> Let’s say I rent a spare bedroom my home to someone; who’s going to report that income if not me?
How many people are in this situation? Or have other forms of income that are not part of their full-time job payroll? I know I don't, and most of my personal circle.
Even if 'only' 50% of the population is covered by the situation of having solely one income via payroll, that's still half the country not having to faff about with tax forms or tax software.
Like half my neighbors have some part time work that results in income they need to report themselves (mostly taking care of pets or horses or cleaning houses) and the other half let RVs stay on their property for rent. I live in a rural area but it seems really strange to me that you would expect all income to come with a W2. Basically everyone I know has at least some "peer to peer" income that involves no middleman or business.
Now on the other hand I have no idea how many of those people are properly reporting their income. Some definitely do but I suspect many don't.
Why would anyone doing that bother? The sum total of all your neighbor's income, not even the taxes theoretically required, is a rounding error compared to the taxes Musk isn't paying.
> The corrupted executives need to learn their lesson on consequences of their actions. Laying off the core of your system?. Say goodbye to triple-9 SLA.
Do you think they actually care about their "triple-9 SLA"? Only in as much as they could use it as a marketing bullet point to sign contracts to increase revenues/profits.
> Either it's a misfeature but it 'doesn't matter' because it can be disabled, or its a legitimate feature in which case you must therefore defend the existence and purpose of the feature.
Just because I don't (currently) use it doesn't preclude someone else from doing so, and if that someone else wants to explain their use-case that's their prerogative.
> You are copying what active investors (in aggregate) are doing so if they’re fueling a bubble so are you.
The "in aggregate" is doing some heavy lifting here. Active management holds concentrated positions in certain investments because they think they will outperform. Active folks believe they have found market inefficiencies, whereas passive folks lean towards the market being (relatively) efficient (enough) and chasing returns won't work (at least for most people):
To be a little more precise, the version of active investing available to retail investors rarely outperforms. Some shops are very good, but they aren't taking retail money.
> People passively invest because active investing rarely outperforms passive.
Active rarely outperforms… after fees:
> […] We're a hundred students into class, 99 people make a left shoe, one person makes a right shoe. One of the students in the class made a right shoe." And then I say, "A pair of shoes goes for $100." I also made a left shoe. And so I approached the only person with the right shoe and they said, "Karl Marx said that how much time you spent making something determines its value. We both spent the whole day making it. I propose that we both get 50 bucks and then we sell the one pair of shoes."
> And then regardless of who the student is or what their political beliefs are, by the way, they always turn down that offer. They immediately say, "No way, you're not getting $50 for this." And I say, "Well, explain to me why you feel that that's the case." And then they say, "Well, I have all negotiation power because they're 98 other people in the class that I could go to for a left shoe. I have the thing in short supply, you have the thing in large supply. So who gets all the rents?" Then I say, "Well, how much do you think the person with the right shoe gets?" And invariably the class comes to the conclusion that it's somewhere between 99 and a hundred dollars, so that almost everything goes to the person who has the one right shoe.
> And so after saying that, I say to them, "Well, to do investment management, I need two inputs. Instead of the left and the right shoe. I need investible money and I need mutual fund managers skill. Now tell me which one of the two is in short supply." And so very quickly they come to the conclusion that having investible money makes you in no way special, because everybody has investible money. And so it's very difficult to call that a skill in short supply. The skill of the manager is something that is in short supply. Who is going to go home with the rents from this process? Just like the right shoe owner, they go home with everything, the manager goes home with everything. And so the value added is entirely absorbed by the manager in terms of fees. Which by the way is exactly the same reason for why the net alpha is zero. Because in this left and right shoe example, the net alpha is the amount of money the left shoe owner goes home with.
weird metaphor, if it was actually shoes then the left shoe owners could be expected to make a right shoe next (if they need a pair of shoes and not urgently). It also seems like the pair of shoes just wouldn't be sold (market failure) if the right shoe owner demanded $99 and if all of the left shoe owners are actually trying to run a business. Maybe one is doing it as a hobby and giving up their shoe for free so the profit-seeking right shoe owner gets to keep all $100 (that's a metaphor for open-source software) but I think in reality all the left shoe owners would hold out until they've made matching right shoes.
oh great..I'd almost forgotten about that... what I found really funny was they just infected every USB key that vending machine had until a worker bought one...No fancey targeting, just cheap usb keys and patience.
How many people are in this situation? Or have other forms of income that are not part of their full-time job payroll? I know I don't, and most of my personal circle.
Even if 'only' 50% of the population is covered by the situation of having solely one income via payroll, that's still half the country not having to faff about with tax forms or tax software.
reply