ATD Chat Thread XX

[VanIslander]

Howe.
Gretzky.
... two others muffed.

 

[VanIslander]

13th Eddie Shore is ridicuous!!!

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Most memorable thing a prof ever said to me was, "you're so bright that this class should be a triviality to you. You're just incredibly lazy."

The best comment I ever got from a professor was "Nietzsche would be proud". (This was for an essay in a business ethics class. I wish I could remember the exact topic).

Yeah- I. too, was mostly lazy in college. Had moments of intermittent energy- most notable was when it seemed like I was going to get kicked out of the University Honors Program for failure to maintain Honors Program worthy grades. I then posted a couple of Dean's List semesters* and successfully lobbied to keep my neck off the chopping block. [And, fully in character for me at the time, returned to my torpor in the run-up to graduation.]

I went to business school, but I was far more interested in my philosophy electives. During the first two years, I put in the minimum required effort for courses like accounting, finance and economics. But I spent hours carefully reading the material in those philosophy courses. I spent a lot of time thinking about some big questions, and I changed my mind about a number of different topics.

At the start of my third year, I realized that, relatively soon, I'd need to get a job. Philosophy was interesting, but I didn't see how it could realistically pay the bills. (There was also a perception - and I'm not sure if this was actually true - that philosophy, as an academic discipline, was heavily focused on linguistics. In other words, much of the argumentation was about how language describes (or fails to describe) reality. I didn't have any interest in arguing semantics). I shifted my focus towards my business courses in third year and thrived.

I think I made the right call. I still enjoy reading about philosophy, but I'd rather have a good career with the ability to study philosophy in my free time, rather than be deeply versed in that field, and struggle to find a good job.

 

[VanIslander]

@Hockey Outsider .... i read your story and it hit home but i went from a Master's of Philosophy to... newspaper journalism (this was the 1990s) ... YEARS LATER... I went overseas for one year, and... stayed. I went to New Zealand one "winter" 24 C there New Year 2005, got a Cambridge CELTA then...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I've read on it a bit but wouldn't say I'm any sort of expert. I do have a good friend who's more or less ran that path since I've known him dating back to 2008 and he's a few years older than me and set to stop working at 50 (he's 45 now) and I've definitely leaned on him for some advice, along with his personal financial advisor.

Based on your previous post (#159), you seem to be following the FIRE (financial independence, retire early) philosophy. I'm trying to do the same.

The theory behind FIRE is simple (so simple, in fact, that it probably seems mundane). Essentially, you're trying to build a large enough nest egg so that, at a certain point, you can retire and live off of your portfolio. It doesn't mean that you have to stop working. But you wouldn't need to work, if you didn't want to.

You only need to figure out two things - how much money you want to spend each year, and how quickly you want to draw down your portfolio. There have been a number of academic studies on the second point. If you plan to withdraw 4% of your portfolio each year, it's highly improbable (but not impossible) that you'd outlive your nest egg. In other words - if you want to spend $60K annually, if you have a $1.5M portfolio, it's unlikely that you'll deplete your funds during your lifetime. (Obviously the $60K spending requirement will increase over time due to inflation, but investing in stocks, over the long run, should at least kept pace with inflation). If you realize you're depleting your portfolio too quickly, you either have to reduce your spending and/or get back to work.

In my case - I'm targeting a 0% withdrawal rate. In other words - once I retire, I don't want to ever touch the capital (barring an emergency). I'd want to live 100% off of my investment income. The goal is to leave a seven-figure portfolio behind. After my wife and I die, some of that will go to charity, and some will go to family - I need to revisit the split. Obviously this means I need to build up a much larger nest egg to achieve this.

A nice thing about investment income, at least in Canada - it's taxed at a much lower rate than normal income ie salary. Someone earning $50K in salary in Ontario, in 2023, would pay roughly $10,400 in income tax, along with payroll taxes (CPP and EI). Someone earning $50K in dividends (from public company stocks - the rules are trickier if we're talking about a private company) would pay exactly $600. (This assumes no other sources of income in both examples). That's a 21% effective tax rate vs a 1% effective tax rate - a huge difference. In fact, you could earn $100K in dividends (double!) and still end up paying less in payroll & income tax than someone who earns a $50K salary.

