[no_such_reality]

And you’re not doing any of those from a network attached storage pool.

An SSD in your PC is a different story. A bank of SSDs in SAN fabric attached storage is a different story.

An SSD stuffed in an el cheapo NAS hanging a CIFS share out to a homegroup, is a waste.

[quote=Hatfield][quote=no_such_reality]Frankly, buying SSD is like buying a Ferrari for your morning rush hour commute on the I5.[/quote]

I’m guessing you haven’t spent many hours working on a machine that has an SSD, or perhaps you have the patience of a Zen monk. Also, the Ferrari analogy is not a good one. The vast majority of the waiting-for-things-to-happen on a computer is caused by disk latency and throughput issues. The one piece of hardware that most limits the speed of a PC is its hard drive. Modern SSDs have essentially zero latency and deliver data run fast enough to saturate the SATA bus. The disk is no longer the bottleneck.

I switch tasks a lot, need to compile code, and do lots of other disk and CPU intensive tasks, and I find that removing disk latency from the equation is a huge productivity boost. Need to open an image file for that web design issue? Kablam! there it is. Need to open some hog of an application to fix that document? Boom, done. Those 15-seconds there, 30-seconds there pauses that punctuate the work day add up, and you really notice it when they’re gone. And you REALLY notice it when you switch back to a spinning platter.

The reliability issue requires that you stick to a watertight backup strategy, but i’ve never seen a single-bulled productivity boost like the one an SSD provides.[/quote]

[no_such_reality]

[quote=spdrun]What about a NAS using SSDs in RAID config? :)[/quote]

Why bother with SSD? Get big fat ‘slow’ (7800RPM) SATAs and store away.

Frankly, buying SSD is like buying a Ferrari for your morning rush hour commute on the I5.

[no_such_reality]

Graft, corruption.

I mean seriously, at a trillion dollars a year of ‘stimulus’, that is 400 Mars Rover programs a year.

Where is the money going? A trillion is enough for 5 decade long Apollo moon programs. For everything.

$4 Trillion is gone on stimulus, bridges? roads? dams? giant off shore windfarms?

How come my gut tells me the stimulus has been eaten by projects with bubble money inflated prices like the ‘remodels’ done in the mid-2000s where they’d say they spent $200K on remodel and you see laminate wood floors, home depot kitchen cabinets, and some paint and carpet.

[no_such_reality]

The only five that matter are:
GDP
GDP Growth
Trade Balance
Debt
Deficit Trend

For a recap.
GDP is $15.1 Trillion
GDP growth is 1.7%
Trade Balance is a negative half Trillion 3.7% of GDP and increasing (bad).
National Debt is $15.9 trillion
Deficit Trend is $1 Trillion a year.

[no_such_reality]

LOL Harvey, are you really trying to say there is a shortage of demand for the products Exxon produces?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=harvey]
Exxon has $17 billion.
[/quote]
Exxon has $15.8 billion in debt.

Now, increase demand for Exxon, what will they invest in?

You’re assuming the lack of investment is due to lack of demand and not lack on investments to be made. A company like Exxon needs to make investments, but needs to make investments that will provide the appropriate return to the share holders.

Right now, you can’t buy rentals unless you like the pathetic cap rates that are out there because there are too many people chasing the houses. i.e. too much money on the sidelines read to invest.

Similarly, businesses, lack the ability to make the investments that will provide the returns they need. In the end, they stockpile cash because the best investment they have is the M&A of upstarts.

[no_such_reality]

If you need to ask, you shouldn’t be buying bonds.

[no_such_reality]

Yep, worm bin and compost bin.

Nothing to it. A little bedding material, weekly food additions, make sure it stays moist.

No smells, no muss, no fuss.

[no_such_reality]

Every small business owner I’ve met has a target profit. Most often it’s as much as I can without killing myself (and their employees). But they all have a minimal amount they know they need to make so that it’s worthwhile.

Many small businesses run more like a family. They will take cuts themselves down to the minimal amount before cutting trusted people that make their life better. i.e. The operations manager that closes one of your stores every night will be kept whole as long as possible.

