures instead of program successes or steady follow through.
OK so they say they can't but you, being their imaginary online banker, insist that they can because you need them to be able to in order to save you from a debate, right? LOL

Like I said, break one wall to mend another one. That's not being truely prepared as I showed you a financially healthy person would be.
Nah. It’s just risk preferences - holding cash yields less than holding equities or holding debt as well as consumption today vs saving for an uncertain future tommorow. Risk preferences are different - being risk-loving or having rational low perceptions of risk are not poor financial management
Nah, I'm gonna go with people speak for themselves rather than you speak for everybody.
Survey data compared to actual audited financial statements. The latter is much more accurate
Liquid ones you can call upon whenever.
These are financial assets held by households, so they are liquid
Wowwww that is some snake ass shit way to say that even though the dude sold his car and means to get to work to cover $2K, you're gonna pretend it's all good and just like a guy who drew out $2K from a bank account of $400K like he's having brunch. Same thing.
I mean, the original set was restricted to financial assets so no one is selling any cars.
 
Last edited:

chgough34

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's not one line of the report at all; it's the entire summary highlight section.
You completely ignore the ability to deploy section which is substantially qualified later since the report simultaneously spends a substantial number of paragraphs downplaying Chinese achievements in nuclear reactor technology and elaborating on political barriers to development (regulations, etc). The most natural reading considering the report in whole is that the report assumed that nuclear technology development was the same level but China can ramp it up faster. You continue to mischaracterize the report and then wish away sections of the report you dislike instead of the obviously correct conclusion - the report is just lobbying and all study conclusions can be safely ignored
It's the basic information that the US has 0 4th gen reactors and is building 0 while China has the only 1 in the world and is building 27. This is an easy analysis for me to see that China is far far ahead.
No. China has 27 total nuclear reactors, most of which are AP1000s with one experimental 4th gen reactor. Hence the highly qualified conclusion on ability to deploy
You don't have any technology until you make it. A 5 minute YouTube demo can turn into a 12 hour headache at Home Depot before calling the professionals. It makes no sense for anyone to say they can make something until they've done it. So just as I said, equally big dream, but China is the doer.
I copied straight from the report lol, on how you continual mischaracterize its findings including the sentence you cite on ability to deploy. I don’t care for the fusion findings since fusion is the technology of the future and always will be.
Yeah, it could involve grossing $50B;
How do you sell a massive volume of equipment without being competitive? If being “beat” involves grossing massive volumes and having very large market shares; despite Cisco being a bog-normal standard employer - I wonder what winning looks like lol.
So this factors in all the rural areas of China waiting to be developed and getting developed every year. Now if you see a developing nation with rising college attendance rates and a 41% STEM selection vs a developed nation with dropping college attendance rates and a 20% STEM selection, with the developing nation 4x larger and already above par per capita (all the poorest areas included) with the developed nation, what do you see about the STEM power of each country in the forseeable future?
The per capita numbers are roughly similar (as you’ve conceded) (and unless you get administrative records on the ages of graduates, you simply aren’t able to make better conclusions; the assumption implicit in my back of envelope was that age cohorts were identically equally distributed, which is not true, of course, but good enough for a back of envelope).

The STEM proportion in China will likely top out - stem major choices are careerist and growing wealth/familial social safety nets coupled with increasing business complexity will make other major choices more attractive.