Like I said - the theory behind all this is simple. For most people, their expenses will rise roughly in line with their income. I'm still spending roughly the same amount as I did a decade ago (when I earned one-third of what I'm making now). I definitely indulge more than I used to (for example I spent close to $3K last year to fly to Europe to see a concert - something I never would have considered when I was younger). But, for the most part, I try not to have too much "lifestyle inflation". I've never been interested in having a big house or a fancy car (even though now I can afford these, if I wanted). In fact, I've been driving the same car since 2010 - my income has increased fourfold since then. I like hiking, playing guitar, reading, watching hockey, seeing concerts - most of which are inexpensive hobbies. You need to strike a balance (nobody should work 80 hours a week, or deny themselves any life experiences for the chance to save up and retire at 40 - you can still get hit by a bus tomorrow). But trying to save half of your raises tends to be a good approach (that way, you build a nest egg, while still getting to enjoy some of the benefits of a higher salary).

 

[BraveCanadian]

A nice thing about investment income, at least in Canada - it's taxed at a much lower rate than normal income ie salary. Someone earning $50K in salary in Ontario, in 2023, would pay roughly $10,400 in income tax, along with payroll taxes (CPP and EI). Someone earning $50K in dividends (from public company stocks - the rules are trickier if we're talking about a private company) would pay exactly $600. (This assumes no other sources of income in both examples). That's a 21% effective tax rate vs a 1% effective tax rate - a huge difference. In fact, you could earn $100K in dividends (double!) and still end up paying less in payroll & income tax than someone who earns a $50K salary.

I nominate you to explain investment income and capital gains to the National Post so people will stop REEEEEing about something that only affects rich people. And even then only moves up eligibility dollars. People see 50% and 66% and think those are the rates lol.

The deck is stacked against working people so badly it is crazy and I don't think that the "investment dollars/gains are already post-tax" covers it.

 

[VanIslander]

I am 55 years old (next Wednesday), teach kindy and Grade 1 every day, adult class students who in the last year went to Paris, Dubai and Vietnam.

My dad retired at 62 and was more active thereafter. He went from sleeping in Saturdiay morning to doing stuff dawn to dusk every day. Gardening, Lion's Club, construction, he was at it.

My role model dad makes me at least do want gives me juice (teaching) for 5+ more years.

Students cried when a South African 71-year-old ex-public school teacher left after a year (with her lesser son teaching), at an academy in Seogwipo over a decade ago. She was a role model for me.

 

[jigglysquishy]

FIRE is a term that has gotten watered down so much in the last 10 years. It used to be the "work 80 hour weeks and spend nothing and retire at 35 in poverty".

I got chewed out on reddit about FIRE a couple weeks ago. Seems the consensus is retiring under age 65 is FIRE and I think 60-64 are normal ages to retire. Your average cop or teacher or civic servant is retiring 55-60. It's just not FIRE.

 

[BraveCanadian]

FIRE is a term that has gotten watered down so much in the last 10 years. It used to be the "work 80 hour weeks and spend nothing and retire at 35 in poverty".

I got chewed out on reddit about FIRE a couple weeks ago. Seems the consensus is retiring under age 65 is FIRE and I think 60-64 are normal ages to retire. Your average cop or teacher or civic servant is retiring 55-60. It's just not FIRE.

Big difference if you're a cop/teacher/public servant though because they are the last bastion of defined benefit pensions that don't exist elsewhere for the most part.

Most of the FIRE sub on reddit is just have two people working at tech companies and making an obscene amount of money for a short while before retiring or people planning on living in a tent eating ramen like you said. It's like thanks for the tips!

 

[Professor What]

So, I'm working on my top defensemen list now, and I've got three new entries in the top 20. I've got Karlsson, Chara, and Hedman moving up into the top 20 since the project was released. I didn't necessarily expect Chara to jump that much, but with three all-star selections, three Norris finalist seasons, a Stanley Cup and three Finals appearances since the project was done, I can't say now that I'm surprised. I've got Doughty just missing the top 20.

@jigglysquishy I'd be interested in what kind of movement you have since you seem to be tracking things as well.

