I think cyber security is going to be huge too, but not sure how to make a play on it, don't see any obvious winners in the security space. What approach do you take?
If you're not in the position to angel invest I don't have anything top of mind to share. I think most of the stock market is overpriced, but Facebook is still probably a reasonable bet.
If I knew the next Bitcoin I'd definitely have typed it out. Sometimes the answer is to just wait and see and let your thoughts kinda work through things. What I know for sure is that there are a lot of powerful people that found out how important cyber security is in the past couple years. Snowden, Clinton, Paradise Papers. The market will do its best to try to meet this need.
From a work perspective, I recall reading that in the next 10 years, 6 of 10 people on a development team will be security related. [Looked for the source, can't find it, due your own diligence]. 1.8 Million security jobs vacant by 2022. https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/07/global-cybersecurity-work...
The need for very seasoned professionals who have BOTH security and heavy development/business/architecture backgrounds will be a scarce thing.
Well, there are a number of things that complicate the comparison:
1) Mutual funds get hit with a lot more taxable events (any rebalance or dividend), and only a small fraction of that can be shielded.
2) Even if you could borrow to invest, stocks fluctuate a lot more and you would be subject to margin calls.
3) You are implicitly paying maintenance/insurance costs as a renter, true, but only as a renter do you benefit from division of labor and tax-deductibility of such expenses.
4) For the specific time history: It would have been difficult in the 70s to buy something like an S&P index mutual fund; Vanguard started then but you're unlikely to have heard of them. Then again, you wouldn't be borrowing at 5% either!
In Canada there is the "Smith Maneuver" which involves a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) where you borrow against your equity and invest it, and write off the interest payment on the HELOC.
So technically you're using low-cost mortgage lending (2.15% rates are possible) to invest and get 5-7% returns on average, plus writing off the interest payments.
Of course they are, but they are excluded from the "so and so bought for $70-100K in the 70s and just sold for more than a million" calculus. The latter was my point about needing to include them in the comparison.
One interesting thing I learned: as a homeowner, your home doesn't depreciate. As a landlord, the home you own is an asset and you take depreciation on it. That's a massive tax benefit.
Which is subject to depreciation recapture upon sale, so it's more of an immediate cashflow benefit than a long-term structural benefit. (It can also be seen as a form of "hand-out" to renters, but it's unpopular to complain about that, so few people do as compared to those who object to mortgage interest deduction.)
It's easy to make money if you are already rich. The parent post is an excellent example of that. If all of those poor plebes who bought homes in the 70s had instead inherited their home and invested millions of their own dollars in the stock market just like those smart rich people they would be way better off today.
"In the early 1960s, dude became prominent in surfer culture as a synonym of guy or fella. The female equivalent was "dudette" or "dudess," but these have both fallen into disuse, and "dude" is now also used as a unisex term." -Wikipedia
I've yet to hear anyone use "dudette" or "dudess" while I see "dude" applied to females all the time.
That's the tl;dr version. For each of those bullet points there is obviously some nuance, e.g. knowing how much exercise counts as being physically active.
