Budget deficits, healthcare costs, and climate change.
They gang up on people with allergies.
Know anyone with allergies? Then you know someone surrounded by three bullies.
1. More allergens, partly from climate change. A study over time of 14 million blood samples from allergy sufferers tells us that allergies are more prevalent. Why? The Week summarizes,
“As the planet gets hotter, ragweed and mold are better able to thrive, and that leads to an increase in allergies, says the Quest report. Already, earlier studies had found that the growth of fungal spores increased with rises in carbon dioxide, and that the ragweed pollen season has gotten nearly a month longer since 1995.”
2. Less insurance. Medicare and Medicaid are prime targets for budget-cutting in Washington. This is particularly bad news for the elderly and the urban poor who suffer more than others from allergies.
3. Big healthcare costs. Allergy medication is expensive! I’m symptom-free with two puffs a day, but those puffs costs me $1,000 a year – and that’s with health and drug insurance! Think of the lifetime costs for a person who suffers from childhood through old age. On top of that, as a major cause of absenteeism allergies depress incomes.
Allergy sufferers can’t escape these thugs, but there are at least two things they can do to reduce the pain.
Live in a low allergy area. Some US cities are notorious for allergens. Here are the worst 100 for spring allergies, as determined by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. The map above shows their distribution.
Live in a low health-cost area. As I’ve discussed before in Savvy Families, what you pay hospitals and doctors varies widely across the country (often inversely with quality of care). If you are thinking about where to live to protect the family health budget, it pays to check these costs in the Dartmouth Health Care Atlas.
Got any other ideas about what allergy sufferers can do to protect their health and pocketbook?
Planning to leave something to the kids?
For many, dream on.
It’s true. In aggregate, current seniors will be making the biggest-ever intergenerational transfer of wealth to their children and grandchildren. But the numbers governing how much most will have to give, and how soon they’ll give it, are changing.
 Not-so-funny bumper sticker A few facts:
1. Today’s seniors will live a lot longer than previous generations. At 65, their life expectancy in the US is now almost 20 more years. Twenty percent will live into their 90′s. Even where retirees’ savings endure, their children will likely get that inheritance around age 60.
2. Retirees underestimate their own life expectancy. Only one in five estimates correctly or higher. This increases the risk that retirees will outlive their savings.
3. Even when they know their life expectancy, most retirees underestimate the savings needed to last that long. The standard in retirement planning is the four-percent rule. It says, to make it probable your retirement nest egg will last, you should spend no more than 4% of it each year. Do you want to live on $60,000/yr (plus Social Security) in retirement? You’ll need $1,500,000 in savings to be safe.
4. The four-percent rule doesn’t contemplate any funds left over for the kids. To assure an inheritance, more is needed.
5. Many approaching retirement age are way behind in savings. In late 2010 the median retirement savings of survey respondents age 50 to 59 was a measly $29,000.
Financially it’s going to be a tough enough time for today’s younger families even with some parental and grandparental help. After all, they’re facing higher Social Security obligations, rising energy costs, decreasing government services, declining education and job quality, and many other financial pressures over the coming decade.
But if, on top of that, their parents begin to see their retirement savings are inadequate, much of the help which coming generations need and seniors want to give could dry up altogether.
It’s possible to see the risks ahead in time to do something about them by creating serious retirement plans for the seniors in your family. Start with a retirement calculator, like Wells Fargo’s or Vanguard’s. Detailed planning can be done online with Fidelity’s and other financial models. Teaching seniors early what they can spend in retirement – and teaching children what funds they can expect – will help create a No-Regrets future for both.
Yes, talking about money and inheritance can be a sensitive, embarrassing exercise. But with all the financial uncertainties on the horizon, it could prevent an even more painful ‘if-only-we-had’ situation for both generations a few years down the road.
Living near a nuclear plant could have horrific consequences,
but the risks in the US have been very low.
