Effortlessly being able to act out of love, kindness, and compassion regardless of the external environment is going to be my goto definition of explaining enlightenment in the future.
Funny thing, one of the pointers in advaita is that sure, you can act in any way you choose, but how the world will respond is completely out of your hands. Being able to drop the involvement at the end of your action is a superpower.
Another Advaita pointer I love is to observe the source of your own choices. To inquire into the nature of free will.
Once observing all I’m finding is different forces at play and nothing I can call “free”.
Some examples - preference is at the center of choices. Do I choose my preferences - for pleasure over pain and foods I like over ones I dislike? Not really I just execute the programming of preference.
Overlaid by history, beliefs, attachment style, trauma patterns, current levels of stress, blood sugar, rest thirst etc.
In my experience unpacking free will is incredibly liberating.
Is there an equivalent in stoicism?
Also, I believe, like Stoicism, Advaita is not a religion at its core. More like a collection of inquiries and the unspeakable silent understanding that arises from the inquiry.
I see an unfortunate number of people who seem to think that the only way to not get taken advantage of in life is to be cynical, and that living with empathy and joy is equivalent to allowing yourself to get walked over.
In my worldview/self-understanding, having solid boundaries is a core requirement of living joyfully. You have to love yourself in order to live joyfully, and having & enforcing clear boundaries is a requirement of loving yourself (where love is used as an active verb). Allowing someone else -- a company or a person -- to violate your boundaries is not compatible with actualized self love.
The main goal is peaceful contentment regardless of what the world does. Pursuing happiness as in euphoria is a fool's errand. Euphoric feelings are not something we can ever generate on demand. Instead, the goal is to control what you can, which is only ever your response to the world.
There's a sense in which this feels selfish -- which it is, but that's okay. I would say one thing companies certainly do is try to make people feel guilty for prioritizing their own mental health and wellness. Don't let them do that. Having boundaries at work is not something to be guilty about. For instance, I do not work more than 40 hours in a week without abnormal extenuating circumstances. I've made that extremely clear to management. I've certainly had a supervisor or two try to push the envelope, but I just make sure to not let the envelope get pushed. That doesn't mean I'm not living joyfully or with empathy. I can enforce my boundary without getting defensive, guilty, angry, or any other negative feeling. In fact, I've found that me pushing back goes much more smoothly when I do so calmly and without anger or defensiveness.
By the way, no one's saying this is easy. What happens when a family member dies suddenly? No one in existence can prevent themselves from having an uncontrolled negative emotional reaction to tragedy. That's okay. Perfection is not the goal, just continual improvement.
That is indeed a concern, but I've found that if you act in good faith and kindness most of the time, but just throw in a tiny bit of skepticism, you can filter out such abuse most of the time.
It's not a good idea to go though life bitter, angry, suspicious and angry at the world and everybody around you because you fear that someday down the line in many years somebody might exploit your kindness.
Definitely true. However, I think in such an instance you would need to consider yourself as a truly valid recipient of grace and care, and quit the moment you detect exploitation like that.
On top of flossing every day, I would ever-so-strongly recommend also lightly brushing the back of your tongue (no toothpaste needed for this) every time you brush your teeth.
That white stuff on your tongue --which comes off easily-- is bacteria and if you see it in the mirror then anyone up close can smell it. A non-stinky tongue is pink.
Don't force your friends or significant other to tell you your breath stinks.
Many people aren't aware how soft your tooth enamel is; brushing too hard with too stiff a brush can wear it down over time. Use soft bristles, light pressure and your teeth will be much happier.
What about "whitening" toothpaste? I would've thought avoiding that abrasive silica additive was the biggest single factor in avoiding enamel wear. (When I shop for toothpaste, almost every type on the shelf has whitening, so you get it by default.)
Yes this is to be avoided. Whitening at all is harmful, and the book I referenced elsewhere recommends using only "Cavity Preventiion" toothpaste where the only active ingredient is flouride. Also like others mentioned, pH is key - neutralizing it before brushing with an alkalizing mouthwash will help protect your enamel.
Yes, it makes no sense to save little money on your toothbrush, something that you (should) use so ofzen, as the slightly more expensive ones are really worth it!
I always find the lack of a tongue scraper in people's dental routine interesting. Growing up in India, I was taught how to use one at the same time I was taught how to brush my own teeth.
