|
|
81
« Last post by Johnny Brown on November 07, 2024, 03:27:57 pm »
He will then miraculously get stronger, tick a couple of harder routes at the start of the season and then resume the usual program of loads of road biking and climbing long alpine routes within onsight limit whilst doing little to no hard board climbing or redpointing This sounds fucking great, where do I sign up?
82
Also, Matthew
Quit whining
You're doing great
Everything will be ok
I think that's everything
83
« Last post by Murph on November 07, 2024, 02:53:58 pm »
Anyone posting here is doing better than me Matthew, I've been struggling to "get back into it" for 4 years and have had a zillion false starts.
What you don't see so much on forums or in climbing walls or at the crag are the thousands or millions of ex climbers or people struggling with life or motivation, injury or childcare (which are all a form of injury). This probably doesn't help but be kind to yourself and enjoy your time.
With that positivity I'm hereby announcing my return to powerfulclub
Last week:
M - works, purples not bad, 5k jog
T - family
W - family
T - 5k jog, works purples again surprised everyone but me knew it was fancy dress night
F -
S - skipped parkrun for a 3k jog as feeling less than 100%. Awesome Walls led half a dozen 5+s. First time on a rope in months since my last surgery.
S - unwell
73.5kgs, 10kgs above ideal, 45 years old but not given up yet.
84
« Last post by kelvin on November 07, 2024, 02:06:31 pm »
I told you to get your T tested ages ago you knob :D
I listened to Wellsy (and Mischa and Fultonious and whomever), and got my T tested.
21.1. Perfectly normal within the margins of 8 - 29.
Welllllll. That's another avenue closed off then. RIP Fiend ever regaining any strength / power / fitness or ever being able to try hard again.
Still, off to the gym later.... 
Are you doing the lymph stuff Matt? Eh? It's literally the stuff athletes do to get the extra 1% during recovery. It's not just for sick bastards like me.
85
« Last post by MischaHY on November 07, 2024, 02:02:04 pm »
Some thoughts.
A mate of mine is 41 and regularly moans about being tired/dropping strength or whatever. Every winter he is forced to do less by crap weather meaning he spends more time on the board and rests more (whilst moaning a lot about not being out doing more). He will then miraculously get stronger, tick a couple of harder routes at the start of the season and then resume the usual program of loads of road biking and climbing long alpine routes within onsight limit whilst doing little to no hard board climbing or redpointing. His strength level inexplicably drops off and he spends the rest of the season wondering why he has been at the same level for more than a decade. Rinse and repeat for the last five years I've known him. Advice about why this might be is ignored because he doesn't like it.
I have no idea whether this sounds familiar (a desire for volume over intensity, reliance on high volume/regularity to help boost mental state, a tendency to avoid high quality top end strength work unless presented with no alternative) but if it does then the advice from the others above would be prudent.
Personally I like Wills advice.
86
« Last post by petejh on November 07, 2024, 01:47:49 pm »
Something I listened to recently covered why something in the 2-5% range was sensible as a target, but I can't remember whether it was More or Less or PM...
It's the sensible range because at rates higher than this, price increases at a rate of change which is enough that it leads to all sorts of second-order effects on people's life, like people rushing out to buy everything they can afford today instead of tomorrow (when prices may be higher), thus accelerating inflation, thus people rushing out etc. etc. And companies constantly having to adjust wages higher every few months, and retailers constantly having to adjust prices. Deflation stops growth. Why buy anything today if it's going to be cheaper in 2 days/weeks/months from now. It's about rate of change and how that impacts lived experience. A 2% annual rate of change is comfortable to live with.
87
« Last post by Will Hunt on November 07, 2024, 01:38:40 pm »
I did say that so long as employment and wages and stuff in general were all fine, I'd be fine.
To me, that qualification covered all the potential problems I could envisage.
I'd certainly rather have inflation but be employed, with adequate wages, somewhere with eg decent health care, law and order, transport, etc than have perfect 2% inflation but unemployed, or bad wages, or rampant crime, bad transport, dysfunctional health care, whatever.
To me it seems "privileged, naive or both" to take the opposite view.
We are considering the recent US case where the economy did function pretty well in terms of employment and wages and production levels despite inflation.
I'm all for targeting inflation as a means to the end of ensuring the economy works well in real terms eg to the extent that it facilitates investment and efficiency etc.
All those things you mentioned are interlinked with inflation. Inflation isn't a purely abstract figure that exists separately from people's lived experience of day-to-day spending and public services.
88
« Last post by Will Hunt on November 07, 2024, 01:36:20 pm »
Something I listened to recently covered why something in the 2-5% range was sensible as a target, but I can't remember whether it was More or Less or PM...