US higher education followed a very similar track - the oldest land grants were all dedicated to the promotion of agriculture and mechanics and added business schools and substantially expanded social science and humanities enrollment later.
Quote the line or graph that shows that the decline is concentrated in humanities. I searched "humanities" and the word did not come up.
Add up the combined enrollments for all major categories on table 6. “Liberal arts” expands out to include humanities. Combined university enrollment dropped by 167K from 2019 to 2023; liberal arts enrollment dropped by 120K, social science enrollment dropped by 63K, computer science enrollment increased by 188K.
That's the point of being financially stressed and living paycheck to paycheck. If you made enough to max out the 401K, cover your expenses and still have money in the bank, then you would be financially healthy.
I mean, even per this definition, very few households are living paycheck to paycheck since households have substantial sums in transaction and brokerage accounts.
Not if the savings is inaccessible, leaving the person vulnerable to financial shock in the meantime.
Illiquid savings are still savings. How much risk people perceive to be imminent in the future and how tolerant they are of those risks is simply a personal decision - there is no “right” answer. US households are more risk tolerant, less perceptive to future risks (for good reason), have insured away the most obvious health/disability risks and thus spend more on consumption today and enjoyment today instead of hedging for an uncertain future even with cash in transaction and brokerage accounts. This is not living paycheck to paycheck, it’s just reasonably choosing to have a lower savings rate to consume today.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
No. Your potentially selecting on the dependent variable where cohorts who could do Olympiads don’t for reasons unrelated to academic ability (there are only 24 hours in a day - people chose what they want and don’t want to spend limited time on). Especially since this is high school and extracurricular activities are chosen by parents (a massive factor for why outcomes are going to be different).
You went, you lose, shut up; I don't read loser's excuses.
US-both PhD cohorts are ~10% Asian (which includes, inter alia, Asian Indians) so even if you assume PhD holding is a perfect ability proxy (lol no), it simply lacks empirical support among broader population statistics. It’s a positively selected cohort, but it’s not an extraordinarily selected cohort
Blah blah loser giving excuses for why all his failures don't count even though he loses in every country and never won before LOL
Countries with a lower GDPPC grow faster. . Question was about the sources of US competitive advantages.
You're talking about about peace since 1865 as if it meant anything. It doesn't. China grows faster, Sweden has been at peace for longer.
The Åland Island invasion
That's Finland
and various WWI stuff with Germany
The US had lots of various WWI stuff with Germany, WWII stuff too
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"Sweden has not been part of a war since 1814. This makes Sweden the nation which has had the longest period of peace"
Congress discussed the issues facing nuclear energy development, wrote up a bill, on how they were going to fix it, voted to turn it into law. Congress passing laws is clearly contradictory to them solely talking and patting themselves on the back. I’m not sure what your caricature is supposed to mean - Congress is a legislature, their entire power comes from their ability to write laws, and so…them writing laws is just “patting themselves on the back”? Follow through, program administration, and program evaluation is tossed to bureaucrats and analysts of various sorts working in office basements in DC - far outside of the public spotlight with the media only caring to report on program failures instead of program successes or steady follow through.
You congratulating them is you being a big mouth. They did what they could, but they have weak track record of following through. So... their words are very light and clownish and I would say unworthy of attention unless and until results are seen.
Nah. It’s just risk preferences - holding cash yields less than holding equities or holding debt as well as consumption today vs saving for an uncertain future tommorow. Risk preferences are different - being risk-loving or having rational low perceptions of risk are not poor financial management
Nah, it's called being broke. Do you prefer to have no money now or no money for retirement? That's not a choice the financially solid have to make.
Survey data compared to actual audited financial statements. The latter is much more accurate
Nah, people speaking for themselves is always much more accurate than people speaking for others with an argumentative bias.
These are financial assets held by households, so they are liquid
I mean, the original set was restricted to financial assets so no one is selling any cars.
401K is considered a financial asset and it is not liquid. You don't know shit about definitions of liquid or financial asset, or anything, do you? Oh that's right, you think you don't need to know anything about a certain thing to talk about it.
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
I gotta give it to that scrub. He has really thick skin to tolerate being the entire forum's punching bag.
Your contribution seems to be mainly insulting others though? Perhaps you should try contributing something other than insults?
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
You completely ignore the ability to deploy section which is substantially qualified later since the report simultaneously spends a substantial number of paragraphs downplaying Chinese achievements in nuclear reactor technology and elaborating on political barriers to development (regulations, etc). The most natural reading considering the report in whole is that the report assumed that nuclear technology development was the same level but China can ramp it up faster. You continue to mischaracterize the report and then wish away sections of the report you dislike instead of the obviously correct conclusion - the report is just lobbying and all study conclusions can be safely ignored
Ability to deploy means we can make it. If you don't have the ability to deploy, you can't make it. So the US is a dreamer only while China dreams and does. If you don't have something, it's just wishful thinking to say that you're on par in tech to the top builder in the world.
No. China has 27 total nuclear reactors, most of which are AP1000s with one experimental 4th gen reactor. Hence the highly qualified conclusion on ability to deploy
Wowwwww you are stupid. Wowww. Gosh! How can you be so ignorant and so confident at the same time? It's unimaginable to Chinese people.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
First chart: China has 56, currently building 27 more.
I copied straight from the report lol, on how you continual mischaracterize its findings including the sentence you cite on ability to deploy. I don’t care for the fusion findings since fusion is the technology of the future and always will be.
Ability to deploy is all the matters. If you "have the tech" but can't deploy it, you have a dream.
How do you sell a massive volume of equipment without being competitive?
For most countries, they can't. For the US, by threatening people LOL. But seriously, it's competitive today but you imagined decades forward.
If being “beat” involves grossing massive volumes and having very large market shares; despite Cisco being a bog-normal standard employer - I wonder what winning looks like lol.
It's in the process of getting beat meaning losing dominance. It can still be dominant due to legacy considerations while still losing dominance. Winning looks like an ascending curve, like Chinese tech.
The per capita numbers are roughly similar (as you’ve conceded) (and unless you get administrative records on the ages of graduates, you simply aren’t able to make better conclusions; the assumption implicit in my back of envelope was that age cohorts were identically equally distributed, which is not true, of course, but good enough for a back of envelope).
If you count all the poorest regions of China, we're still a bit higher, 4 times larger, double as inclined to go into STEM. This is the concession you wanted?
The STEM proportion in China will likely top out
LOLOLOLOL The US STEM proportion will likely drop, how's that, while we're making shit up?
- stem major choices are careerist and growing wealth/familial social safety nets coupled with increasing business complexity will make other major choices more attractive.
Exactly, American making excuses for why Americans hate STEM.
US higher education followed a very similar track - the oldest land grants were all dedicated to the promotion of agriculture and mechanics and added business schools and substantially expanded social science and humanities enrollment later.
When was the US 41% STEM? Can you cite that?
Add up the combined enrollments for all major categories on table 6. “Liberal arts” expands out to include humanities. Combined university enrollment dropped by 167K from 2019 to 2023; liberal arts enrollment dropped by 120K, social science enrollment dropped by 63K, computer science enrollment increased by 188K.
Cherry picker. Check out Physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, biological/biomedical sciences, health professions, all lower in 2024 than 2019. Education too. It's not STEM but it's important.
I mean, even per this definition, very few households are living paycheck to paycheck since households have substantial sums in transaction and brokerage accounts.
Where in that definition does it mention transaction sums and brokerage accounts? Transaction sum is irrelevant to paycheck to paycheck. The rest is inaccessible 401K.
Illiquid savings are still savings. How much risk people perceive to be imminent in the future and how tolerant they are of those risks is simply a personal decision - there is no “right” answer. US households are more risk tolerant, less perceptive to future risks (for good reason), have insured away the most obvious health/disability risks and thus spend more on consumption today and enjoyment today instead of hedging for an uncertain future even with cash in transaction and brokerage accounts.
Illiquid savings mean frailty and lack of ability to handle shock. You can't max out the 401K and have anything leftover is paycheck to paycheck; it just means you'll be better off after age 60.
This is not living paycheck to paycheck, it’s just reasonably choosing to have a lower savings rate to consume today.
Yeah it is. If you're in trouble and have to bust open you 401K for losing your job, that's paycheck to paycheck.
 