I didn't really know that not flossing every day was even an option. To me that's equivalent to seeing a blog post saying, "changing my underwear every day was one of the best habits I formed."
Now, I'm not trying to rag on the author. I just think it's a great reminder that my personal life context is not the same as everyone else's.
> ...empirical scientific evidence demonstrating the clinical benefit of flossing as an adjunct to routine tooth brushing alone remains limited.
Who knew?! I'm not going to stop flossing though. I didn't always and I believe it had a very positive impact on my gum health in particular. I always get high marks from the dental hygienist.
Well there's a surprise, my hygienist and dentist always encourage flossing, and anecdotally my gums are way happier (no bleeding or puffing) when I'm flossing daily compared to when I'm not. I guess it could be that however my mouth is configured, and with the types of food I generally eat, I benefit from flossing but many others with different mouths and diet wouldn't.
Same here. I've had ups and downs with flossing (going months at a time with and without it). Without fail, when I see the dentist/hygienist, for the times I've not been flossing they can easily see my gums are in bad shape.
I do floss, but I always think that it’s unintuitive that something that literally causes bleeding when you start doing it ever came to be regarded as a good thing.
If your gums are regularly bleeding after each flossing round, either you're applying too much pressure with the floss (you don't need to cut your gums) or likely using a low quality floss.
I have sensitive gums and a small mouth, so my teeth have very little space in between them (thanks nature). Thanks to my dentist, I found that using higher quality floss resolved the bleeding completely, because I need to apply way less pressure to get the floss in between teeth, so it never whips/cuts the gums.
Waxed floss is better than non-waxed if I am traveling and forgot to pack it, but expanding floss is miles ahead of both.
The thread is thinner than waxed/non-waxed thread so it fits more easily, and once you put it in between your teeth, you can remove the tension from the thread and pull it with just one finger -> the expanding thread helps to clean the gunk also from teeth walls and other places that are harder to reach with regular floss.
Hygenist explained it a bit differently to me. The presence of blood is the body trying to wash away microbes and other stuff that is getting behind the gum line. The presence of blood (carrying white blood cells) and microbes cause inflammation. FWIW
Hence, no gunk, no microbes -> no bleeding gums after flossing
The other interesting tidbit i learned from that hygenist is that microbes grow on the food and gunk on your teeth, they don't attach directly to the enamel.
That makes sense. I also read somewhere that flossing is not just important to disloge macroscopic food pieces it also helps disrupt bacterial colonies that can set up in between teeth, and every since then I’ve flossed more since I know its doing something even if I can’t see it.
I think it’s unintuitive that someone looked at wheat and thought “let’s try eating that” and now we crush grass seeds to make bread on a massively industrial scale. It only takes one person to do a thing for others to copy it.
The thing is, the half-life on this is ridiculously short. My approach now is to start flossing ~2 weeks before my biannual dental appointment. I always receive high praise about my gum health.
I still floss, but you're spot on with the Sonicare. I wonder if there's a way to track Sonicare usage and dentists making up new stuff to sell you since general dental hygiene improved.
Decades? Nah just a few years is all you need, a lot of it is more apparent from eating disorders. Even with flossing + brushing daily it can be hard to overcome for some people once you have it.
Sadly can confirm as I had no cavities in high school, did terrible in my 20's especially around 20-27 went through a lot of depression, lack of money/medical care/ in and out of work a lot and I'm trying to fix what I can just starting my 30's after losing 2 teeth It can be hard to overcome shame when already depressed so it's hard to visit a dentist moreso if you have no money to do anything.
It's easy to screw up even more so if you have bad genes on top of it, a lot of my family has issues with teeth.
At least stem cells can be found within your teeth and there is a process now to regrow some of your teeth with your own stem cells, doesn't replace implants though but helps. This process isn't popular yet but at least it's possible in a few areas in the states.
Lost four teeth when my fillings kept popping out, then eventually was told "you'll need crowns, those will be $2500 apiece" while I was in between jobs.
I ended up letting them rot until they needed pulled, and that was something I wish I could take back today. I eventually was able to afford to get two dental bridges put in, but I've had issues with them off and on ever since: one of the anchor teeth needed a root canal and eventually cracked in half, now I need to get that and the other tooth pulled and get implants at some point.
