On FOMO, early retirement, et al...

The other day I have a sit-down with a financial adviser. Not that I need it, but I'd like a second pair of eyeballs to assess my state of affairs, financially speaking. I've always handled my own financial matters, and it's been going quite well, I have to say. Perhaps I just want to show someone and have it validated that, "yes sir, you're doing well and have nothing to worry about." Well, I did get that; as a matter of fact, I seem to know more about financial matters in different areas (thanks to years of self-research) than this experienced financial adviser. I don't mean to come across as gloating about it, but yes, I'd rather handle my own affairs than to pay someone to handle things for me (that I could have handled it better myself).

There is actually another reason for my reticence in opening up my affairs to others. I'm an extremely private person, and I hate having to disclose anything to anyone, if I can help it. In fact, if it is not that I don't want to handle the hassle of filing tax returns, I wouldn't even have used tax accountant to do that for me, for a fee. (I could never understand those self-professed gurus who write self-help books or go on speakers circuit to help others gaining financial independence. Afterall if they are doing really so well, they wouldn't be working for a fees.) I know too how easy it is for private personal details to be compromised when they are stored on some servers in a single location, and I would not want to find myself in a compromising position.

The funny thing is, as I recount to this financial adviser my financial details, income streams, expenses, portfolio structure, estate planning, tax matters, insurance coverage etc, I've come to one realization: Why am I still working? Good question...

I have a rather decent portfolio that spreads across real estates, stocks+bonds, and some commodities (for good measures), mixed between long term obligations (mostly in the form of mortgages) and short term liquid buffers, all of which can comfortably fund themselves, and I can live off of the proceeds, allowing the portfolio to continue growing. For most people out there, such state of affairs would have been a milestone for early retirement. Why am I not retired yet?

And then I realize this: I'm quite a basket case of FOMO. No, I don't mean FOMO in the sense of social media. (And nay, I don't do social media, I hate social media, what with all the white noise and chafe, and mostly a waste of time.) It is that I want to stay in the workforce, I want to be still in this growing field in technology where new things and wonders can still happen. I want a front-row seat to that. Of course, it helps that there is also inherent job security (with the generous healthcare coverage, ESPP and stock options, continuing IRA matching contributions from employers and my adding to the IRA too, and the paychecks that sometimes feel like playing a game of monopoly).

While my financial situation looks secure, I'm not in the league of VC's or angels investors that allows most of these clueless dicks their front-row seats in funding startups without knowing much, if at all, of the underlying technology. (That's why you're seeing so many me-too copycats, wannabes that get ample funding for no obvious good reasons, other than that these VC's are chasing after the same thing. In a few words: herd mentality.) So, I continue to stay on the other side of the table, being the ones who are working the technology, rather than funding someone else to get their hands dirty.

I know if I retire and quit the workforce, I would never be able to get back in. Such is the nature of stepping off the radar, particularly in the tech field. It has more to do with the psychology of FOMO than financial needs. I know that some day when I stop having the need to get my hands dirty (in codes), I'll quit for good. I'm not even sure if I'll be content with just being the one providing fundings to some startups (even if it turns out to be wild success). Money, to me, is not the main motivation.

There is another aspect of it. If I stop working, I'll need to find some other gainful activities to make productive use of my time. The trouble is, I don't have much time for any hobby or passion outside of work yet. Hence, my first order of business, is to find something that I'd like to do, if I am to stop working and truly retire early. Passion, you see, is not something that is easily nurtured. I don't like cruise, I've lost interests in travel, I don't need to hover over my kids' every needs. I do want to do charity work but I'm not a social-worker type. I do want to go back to painting and watercolors someday, my backyard is still patiently waiting for me to give it the much deserved facelift and green thumb. I alternate every other day from I-need-to-do-something-about-it to I-don't-want-to-hear-any-more-of it when I hear news of stupid politics. I'm not sure how sustainable that level of interest would be. Maybe I'm over-analyzing what my passion should be.

And so, I continue to toll the job. Some days I derive enjoyment from the work, some days it just feels like a grind particularly when there are unpleasantness from some colleagues who act like a dick. Days like those, I would tell myself, I can walk away from it all without looking back, and I'll be fine. I don't have to chain myself to this bullshit.

I'm still waiting for that day to happen. When I get pissed off enough one day, or maybe I feel mentally exhausted, I would just walk away. That would be a milestone for me when I enjoy saying adios to it all.

