Spreadin’ Love

Still sick. The links for the day are rich and trashy.

Want to buy the Ferris Bueller house? Anyone? Anyone?

Love this picture of Dooce.

Ashton Kutcher may stop Twittering. Fingers crossed. 

The discussion about Sotomayer's nomination is so silly that I believe that it fits in well with today's link fest. (There are
some bloggers who are absolutely fantastic on the SC. I'm going to link
to the good debates about her, but not do it myself. For what it's
worth, I think that how much money she made last year = a dumb issue.)

5 thoughts on “Spreadin’ Love

  1. I was surprised to see Sotomayor’s diabetes mentioned just in passing. That’s a pretty big deal and (barring major medical breakthroughs) it potentially nullifies the factor of her relative youth. Ironically, it may mute the opposition to her nomination. Everybody’s more nervous about a young, healthy Supreme, capable of wreaking havoc for three decades.

    Like

  2. There are some bloggers who are absolutely fantastic on the SC. I’m going to link to the good debates about her, but not do it myself. For what it’s worth, I think that how much money she made last year = a dumb issue.

    Like

  3. Well, I think it’s a dumb issue (in the sense that it certainly doesn’t make her any less qualified to be a Supreme). But, I thought the discussion was interesting, because I think there’s a fondness for ascetic saving in common myths. In the discussion, the blogger writes this:
    “What are a person’s incentives to save, rather than spend, money? The four basic ones are usually these:
    1. To protect against downside in one’s income, particularly the risk of being fired.
    2. To save for retirement.
    3. To save for one’s family and children.
    4. To save for an expensive purchase, such as a home or a nice car.”
    And, I think that’s the real discussion people need to be having about spending and saving. Sotomayer has a guaranteed income of 170K for the rest of her life. Her job is almost impossible to loose, and even if she “retires” (i.e. takes senior judge status), she will continue to earn the same salary. Her savings needs are different (see 1 & 2) than someone else who makes 170K. And, she has no dependents (Though, perhaps her mother is a dependent. Her brother is well settled himself). Her savings needs are different others. Since she has a guaranteed income of 170K, we could assign a savings of 4.3M or so to (her, i.e. the current value that would generate 170K in interest indefinitely).

    Like

  4. Disability wouldn’t matter to Sotomeyer. She would go to senior judge status, and still claim her salary. It’s a pretty big perk to being a judge (and pretty much constitutionally guaranteed).
    (but, yes, disability that results in job loss is something else the rest of us need to save for).
    She could also try to save for extensive medical care that wasn’t covered by her health insurance (but, I bet her insurance is pretty good, too).

    Like

Comments are closed.