And I've got pretty bad gum issues around one of the anchor teeth (a pocket of size 5, just under serious periodontal disease) on my other bridge, and have gotten it deep cleaned and given antibiotics under the gumline a few times that so far hasn't reversed the process at all.
If I could go back in time I'd be more diligent about dental hygeine, and/or would have borrowed money from someone or sought cheaper ways to get those crowns in, because it's a lot easier to keep crowns flossed than bridges.
> Who knew?! I'm not going to stop flossing though. I didn't always and I believe it had a very positive impact on my gum health in particular. I always get high marks from the dental hygienist.
My best guess is that a person willing to floss daily is a person who is willing to take care of themselves in general.
It seems to me like this is a more important issue than most people realize. Most things in life come down to the small details of execution, and behaviors like oral hygiene are even harder to teach and monitor.
I would like to recommend the book Kiss your Dentist Goodbye, by Ellie Phillips, DDS. If you want to understand oral hygiene this book is great. It also has a care program involving three different mouthwashes!
> the intro to the wiki article for flossing confirms it
How does a Wikipedia article confirm anything? It might give you a lead on something, but while the mis- and disinformation in our world is alarming, people's blithe openness to it is even worse.
I remember looking into this and being surprised it was controversial when DHH (lol) got up on a soapbox about how flossing was a scam promoted by Big Dental.
That looks a similar situation to that famous "we found no evidence that parachutes increase the chances of survival when jumping out of a plane" joke study.
It looks like a very difficult study to conduct, and will certainly give you a very predictable result.
When I was in elementary school we were shown training materials which recommended that we brush there times a day.
When we would ask the teacher how we should arrange to do so as young school students, the response was always something like, “Suppose we change the subject …”
I remember being taught in school (United States in the early 90s) to brush teeth three times a day. This seemed odd to me since no one brought a toothbrush to school to brush after lunch.
Not sure about the evidence/research, but proving that flossing does more than brushing seems simple enough: just brush until you are satisfied, then pull out the floss and see what it pulls out from in between your teeth. Flossing never fails to extract some amount of food when I do it.
My dentist said something similar, that flossing will pull a bunch of stuff out of my teeth. I never floss and on the rare occasion I do nothing comes out, maybe a little blood. I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, I don't really floss anymore though as it just feels like jamming string between my teeth for no reason.
Never had a cavity or dental problem of any kind, in my mid 30s. Floss once a month maybe.
Wait, what? People can see stuff bring removed by flossing?
That has never happened to me, unless it’s something obvious like a piece of peanut skin that got logged in there somehow. Usually, the floss starts and ends looking pretty much the same.
My dentist in the US said to me that they would actually prefer people to brush less and floss more. They made a point of saying that if you brush twice a day and don't floss at all, they would instead prefer you to brush once a day and completely replace the other brushing session with flossing. (The ideal is brush AND floss every session, but they've learned that just telling people to do that results in them not actually changing anything)
I honestly don't know how good of advice that is, but I brush and floss daily, so it wasn't really directed at me in the first place, hah.
I gave up flossing. It has made no difference as far as I can tell, and my dentist hasn't noticed. As far as I know, research has been ambiguous on the benefits and it's been dropped as a recommendation by some organisations because of the lack of evidence.
The change that did make a difference to me, and is supported by evidence: switch to an electric toothbrush.
Might depend on what you eat but when I first started flossing, the gunk that I saw being removed was enough to convince me that flossing was a good idea.
It may depend a lot on the tightness between your teeth, for example, how beneficial it is?
It surely depends on how your teeth are aligned. Without flossing if I eat red meat for example every single time some get stuck and brushing never gets it out. My wife with the same meal never ever had this problem (or did any flossing btw)
I thought one weird trick to having good teeth was outright avoiding sugary drinks (soft drinks) and snacks. I always assumed avoiding causes was more important than remediation (teeth cleaning). Anecdotally, it seems reasonable.
That said, flossing gets rid of obvious stuck gunk, so I do that (with care to avoid damaging gums).
This is exactly right. If you really want to brush after eating acidic foods, at the very least swish generously with water first. Ideally, use a pre-brushing rinse that restores your mouth's pH balance.
To add to the other responses, using a straw can help, it gets the liquid past your teeth.