The recent disaster in Japan hasn’t changed the average American’s view of nuclear power much, although confidence in Washington’s readiness to respond to a nuclear emergency is down.
 And more of us are living near a reactor. MSNBC reports that the number of people living within the 10-mile emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants rose by 17% in the last decade, compared with an increase of less than 10% in the overall U.S. population.
“If the circles are widened to a 50-mile radius (the same evacuation area that U.S. nuclear officials recommended for Americans living near Japan’s troubled reactors), they would cover one in three people in the U.S. That’s 116 million nuclear neighbors, up from 109 million a decade earlier.”
If you think – because of aging reactors, local seismic activity, the predicted increase in severe weather, or just karma – your family’s next home town should be far away from a nuclear plant, these maps will help you plan your move:
The location of all American reactors, active or decommissioned
Which ones are in earthquake areas
If you use Google Earth, you can view any installation as close as you like. No risk of radiation.
I’ve always considered a nearby nuclear plant to be less dangerous to my family than the nearby crosswalk or the red-eye from Seattle. But I’m eager to learn what others think.
It’s one thing to argue about how our climate will affect us decades from now.
It’s another to deny how our economy works today.
Here’s one economic falsehood that’s trashing our country’s politics, policies, and credit.
“High-income taxpayers are the Job-Creators in our society. Their investments in dynamic businesses supply the money for hiring. Raising their taxes will discourage these investments and destroy jobs.”
 It’s not hard to see how untrue this is.
First, America tried it and it didn’t work. Congress’ own studies say that tax cuts are the least effective way to boost employment. We all know that the Bush tax cuts came in 2001 and 2003, and what did we get? The jobs picture has been worse, not better, for most of us during the following decade. What we did get was an investor-led crash and recession.
Second, corporations don’t need more money to create jobs. They’ve been hoarding cash. They’re awash in the stuff and looking around in vain for opportunities to put it to work growing their businesses. The reason American businesses aren’t creating jobs isn’t lack of capital; it’s lack of demand. If Washington’s policies could get you, me, and our neighbors to spend again, we would be the Job-Creators.
Third, the biggest area of job-creation is not where the rich invest anyway. A new study shows that existing firms are net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net per year on average from 1977 through 2005. By contrast, in their first year, new firms add 3 million jobs a year. That quiet start-up that’s hiring in your town is virtually invisible to large investors. Even if discovered by rich investors, the fledgling company is too small to absorb much of a multimillionaire’s funds.
So why is The-Rich-Are-Job-Creators falsehood so strongly pushed that it’s paralyzing our legislature and risking national default? Can anyone help me out here?
Article first published as Bogus Job Creators on Technorati.
Raise the value of your social network.
Take a walk.
If we can walk from our home to work, to school, to shop, to see friends, to return a library book - we’re likely to keep our weight down, we know that.
And, yes, living in a walkable neighborhood we’ll probably spend less on gas, maybe avoid a second car.
And our house may be worth more.
 But who knew we’d trust our neighbors more?
Or volunteer more?
Or watch TV less?
Researchers evaluated 700 residents of three communities in New Hampshire on things like socializing with friends, civic activities, and trust in their community. Those in neighborhoods with higher Walk Score ratings reported being happier and healthier and more likely to volunteer, work on community projects, or entertain friends in their home. (The Walk Score website rates locations by how easy it is to reach everyday destinations on foot.)
The authors tell us,
“This study is significant because the relationship between physical community structure and social capital really hasn’t been explored much. It says something about how we might design neighborhoods in the future not to just save gas but to increase social capital.”
I looked up social capital. It means the value of one’s social network. ”Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a university education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so do social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups.”
I can understand that. My four miles to the library and back usually result in a few conversations, some observations and ideas, and a general feeling that I know and like my neighbors better. What about you?
Here’s the point. Many predict the financial pressures of this decade are going to make us all more reliant on sharing and caring within our communities. If so, raising our trust and connection within the neighborhood is a head start.