On migrant caravan et al...

In the closing days before the midterm elections in November, when Democrats are expecting blue wave, set in by general disgust of the idiocy of Trump since 2016, God seems to looking down on Trump (and GOP by proxy) with another providential act. In 2016, it was the flip-flop of the FBI investigations of Hillary Clinton. This time, it's in the form of migrant caravan.

As an Independent voter, I'm generally on the fence. I don't give a damn about endorsements. Who cares what so-and-so might think of this-and-that candidate? If a candidate has the credentials and the agenda that appeal to me, I vote for that. I can't care less what party affiliation of the candidate.

And so, I look at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, two candidates from the then presidential election in 2016 with almost equal dismay. (Well, truth be told, more dismay about Trump than HRC, but you get my drift.) I don't agree completely either of the candidates or their respective party's proposition. Of course Trump's roundly idiotic worship of half-truth and outright lies is something that I despise and am totally disgusted, but I have thought general voters should be more intelligent than being duped by this con-man. Apparently I was wrong, and almost half of the country voted for this idiot. On the other side of the aisle, we have HRC the experienced hand, the one with voluminous credentials and resume behind her. While it's a laudable goal to be compassionate and empathetic, I'm not sure why I should vote for someone who seems to care more about refugees rights and transgender issues than regular voters' concerns. Afterall she's running for American presidency, not some foreign countries.

In the current climate when political correctness rules the day, I know I would sound anything but. Yet, I have to say, I am of two minds about this migrant caravan in the news.

On the one hand, these are real people with real concerns. But there are rules and regulations. Can anyone jump the queue, ahead of someone dutifully apply for migration into US and wait for their turns for years, by rushing the shore? How does US assess the claim of someone who says they are in fear for their lives without any proof? (Afterall they are not going to bring with them the gangs who threaten to kill them.) How can US possibly separate the claims of economic migrants (who are not allowed in) from genuine asylum seeks for humanitarian reasons (who could be allowed to stay)? Can and should someone get preferential treatments simply because they are bringing in minors with them? The answers, from the outset, look to be, no, no, no, and no.

Put it another way, if these thousands of people in the migrant caravan are allowed to come in, the argument goes, that by proxy US should be allowing the millions from those countries to come in too. Who is to say who is poorer or more fearful for their lives than others? Fact of the matter is, one simply can't discern one from another.

More importantly, if US is to open the border for economic migrants from South America (which would translate into millions who will become eligible to come since all of them are poor and are in search for a better life - well, who isn't, really?), anyone from any other countries can make the same economic claim. Afterall there are hundreds of millions more in Africa and South Asia and beyond who are far, far, far poorer than those from South America. Why isn't US taking them in too?

Ultimately, there is the question of sustainability. Can US become the country to be, to take in everyone and anyone who wants in for a better life? If US can't even take care of its own citizens (and one doesn't need to look further than to look at the millions of working poor and worsening issues of homelessness in this country), where would we find the wherewithal to feed hundreds of millions more? Dems have the arguments for using millionaire tax to fund initiatives, without pointing out how fleeting these millionaires and billionaires are and how easily they can change their abode and move their arse elsewhere (and in some cases, even buy their own islands to settle in for good).

And so, the pragmatic side of me wins over, to the point where everytime I hear HRC (and other Dems or progressive liberals) chants about refugees rights, I can only shake my head, with that little voice ringing in my ears, saying, don't go there. But, go, they did, and so Dems lost, not only in presidential elections, but I'm afraid to say, GOP could likely keep the majority in Congress, come November, even if it's by the slimmest margin.

In a way, the idiocy of Trump has already reduced him (and the presidency) to nothing but a laughing stock. Even if someone agrees with what he says, they are not going to be with him (unless for those who are as idiotic as he is). But just because voters are against Trump, that doesn't mean they are for Dems, which is exactly where I stand currently.

I have long believed that US has the use and needs of migrant workers, and they could make a decent living if they come in legally and orderly. There should have been immigration reforms in the form of H1B for unskilled labor for them to come in and do, say, farm and field jobs that local Americans don't seem to want to do anymore. That would have been a win-win. That would also allow these migrants a chance to reinvest in their home country, that would have been the long term goal to improve their own home country to a point where they would not feel the need to leave anymore.

