I’ve been an investor for over 40 years, and I’ve long recognized that the feeling of comfort with my investment portfolio is actually a signal to raise cash. Normally as an investment advisor (now retired), I recommend people keep most of their investments in stocks for the long term and rebalance occasionally — trying to time the market by buying and selling as you get swayed by the prevailing sentiments is a sure way to lose money (or miss gains.) But This Time It’s Different, since the Fed has gone to ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) and QEn (Quantitative Easing, where the Fed tries to lower long-term riskier rates by buying up lots of debt.) These are extraordinary and unsustainable conditions and will most likely end badly – maybe not this month or this year, but sometime. Meanwhile the patched-up, artificial economy limps on, and the debt (both on-books and in future commitments for Medicare and pensions) is so large it is hard to imagine how any younger generation, much less one hobbled by corporatist policies from both parties, could possibly bear it should interest rates return to normal levels.
The chart is more alarming than it should be because it’s not logarithmic, so exaggerates recent moves. But it is still instructive.
Another point: policies of this administration have protected and built the 0.01%’s assets and damaged the economy for wage earners, increasing inequality. They satisfy their donors and Goldman Sachs connections in their actions while spouting rhetoric designed to keep the 99.99% believing they care about inequality. People with major assets are richer than ever while the lower class and young people trying to start out are ground down and permanently damaged. Letting the risk-takers who made mistakes fail is necessary to a healthy economy; propping them up sends the wrong message and keeps assets in the hands of politically-connected losers who won’t use them as productively.
If you’re not familiar with attachment types, take the test and read about them here.
Estimates vary, but a good guess is that 50% of the population starts adulthood secure, while 20% are anxious-preoccupied, 25% are dismissive-avoidant, and 5% are fearful-avoidant. But as time goes by and the secure are more likely to get into and stay in long-term relationships, the proportions of the types seen in the dating pool change—the secure become scarce, and the dismissive-avoidant, who begin and end relationships quickly, become the most likely type you will encounter.
The graph is based on a simplified* simulation of the dating pool by age, showing the percentage of each type in the shrinking dating pool. Secures appear dominant early in the dating pool at about 50%, but over time their prevalence declines to around 20%. Notice how the Dismissive-Avoidant start off as the second most prevalent attachment type at 25%, but over time become the predominant type at 50% of the far smaller dating population—this is not because they don’t start relationships, but that they tend to exit them quickly. The proportion of Preoccupied and Fearful-Avoidant increases somewhat as well. The age scale assumes everyone starts looking for a partner at 20, so subpopulations which start later (academics, for example) would be shifted by a few years. Since both starting parameters and the simulation are simplified, these numbers are only suggestive.
The shrinkage of the dating pool with time and its later domination by less secure types means the older you are, the more cautious you should be, because it is much more likely that those in the dating pool in later years have a problematic attachment type, or even worse problems keeping them from sustaining good relationships. Of course there are always new entries to the dating pool who have been released from good relationships by their partner’s death or unfortunate circumstances; but those past 40 who have never been able to get and keep a good relationship going, likely never will—unless of course they have realized they need to change and work hard on themselves.
* — Based on data from a simplified simulation model run by the author based on reported duration of relationships by attachment type combinations and initial populations. Suggestive, but the initial parameters are based on limited studies and the simulation ignores such factors as longer relationships tending to break down less frequently. More longitudinal studies are needed.
For more reading, start with my book, much of which is online here.
It’s summer, I have no time to promote the book, and so I’m marking down the Kindle edition globally to $2.99 (or the local currency equivalent.)
It makes a great gift for your looking-and-not-finding friends, and you can buy a gift code from Amazon and keep it as long as you like before giving it to the recipient. This only works for the Kindle version.
[Edited Oct. 15th, 2014 — sale ended, back to regular price of $3.99.]
The first review is in: by Elmer T. Jones, author of The Employment Game.Here’s the condensed version; view the entire review here.
Corporate HR Scrambles to Halt Publication of “Death by HR”
Nobody gets a job through HR. The purpose of HR is to protect their parent organization against lawsuits for running afoul of the government’s diversity extortion bureaus. HR kills companies by blanketing industry with onerous gender and race labor compliance rules and forcing companies to hire useless HR staff to process the associated paperwork… a tour de force… carefully explains to CEOs how HR poisons their companies and what steps they may take to marginalize this threat… It is time to turn the tide against this madness, and Death by HR is an important research tool… All CEOs should read this book. If you are a mere worker drone but care about your company, you should forward an anonymous copy to him.