And anyway it feels good to know that, even if my investment and real estate capital has been stagnant, my social capital may be growing.
There are money pits America needs to fill.
There are money piles we might use.
 America needs to pay these obligations – or duck them.
$14,350,000,000,000 Our national debt, most will agree, is too big for our national income to support. Slowing or stopping its growth means significantly cutting the federal deficit, currently $1.65 trillion per year.
$2,000,000,000,000 Estimated infrastructure repair needs (e.g. roads, bridges, transportation networks and water systems) in the US.
$36,000,000,000,000 Estimated present value of unfunded obligations under the Medicare program.
$5,400,000,000,000 Estimated present value of unfunded obligations under Social Security.
$1,260,000,000,000 Retirement and healthcare benefits promised to state public employees for which there is no funding.
Here are some of the cash piles and cash flows being proposed as sources to reduce the depth of these pits.
$2,400,000,000,000 The pile of corporate cash at the S&P 500 companies. If businesses can be enticed into putting some of this cash to work in log-term business investments, even if it’s not building bridges, the US economy could become stronger.
$689,000,000,000 The annual US military budget, from which some lawmakers believe we can divert funds to fill other pits.
$660,000,000,000 Non-defense discretionary spending in the federal budget, or all government expenses except military or Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements. The largest are Health and Human Services, Veterans’ Affairs, Education, and Housing. The major thrust of many in Congress is to reduce these expenditures.
$54,000,000,000,000 The wealth of just the top 25% of American households (that’s 87% of all personal wealth in 2009). Much of this is invested in productive assets already. But America’s wealth disparity between rich and poor is among the highest in the world, and our income taxes among the lowest in the developed world. So many are looking at more taxes from the rich to fund America’s national obligations and priorities.
You can probably suggest additional pits and piles, but the pile that seems most at risk if America doesn’t make sensible choices is the nation’s wealth in general. Doing nothing means the continuing erosion of your family budget, the bridge near your house, your neighbor’s pension, your children’s health benefits, and other measures of the nation’s financial well-being.
Former U.S. Sen. Everett Dirksen said of government spending, “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we’re talking real money.” The real consequences of America’s choices -which piles to use to fill which pits – could be heavy.
What influences your family’s choice of hometown?
Love of country music? Surfing the big ones? The South Beach lifestyle?
 Be careful. Memphis, Honolulu, and Miami sit atop the list of disaster-prone cities. Check the map of Catastrophic Risk in the United States. The insurance industry has layered the likelihood (in 1999) of specific natural disasters around the country and color-coded the regions from white to dark red.
Charleston, SC, for instance, is at high risk for both hurricane and earthquake. Denver has considerable damage from hail.
So what? Americans have known all this for centuries. Iowa State names their teams the Cyclones; The Earthquakes are San Jose’s soccer team; everyone knows the Miami Hurricanes.
Yes, but will weather risks intensify (for whatever reason) in the coming years? There are many who think so, including the US government and the international insurance industry.
You might want to check which cities are most vulnerable to hurricanes or which are most likely to get severe weather (not necessarily a direct hit) from a hurricane.
The chances that your lives will be ruined by a natural disaster are low, no matter where you live. But the indirect costs can be extremely high. Infrastructure damaged, jobs gone, and the local economy in tatters. State services interrupted and state taxes jumping. Other economic pressures persisting for years.
If those risks are rising, and if you (or your kids) are making location decisions in the next few years . . .
Many believe global warming is part of the longed-for Apocalypse.
If so, resisting global warming is resisting God’s plan.
 It says, "Those who believe in the Apocalypse don't have to worry about the environment." I’ve been trying to understand why conservatives reject the chance to lead the country on global warming? It was Pres. Reagan, after all, who instituted cap-and-trade to halt acid rain, a similar threat.