 

[jigglysquishy]

So, I'm working on my top defensemen list now, and I've got three new entries in the top 20. I've got Karlsson, Chara, and Hedman moving up into the top 20 since the project was released. I didn't necessarily expect Chara to jump that much, but with three all-star selections, three Norris finalist seasons, a Stanley Cup and three Finals appearances since the project was done, I can't say now that I'm surprised. I've got Doughty just missing the top 20.

@jigglysquishy I'd be interested in what kind of movement you have since you seem to be tracking things as well.

I update at the end of every playoffs so mine are all 10ish months old. I don't keep my old copies (maybe I should?) so I can't be sure of movement.

I don't have any active defensemen in my top 20, but I do have Chara, Karlsson, and Keith in the 20-30 range. And then Hedman and Doughty just outside it.

 

[Professor What]

I update at the end of every playoffs so mine are all 10ish months old. I don't keep my old copies (maybe I should?) so I can't be sure of movement.

I don't have any active defensemen in my top 20, but I do have Chara, Karlsson, and Keith in the 20-30 range. And then Hedman and Doughty just outside it.

Yeah, Keith is up there too. I've got him right on the edge of the top 30, just inside at the moment I'm typing this (I suspect he stays there).

 

[VanIslander]

I don't have any active defensemen in my top 20, but I do have Chara, Karlsson, and Keith in the 20-30 range. And then Hedman and Doughty just outside it.

Chara should supplant either Pilote or MacInnis in the top 20.

 

[Professor What]

Chara should supplant either Pilote or MacInnis in the top 20.

I've still got Pilote and MacInnis in the top 20. The three active/recent guys I said I've got in my 20 are just after them.

 

[VanIslander]

MacInnis has a legendary point shot, but he was targeted when Prongs was off the ice in St. Louis.

Chara ruled both end of the ice!

They are both 6-time Norris trophy finalists. They both won a Stanley Cup. So they are in the same ball park?

Chara was the 14-year Bruins captain, MacInnis a Conn Smythe.

Chara had a leading +/- of +16 in his Stanley Cup win. That basically meant minimally his skate was on the ice 16 more times his team scored than ANY times the other team did. Of course, we know that stat was earned: he knocked guys around and took great point shots.

Chara > MacInnis in any universe i'm in.
But it is a worthy topic of discussion.
They are close. I just can't go Al, despite seeing his whole career. Pronger is a whole tier higher than these guys imo.

 

[Habsfan18]

The format/quality is likely better viewed through the actual youtube app/site. It’d be in 1080p. I think this site compresses the quality.

If any of you are on Todd Denault’s Hockey Books group on facebook, you may have already seen it. But I’ve posted an updated video documenting my collection of hockey books if anyone is bored and has 25 minutes to spare. I plan on eventually posting more in-depth videos focusing on rare books, signed items from my collection, expanded thoughts on particular titles, stories from years of collecting etc..This one was more just to document the book portion of my Hockey Library. Cheers!

 

[VanIslander]

I left Facebook in 2008 (to escape those i avoided in high school - ugh).

How about "Hockey History Readings"... get 50,000 views on Youtube and quit your day job. You can do it!

 

[jigglysquishy]

The format/quality is likely better viewed through the actual youtube app/site. It’d be in 1080p. I think this site compresses the quality.

If any of you are on Todd Denault’s Hockey Books group on facebook, you may have already seen it. But I’ve posted an updated video documenting my collection of hockey books if anyone is bored and has 25 minutes to spare. I plan on eventually posting more in-depth videos focusing on rare books, signed items from my collection, expanded thoughts on particular titles, stories from years of collecting etc..This one was more just to document the book portion of my Hockey Library. Cheers!

This is amazing!

What sorting system do you use? I'm struggling to find something intuitive. Chronologically works for normal history but seems disjointed for hockey.

 

[Habsfan18]

This is amazing!

What sorting system do you use? I'm struggling to find something intuitive. Chronologically works for normal history but seems disjointed for hockey.

Thanks for watching! My sorting system is completely random at the moment, but the funny part is I know pretty much the exact location of probably 90% of the books in my collection simply based on memory alone. I spend a lot of time in my mancave/book rooms.

I’d like to one day have everything sorted by autobiography, biography, tournaments, Stanley Cup history, photo books, junior books, team history books etc. I’d love to eventually have custom shelving built throughout the rooms but that’s more of a long term goal. Won’t be cheap..