qrex

Just Hatched
Registered Member
No. Your potentially selecting on the dependent variable where cohorts who could do Olympiads don’t for reasons unrelated to academic ability (there are only 24 hours in a day - people chose what they want and don’t want to spend limited time on). Especially since this is high school and extracurricular activities are chosen by parents (a massive factor for why outcomes are going to be different). Quick test on whether say, math abilities are even that different - actuarial work is entirely math - do insurers in China either have extraordinarily low loss ratios or unusually high profitability? No. They don’t. They have bog normal loss ratios and profitability comparable to US insurers (including from smaller insurers in supermajority white jurisdictions that have never never sponsored a visa - can’t attribute it all to immigrants there).

US-both PhD cohorts are ~10% Asian (which includes, inter alia, Asian Indians) so even if you assume PhD holding is a perfect ability proxy (lol no), it simply lacks empirical support among broader population statistics. It’s a positively selected cohort, but it’s not an extraordinarily selected cohort

Countries with a lower GDPPC grow faster. . Question was about the sources of US competitive advantages.

The Åland Island invasion and various WWI stuff with Germany

Congress discussed the issues facing nuclear energy development, wrote up a bill, on how they were going to fix it, voted to turn it into law. Congress passing laws is clearly contradictory to them solely talking and patting themselves on the back. I’m not sure what your caricature is supposed to mean - Congress is a legislature, their entire power comes from their ability to write laws, and so…them writing laws is just “patting themselves on the back”? Follow through, program administration, and program evaluation is tossed to bureaucrats and analysts of various sorts working in office basements in DC - far outside of the public spotlight with the media only caring to report on program failures instead of program successes or steady follow through.

Nah. It’s just risk preferences - holding cash yields less than holding equities or holding debt as well as consumption today vs saving for an uncertain future tommorow. Risk preferences are different - being risk-loving or having rational low perceptions of risk are not poor financial management

Survey data compared to actual audited financial statements. The latter is much more accurate

These are financial assets held by households, so they are liquid

I mean, the original set was restricted to financial assets so no one is selling any cars.
Considering the Aland invasion to be a state of war in domestic territory but not the Columbus raid or even Pearl Harbor is definitely an interesting take to say the least
 
Top