It sucks to have such imbecile leadership in those countries in South America (and beyond). How many years, and how many billions US has spent over the years to try to help them improve their countries and systems? Yet nothing seems to work. In contrast, look at what the Chinese have accomplished in China. Authoritarianism notwithstanding, their country and system have improved so markedly that a lot of educated Chinese are now moving back to their own country for work. Can South America ever be able to achieve that kind of success? I really don't know.

And so, all these frustrations, all these entitlement claims (that as long as they come in large enough numbers, as long as they bring kids and minors with them, as long as they set foot in US, then they are entitled to anything and everything that the locals enjoy) really rubs me the wrong way. I do empathize their plight, but what happens to paying their dues?

I was once an immigrant myself. I know how it feels like. It's never easy. It's a lot of hard work. In a way, you have to work twice as hard - oftentimes, far more - as the locals in order to excel. It's bad form for newcomers (by jove, these illegal migrants haven't even reached US yet!) to claim their "rights" and protections in US without even setting foot in her soil yet, and for those who came illegally to demand legal protection, benefits and welfare. While Trump is xenophobic, he is not wrong in calling that out. In a civil society, there are rules and regulations that all encumbers need to observe. We can't be simply tending to only those who scream the loudest or have the biggest sob story.

We all do hold the belief that the next generations will get a better shot in life than their forebear. I should hope that I'm not alone as an anecdote, to show that meritocracy does still work in America. I do hope others would have the chance for that, and to do so legally (rather than rushing the shore). Am I too naive in that thought? I sure hope not.

On the complicated legacy of Hillary Clinton...

I'm a news junkie. Generally I can have my radio tuned to NPR all day. The past couple of years since Trump took the White House in 2016 has me set in fatigue. All the idiotic policy and the rapid-fire about-face, all the dangerous maneuvering in foreign policy, all the embracing of autocratic foreign powers thereby pushing all the noble ideals that America has stood for, all the crass and juvenile name-calling that belittles the presidency. Worst yet, no one seems to have a counter-punch to this idiot. That has been in the news, one form or another, for the past two years. I'm just getting very tired of it all. Some days, I don't even want to hear it at all.

One thing I'm sure to be doing, is to get out and vote. This is the only way to ensure something is done about this whole mess.

Needless to say, this has very little to do with Hillary Clinton, the one female candidate who has achieved the highest honor so far in US history to becoming a presidential candidate as a woman in her own right, the one who can supposedly galvanize the support of all those that oppose everything that Trump stands for. She has star power, the credentials, the works.Yet she lost the election.

Much has been analyzed, all stones turned over (many times over), of what happened, why, and the what-ifs. Let's see if bullet points might have it easier to discern:

• Young voters don't like her. Some find her too old (but hey, Bernie Sanders is even older, for chrissake). More importantly, they don't find her progressive enough.
• Unions and working class feel abandoned by the Democratic Party, and HRC has come to symbolized all the wrongs from liberal economic policies like NAFTA (thanks to her husband, Bill Clinton) and the nascent (and now dead) TPP (courtesy of Obama). 
• Even some female voters were turned off. It's still a puzzle of how women in the conservative ranks would rather vote for a guy like Trump who would gladly and readily call them names if they cross his path, than someone whom they can reason with civilly. 

It is unfair how women have to bear the wrongs done by their husbands, as HRC did with Bill Clinton's transgression in the Monica Lewinsky affair. It might have been even noble to forgive her husband and stand by him (rather than divorcing him). What she could have done, is to stay silent (to maintain privacy) on this affair, rather than lashing out against Lewinsky as if there is no power play at work. In the revisionist history, Lewinsky would have us believed that she's cowered into having sex with Bill Clinton. In the midst of #MeToo movement, it's easy to take in that version of the story. But I do believe in the other version, the version that Lewinsky flirted furiously with Bill, even flashing her thongs to him. She is no Rose McGowan, she was not coerced into compromising position, she aggressively sought after it due to the lure of power of the White House office. For all those, I would have gladly sided with HRC. There really is no need for HRC to lash out against media and even Lewinsky, she could have risen above the fray. But HRC didn't.