I heard this. The Explain Like I'm 5 is that inflation is tolerable if it's at a manageable level. Prices in the shops creep up, your wage creeps up, you hardly notice. Stone points to wages keeping up with inflation recently which is only true for some parts of the economy. Deflation is intolerable. With prices falling there is a big incentive to stop spending. Your company needs a new machine, or to employ a new person, or you need a new car. Why spend now if you can hold off a year and get it for cheaper. Demand in the economy declines and you end up in recession. So if deflation is a cliff edge which you must avoid falling from, you don't walk as close to the edge of the cliff as you possibly can, meaning any small deviation from target results in falling off the cliff. Instead you walk a couple of meters (or percent) away from the cliff. I don't think there's any science (Sean will be along to correct me) beyond 2% being a figure that is comfortably far enough from the deflation cliff edge, but not so high as to be painful to consumers.
89
« Last post by petejh on November 07, 2024, 01:30:44 pm »
Boring questions alert...
I've been fretting about pensions and retirement lately. I'm only 33 so a long time to go, but I'm having to make some decisions about jobs at the moment which would involve a pay cut, reduced pension contributions etc etc. Basically I'm getting bored of contracting at the moment and considering a move to a smaller local company were the work will be more fulfilling, and I'll see people again!
I think my pension pot is pretty good right now, and I continue to put a good chunk away each month. But I'm trying to work out what it might be under different circumstances and struggling to find a decent online calculator/model to predict it. Lots of them have plenty of assumptions, like contributions increasing with inflation etc, but not much flexibility within them.
Does anyone know of a good online investment calculator (I wouldn't mind using one for my ISAs too) which is a bit more flexible in terms of contributions, growth rates, etc.
It would also be nice to know, for example, if I have a target amount in mind for 25 years time, how much I would need to put away each month to hit that with a given growth rate. Or if I carried on as I am at the moment, when would I likely reach that target (if sooner than retirement).
I'm happy to try and model my own (it is kind of my job to make these kind of models anyway!) but I wouldn't know where to start in terms of assumptions or things to consider. So I'd be happy to try and make one if anyone could help with the assumptions side of things.
And as a slight aside, when a pension fund says they would aim achieve an X% growth on average with a given fund. Would that generally mean compound growth?
E.g. start with £100,000 with 10% expected growth and no further contributions. Would you "expect" year 2 be £120,000 (20% increase), or £121,000 (1.1*1.1 = 21% increase)?
It doesn't make a big difference really, even over 25 years, with 5%, but the bigger the growth the bigger the difference becomes.
Can provide some links to sources later that will answer most of that. But one big point you're missing - don't target a total amount. Target an income you hope to achieve in retirement. Better still target three incomes: a high quality of life, average, enough to cover the basics. If considering early retirement (even normal-age retirement), factor in that you can still do bits of work if needed, to supplement income without impacting drawdown from the savings pot. There's plenty of info out there about what income is required for a high/average/basic quality of life in the UK (with uplift for LDNCLMBRS). The info is generic and you can easily enough tailor to suit your circumstances. Like many lifestyle outdoorsy types I live a pretty low-cost lifestyle compared to the average. Once you have an idea of your income requirement in retirement, you can easily calculate the total pot required to provide that income over the 20/30/40/50+ years of life post finishing working. Conservative assumptions for a rate of withdrawal are 2-3% annual withdrawal rate. Adjusted upward each year for inflation - so year 1 of retirement is 3% of pot, year 2 is 3%+ inflation etc.). A well-known idea is 5% as a safe withdrawal rate - championed by 'Mrmoneymoustache' and others of the FIRE cult. This has been shown to be higher risk especially if looking at longer retirements. See 'Early Retirement Now' site for pretty much everything you need to know about working out total pot size and safe withdrawal rates. Includuing endless spreadsheets you can play with: https://earlyretirementnow.com/2023/06/16/flexibility-swr-series-part-58/A fairly standard assumption is for 3-5% annual growth of pot during retirement, which you choose makes a big difference to the total required at start of drawdown.
90
« Last post by stone on November 07, 2024, 01:28:47 pm »
I did say that so long as employment and wages and stuff in general were all fine, I'd be fine.
To me, that qualification covered all the potential problems I could envisage.
I'd certainly rather have inflation but be employed, with adequate wages, somewhere with eg decent health care, law and order, transport, etc than have perfect 2% inflation but unemployed, or bad wages, or rampant crime, bad transport, dysfunctional health care, whatever.
To me it seems "privileged, naive or both" to take the opposite view.
We are considering the recent US case where the economy did function pretty well in terms of employment and wages and production levels despite inflation.
I'm all for targeting inflation as a means to the end of ensuring the economy works well in real terms eg to the extent that it facilitates investment and efficiency etc.
|
|
Recent Posts