You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gjm comments on Open thread, Dec. 1 - Dec. 7, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 01 December 2014 08:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (346)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (346)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gjm 02 December 2014 05:10:55PM 2 points [-]

It sounds as if I wasn't clear, so let me be more explicit.

  • I believe the intention is to be able to keep people cryopreserved for an unlimited period.
  • For this to be so, the alleged one-off cost of keeping them cryopreserved should be such as to sustain that ongoing cost for an unlimited period.
  • A conservative estimate is that with a given investment you can take 2.5% of it out every year and, if your investments' future performance isn't tragically bad in comparison with historical records, be reasonably confident of never running out.
  • This suggests that Alcor's estimate of the annual cost of keeping someone cryopreserved is (as a very crude estimate) somewhere around $600/year.
  • This is my only basis for the $600/year estimate; in particular, I haven't made any attempt to estimate (e.g.) the cost of the electricity required to keep their coolers running, or the cost of employing people to watch for trouble and fix things that go wrong.

(Why 2.5%? Because I've heard figures more like 3-4% bandied around in a personal-finance context, and I reckon an institution like Alcor should be extra-cautious. A really conservative figure would of course be zero.)

Comment author: Lumifer 02 December 2014 05:41:13PM 2 points [-]

Ah, I see. I think I misread how the parentheses nest in your post :-)

So you have no information on the actual maintenance cost of cryopreservation and are just working backwards from what Alcor charges.

2.5%

I'm having doubts about this number, but that's not a finance thread. And anyway, in this context what matters is not reality, but Alcor's estimates.

A really conservative figure would of course be zero

That's debatable -- inflation can decimate your wealth easily enough. Currently inflation-adjusted Treasury bonds (TIPS) trade at negative yields.

Comment author: gjm 02 December 2014 07:26:32PM 0 points [-]

you have no information on the actual maintenance cost

Correct.

I'm having doubts about this number

I did try to make it as clear as I could that I do too...

That's debatable

Well, I defined it as the maximum amount you can take out without running out of money. I agree that if instead you define it as the maximum net outflow that (with some probability close to 1) leaves your fortune increasing rather than decreasing in both long and short terms, it could be negative in times of economic stagnation.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit