Answer the following financial questions.
1) Do you think that the following statement is true or false? Buying a single company stock usually provides a safer return than a stock mutual fund.
(2) Suppose you had $100 in a savings account and the interest rate was 2% per year. After 5 years, how much do you think you would have in the account if you left the money to grow: More than $102, exactly $102, or less than $102?
(3) Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account was 1% per year and inflation was 2% per year. After 1 year, would you be able to buy more than, exactly the same as, or less than today with the money in this account?
If you scored 2 or 3 correctly, you are more financially intelligent than the average American Millennial. America spends the most per capita on education in the world.
USA is in extremely hard decline. The financial manipulation to show strength is insanely well orchestrated though.
"We really thought [U.S.] Millennials would do better than the general adult population, either compared to older coworkers in the U.S. or to the same age group in other countries," Madeline Goodman, an ETS researcher who worked on the study, told Fortune. "But they didn’t. In fact, their scores were abysmal."
The study concludes that a more expensive and expansive education "may not hold all the answers."
There's really no point in being money smart since no one else in this generation is good with money. The whole country is going to bust no matter who we vote for or what we spend our money on.
so i am going to work part time, get welfare, and waste it all on video games and escorts and other stupid shit until the USA crashes.
America should adopt a system of different secondary schools, like germany has them (the system gets softened, because, well the whole west is in decline, but they were the backbone of germany's leading role in academics in the early 20th century.)
America just has a lot of smart people, because geniuses from all around the world come to your insanely overfunded elite-universities.
2. More. Come on, that's like 3rd grade math.
You will notice something about the gaps.
They need to use a genetics test to determine expected IQ. Stop wasting any time educating the low IQ people and just put them in worker camps where they can learn to flip burgers for real humans.
at 10 to be precise.
And you still have a chance to get your abitur if you do well on the haupt/realschule.
Of course it has all gone to shit by now since you need a abitur for many apprenticeships and the hauptschule is just a preliminary stage to being unemployed.
>tfw don't even know what a stock mutual fund is
I'm too STEM to give a shit about anything related to finances
To me, it all just seems like a bunch of yiddish buzzwords which pretentious normies who like to think of themselves as "daring entrepreneurs" throw around.
Try to understand finance like this.
Right now your most valuable asset is your own individual work.
If you instead had a huge wealth of resources like $200,000,000 then your individual work becomes meaningless.
Even pursuing STEM and getting a top 1% job in the field would never give you as much income as simply managing that $200,000,000 efficiently.
So basically, your STEM shit is worthless once you reach a certain level of capital. This is why finance is so important to countries like America which have high wealth.
well sure, if I had happened to have hundreds of millions of dollars, then whatever STEM job I might have at some point in my life would be meaningless
but since there's no way I could acquire such a fortune (extreme unpredictable luck aside), it just feels irrelephant for my own personal day-to-day life (not to mention horribly uninteresting). Though I can see why you would need some people who specialize in that stuff, especially in wealthy countries as you said.
>More than $102
This makes me depressed.
>) Do you think that the following statement is true or false? Buying a single company stock usually provides a safer return than a stock mutual fund.
Depends on the stock and fund. This is a dumb question. What is safe is relative to the investor.
>(2) Suppose you had $100 in a savings account and the interest rate was 2% per year. After 5 years, how much do you think you would have in the account if you left the money to grow: More than $102, exactly $102, or less than $102?.
>(3) Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account was 1% per year and inflation was 2% per year. After 1 year, would you be able to buy more than, exactly the same as, or less than today with the money in this account?