Lotus-eater

So just tell the young’uns that you’re 53.  When they compliment you for looking so much younger, respond with faux-surprise, “Oh really? Gosh, thanks.”
Sure, you’ll have to guard your drivers license like Fort Knox to make sure the dewy-cheeked lad never sees your date of birth, but that’s a trifling matter.

.....and CASH 💰

For those living Down Under:
Belah House in Photos
ROBBREPORT.COM Australian TV host and horticulturalist Jamie Durie built the tech-forward biophilic retreat near Sydney to be as luxe as it is sustainable.






 

+1. Leg strength and balance is critically important as you age to avoid or to survive a fall. Weight training strengthens muscles and especially bones. (I still hate leg days.)

4.1M views · 62K reactions | Good news Bad News.... #fblifestyle...
WWW.FACEBOOK.COM Good news Bad News.... #fblifestyle #jokes #dadjokes  

After my recent move to Palm Springs, I decided to commit to working out as an aid to health and an aid to meeting people.  In the past, I have worked out for weeks and even months at a time but always gave up.  I have hired a trainer through a gym, but the trainers did not stay with that gym long enough to establish a good rapport.  Now, I hired a private trainer at the gym and I sse him two days a week.  If nothing else, I get those two days in but more usually it is 5 days a week and on some days, water aerobics in my pool.  Even though I am doing okay financially, the cost of the trainer and the gym is significant but definitely worth it.  I am assured that I will go and now the routine has set in such that when I miss a day, I miss the experience of the exercise. 
I am about twice the age of the OP and I wish I had been more diligent about exercise earlier.  Invest in a trainer, even if it is once a week for only a few months.  It will help you develop a routine with good form and consistency.  BTW. Do not skip leg days.  Everyone hates leg day. Just check out many of the well built guys at the gym and many will have great upper bodies and legs that seem disproportionately small.  But especially as you age, leg strength and flexibility becomes more and more important so do the leg day even if you feel your legs are doing well.  

Wendy’s quietly confirms 300 store closures next year
NYPOST.COM The popular fast food chain aims to boost traffic and profitability at its remaining US restaurants.  

Envy donning a nun's habit and sanctimoniously denouncing her lesser sister, greed, does not impress. Examining the data does.
"The biggest problem with the pessimistic studies is that they rarely follow the same people to see how they do over time. Instead, they rely on a snapshot at two points in time. So for example, researchers look at the median income of the middle quintile in 1975 and compare that to the median income of the median quintile in 2014, say. When they find little or no change, they conclude that the average American is making no progress. But the people in the snapshots are not the same people. You can’t use two snapshots to conclude that only the rich have made progress.
...When you follow the same people over time, you get a very different story from the standard one. When you follow the same people over time, the largest gains over time often go to the poorest workers; the richest workers often make no progress."
Brookings study:

Envy donning a nun's habit and sanctimoniously denouncing her lesser sister, greed, does not impress. Examining the data does.
"The biggest problem with the pessimistic studies is that they rarely follow the same people to see how they do over time. Instead, they rely on a snapshot at two points in time. So for example, researchers look at the median income of the middle quintile in 1975 and compare that to the median income of the median quintile in 2014, say. When they find little or no change, they conclude that the average American is making no progress. But the people in the snapshots are not the same people. You can’t use two snapshots to conclude that only the rich have made progress.
...When you follow the same people over time, you get a very different story from the standard one. When you follow the same people over time, the largest gains over time often go to the poorest workers; the richest workers often make no progress."
Brookings study:

Split the difference: get a hybrid (or a plug-in hybrid if you want more electric.).🤪

Assumed facts not in evidence.
People tend to conflate relative mobility and absolute mobility. Relative mobility is a zero-sum game, if you move from the first quintile to the second, that means someone else has dropped downward. Absolute mobility, by contrast, measures how your income compares with your parent’s income. E.g., assume your parents make $20,000 a year and you are in the bottom quintile. If you stay in the bottom quintile, but make $25,000 a year, you’ve experienced absolute mobility but no relative mobility.
The largest decline in absolute mobility occurred between 1940 and 1964, so rather than blaming Reagan, you should be blaming Ike-JFK-LBJ: "On average, 92% of children born in 1940 grew up to earn more than their parents. In contrast, only 50% of children born in 1984 grew up to earn more than their parents. The downward trend in absolute mobility was especially sharp between the 1940 and 1964 cohorts. The decline paused for children born in the late 1960s and early 1970s, whose incomes at age 30 were measured in the midst of the economic boom of the late 1990s [i.e. early GenXers did relatively well]."

 As for the supposed decline in relative mobility, even that isn't clear: "I show that accounting for race and measurement error can double estimates of intergenerational persistence. Updated estimates imply that there is greater equality of opportunity today than in the past."

Split the difference: get a hybrid (or a plug-in hybrid if you want more electric.).🤪

I don't personally, but some people think that running trade deficits is a bad thing and that outsourcing should be discouraged.

Everyone should be prepared for an emergency.  I have two similar buckets stored away, purchased as a result of Hurricane Sandy, when I realised I was unprepared.