The owner may be able and willing to run the business at breakeven for a year or two. It often depends on how close to hoof to mouth the owners themselves are working. If the owner is diligently working every day in trenches, you’ll get cut faster. If the owner is running more like Warren Buffet, doing oversight and hiring managers to run things, they’ll go thin longer.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=flu] If the OP actually waits just 3-4 years, guards her money like a hawk, makes it grow a bit, he/she is going to be in such a stronger position than she is right now. That’s was my point.[/quote]

ROFL, in 4 years you’ll be wishing for the good ol’days of today.

The USA’s Greek tragedy is just beginning. We’re damned if we do and we’re double damned if we don’t. And nobody getting elected this year is going to have the nads to do anything other than spout party doctrine.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m just curious how sd gal obtained $110K in two years since her SS yet she managed to stiff her lender by how much at closing?
[/quote]

Kudos to her. She was either smart enough not to impoverish herself with a bad loan or she can save enough that she’s piled $100K in a couple years.

Frankly, more people should play hardball with the banks and force them to foreclose. The loans are bad for them, the borrower. The borrowers never should have taken those loans and the banks never should have made them.

You should repay the loans you take, but frankly, the loans border on unconscionable. The refi’s to ‘save’ them are even more unconscionable taking a far greater share of their income to maintain than equivalent housing will cost them.

Debt is evil. In can be used smartly but borrowing money should never be easy because debt enslaves you.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]
The “rich” have been getting a free ride for far too long. They are the ones who benefit most from doing business in and with a country that has property (including IP) protections, rule of law, infrastructure, social safety nets (so they don’t have to live in fortresses and drive around in armored cars), etc. They should be paying a proportionate share.[/quote]

Yet, you and I have much the same lifestyle. However, you pay 1/3RD? 1/5th the taxes I’m paying?

Now who really isn’t paying their fair share?

[no_such_reality]

The devil is in the details as from the linked article, it looks like they’ve laddered the bonds as well has zero-couponed.

I’m curious who bought the bonds. It reeks of a bunch of people getting their commissions and the bill coming due long after they’re gone.

Granted, over the next 22 years, Poway can expected their property values to double, not including any new builds. Thus their revenues will, well, maybe not double, probably somewhere between 44% and double, due to prop13. However, all their city service demands will also increase and inflate.

Roughing in some numbers with some arbitrary payment assumptions, I get a 7% bond rate on the 22 year bonds and a 9% on the 40 year.

Financially, this could be brilliant, but my gut tells me the reality is more desperation like someone going to a payday loan shop.

[no_such_reality]

Well basically, the company she is working for has a hiring freeze. So any attrition isn’t being replaced.

I counted net minus two for that reason. She could just quit because economically with the tax increases it doesn’t make sense. It barely does now.

If she quit, they would not replace the position. They’d shuffle people they’re currently holding ‘on the bench’ into the position as they’re trying to avoid another ‘layoff’.

As for the nanny, that is a straight minus one job. There is an economic benefit to my family of my wife being a stay at home mother however from an employment standpoint, it’s not counted as employment. Doesn’t count towards GDP, the nanny’s wages do, and generates no tax revenue.

So net, unemployment goes up by 1 person, taxes go down by two people until the nanny finds another job. And before anybody disses my nanny, she works her ass off, makes good overtime and is middle class.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]
That being said, what if you only made $1,000 in your regular (full-time) job, and struggled daily to make ends meet. Would $200 be worth it to spend 1-2 hours/day on this work? For many people, it would be more than enough.[/quote]

Why, go work at McDonald’s part time, get paid more.

Do the math, at $300 and 2 hours/day for 30 days (it’s an every day thing), it’s $5/hour.

At 1 hour a day, it’s about $10/hr (before taxes, headaches and collections)

And, extra bonus, since his income is over $100K and he has a ‘business’ if he does it, there’s at least one additional tax form he has to fill out.

Plus if he hires those ‘kids’ on the weekend he want’s to leave town, there are 3 forms that need to be completed quarterly, plus an additional 3 employment forms annually, plus the increased worker’s comp insurance and finally, the SSA business filings so he can run the necessary background checks on those ‘kids’ before he negligently turns them loose on somebody’s $10,000, $20,000 or $50,000 horse.

[Author]

Posts