Ya'll please give me your condolences, I rent in Missoula, MT and it looks like I'll never afford to buy a home here even though my partner and I make above median income.

The cap has been increased several times.

Since people keep mentioning that nameplate capacity is not the same as generation:

• Solar energy generation vs. installed capacity
• Wind energy generation vs. installed capacity

So we can sort of predict from the new capacity coming online how much new generation we'll get. Why is there not more nuclear? Cost and build times. Here's just one decade of generation changes in the US. Solar and wind are ramping at very high rates around the world.

>I really wish someone would do this kind of analysis looking at expected total generation rather than name plate capacity.

• Solar energy generation vs. installed capacity
• Wind energy generation vs. installed capacity
• Change in electricity production by source, United States

https://www.gobankingrates.com/taxes/filing/states-with-the-highest-property-taxes/

Montana might have some high local rates but it's not even in the top 15 for statewide.

The devil.is in the details. Research 'assets' these are basically non interest bearing notes to the US government with no guarantees. This is part of what funds deficit government spending each year

OK so just eliminate the income cap that the SS tax is applicable to. Or collect more from 401ks and IRAs.

Privatization of Social Security is non-sense. It would cease to be Social Security, as it would no longer provide a guaranteed income to all Americans.

There should be far more nuclear on that chart than there is and batteries shouldn't be included, they only shift capacity not generate more - unless somehow they are calculating the efficiency gain for solar which brings me to that question.. is this just total peak generation capacity? That is not a particularly accurate way to measure solar and wind... this feels like a nearly useless chart.

Missoulan here, we know, it's fucked out here.

No it was not cash it was shares in the bank itself so I got nothing. My grandfather had made his money in the textiles industry. My company was HR software. I have since sold it though and retired.

I really wish someone would do this kind of analysis looking at expected total generation rather than name plate capacity. The capacity factor is going to vary a lot for the renewables based on specific project and be much higher otherwise (though some natural gas will be peaker plants). The nuclear plants are likely going to be running at 95+% of capacity, the solar much less.

Also, I can't decide if I'm annoyed that this labeled 'generating capacity' when including battery installations that technically speaking don't generate anything, just time shift supply/demand. I can see the point (both ways), but still...

Deposits not insured by the FDIC

Signature Bank 90%

SVB 88%

Citigroup 85%

First Republic 68%

JPMorgan 59%

BNY Mellon 56%

Citizens Financial 49%

KeyCorp 47%

PNC 46%

Truist 46%

M&T Bank 45%

Fifth Third 42%

Bank of America 33%

Goldman Sachs 33%

Huntington Bancshares 33%

https://www.businessinsider.com/signature-svb-us-banks-have-over-1-trillion-uninsured-deposits-2023-3?amp

Does this only take into account assets for sale? Fifth third ceo said on cnbc today his bank holds all securities as available for sale. So does this chart penalize this banks while obscuring banks shifting securities to assets held to maturity?

Montana funds itself through property tax and income tax (no sales tax, high property tax). That hasn't helped the medium home price in my hometown being over $700k....

>legal

Correct, we need that tax revenue desperately. Demographics are destiny.

It has not for years, look closer at that chart.. the income has been steadily slower pace than cost since 2009.

[removed]

I think your styling is hurting your story here. I believe the 'thicker' lines look that way due to an increase in data points. This leads one to believe there is a factor of something during this time.

I would try to find a way to better represent a cleaner story across your time axis unless there is an outside factor you want this graph to tell us. You could use a running average to reduce the variability or simply use the same timescale as your childhood years.

> The rest of the galaxy is obviously using the proper units of random feet, as defined by the great emperor of Mars on the year of the horse 10 millenniums ago.

We shouldn't pretend that the meter is not arbitrary as well. The point shouldn't be that the feet is arbitrary. The point should be that imperial systems are highly inconsistent and isn't "nice" to work with.

I am 189 and have the same shape as your plot with same age. However 5 kilos more shifted upward

[deleted]

Damn that's terrible, wasn't a certain amount of money still insured? Also what kind of business that sounded like a sizable operation

Some ppl are just built different

My social security plans ... in 20 years, my Bitcoin will fund my retirement.

Can’t imagine the “means testing” will be low enough to off set the increase they’d get from lifting the cap, since no one feels like “oh, hey, that benefit I’ve paid into for years? Yeah, don’t care, I’ve got enough” unless they’re really rich.

I know plenty of people who could live without the benefit, but they’re going to be enraged if their benefits get cut.