I found this one downright funny. However, I will offer a couple potential solutions. Bear with me as I am about to get algebraic.

One argument mentioned in the article was that men tend to make more than women. If we are going to talk about income equity we might as well talk about expense equity. So, going with the 80 cents on a dollar number from http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/, here is a suggested bill split:

Woman’s portion = 80/(80+100) = 44%
Man’s portion = = 100/(80+100) = 56%

That applies only to the “average” man and woman. What happens when real non-average (noticed I stayed away from above/below on that one) people go on a date? For that, I propose the more general solution:

Woman’s income = W
Man’s income = M

Woman’s portion of the bill = W/(W+M)
Man’s portion of the bill = M/(W+M)

If you wish to get really crazy, you could apply this formula to every shared expense for the duration of the relationship.

You are welcome for this sage advice.
Problem solved.
🎤💧

-Dr. Moore

Who Pays on the First Date? No One Knows Anymore, and It’s Really Awkward
The Wall Street Journal

First dates multiply in era of Tinder, and those tabs add up. Some women are wary the fake ‘reach’ for the wallet won’t be turned down. Read the full story

Shared from Apple News

This one is a little bit outside my normal topic list, but the title caught my attention. This is an interesting story about a family that moved from the US to Ecuador 6 or 7 years ago to avoid the ills of American living (every third child taking prescribed drugs, opioid use, materialism, etc.). Long story short, it sounds like her children are not growing up entitled because in Ecuador, you simply can’t get whatever you want whenever you want (think: no Amazon prime, ironically). That coupled with an emphasis on family and the real world (forget Disneyland, hike around and find Incan artifacts instead is one example) sounds like a good moral foundation for her boys. But, those boys will be in a culture shock when they return to the US for college.

-Dr. Moore

http://theweek.com/articles/703660/moved-kids-america-best-parenting-decision-ive-ever-made

Short answer: no.

I just came across the article “Lessons from 30 Years of Buy Versus Rent Decisions”” by Beracha and Johnson (2012). Using data from 1978 to 2009 the authors conclude:

“…there seems to be an almost national obsession with homeownership, resulting in a paradigm that favors homeownership.

This work challenges this homeownership paradigm. Consistent with the hypothesis that Americans’ mania to own results in a crowding toward homeownership, the results of this article show that renting was preferred to buying, from a monetary perspective, during most of the 1978–2009 time period. This result is conditional on an individual taking any residual money from renting and reinvesting at a rate equal to, or greater than, the risk-free rate.”

However, the authors show evidence that buying was preferred to renting at the end of 2009. Separately, my research also shows the 2009-2012ish time frame was a good time to buy. Today is a different day. The Beracha, Hardin, & Johnson Buy Vs. Rent Index right now reflects renting is preferable to buying. Again, my own separate research reaches the same conclusion.

Beware of evidence-free emotional claims like “you are throwing your money away” or “buying is always better than renting.” So, the next time someone tells you “you are throwing away your money renting,” you can say the evidence reflects renting is preferred today and the majority of the time since at least 1978.

-Dr. Moore

I just read an article about a recent interview with Apple CEO Tim Cook. Mr. Cook said that a repatriation tax holiday would be good for America. The repatriation subject came up in the beginning of the Spring 2017 semester in a FIN101 class. At that time I suggested that a repatriation tax holiday would only benefit executives and shareholders. Little did I know that there was actual evidence to support my suspicion. Yes, evidence.

Please read the following short article from 2011. This should be part of the thought process before immediately assuming, as Tim Cook does, that repatriation of foreign profits is good for America as a whole. Perhaps this is yet another example of how trickle down economics does not work. Or, maybe Tim Cook was telling the truth: a repatriation holiday will be good for America, the few Americans that are significant shareholders.

-Dr. Moore

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/10/11/141240208/report-2004-overseas-tax-break-was-a-failed-policy

This article contains a wealth (pun intended) of information to ensure you receive financial advice that benefits you rather than your adviser. For example:

“An easy way to separate wheat from chaff is by asking an adviser to sign the Committee’s fiduciary oath, a legally enforceable contract that commits advisers to put your interests first. (To download the fiduciary oath, click: here)”

Further, the article includes links to databases of complaints against brokerages and a list of vetted fiduciaries. In sum, this article provides tools you can use to protect your interests even if the current administration does away with the legal rule set to go in force tomorrow.

-Dr. Moore

Ready, set, go: Retirement advice protections are here
Reuters

Friday is the day, folks. Read the full story

Shared from Apple News