I used to be happy paying $45/year for YNAB (grandfathered plan). But then "lol no, $90/year" happened and I started looking into alternatives. I tried out a bunch but none felt the same. Eventually I found Actual (open-source). I've been using it for ~6 months now and it offers everything I want/need. I self-host the container on my PC (no sync/etc.).

Are you planning on working until you're 60+?

Or maybe selling it all and living in a rural area?

Buying stocks or ETFs?

Or something else?

So what's your retirement plan? At what age do you want to retire and how are you working towards this goal?

A very newbie question to which I'm having a hard time finding a clear answer (and I don't want to read a dissertation on how the stock market works).

I'm planning to sell my FZROX (FIDELITY ZERO TOTAL MARKET INDEX FUND) shares.
Fidelity states "This trade will be completed at the next available price.".

Does this mean the estimated value could be much lower than it currently is when it "sells"?

e.g. Currently priced at $10,000 when I put in the order to sell, but sold on next pricing when value drops to $7,000 because market.

There's a couple of other words that describe what I'm talking about - neoliberalism, lassez-faire capitalism, and in a more general sense, the Chicago school of economics - but I chose market fundamentalism because it seemed to best describe precisely what I'm talking about. I mean the belief that the market is capable of self-regulation and that governmental intervention will cause damage to the economy.

I'm asking this because there's still a lot about economics that I don't know about and so I was hoping someone with a background in the subject who would be able to better answer the question. But I realize it's probably also a political question. I wonder if it's more of an issue of our politicians pressing these views than economists and academics.

Personally, with my life's experience, it seems almost obviously wrong. I've lived through several market downturns and even a crash, and looking through history it seems like every market crash can be attributed to the market failing to correct itself.

https://asiatimes.com/2023/07/indonesias-mineral-export-bans-face-hot-global-fire/

JAKARTA – Indonesia is under rising fire at the World Trade Organization and by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the government’s seemingly haphazard policy of banning mineral ore exports, a market intervention Jakarta insists is just and necessary to maximize its economic and industrial growth.

In a sharply worded statement accompanying its 2022 country report, the IMF called for Indonesia to phase out the restrictions and not extend them to other commodities. “The increasing use of trade measures and industrial policies may destabilize the multilateral trade system,” the IMF said.

So, if I have stocks that were purchased during the class window of a class action lawsuit, is it okay for me to sell them?

It's not a large amount of money at stake here, but it'd also be nice to be able to recoup some of the losses I had due to the misleading information that caused me to buy the stock and ive filled out the forms but they didnt say anything about future actions just asked when i bought or sold any at the time of the suit. I am not sure if it's okay to sell them or if I should hold them.

Any one have recommendations? This is US stock exchange, and if I did sell they'd be at a loss and I have sold other stocks at profit so I would be looking at capturing the losses on my taxes.

Now, rationally, I suspect the answer is "Of course!". But I'm looking for general advice, if my fellow Tildesians would be so kind.

This question has arisen while investigating opening a Monzo account. Apparently, you can lock away some money for 12 months and get 5.3% AER interest on it - meaning for every, say, £1,000 I put in, I get £50 back, right?

My question: is that really worth it, in the grand scheme of things? Even if I put in £10,000, I'd be locking myself out of that much money for a grand total of £500. I understand that's a lot to some people (even me), but it hardly seems worth it.

Perhaps there's something I'm missing. Perhaps some bad maths on my part or some other type of interest that I don't know about. All advice is welcome and appreciated!

Everywhere I turn everything is more expensive.

I'm spending less and less every month on non-necessities, buying more basic foods, never eating out, spending less on entertainment, etc but everything else just keeps going up and up.

Electricity just went up 12%, my gas bill is up 20%, rent has gone up 10% year after year, water is somehow 30% more expensive than it used to be, my groceries are more expensive than ever even though I'm buying in bulk and not buying anything fancy, I've stopped eating luxuries I used to enjoy like steak and fancy cheese because they've just gotten outrageous.

I have a good job that pays decently but my raises have been less than 3% a year and I feel like I'm getting squeezed out of everything I once had. There's no light at the end of the tunnel is there?