In part too the sugar with acid combo is particularly impactful, the sugar acts as an abrading agent. Hence, smoothies are something to take care with too.
If you ate something acidic, brushing might just rub the acid into your teeth. I’m not quite sure how big of a deal it is but that’s my guess as to why you want to wait a bit.
One culture shock while in South Korea is that people who brush their teeth after every meal in the office. Teachers would even walk around the hallway with a tooth brush in their mouth.
FWIW, many years ago I used to have a real problem with bleeding gums whenever I brushed my teeth (mainly around my molars). Flossing daily solved that completely.
I've similarly observed massive improvements doing it daily, but in general people tend to have very strong opinions one way or the other which makes me think it's very dependant on the teeth's in-between distance, microbiome, brushing technique and more.
Some people can just like brush once a day with a regular toothbrush and have perfect teeth, meanwhile some of us have to do scientific experiments, use sonic toothbrushes, floss, and use mouthwash or our teeth start falling apart immediately lol.
I'm curious, as some cultures also have toothpicks on every restaurant table and toothpicks seem as if they might provide similar benefits to flossing...do people in your country use toothpicks a lot?
One of my dentists had a little embroidered sign on the wall:
"Floss only the teeth you want to keep."
My main motivation for flossing aside from fresher breath is it dramatically makes the next dental visit easier. Meaning, way less bloody and painful. But my dentist says only about 30% of patients floss regularly.
I’ve never brushed my teeth more than once a day, and people in some circles say that’s crazy.
I recognize that it might be better to do it twice a day (like doing it three times might be better still?) but breaking the habits of a lifetime is hard, with uncertain gains.
I go to the dentist every 2 months. The effects of not flossing, vs flossing once a day, vs flossing twice a day are very noticeable. Though I was cautioned to not floss aggressively, as that will wear down the tooth enamel.
Go to 5 dentists you'll get 5 widely different diagnosis. I was supposed to get my wisdom teeth removed "very soon" or I'd suffer in the future, that was almost 20 years ago, never had a toothache, never had a cavity, never had any issues with my wisdom teeth
My dentist recommended pulling my wisdom teeth over 40 years ago. I still have them, and they are the healthiest teeth in my mouth. (I switched to another dentist.)
Another time the dentist wanted to put in a crown, I had him do a filling instead.
And so on. One needs to be a participant, not just do whatever the dentist says.
It's quite clear, though, that flossing fixes the obvious inflammation of the gums. At least in my mouth, it does.
The first nationally representative analysis designed to determine how many people floss their teeth found that those who floss daily amount to 30 percent of the population. Just over 37 percent report less than daily flossing; slightly over 32 percent say they never floss. -- https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-02/how-many-ame...
And if you asked me to estimate the % as a kid, based on how my parents treated not flossing (as much an offense as swearing), I would say... maybe 5% don't floss.
I'm fascinated by the delta between what's typical, and what I grew up thinking typical is.
I'll reply here because a lot of sibling comments mention not seeing benefits to flossing, there being no evidence, etc.
Not cleaning interdentally (between teeth) means you miss almost half of the tooth (crown) surface. Think of it as only cleaning the outside of a vintage radiator [1].
The current guidelines [2] recommend using interdental brushes when possible (lots of evidence for that), and flossing where space is really tight.
I don't floss, but I started using interdental brushes at about 30 years of age and my gums are very happy. I had significant teeth problems before, and the old mistakes obviously have consequences until today, but development of any new problems has slowed down to an almost negligible crawl.
I’m pretty sure it has to do with genetics. I asked my dentist friend and he confirmed. The only reason I was interested in this is because a friend of mine in his 40’s has absolutely perfect teeth and has never flossed once. His teeth are insanely white and clean. I’m extremely envious! I have to floss twice daily. I assume it’s a bacteria thing? I have no idea.
Last time I went to the dentist he told me that things looked good and to “keep flossing”, even though I never floss. I assume if a dentist can’t tell if I do or do not floss, there mustn’t be much of a tangible benefit.
I found using those little between-teeth brushes a good substitute. One push of that between each tooth each time I brush did wonders for the gums - blood from gums during brushing became a thing of the past.
For anyone who doesn't floss, I would just say: If you've eaten any meat, floss your back teeth and sniff that big chunk you dislodged. That foul mass just sits there if you're not flossing.
