You (general 'you', not elharo) know someone is "out to get you" when they downvote your comment saying that you will enjoy something someone else is planning to do, and encourage them with a smile, and that correlates perfectly with all your comments in a single post being downvoted by one since last you saw.

If you ever need to make sure, try it. Now that there is no more way for people to go to someone's name and downvote everything they wrote, it will be a good way of knowing if haters are haunting you.

Sure. Though I thought life insurance means something you get when you die. We have private enterprises that do retirement plans too. Maybe that is what you call "annuities", or not.

No I'm not, you didn't understand. I'll try to rephrase it, and you can try to help by steelmanning what you read.

My point is that comparing the last 500 dollars of an old man, with the last 500 dollars, the old man needs his more. So I agree with you, being old and homeless sucks more than being young and homeless.

Now if you take actual people, they are not near the misery line (if they are friends with whomever is reading this comment, they probably will sleep under a roof in a place with electricity). Then, if you go to a park, say, in Oslo, or Chicago, or ciudad del mejico, and steal 500 bucks of someone, one old, one young, the young one will miss it more. and of course, this is a factual question that could be solved by going there and asking lots of people. but neither of us will, and I see no reason for the burden of proof to be on me. I gave my reasons for the slopes I believe correct. That is all I will ever be able to offer.

This is Brazil. I've checked now, and indeed: A aposentadoria pode variar de R$ 678,00 (salário mínimo) até R$ 4.159,00 (valor máximo corrigido anualmente). 10 Brazil reais = 4.93754 U.S. dollars

Is this not like this elsewhere?
Is anyone open to negotiating a formal marriage by the way? message me. I generally fear that maybe states will pay for longevity stuff, and my citizenship will put me out of play. Also, I want to live in Berkeley or Oxford.

I'm not posting about efficiency, I'm posting about what people would, actually, on average, do, and how good that would be for them. You know, random people in the park, not utilitarians.

I remember seeing one of Aubrey the Grey presentations, and he said something like:

It is very simple, look.

Shows a picture similar of young women playing volleyball.

• Fun

Shows another picture of old women sitting on a bench next to them

• Not Fun, see, it is simple.

I'm really glad your grandpa has all that energy. My grandma used to walk 10 kilometers a day when she was 80, I couldn't catch up. But let's face it the way Aubrey faces it. It is not that 95% of elders are boring and don't want to go do what our ancestors did. It is just that they can't. They are not able to. It is painful, or impossible, or really hard, or socially frowned upon. I don't think older people spend more on food and wine because with experience people realize that the best things in life are food and drinks. I think they do it because there is nothing left for them to use their money on. It is a cruel world, and Woody Allen makes a good case for it: My next Life

I disagree that your characterization of this as flipping the coin is a good one. Flipping the coin would be to say, if I stole 500 moneys from a 70 year old account, or a 22 year old, which one would suffer most. I believe the 22 year old would suffer more.

There is a completely different question which is: Is it better to be financially miserable when old, or when young. I think Puneet Sahani has settled this issue by awesomely being homeless at 26-28 and indian while travelling many countries. It is better to be financially miserable when young.

So the marginal return per unit of money, I'd claim, is higher near misery values when you are old, and higher otherwise when you are young. Do you think we may be going towards an agreement here?

Edit: Apparently, as a non-native I did't know the connotations of "flipping a coing" I though it meant something like "reverse your argument" or "do the opposite to see how inconsistent your position is". Now I have no idea what it means.

Which even though brilliant, is kind of ironic in a way, given, that all the evidence about money spending indicates to spend on the few things spread over time, and never, ever, ever, ever! on the big things more discrete in time.

Besides the classic "If money doesn't make you happy, then you probably aren't spending it right" (Gilbert et al 200x)

Seems like there is a new antidote for the christian manthra, but I don't have time to read it. http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/if-money-doesnt-make-you-happy-consider-time

I'd love to read that :)

Invested in whatever the machines can't do. Or what they will multiply instead of devaluate.

Like hairdressing, chef cooking, extreme sport tour guide, land in scandinavia (if Hansons guess about the emulations hub is right), energy sources. Which is what one should invest in, if afraid of the emulation economy.

Only that it seems like a cached thought that many never thought of but are following. If the 'I' is not indexed to me, than obviously no. So if you designator is flacid, no. If the designator is rigid (Kripke 1972) then yes, the question is about claims such as elharo's, which are hipothetically giving rational investment advice, and the disagreement is over how rational are them.