I've started to notice this narrative in my news feeds. The argument is high wage growth is contributing to stubborn inflation. So cooling wage growth is seen as positive. It'll help central banks pause the hike cycle sooner.

My knee jerk reaction is if wage growth is contributing to inflation it's minuscule; just enough to print the headline. I can't help but feel this narrative is a way to distract from the earlier price gouging narrative and to help employers scapegoat out of raises.

But I'll admit, I haven't looked into this topic deeply. So I'm happy to be schooled.

Child labor is making a comeback with a vengeance. A striking number of lawmakers are undertaking concerted efforts to weaken or repeal statutes that have long prevented (or at least seriously inhibited) the possibility of exploiting children.

Take a breath and consider this: the number of kids at work in the U.S. increased by 37% between 2015 and 2022. During the last two years, 14 states have either introduced or enacted legislation rolling back regulations that governed the number of hours children can be employed, lowered the restrictions on dangerous work, and legalized subminimum wages for youths.

Iowa now allows those as young as 14 to work in industrial laundries. At age 16, they can take jobs in roofing, construction, excavation, and demolition and can operate power-driven machinery. Fourteen-year-olds can now even work night shifts and once they hit 15 can join assembly lines. All of this was, of course, prohibited not so long ago.

Legislators offer fatuous justifications for such incursions into long-settled practice. Working, they tell us, will get kids off their computers or video games or away from the TV. Or it will strip the government of the power to dictate what children can and can’t do, leaving parents in control — a claim already transformed into fantasy by efforts to strip away protective legislation and permit 14-year-old kids to work without formal parental permission.

In 2014, the Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank, published “A Case Against Child Labor Prohibitions,” arguing that such laws stifled opportunity for poor — and especially Black — children. The Foundation for Government Accountability, a think tank funded by a range of wealthy conservative donors including the DeVos family, has spearheaded efforts to weaken child-labor laws, and Americans for Prosperity, the billionaire Koch brothers’ foundation, has joined in.

https://tomdispatch.com/caution-children-at-work/#:~:text=The%20Covid%2D19%20pandemic%20of,distinct%20sign%20of%20social%20pathology.

Here is a Robert Frost poem related to the subject of the article. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/53087/out-out

I'm GenX and I worked as a teen, but my earliest jobs were babysitting, not industrial labor.

Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Tabled_Documents/2743

Some summary quotes:

From the Preface:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme’s legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the Scheme’s lack of legal foundation coming to light. Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances – the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme’s continuance.

From the Conclusion:

The report paints a picture of how the Robodebt Scheme (the Scheme) was put together on an illconceived, embryonic idea and rushed to Cabinet. If ever there were a case of giving an unproportion’d thought his act, this was it.

The application of [public interest] immunity has also limited the Commission’s ability to reveal the entirety of the documentation concerning how the original proposal which became Robodebt, was passed and what was put to Cabinet thereafter. The salient points have been able to be made, but large parts of the relevant ministerial briefs, materials put before Cabinet and Cabinet minutes themselves have not been able to be revealed.

One of the questions in the Terms of Reference is when the Australian Government knew or ought to have known that debts were not, or may not have been, validly raised. [...] Some DHS senior executives always had that knowledge; some DSS senior executives must have suspected it, at least by 2016. As to members of the Government, one Minister, Mr Morrison, took the proposal to Cabinet, knowing that it involved income averaging and that his own Department had indicated that it would require legislative change, but on the basis of the contrary indication in the NPP checklist, proceeded without enquiring as to how the change had come about.

And... this ticking time-bomb from the covering letter:

I have provided to you an additional chapter of the report which has not been included in the bound report and is sealed. It recommends the referral of individuals for civil action or criminal prosecution. I recommend that this additional chapter remain sealed and not be tabled with the rest of the report so as not to prejudice the conduct of any future civil action or criminal prosecution.

Some news articles:

• Robodebt royal commission findings revealed, individuals referred for criminal prosecution

• ‘Dishonesty and collusion’: Robo-debt report recommends criminal and civil prosecutions

• Robodebt royal commission final report: key findings on Scott Morrison, Stuart Robert and Kathryn Campbell

• Royal commission into robodebt scheme ‘recommends referrals of individuals for civil and criminal prosecution’