I didn't realize such a robust discussion was happening here, but I appreciate it! I'm Jamey, the author of this post, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the post or about Stonemaier Games. Thanks!
I'll just poke my head in to say hello and thank you for all your blog posts and pod/vid-casts. I've learned a lot about the tabletop ecosystem from you, and I hope to pitch my "big project" game to your company when I get it back out my head and onto the table again. Your description about wanting to publish the "main event" type of games resonated with me, and unlike some of my other games, the one I'm thinking of here really nails that brief. Best wishes, Jamey!
Just wanted to say that I had no idea some of my favorite board games were designed by the same person... who also runs one of the publishing companies. Fun to learn and see the personal side of that story!
I would love to know what the early journey was like when you took the plunge to design and publish games (and what parts of that you regret). I'm sure there was some imposter syndrome along the way.
> Not a few weeks, not a few months, but the full academic year. I had studied Japanese since middle school, and I had an amazing time fully immersing myself in the wonderful world of Kyoto for those 9 months.
I couldn’t agree more, but would like to recommend the year long high school exchange home stay. It seems to be far less common than it was in the 70’s and 80’s but it is truly life changing. Experiencing a culture for a year, not as a tourist is an incredibly broadening experience. In my mind what makes it surpass the university study abroad, is that for many people the college experience, can at times be very isolating, while the experience of a home stay with a host family avoids that.
That depends on the host family. I've know a few that got a miserable experience. You have to accept the lifestyle of your host family - do they stay home, or go out any party. If stay home is it watching TV, reading books, playing board games, caring for the farm (which they expand to fit all possible labor), knitting sweaters, or something else. If it is going to parties, what kind - is it just getting drunk, dancing, a music jam, bowling, or something else. Depending on your personality you may enjoy some of the above and hate others.
Some persons might discover that their personality was just molded but how their family lives. And that they might actually like this other style more. Or both, and create a mix when they go to live by themselves.
Homestay sucked for me (in Kyoto). It was more of a share house with dinner than a real family experience. Turns out I vastly preferred living on my own (not to mention it was about half the price), and got plenty of culture making normal friends at university instead.
I know another guy who stayed with a host family who ran a cat cafe and had practically an anime-type experience and became de facto part of their family, so it's a bit of a lottery and does depend on your personality too.
Are fixed-rated mortgages really that common in US? Around here afaik pretty much all mortgages are variable-rate, generally EURIBOR or something close to it. Or am I confusing things here?
As a purchaser, you would often want fixed-rate. A variable rate is subject to the ups and the downs, but a fixed rate you can always refinance (at a cost, but one that's beaten out in the long-term by better average interest on a typical loan) to a lower fixed rate when available and ignore when rates climb. Since 30-yr loans are common, plans that play out on 5-10yr timescales are relevant. Given that banks are willing to offer them, you'd need an out-of-the-ordinary situation (selling soon, believing rates will continually decrease slowly, not being well educated, unique credit situation making rates favorable for one loan type and not another, ...) to choose a different option.
This is definitely country-dependant. In Sweden you can pay extra with no penalty if you're on a variable rate, so if you have the means, the best option financially speaking is to go with variable and pay it off as quickly as possible (or at least enough to make the raise in interest to be negligible).
Most mortgages in the US can also be paid off with no penalty - fixed or not. A purchaser should prefer fixed if they are available, and only use a variable rate loan for specific circumstances. The low rates of the last few years compressed the rate difference between fixed and variable, that it made almost zero sense to get a variable rate loan.
In the US some can have prepayment penalties, but it's not common. All the loans I've ever been presented (car, house, etc...) were simple interest loans. I would never sign one that was anything other than simple interest.
Funny, cause I think the exact opposite. I've read numerous papers and in Australia at least, you are statistically better off on a variable rate something like 2/3 of the time. You pay a premium for the security of a stable interest rate.
You can also (probably) save money by never buying any kind of insurance, but insurance is a useful risk mitigation. Someone who got an ARM a few years ago and is hitting the variable rates around now probably sees their interest rate roughly double. They likely aren't much reassured by the fact that historically, most people's mortgages had better timing.
If rates are going down they are a great choice as you will refinance in a couple years anyway. However you have to really know what rates (read the economy) will do so that just as they reach the bottom (you don't need to hit the exact bottom, just get close) to refinance to fixed rate.
