Links 5/25/14

Links for you. Science:

Forgive Me, Scientists, for I Have Sinned (must-read)
House Panel Wants to Strip That $50 Million from SBE Again
Climate Change: The Anti-Story?
Dust Bowl Days: Will We Cut Carbon Pollution Fast Enough To Prevent Permanent Droughts?
Stop Citing My 1975 ‘Global Cooling’ Article

Other:

Why I’m no longer a teacher
Pamela Anderson Shatters the ‘Good’ Rape Myth
Dog Unable to Hide Its Obvious Guilt
David Brooks’s Leninist Vanguardism for Centrists
Are you more stressed at home than at work?
Long Island Segregation Drives Educational Inequality 60 Years After Brown v BOE
Just How Meaningful Are Those Value-Added Ratings?
Social Security at 62? You may want to check the math (worth noting that most readers won’t be able to collect full benefits until they’re 67, not 65 as commonly believed)
Financial Times Finds “Many” Errors in Piketty Analysis, Argues They Undermine His Thesis
These Housekeepers Asked Sheryl Sandberg to Lean In with Them. What Happened Next Will Not Amaze You.
FACING THE TRUTH: THE CASE FOR REPARATIONS (interview with Coates, very good)
The Case for Reparations: An Intellectual Autopsy: Four years ago, I opposed reparations. Here’s the story of how my thinking has evolved since then.
The wages of low pay
Grandma Hil

This entry was posted in Lotsa Links. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Links 5/25/14

  1. Min says:

    Social Security at 62? How abut 60? The people who need Social Security most have shorter lifespans than the rest of us. They should not be penalized.

    Besides, the age of the robots is coming. With all those labor saving devices, why shouldn’t we work less?

  2. anthrosciguy says:

    First, Social Security should be available younger, yes. And it should pay more.

    But on the subject of when to take it as it’s set up now, this graphic (link below) from Schwab shows the breakeven points for the various times you can begin. For the difference between 62 and 67 the breakeven point is about 77-78. This is approx. what I figured out using my actual numbers when I was deciding when to take it.

    Now there’s two other points here.

    1) If you really need all that social security money to live on, as many (most) people do, so what if you could get more later? What are you going to do in the meantime, use The Secret? You need it and you need it now.

    2) If you don’t need it all now, that means you have some to invest. This was my position; I don’t have loads of money, but I manage to be able to do a lot of traveling and having fun with what I have, as much or more than many of my friends who have more money (why exactly this is I don’t know). Now you can invest in broad-based index funds that will give you, on average, over 5%/year. That gets you about 25% of the money you lost out by not waiting, and that assumes an average to not so good market the whole period. With good luck you’d do better; with bad luck you’d do worse (ie., you reach 62 in 2002-2003, you don’t get extra; you reach 62 in 2008 you do great).

    And for most people who don’t need the money to live on right now, having extra money to do things is more helpful earlier in life than later. Traveling when you’re older than 77, even if you’re in good health, is harder and something you’re more likely to not do.

    Lastly, the age at which you can finally get full benefits, as it is now, is a cruel joke.

    http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security#breakeven

Comments are closed.