As to the unloseable election in 2016, Bill Clinton had advocated HRC to focus on jobs, economy, and working class votes, as did Joe Biden. They were right. Sadly to say, HRC would rather focus on more progressive issues like refugees' rights and the transgenders fight. (Ironic enough, even those positions of hers are not progressive and far-left enough for most young supporters in the Sanders crowd.) Perhaps HRC and her army of advisers were under the impression that the economy was on the mend (thanks to the steady hands of Obama's administration for the preceding eight years in office). What she did not realize was that, a lot of folks who were hurting from the demise of manufacturing sectors have fallen off of the radar (and unemployment roll) for the longest time. She has come to symbolize all the wrongs of NAFTA. Instead of revisiting the issue, she doubled down on it in advocating TPP. All these liberal trade policies have been great for corporates, with lots of people losing their livelihood in its wake and no means to turnaround.

In a way, Dems have become so similar to GOP when it comes to fundraising and big money influence. This has been the sticky point raised by the late John McCain, that was partly reversed-course during the first Obama campaign when he was able to lure in scores of new voters, young voters, all willing to make small donations to his campaign. But the success of the Obama campaign turns out to be a fluke. Since then, no one has been able to replicate his success with small-time donations; in fact, Obama hasn't even been able to rub off his popularity to candidates that he supports. That's where HRC comes in. She was THE fundraiser of the Dems for the longest time, raising money for both her campaign and those candidates the party supports. In US, money oftentimes equates to winning. In the 2016 season, HRC and the war chest of super PAC was huge, but she still lost. That goes to show the limits that big money could play.

There is the argument that even though HRC lost the 2016 election, she won the popular vote; hence, she still has her appeal. No matter. When it comes to playing the system of electoral college, it's all about swing states, popular vote be damned.

For all the strong deck of cards that HRC has had in 2016, she lost. She was bitter. She blamed sexism. Her staffers blamed Bernie Sanders and his supporters (much as Al Gore's supporters blamed Ralph Nader) for not toeing the line. Bottomline is, it's always someone else's fault. Put it another way, if she had run again, she would run essentially the same campaign all over again. Which she did once before, against Obama, and lost in the primaries.

Given all those, there's little wonder why she refuses to go away. She's only in her 60s, she still has energy, she believes she still has the votes of her support base, and she can still raise money handily. Better yet, she has stature and respect aboard, even though it's less so in US. Could she have done more good by taking the Jimmy Carter route, rather than the Bill Clinton route? Would she be better off elevating herself as elder statesman, rather than over-staying her welcome mat by staying in the trench a tad bit too long? Perhaps if HRC is ready to wrap up her legacy, she would have taken the high road. By rolling herself in the mud and continue fighting it out in the gutter, it's quite clear that she still believes that she has a few more chapters to write before her legacy is done. Messy, it sure is, but then, we won't expect less of that from HRC who has always been a fighter all her life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More to the point of the legacy of HRC, is the future of female candidates. It's hard enough to come up through the ranks. It's almost inconceivable for US to have a female leader, as Margaret Thatcher once did in UK once upon a time and Angela Merkel now in Germany. Why? Because for all the progressive talks in US, most (even the women) still prefer to see a man in the leadership position. Don't tell my word for it. Just take a look at what happens in Massachusetts, the solidly blue state that has yet to see a female governor.

Afterthoughts...

Speaking of Massachusetts, if Dems put Elizabeth Warren on the 2020 ticket, Dems will surely lose since GOP will have their field day with the pocahontas name-calling.

It's all well and good to be progressive and liberal-minded. But let's face it, most (if not all) people will not give a damn about refugees rights or trans rights or human rights of workers in some other countries if they can't even put food on their own table. In short, liberal progressiveness is a high ideal that's great when one's station is safely secured. And in US these days, more than half of the country (hello, white working class) is not.

It's time for Bill Clinton to sunset his campaigning days. Folks from the last generations might look back on the Clinton years longingly, given how the internet boom has spurred one bubble after another. Surely rising tide lifts all boats, but as we can see it now, the Clinton way was not the only way to go about it, but Clinton has effectively traded away the house jewels, dismantling safeguards and regulations to let the markets run wild. It's no surprise that the GOP hates Bill Clinton so much, since he effectively co-opted almost all of their favorites policy talking points, including tax cuts (eg. capital gains tax cuts), welfare cuts (eg. forcing those on welfare roll to work for it), deregulations (eg. dismantling Glass-Steagall Act), and more. For that count alone, anyone with the Clinton last name, including HRC, will not be forgiven.