They are also good if you have reason to believe you won't live there for more than a couple years. (in general renting is better than buying if your time frame is less than 7-10 years, but local factors may force you to buy anyway).
Since ARMs are lower rates they save you money in the short run. However they tend to adjust up after the terms and so can really hurt you.
I would say close to illiterate. I don't know what mortgages are like in other countries, but in the US you want a fixed rate or you want to rent. An ARM can really fuck you up.
> They are also good if you have reason to believe you won't live there for more than a couple years
Generally speaking, it's better to rent in that case. You'll have more flexibility and substantially less risk.
Ignorant here because I dont know how ARMs are actually structured as far as what the lender can and cant do, but the idea of signing a loan contract and having no garauntee of the upper bound of the interest rate is absolutely wild to me. Banks will fuck you at any opportunity they have, so habding then a loaded gun and thinking theyre not gonna raise rates without a reason is crazy to me.
The beauty of competition. The person lending you money always could fuck you over, but the greed of other banks would save you in that scenario. Which they know, so they don't fuck you over. Same reason grocery stores don't wait until you fill your cart up and then jack up the prices as soon as you reach the register.
Back in the 80s and 90s ARMs were very popular in the US because interest rates were high, and the expectation was that they wouldn't stay that way forever. The rate increases had a lifetime cap, so there was a knowable upper bound.
Edit to add: also, if you knew you were going to sell (and confident you could actually sell) within a few years, the lower initial rate of an ARM made sense.
There is also a material spread between ARMs and fixed when the rates are high. When rates are low the spread compresses (same with rates between terms 15/20/30), making the additional risk questionable.
I have a buddy who got a fixed 15y when rates were super low b/c he wanted to pay his mortgage off early. But, locking into the 15y barely lowered the rate vs a 30 fixed. I told him to do the 30 fixed, and just pay it as a 15y. This would give him flexibility if he lost his job or had some other emergency.
Getting a 30y and paying off in 15 is a smart move. For our most recent house, that's we did set out to do, until the last refi (maybe 5 years in to the 30y) when we got a 15y and paid it off in 10 more years.
I used to think that, but i'm not convinced anymore. In the best case it is smart, but I've known too many people over the years that either died before they were able to enjoy the fruits of their investment, or by the time they were that old their body was such that they couldn't do anything without much pain.
Better to pay off the house when you retire and enjoy life a little more. Of course you should save for a nice retirement, but don't plan all for when you get old. (Renting can also work out well, but you need more in other investments when you retire so you can keep paying rent)
You bring up a great and different point. Is paying off early worthwhile at all? I agree with you that it's really not. Given a low fixed rate, paying off a mortgage early is almost never a good financial decision. Particularly with a lump sum. It's most people's largest leveraged investment. Better to keep the cash and the leverage working for you.
Even if there were no limitations in the contract, there's still a market. If your bank diverged too far you can just refinance. And if the whole market is high, inflation is probably crazy and you're watching the principal dwindle to insignificance anyway.
They keep the same rate for 3-5 years. Then you refinance, so they can't do anything. If rates are going up, they can't go up as fast as rates, though in general you should always refinance just before the adjustment.
> If rates are going down they are a great choice as you will refinance in a couple years anyway.
It's also great to put all my money on black if the roulette wheel is going to land on black. Mortgages are long term, making predicting future rates 3-5-10 years out very hard.
> Since ARMs are lower rates they save you money in the short run.
The low rates of the last 5ish years compressed the difference between fixed and variable that there was little reason to take on the variable risk. As rates go up, that calculation will likely change.
> They are also good if you have reason to believe you won't live there for more than a couple years.
You should rent then. The cost and friction of RE transactions are too high for someone not planning to be there for 2+ years.
One more specific example of someone taking a calculated short term risk: home flippers. They have had both good times and bad in the last 15 years. Those who financed with lower costs during hotter markets had better margins.
House flipping should probably be banned, though. It's bad for the homeowners who buy the house because it's invariably low-quality contractors who do the work and they invariably don't do it to code. It's bad for the neighborhood because the residents aren't stable.
You have to do a lot better at prediction in most markets. The other the potential for change gets priced in, while with mortgage you can get todays rates while everyone knows how they will change.