Assumed facts not in evidence.
People tend to conflate relative mobility and absolute mobility. Relative mobility is a zero-sum game, if you move from the first quintile to the second, that means someone else has dropped downward. Absolute mobility, by contrast, measures how your income compares with your parent’s income. E.g., assume your parents make $20,000 a year and you are in the bottom quintile. If you stay in the bottom quintile, but make $25,000 a year, you’ve experienced absolute mobility but no relative mobility.
The largest decline in absolute mobility occurred between 1940 and 1964, so rather than blaming Reagan, you should be blaming Ike-JFK-LBJ: "On average, 92% of children born in 1940 grew up to earn more than their parents. In contrast, only 50% of children born in 1984 grew up to earn more than their parents. The downward trend in absolute mobility was especially sharp between the 1940 and 1964 cohorts. The decline paused for children born in the late 1960s and early 1970s, whose incomes at age 30 were measured in the midst of the economic boom of the late 1990s [i.e. early GenXers did relatively well]."

 As for the supposed decline in relative mobility, even that isn't clear: "I show that accounting for race and measurement error can double estimates of intergenerational persistence. Updated estimates imply that there is greater equality of opportunity today than in the past."

Assumed facts not in evidence.
People tend to conflate relative mobility and absolute mobility. Relative mobility is a zero-sum game, if you move from the first quintile to the second, that means someone else has dropped downward. Absolute mobility, by contrast, measures how your income compares with your parent’s income. E.g., assume your parents make $20,000 a year and you are in the bottom quintile. If you stay in the bottom quintile, but make $25,000 a year, you’ve experienced absolute mobility but no relative mobility.
The largest decline in absolute mobility occurred between 1940 and 1964, so rather than blaming Reagan, you should be blaming Ike-JFK-LBJ: "On average, 92% of children born in 1940 grew up to earn more than their parents. In contrast, only 50% of children born in 1984 grew up to earn more than their parents. The downward trend in absolute mobility was especially sharp between the 1940 and 1964 cohorts. The decline paused for children born in the late 1960s and early 1970s, whose incomes at age 30 were measured in the midst of the economic boom of the late 1990s [i.e. early GenXers did relatively well]."

 As for the supposed decline in relative mobility, even that isn't clear: "I show that accounting for race and measurement error can double estimates of intergenerational persistence. Updated estimates imply that there is greater equality of opportunity today than in the past."

The American dream existed for about 30-40 years, post-WWII, until the late 80s. Some people, like myself, were able to access a relatively inexpensive public college degree and took advantage of the booming economy to start our careers. However, for millennials and Gen Z, there is virtually no opportunity to move up in class. Everyone I know in their 30s who didn't come from an affluent family that covered their college costs is drowning in debt. They cannot buy real estate, get married, start a family, etc. And if they can make those things happen, they're operating on extremely tight margins.
I grew up in a single-parent family, on welfare from age 5 to high school, at which point my mother made enough money. I went to a commuter college, which cost about $800 per semester (which was covered by government support), and I worked 20 hours a week for spending money. My brother got a city union job, where he does very well. But we both busted our asses to get here and we're solidly middle class. 
Most of the programs and assistance that allowed my mother to get through college, help me go to college, and go from poverty to the middle class have been decimated. So now to get assistance, people have to work. Most adult SNAP recipients work for multinational companies that don't pay a living wage, and so we get to pay for their food assistance and Medicaid. That's why we have so many poor people and are about to have our first trillionaire. 
So, yeah, except for a few very hard working and also lucky people, the dream is dead. 

And yet Detroit was the model of the American Dream post World War II,  supporting my point that the Old Dream is still obtainable.  But people don't want the Old Dream.  They want the New Dream of bigger homes, more vacations, more amenities, but are not willing to live or work in a location that allows them to live comfortably and without debt.
Fortunately, both Dreams are alive and well.  The Old Dream is available if one chooses to live in an affordable area and manages his expectations and invest to retire one day.  The New Dream is available if one wants to live where it's expensive and obtain immediate gratification when he's young, goes into debt, and is willing and able to work until he dies.

Ahh...I thought the American Dream was that one wasn't beholdant to the class of one's parents, not necessarily that one must do better.
In the last 30 years, the middle class has shrunk because most of us have moved to to Upper Class, not down to Lower Class.  Lower Class size has stayed the same, but the size of the Upper Class has grown. 
If one MUST move up from Upper Class to the top 1%, then I see your point that it is nearly impossible. 
But if my understanding of the Dream that a child of the Upper Class still has a chance to end up in Lower, Middle, or Upper Class, then that is still alive.  Even if it means that some children of the Upper Class will move down, and some children of the Lower or Middle Class will move to the Upper Class in their life.

More people need to realize just how common this is. Especially white collar workers whose expertise is mainly navigating their own company's systems. My brothers both got dumped in their late 50s and seem completely unrealistic(to me) on the subject of what they can expect to make and turning down jobs that pay not all THAT much less than they had been making.
Also too many people PLAN to "catch up" on saving in their 50s and 60s, or "just work till they drop" and think their earning power will never go down. That's a recipe for disaster.

Mystery fellow caught unintentionally in photo has come forward. A 15-year old local who dresses like this routinely, his mother behind him. Surname correction: Delvaux.

You only need overdraft coverage if you plan to, or frequently go into, overdraft. Then you will be charged a fee. Some banks charge for every transaction that pushes you deeper into overdraft.
 
If you budget and don't go into overdraft you don't need it. 

There's a house on the market that would be perfect for hosting a gathering. It's a steal at only $11 million.