I see fighting climate change as a cause with CONSERVATIVE stamped all over it:
◦ conserving the American way of life
◦ protecting the country
◦ creating big new industries
◦ grasping an opportunity to lead the world again
◦ using cap-and-trade to let the free market fix things.
I think I’ve found why it’s not.
My neighbor believes that soon Christ, in his Second Coming, will “Rapture” his true believers from Earth and establish a Kingdom of God, leaving everyone else to perish in the Apocalypse.
According to believers, in that end-of-the-world conflagration, most of mankind must perish before the thousand-year Paradise on Earth can begin. For those who are expecting to be Raptured into Paradise, the sooner the Apocalypse comes the better. And global warming scenarios certainly can sound a lot like world destruction.
My neighbor is not alone. 44% of Americans (52% of Republicans) say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of what the Bible calls the End Times, not of climate change. That’s why many believers (and some Congressional leaders) think that resisting climate change would be resisting God’s plan.
Now that May 21st – the the most recent prediction for the Rapture – has passed and my neighbor is still here, I’m hoping he and other believers in the End Times will decide it’s worth stewarding ‘God’s Creation’ a while longer.
You are viewing a house to buy. You take notes, you take photos,
and you take soil samples from the back yard.
 Soil samples? Yes – for a vegetable garden.
Many of us have absolutely no intention of growing vegetables in the back yard.
But that’s today. Look ahead a little and you may see at least three good reasons to harvest your own carrots, tomatoes, salad greens, zucchini, and onions.
We can save money growing some of our own food. Like hundreds, even thousands of dollars a year.
We can dodge some of the price increase and shortages predicted if the price of transport fuel goes up significantly, if water becomes increasingly scarce in the big farming regions out west, and if industrial farms can no longer get cheap energy for tractors, processing machinery, and freezers.
And, of course, it tastes better than the stuff we get at the supermarket.
If some day your family budget yells at you to grow some of your own food, it would be an expensive discovery to find your back yard is dangerous to plant life. Examining and testing the soil covers:
pH value. Although some vegetables prefer acid soil and a few prefer alkaline, it’s best to start near neutral and doctor the soil for each group of plants.
Nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, potash, iron.
Soil structure, including particle size analysis, bulk density, moisture content, macro and micro nutrients, and organic matter content.
Contaminants like salt. Or lead, which can be deposited in paint dust or under where a car used to be started each morning.
You can buy a do-it-yourself soil test kit, but unless you can interpret the results, you may not learn much. Better to send your samples to your state extension service (Google: extension soil YourState) or a private testing service (Google: soil test services).
Collecting soil samples the right way is important. Follow the instructions from your testing service.
Did reasoning evolve for argument, not for truth-seeking?
New psychological research (and of course American politics) suggest so.
 Here I am, trying to see clearly what’s ahead. Should our family . . .
. . . try to dodge the personal costs from climate change? Or is that just a hoax?
. . . re-plan our retirement around shrinking Social Security and a down market? Or is another boom coming?
. . . design a low-energy lifestyle? Or will new technologies make our simpler habits look silly?
I keep searching for the unbiased, carefully-reasoned, fact-based answers that must be out there.
Or not.
A recent cognition study tells us
“The function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that [it] is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. . . Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions. It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others.”
What did the researchers see?
“Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias [cherry-picking evidence and logic to support our own ideas]. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing but also when they are reasoning proactively.”
As the The Edge puts it, “The Argumentative Theory is . . . strikingly relevant to contemporary affairs, including political discourse, higher education, and the nature of reason and rationality. It is likely to have a big impact on our understanding of ourselves and current affairs.”
Niels Bohr, as scientific and rational as anyone who has ever built an atomic bomb, emphasized, “It’s difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future.” If using facts and reason to look ahead is so badly hindered by the Argumentative Theory, maybe I should
spend less effort trying to predict and avoid specific risks to our family’s needs
and more effort simply reducing our needs across the board.
Apply your debating reasoning skills to this new theory; what do you think?
|
|