Why? When I looked into it (about a decade ago), variable rates had paid less overall than fixed for every 10 year window over the previous 50 years. I always assumed people getting fixed rate were overleveraged and couldn't assume the rational risk of the variable.
Your statement makes me assume you're financially illiterate...
A variable rate has historically been more beneficial than a fixed rate.
A fixed rate should be seen as an insurance you pay a premium for. If the risk of it going up so much that you can't afford it, then it's absolutely a great idea to get a fixed rate, but otherwise you'll earn more with a variable rate.
Statistically, you're right - the variable rate is usually better. But that's also assuming that interest rates are completely random (which they're not) - a bit of market timing is wise to do here. And the spread compresses when rates are low, making the fixed more attractive then because the premium is lower.
Variable also makes a lot more sense with shorter timelines (either to sale or to early payoff).
Depends on what the rate is. If it's historically low at the time your take out your mortgage you might consider locking in that rate. I certainly would not have been better off with a variable rate, for one example.
Yale economist James Choi certainly doesn't strike me as financially illiterate, yet in his paper "Popular Personal Financial Advice versus the Professors", he finds variable rate mortgages to be a pretty good deal.
Banks set the fixed rate & they more than anyone else knows what will most likely happen to rates in the future because the banks are the ones in closed door meetings with reserve banks/government.
Do you think they'd set a fixed rate where they lose?
Not just fixed but highly leveraged, repayable at any time, and with tax deductible interest payments. All courtesy of the federal government, but sufficiently submerged as to form an upper and middle class that believes they are rugged individualists.
Serves as the vast majority of our government's intervention in housing, with very small sums for (a few) very low income people and basically nothing for anyone in between.
Yes. It means a fixed rate for 30 years. Unless you refinance the only thing that changes is your property tax.
15 years is really the way to go, as it typically isn't that much more per month.
But 30 is the standard.
It might've been just because I got my mortgage at a weird time, but when I refi'd there wasn't really a benefit to going 15 year. The interest rate was basically the same, so it seemed pointless.
You're still (usually) allowed to pay back a 30 year mortgage in 15 years by making extra payments against principle. So the total amount of interest paid would be equivalent.
The advantages of getting the 30 yr are
a) You don't have to keep paying that extra principle on your 30 year mortgage. If you lose your job or whatever, you can fall back to making the regular payments
b) The time value of money aspect. My mortgage is currently well below inflation. $151894 in 2035 dollars might be more expensive than $215838 in 2060 dollars. Especially if you're able to reap the tax benefits of mortgage interest.
Yeah but you can (usually) just pay the same amount with a 30yr as if you had a 15yr mortgage, but you still have the added security that if you fall into hard times, you have a lower mandatory payment with the 30yr.
Also you’re correct about the higher cost of the mortgage, and this doesn’t really work as well at 6%… but if you had a 3% mortgage, you would have better returns taking the 30 year and investing the difference each month. The amount of money you’d make from the returns on that would, on average, be greater than if you paid off the mortgage in 15, then started investing. But yeah, doesn’t work as nicely at 6%.
When I refinanced my 30 year fixed a long while back, I had a choice of 15 or 30 year terms. 15 year was a little lower, but your right that it wasn't much but it was a little lower--so that's what I took. But it was a pretty modest mortgage at that point (when I bought the house it was pretty much a fixer-upper) so I wasn't really worried about making payments. Getting a 30 year as an insurance policy is probably the right answer for many people even if it costs a bit more.
>but if you had a 3% mortgage, you would have better returns taking the 30 year and investing the difference each month
That would have been a good strategy over last decade certainly. Though that's hindsight and you're effectively taking out a loan and investing the money.
Yeah, but there's no prepayment penalty so if the interest rate was the same and you're good with money you should take the 30 year mortgage and pay double every month. That way you have flexibility to half your mortgage payment if you run into financial hardship in a decade.
Obviously it you can't control yourself with money then don't do this.
When I bought my house I went with the 30 year mortgage. The interest rates between 15 years and 30 years were not hugely different and my 30 year interest rate was so low. I ended up really glad I did.
I think people get confused sometimes that they have to pay the total interest. Nearly all mortgages in the US are simple interest loans. Interest is only paid as long as the loan balance is outstanding.
If the rates between the 10/15/20/30 are roughly the same, then the person should take the 30 and pay it back like they would the 15 (~double payments). The reason is the person is now protecting themselves from life change risk. If they lose their job they could go back to making the minimum payment.
Well, there are a bunch of things. Insurance and all the other maintenance and upkeep costs associated with owning a home. But, still, in general locking in a mortgage means locking in costs for the most part even if it doesn't eliminate spending generally.
Yes it does and yes it's wild. A few years back you could have gotten a million-dollar 30-year fixed mortgage loan at like 2% interest. Nowhere else can you get that sort of long-term locked in borrowing rate.
It is wild and why home ownership is such a big thing in the US. I've got a low rate locked in, and been in my house for 10+ years. The house next door rents for 2.5x my total mortgage. My mortgage has barely moved during this time period (taxes and insurance go up). With only modest raises, the relative cost of my mortgage to income has made it something I don't even think about.
Yeah, even ten years is unusual in the UK. If for no other reason than it being quite a bit risk for the bank giving the loan that interest rates won't go up for a decade.
Fixed rate mortgages were part of the New Deal. That part was a response the the abusive banking practices before the great depression. For instance a most loans were interest only. Collateral was subject to 100% seizure on default. The loan could be called in at any time. And the bank could demand payment in either cash or a fixed amount of gold.
It depends. The come and go based on legislation and the current fixed interest rates. They were very popular for a bit but as the fixed rates kept dipping they seemed to mostly vanish. They seem to only really be popular when financial institutions can easily resell them as they tend to target the lower income brackets.
> Are fixed-rated mortgages really that common in US?
Yes, for decades they were the standard. Prior to 2008, ARMs became more common, and now it's a mix but I'd reckon fixed rate in the US is still predominant.
The US federal government is highly involved in the mortgage market in the US through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I don't think 30 year fixed rate mortgages would be something one could find in a "free" mortgage market.
I loved being a computer science major at a school with a great department. But my only regret is that it felt impossible to do a year abroad. So many prereqs built upon each other that being out of the loop for one year would make it really hard to catch up. At the same time, our study abroad programs were very oriented around arts or social sciences. So I could go to the University of Milan or a multi-university program that hopped through Southern Africa. Both of these would've been amazing experiences but probably not great for CS progress.
Oh well, I eventually got to travel to California, which has been beautiful and exotic for this former east-coaster... ;)
Started dating my wife when she was 19 and I was 20. Moved in together the following year. Got married a couple of years after that. It's been 23 years so far, and she's the best partner I could ask for. But was that really a decision, or just luck? Instinct? Maybe a bit of each.
Worst:
Struggling through depression on my own without getting proper help, and without taking any time off from stressful commitments. Better now, but definitely did it the hard way. But was that a decision? Or was I unable to accurately assess the situation, or to see how there might be a smarter way out of it?
Don't move away from family. There's no there there.
If your mate doesn't have your back, leave. Give them a heads-up and 90 days. That's it.
Consider going to church. I'm considering it. I've been wrapped around the axle my whole life about whether it's "true". I'm starting to think that that's missing the point. If nothing else, watch the South Park Mormon episode--that really turned my head around.
That seriously sucks. During periods of my life, my "family" has sometimes included in-laws, friends, and maybe church. Even a shrink occasionally. Work with what you have. Everyone deserves people that support them.
This one dovetails with the bad mortgage choice. If you have a mortgage, you're rooted to smaller job and dating pools.
For me, NOT buying a house in my twenties left me more flexible to develop my career and eventually get married and buy a house in my thirties. It was one of my best decisions.
As a parent and a dad I really appreciate point #1. It's hard to explain for those that don't have children and it's immediately apparent for those who do.
This is a blog post from Jamey Stegmaier, who runs Stonemaier Games. He is one of the most successful designers and publishers of board games from about the last ten years, having designed Scythe and Viticulture (among others), and published Wingspan - which is probably THE most popular "designer" board game in that time frame. This is a post on his company's blog, and that context is known to the target audience.
For context, the original title of "The 10 Best and Worst Decisions I’ve Ever Made" was initially automatically cropped to "And Worst Decisions I’ve Ever Made".
This is mainly a list of best decisions with a few worsts thrown in at the end. That said, my own worst decisions list would likely mostly amount to several women's names. A few of those same names might also make the best list though too.
